Posted tagged ‘Debt Ceiling’

Bill Moyers Gives Me Hope

February 5, 2012

As you may recall, I’m a big proponent of dialogue, civil dialogue, between people who disagree. I recently complimented Steven Attewell of the Realignment Project blog as a progressive willing to engage without labeling or demonizing his opposition. My idea that our current politics amounts to nothing more than a clash of tightly held world views underlies much of my thinking and my advocacy of a more civil dialogue.

Today on the Bill Moyers program, Moyers and Company, we were introduced to a bright social psychology scholar named Jon Haidt, Ph.D. of UVA’s Department of Psychology. I am impressed and amazed that Moyers invited him. I am impressed and amazed that Moyers conducted the interview with a general air of civility and without obvious (other than his facial expressions) rancor.*

I’ve got to say that I await Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,” with much anticipation. Anyone who espouses the twin ideas that human beings are are all hypocrites and that the human brain is first and foremost a rationalization generator, has my attention. Moyers almost swallowed his tongue when Haidt said that we should stop idealizing his holy ‘reason.’This interview with Moyers just whetted my appetite for more.

By the way, here’s a link to Haidt’s home page if you care to look into this guy and it appears to contain a link to the Moyers interview.
See Haidt’s homepage at: http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/.

At the end of the interview Haidt expresses some pessimism with our ability to make political changes which would encourage a more civil dialogue. He points to the practical difficulty of changing systemic electoral mechanisms in a world where both parties have incentives for keeping them as is. Nevertheless he pronounces two prescriptions to improve our present political situation which we can individually adopt. First he recommends that we, as a matter of personal morality, refuse to demonize or to impugn the motivations of those who oppose us on policy grounds. Second he suggests that we develop a complete intolerance for political corruption, whether it be on our own side or on an opponent’s side. We need to abandon the idea that, “Sure he’s a scoundrel but he’s our scoundrel.” Who knows but this could even bring an end to the truthfulness of the common Washington quip, “If you want a friend, get a dog.” I couldn’t agree more strongly with Haidt’s proposals. If the book lives up to the promise of the interview, I hope that people across the spectrum of ideas and ideologies will really listen to him and internalize his ideas.

*There was one moment during which Moyers could not keep himself from demonizing Republicans. Haidt was using the recent conflict over raising the debt limit to characterize the difficulty the parties had in reaching a compromise over the debt ceiling. Haidt was explaining that there are certain things which have been “sacrilized” (made sacred) for each of the parties. In posing a question about this situation, Moyers described it in this manner: “So John Boehner and the Republicans find it immoral to compromise and President Obama finds it immoral not to compromise.” This was hardly Haidt’s point, but I think that it was a stark shaft of light illuminating the interior of the Moyers brain.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE AND INTOLERANCE

July 15, 2011

This is what Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D – Tex) says about Republicans who disagree that raising the borrowing limit of the federal government is a good idea no strings attached. To my mind she labels it as outright racism.

Is she in disagreement with Hillary Clinton on the right to debate and disagree with an administration? While it is possibly true that Hillary was overstating her own opinion while stating that we all, as Americans, have a right to disagree with any administration, to wit:

I could use the word hypocritical in relation to Lee’s outburst but as I’ve said in an earlier post, just because a person acts hypocritically does not make her wrong. Unfortunately, other than pointing out the idea that the forces against raising the debt limit have aligned during the term of President Obama as never before, she provides no detail about her reasoning. Therefore, it is hard to assess the correctness of her charge as a matter of fact. Without more we’re left with a charge unsupported by any evidence other than half the race of the current president. I wonder what Rep. West (R -FL) would have to say about the charge of racism in regard to his own vehement opposition to the president’s proposed policy regarding the debt ceiling?

Left in the air is a salient question. Why would people choose to disagree with a president over a budget issue solely in relation to the president’s race? I just can’t see it no matter how hard I try. Perhaps if Rep. Lee provided more background, like Rep. Clyburn did when he went after Sarah Palin in the wake of the Arizona shooting in January, we’d have more to go on. As it is though I am unable to determine whether there is an issue of different worldviews in this matter, as was the case with Clyburn’s charge which I addressed here, or whether this is just an instance of a powerful federal politician harshly speaking out against political opponents. In the last analysis it appears to me that Lee may very well just be in disagreement with Hillary Clinton on a fundamental issue of rights. She may disagree that all Americans have the right to disagree and debate with a black president if the history of their group (a group of nearly all white Republicans) somehow makes them suspect of having done so purely on racial grounds.

In an interesting twist, given her own race, it is theoretically possible that Rep. Lee is agreeing with the president solely on the basis of identity politics and therefore is actually the pot calling the kettle black (relax, this is just a saying not a negative comment on Lee’s or Obama’s race). Without more information it’s hard to know what the truth is on the matter. It is not hard, however, to label Lee’s position, stated as it was on the floor of the House of Representatives, as intolerant!!!! In fact in the future, every time I hear a charge of racism being made without the necessary groundwork having been laid by the person levelling the charge, my response will be an equally impassioned – “your intolerance is showing!!!!” How is that for a progressive comeback?

RAISING TAXES VS. BUDGET CUTS

July 1, 2011

As I write this the Debt Ceiling talks are on life support. The president has become involved in order to revive the talks. Although the nominal focus of the talks is upon raising the borrowing limit, the nuts and bolts actually concern budgetary reform.

A few days ago Republican talk participants withdrew. The withdrawal was apparently caused by the insistence of Democratic members on raising taxes. The president met with congressional leaders from both sides. At his press conference Wednesday he chastised the Republicans for being unwilling to raise taxes on some, including jet owners, in order to pay for things like student loans and other high priority federal government programs.

June 29 Press Conference (Courtesy WhiteHouse.gov)

Just before the 2008 Democratic landslide election it was Fox News’ resident liberal, Juan Williams, who said, and I paraphrase, if the Democrats win this election in the numbers it appears that they will (and they did) there is one thing that won’t matter — the deficit. How prescient was Williams? The question is, though, do the deficit and the federal debt really matter?

To answer this question you must first understand what a dollar is. We all know that a dollar is a unit of value. It is the unit which we use to facilitate our economy. How does this work in practice? It is only paper after all. It works because on every dollar bill there is the legend, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” In that phrase is the value. By federal law you use the dollar as the means of paying your debts. But what if the transaction doesn’t involve dollars at all, though, what is the role of the dollar then? How is the dollar involved?

Let me give you an example, what if you and I agree to trade my Kawasaki dirt bike for your 1994 Ford Thunderbird. After the transaction, under IRS rules, the the party which received the vehicle with the greater market value in dollars must report that as a gain on his Form 1040 and pay income taxes denominated in dollars on the gain. But let’s suppose that one of us backs out of the exchange, what happens then? The one wishing to perform takes the other one to court. In the typical court proceeding the judge will not order the physical exchange to occur but will issue an order that the party refusing to perform must pay the performing party the difference in market value between the two vehicles plus, in many instances, attorneys fees, all of which are reckoned in dollars. Hence, even in situations not involving dollars per se, the dollar is ever present.

What then backs our dollars? Where do they come from? Is it just a big secret or a fiction we all agree on or does it really have something to do with the real world?

FDIC "Teller Sign"


Our dollars, at least the greater part of them which are in banks, are backed by the full faith and credit of the USA through a federal agency called the FDIC. FDIC provides deposit insurance to bank depositors. This insurance says that if the bank goes bust that the vast majority of dollar deposits will be made good by the federal government. If the bank doesn’t have the money then the FDIC will stand good for their debt to you which is represented by your deposit in the bank (up to $250,000 per depositor).

Where does the FDIC get it’s money? It gets the money first from premium payments by banks and when reserves from those premium revenues fall short the FDIC can draw on the borrowing power of the USA and if the borrowing power of the USA falls short the Federal Reserve Bank will simply print the money (although the Fed will receive a federal bond in the amount of the cash created like it did during QE and QE2) and the FDIC will in turn give it to the disappointed depositors. Problem solved?

As our president is finding out, however, the ability to print bonds and dollars does not mean that you have unlimited wealth. You cannot print them at will and in any amounts you wish without consequence. The government may have access to dollars (through an increase in the national debt limit which is simply the ability to print more bonds) but the actual value is not in the ability to print bonds and inject the dollars into the system. That process is clearly limited only by the availability of paper and ink. The real value of the dollar relies in a very real sense on the resolve and dependableness of the USA to make the hard choice of choosing to pay it’s creditors first out of it’s income and consume only what is left. A reputation for dependability in seeing that creditors are paid is what gives the dollar it’s value.

In seeking to raise the debt limit the government is not showing the world we are as dependable as we have always been. We are not seeking to pay our creditors out of our income. We seek to borrow some more in order to pay our creditors back. In seeking to raise the debt limit today the government is really just putting off the day when the dependability of the USA will really be tested. And ideally for this government, that ultimate test will happen only after the current crop of debt-increasing politicians has left office. Now, after a bit, we get to the real point of this post.

How is it possible that passing a resolution to create more federal debt, basically just printing more greenbacks, indicates that the US is a dependable nation? It simply doesn’t. It shows nothing but a devil may care attitude towards being dependable and hence towards the value of the dollar itself.

Well then, how is it that the US can show that it is a dependable nation? How do we demonstrate that the value of the dollar should be relied upon now and in the future because it is backed by our full faith and credit? We must do something which is hard. We must show that we can endure the pain of taking responsbility for the debt. We must make what the president calls the “hard choices.”

Showing dependability cannot be achieved to any great extent by extending the depreciation schedules for jet plane owners, or by “making the tax code more progressive” or by taking itemized deductions away from all those who make $250,000 or more. Raising taxes, while possibly being helpful in reducing the debt, will actually be counterproductive to the idea that the majority of people in this country have the resolve to do something hard. It will demonstrate that a majority are not interested in giving but are interested only in taking!!!!

That the top 10 per cent of income earners in the US already pay around 70% of all US personal income taxes is well known. What is not so well known is that a trememdous part of the US government’s budget is made up of “transfer payments.” Transfer payments are payments which are made without the government getting anything valuable (except a vote I guess) in return. Federal transfer payments make up these percentages of the total federal budget: 20% in social security payments; 21 % in medicare, medicaid and CHIP payments; and, 14% in safety net programs.

If we do not show a willingness to fundamentally change ourselves by rejecting the idea that the federal budget should predominately be a vehicle for transfer payments, we will simply not show that we are willing to accept hard choices. We will give evidence that we are a people who want someone else to pay our bills and are not, therefore, very dependable at all except in our wants. We will show that we are willing to raise the taxes of a few in order to pay the bills of the many. Perhaps raising taxes, an outcome apparently desired by the president, will help balance the books in the short run however it will do nothing about the long run problem of a country which is interested in living at the expense of someone else. Unless we show that we, as a people, reject the belief that our federal government is mainly a vehicle for transfer payments, we will prove that our full faith and credit is just not worth very much and the dollar will eventually be valued accordingly.

A cynic might say, ‘what other decision would one expect from a form of government which has no effective protection for the property right of the minority in their own income?’ This nation has been exceptional so far and I fervently hope that it will remain so by debunking this voice of the cynic. In fact our country must debunk the cynic or risk allowing the entire idea of self-government to perish along with the value of the dollar.

Happy July 4.