Most Republican Governors Back Congress Passing The Stimulus Plan
What is WRONG with these Republican Governors? Haven’t they been listening to Rush Limbaugh?
Or do they have some things that Rush doesn’t have at his microphone and that Congressmen elected to conservative districts don’t have — such as responsibilities to broad-based constituencies and a responsibility as administrators and problem solvers, versus practitioners of hot-button rhetoric?
Inquiring minds want to know about this:
Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama’s economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.
Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama’s spending priorities.
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state’s share of the package.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state’s congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.
“As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans,” said Douglas’ deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.
To be sure, not all GOP Govs eagerly await big bucks from Washington.
This Huffington Post piece notes that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he’d vote against the stimulus plan if he was in Congress; Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, claims he might not accept all of the billions his state could be offered (and Santa Claus will slide down your chimney, too!); South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is the biggest critic and hasn’t even said he’d accept the money if he’s offered it (so he’s planning to leave elected political office as a career?)
Many states are now in fiscally hideous shape. And over the past few months, way before the economy’s October melt-down, governors of both parties have sounded the alarm by articulating the most serious, thoughtful and policy-centered concerns — generally speaking in a way that couldn’t be confused with echoing the talking points of a $38 million a year, well-fed talk show host who has a private jet that flies over their financially strapped states and populaces and he puffs on his cigar (which is probably Cuban..).
But this is the way the system works. The House of Representatives by design is more focused on narrower concerns…the Senate on broader constituencies…and the Governors are at ground zero in problem solving and responsibility. So most of them can’t be confused with “dittohead” listeners — or politicians.
BIG BONUS FOR TMV READERS:
Here are some “switched” jokes you can use at the watercooler (or keg, depending on where you work). These are stock jokes about being broke that have been rewritten for you to use so that you’ll be proclaimed as witty and topical.
HOW BROKE ARE THE STATES?
They’re so broke in California, that residents now go to KFC and lick other peoples’ fingers.
They’re so broke in Louisiana that kids can’t afford yo yos — only yos.
They’re so broke in Mississippi that the welcome mat on front porch say “Wel ”
They’re so broke in Ohio that bank are foreclosing on the homeless’ cardboard boxes.
We’re so broke here in San Diego that we have to take the trash IN.
They’re so broke in Illinois that some people who lost their homes now live in two-story Dorito bags.
They’re so broke in Florida that people are getting married for the rice.
They’re so broke in Massachusetts that burglars break into houses and leave money.
They’re so broke in New York that people go to communion just to go back for seconds.
They’re so broke in Michigan that people go into McDonald’s and put a small fry on layaway.
They’re so broke in New Jersey that kids can’t afford M&Ms. Only an M.
They’re so broke in California that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s bank asked for its calender back.
They’re so broke in Michigan that they can’t afford to pay attention.
They’re so bro in Florida that they can’t even afford the last two letters..
The states are all so broke they rob Peter and then rob Paul. (The banks rob Uncle Sam.)
MORE BLOG REACTION TO THIS STORY IS HERE
Share This
Related Posts
-
NSA Surveillance Coverage from Germany, France, Switzerland, Brazil and Colombia
Posted on Jun 13, 2013
-
Obama’s Data Nightmare is Europe’s (Handelsblatt, Germany)
Posted on Jun 10, 2013
-
Rush Limbaugh: President Obama and NJ Gov. Chris Christie Have “Master-Servant Relationship”
Posted on May 29, 2013
-
‘Hypnotized’ Western Public Wakes Up to Obama Abuses (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany)
Posted on May 25, 2013
Most, but without any real numbers. At a guess “most” are probably lined up with their hands out. Lets face it their responsibility is different as Gov worrying about one state rather than the entire country.
Trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Nice headline Joe.
However if you read the story you will find out what we all know. Governors get free hand outs while not having to PAY IT BACK.
In addition the bill passed. Its in the Senate now where there is a good chance the GOP will actually get an opportunity to affect the ultimate bill that hits the presidents desk. This bill will much more likely actually get money to people quickly. Will Actually be much more likely to stimulate the economy. This bill will actually be much more likely to receive bipartisan support then the hack job bill passed by NANNY Pelosi and friends who was a slap in the face of every GOP and a further slap in the face of every American who is in need of some support right now.
Congress played politics with peoples lives. Of course we know this is nothing new. The GOP and the Democrats have been doing that since 2001 after the Twin towers. The question becomes will the Senate actually put aside their differences and get some stimulus to the Presidents desk.
I'm betting they will. Then Joe and friends will be badmouthing the GOP because they did not vote 100-0 for the Bill and will loudly proclaim that the GOP hates the Average Joe. Oh well it could be worse. Joe and friends could actually be right.
The Republicans once again demonostrate while they will soon be irrelevant. If they behave exactly like Democrats, then why bother having two political parties. It goes back to the idea that all politicians are empire builders no matter their political party. Of course, as many have pointed out, those temporary funds will be used to create permanent entitlement programs that will be around forever and cause taxes to rise.
Greenschemes–
It seems like you're saying two things:
House Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal restraint, but Republican Governors will go ahead and spend the money exactly because they'll never have to pay it back.
House Republicans claimed the bill was no good so Senate Republicans can claim credit for, um, fixing it.
Like I said, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
The 'stimulus' package, in an easy-to-read comparison graphic:
http://www.suitablyflip.com/.a/6a00d8341c572653…
It just proves that the only ones who can spout the Conservative mantra are those who aren't in power like Rush Limbaugh and the congressional GOP. Certainly across the board cost cutting would be devastating in this economy., and without a stimulus bill consumer spending will continue to weaken, spiraling through every industry.
We have dealt the middle class a death blow— and the rich cannot maintain the US economy by themselves. This is very similar to conditions that were prevalent during the Great Depression when 1/3 of the country was out of work and the top 1% owned 20% of the assets.
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. We need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail ourselves out of our dependence on foreign oil.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Jeff Wilson has a really good new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. He explores our uses of oil besides gasoline, our depletion, out reserves and stores as well as viable options to replace oil.Oil is finite, it will run out in the not too distant future. WE need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail America out of it's dependence on foreign oil. The historic high price of gas this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. WE should never allow others to have that much power over our economy again. I wish every member of congress would read this book too.
http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Well, don't use Governor Schwarzenegger as any example of what a “typical” Republican governor, or typical Republican, should be.
Many of the governors are delighted to see relief coming. Especially anything specifically labeled “aid to states”! I maintain Obama has an opening here to broaden the federal health-care role in this country by taking over Medicaid from the states, which would bring the states a good deal of relief currently.
Beyond Green: It's unrealistic as well as obviously excessively ambitious to expect dreams such as in the “Manhattan” book (my, what a nice euphemism) to instantly or rapidly (magically) materialize.
“It just proves that the only ones who can spout the Conservative mantra are those who aren't in power like Rush Limbaugh and the congressional GOP.”
I disagree. It reveals hypocrisy and the true nature, so often, of the conservatives' and Republicans' _actions_. Since FDR and the New Deal, Republicans have routinely been “Me, Too” Dems Lite in Washington (and elsewhere, often, in this country). The only progress that libertarian-oriented classical-liberalism Americans make appears to be temporariy _relative_ success when the US public punishes liberalism (modern US liberalism — authoritarian, interventionist, collectivistic) when it goes too far (see 1980, as opposed to 1964, when Dems in government and media assured that the New Deal would prevail over Goldwater and a return to classical liberalism and constitutional federalism).
” If they behave exactly like Democrats, then why bother having two political parties. “
That's the obvious fact that's so surprisingly overlooked by so many who are defensive about any threats to liberal “progress.”
DLS- In times of deep recession— its obvious to most if not all that the government needs to get involved to keep the economy from tanking. Deficit spending and deep tax cuts have weakened the economy by concentrating wealth in the privileged few instead of the many. The country needs consumption to function since we no longer produce much of anything.The middle class isn't able to consume which causes businesses to fail.
That is why no serious person would believe that cutting government spending would be the solution in recessionary times- that is a big part of the GOP mantra. The solution is to shore up the middle class so that businesses will revive.
It's a tightrope walk for conservative governors right now. It's hard to act fiscally conservative when your job is to oversee the financial health of your state.
Expecting them to turn down federal money to prove their fiscal conservative cred is like expecting a defense lawyer to turn down a plea offer because he's concerned that society isn't tough enough on crime. Each player in a system has a role to play and their core convictions on broader policy might not match up with the convictions that they have to use for performing their particular role.
I seem to remember quite a few moderates who felt it was unfair to pin Obama's ultraliberal voting record on him because he was only doing what was right to represent his liberal constituency. The idea was that Obama's rhetoric for more centrist policy during the presidential campaign represented how he'd (or now, how he will) govern as president, since he's now representing all of the US and not just a liberal district. Same phenomenon here, folks- GOP governors like Jindal can assert the principles on which they feel the federal govt should operate, but as long as their sworn to serve their individual states they have to use any and all opportunities to advance the interests of that state.
Kim, the problem with your logic there is that the govt can't possibly shore up the middle class so that it can begin large amounts of consumption. Everyone is overleveraged and the tax cuts to the middle class are going to go toward paying down debt, not consumption. The only kind of distribution for that purpose that makes sense right now is to the unemployed and poor, because they truly have no money to spend on necessities and stimulus checks or increased unemployment benefits will have to be spent, not saved or used as payments on debt.
CStanley–
Aren't you saying Republicans only have to talk about their principles, not act on them?
No, I'm saying that when someone's talk and actions aren't in synch it is SOMETIMES because they espouse principles that apply on the national level but they are operating under principles that their obliged to support for their local constituents.
Take my example of Obama. I wasn't prepared to support him in terms of his rhetoric not matching his liberal record even though I did feel that the difference between his local obligations and what he might believe about national policy might be different. I wasn't prepared to vote for him on that basis because it would have been a gamble. Now that he's elected, I hope that he really isn't as liberal minded as his voting record would have indicated, and so far I see some evidence that that's true.
For conservative candidates, I will have to decide whether or not I think their mismatched talk and actions is genuine or not, and a lot of that depends on looking at the record as a whole. If a GOP governor is very eagerly grabbing for federal dollars and spending huge amounts in his own state (vs. accepting the federal money but also trying to run a tight ship to keep his/her state's spending under control) then I don't think they're compromising the general principle- but if they're submitting bloated state budgets and trying to push for more and more federal assistance so that they can keep up wasteful spending, then I don't think they're principled and any statements those folks make about disapproving of this stimulus package will appear completely disingenuous.
Don't all the local problems add up to a problem at the natonal level?
George: Yes, but our system is based on people on the local level looking out for their own interests while those at the national level should be prioritizing so that federal funds are disbursed according to national interests and priorities. It's not the job of the governors to decide that another state needs more funds than theirs does; the governor is sworn to put his own state's interests above everything else, while the Congress is supposed to defer to national interests as well as meeting the needs of his/her constituents (particularly in the Senate).
“In times of deep recession— its obvious to most if not all that the government needs to get involved to keep the economy from tanking.”
Howdy, K. I'm among those who would prefer, in order: 1) We don't intervene, and let things work themselves out; 2) If we do intervene, wait for major events and trends to be detected and analyzed, then act accordingly. I realize that the public supports more intervention, more quickly than I; I also know that logically, what needs to be done is the smartest, strongest effort as soon as possible if forestalling more, worse troubles is our objective. At times I've referred to one fairly-recentl (2000s) book I own of a pair by an economist in the UK who was early in predicting a reduction of inflation and who was early in warning of possible deflation as bubbles burst, and what needs to be done about it. (Note that the House bill is full of stupidity and handouts rather than based on what I've posted before, an evaluation and ranking by someone at Moody's relied on by Democrats of the major kinds of spending increases or decisions, and tax reductions or suspensions.)
I realize we wish to Do Something to abort the slump and recover, ideally, but it's not an excuse for spending of all and any kind!
Increased spending is logical, the more of the better kinds, the better; and tax reductions also are logical. I've been on record already as showing how this could be exploited to appeal to a large (including the better-thinking) segment of the public and have the Dems take tax reductions (as opposed to temporary “holidays”) from the GOP as a political (campaign, election) as well as an economic issue. (Reduce them for everyone, not just primarily or exclusively for some, to be succinct here.)
“The solution is to shore up the middle class”
Why not everyone? The lower you are on the economic food chain the more you'd be better off by an equal-per-capita “citizen's dividend” (to use smarmy language) in place of all the money conceived for being spent (with more coming later, no doubt). Take the gargantuan totals and divide by 150,000,000 (150 million). That's per capital adult citizen (and non-citizens, to boost Dem vote totals, heh, heh) distribution amounts that could be made instead of all these programs coming with the expenditures. At what point would even the most virtuous and even the most currently-debt-and-expense-bound people begin spending in a discretionary fashion? Food for thought. It's as what I and others have discussed before about things like air pollution (I grew up in California, so I'm well versed in that!). Rather than expensive, complicated programs, it might be cheaper just to buy and give people a new car every N years. (These days, if you wanted to practice reverse-discriminatory “affirmative action,” the provision would be only of Detroit vehicles.) Same thing with this bailout and now this stimulus spending. Food for thought, at least.
“Don't all the local problems add up to a problem at the natonal level?”
The sentiment (it is not merely analytical prose) inherent in what you say leads to abolishing state and even local government.
CS- I'm not saying that you're wrong– it may be too late for the middle-class but I still think there's a good chance-especially if job creation follows the stimulus. I do think the country is too mired in debt – both individually and as a nation.
I would hate to see us get more like Latin America- where the top 1% own the majority of the wealth- and the rest have little opportunity to improve their station in life. The govt here is already extremely corrupt- preventing common sense solutions.
kritt – as someone who has being doing extensive amounts of business in Latin and South America the past 4 years, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the concentration of wealth is most prevalent in the more dictatorial and Socialist regimes.
There is a lot of improvement going on in ability to improve ones life, especially in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile as examples. The underlying key to social and economic movement is education, by a HUGE factor over everything else.
They are far from perfect, and even the ones we think of as our traditional supporters are trying to move towards more independence from the US; not simply from geo-political reasons, but rather as their economies and governments become more self-contained and focused on the long-term for their people (not saying short term graft and such isn't still there, but it is WAY down, and truly frowned upon now by most companies and government offices), they become more willing to follow their own path for their own self-interests, as they should.
AR Socialism came about in South and Latin America- BECAUSE of the corrupt concentration of wealth/land at the top- it was residual from the days when the European colonial governors distributed the land to their own countrymen- and retained the native peasantry to work the land.
Having said that I'm not saying that sometimes the solution is worse than the problem— there are excesses in the Socialist governments as well. There certainly is a history of corrupt dictatorships that concentrate wealth at the top for both Socialist and capitalist countries.
Kim- What you've just pointed out is an example of why just 'doing something' doesn't make sense. You're absolutely right that the people in Latin America embraced socialism out of desperate need for reform, but what they got was just as bad as what they had before- it didn't actually offer the way out that they had hoped for.
There's been a huge sentiment in our country for a need for change, and that's understandable and probably good. But not enough people are asking what form that change should take, or asking the right questions about the changes that are being prescribed. When you're going in one direction which is clearly the wrong one, there are still 359 degrees of change to choose from, and unfortunately people seem to fall for the absurd twist of logic that says that the direction 180 degrees opposed to the current direction is the correct option.
CS- No one is suggesting that we adopt socialism to the degree that the Latin American or South American countries have— both extremes have huge flaws—- but at the moment we are in drastic need of pretty drastic action . I think we have a long way to go before we become like Cuba or Venezuela, and I see the stimulus package as a temporary tho extreme measure- not a switch to systemic socialism.
What we need is to restore the vibrancy of the middle class- whose wages have been stagnating since the '70's. We've seen that allowing those who possess most of the country's wealth to accumulate more is not trickling down to the middle or lower class. The top 20% of income-earners cannot sustain the nation's economic growth on their own.
So what is it you think we should do to “restore the vibrancy of the middle class”?
I don't see how you can compare what has happened to middle class America to Latin America either in scope or according to the cause. The fact is that I think much of the problems faced by middle class Americans are self inflicted- we've squandered opportunities by engaging in excessive consumption, and in many cases created financial instability through divorce or single parent households. Those problems can't be scapegoated on 'the rich' or 'the man' holding people back, and the solutions don't come from government policy.
I see the stimulus package as a temporary tho extreme measure- not a switch to systemic socialism.
So I assume by this you mean that you favor short term measures which will have a definitive expiration, not program expansions which will go on indefinitely? Have you reviewed the House bill to see if it meets that criteria? Have you contacted your Congressional reps to make sure they know how you feel about this?
Well I agree with kim that the most important thing is to lessen wealth disparity. I think that tax rates are way too low at the moment. I'm of the opinion that tax rates on the top 5-10% of the population should be low when overall debt levels and income disparity is low, and should gradually rise as debt levels and wealth disparity increases. And I think the same for social programs in general. For example I think that taxes and social programs were way too high in the early 80s (although they were cut too far too fast) but starting in the late 90s and especially this decade it's been the opposite.
Unfortunately, tax policy is primarily effective only at decreasing the rate of wealth disparity increases. The basic nature of our current economic system pretty much guarantees that it will eventually become top heavy and unstable. This is a fundamental mathematical characteristic of compounding growth and there is no way around it. The only current alternatives are systems that tend to become top heavy because of corruption due to concentrated power or are very stagnant.
At the end of the day, major economic crashes and depressions are inevitable…and the government bailing out bad decisions at some points eventually just compounds the problem. We are at a period where it is now a rising probability that some countries will see a Greater Depression, and that's a consequence of 30 years of supporting poor decisions.
This sounds crazy, but the only thing that will get rid of our problems is if the people that have money and power make good decisions. Our society as a whole let the Fulds and Thains and Mozilos and hundreds of thousands of lesser demons get power at the expense of the middle class — and even the Gates and Buffetts of the world. And I don't think I need to even mention the politicians…
I blame “the rich” and “the man” more than you do on an immediate level, but blame society in general for having a psychology that caused “the rich” to be “our rich” and “the man” to be “our man.” I think there is an relationship between the two, where the people in power wanted us to consume too much, and knew they would see little personal damage. I'm not saying that it was deliberate either, it's just that the people that rise up to those positions are so sheltered, so greedy and so short sighted.
To me it's almost like the people (politicians, businessmen, etc) that failed us are like rabid dogs..they're at a point where it's just their nature to do these things and can't exactly be blamed. It's up to us to do a better job of creating a society that rewards the “good” values better. I have to admit I do a very poor job of this, because it's so much more time consuming and a hassle. What I really would like to see is more large corporations that strive to live up to hard working ideals and reject the mentality that a corporation exists merely to maximize profit for its shareholders. I think that it does…but it must be sustainable, and that includes pursuing policies that are more holistic with society in general. I also would like to see more mega non-profits that compete in areas of basic needs.
Mikkel, I agree with the parts of your argument that are more holistic and based on the concepts of need for more responsible behavior- but I reject the idea that this is a top down mentality. We're all to blame (not all as in every single individual, as there are certainly some exceptions on the individual and the corporate level)- to some extent, yes, those at the top have a greater effect on the whole process, but then due to the vast numbers of individuals at the middle level there is also the same massive effect when responsibility is abdicated. The siren call of consumerism is certainly encouraged by corporate America, but no one forces us to buy new computers, cell phones, ipods and HDTVs so frequently when we aren't putting away money for a rainy day or even making sure we can make the mortgage payments.
Well right. That's why I used the rabid dog metaphor. If a dog is obviously rabid and someone that should know better gets bitten, it's their fault not the dog's.
As a brief aside I believe this in general. My friend said his coworker was getting a divorce because his wife cheated on him and she was also trying to get all his money…and the way he described certain parts of her behavior I knew that she was the type that would have shown warning signs long before the marriage even began. So I asked my friend if the coworker had mentioned whether she always had similar problems and he said yes, and I said it was kind of his fault for getting married then. It's not to take the responsibility off her, of course she is doing something awful. Of course she needs someone to sit her down and try to get her to be an adult, and of course the system needs to hold her to account to minimize the damages to the innocent spouse. But on the other hand, he should have made a better decision, but he was blind with love and focusing on what they had then…as opposed to how things would be after 30 years together. I'm not even saying that he necessarily made the wrong decision, as long as he was more willing to accept how the situation has turned out. But instead he views himself as a helpless and self pitying victim.
I think you see my point. The difference of course is that he has the system behind him to protect him so she can't actually take everything from him, because it is so obvious that she is in the wrong. But when it comes to the financial system, the rules of the system are dictated by “her” because our government is too feeble to stand up and punish those that failed. Just his bad decisions led to emotional suffering that a divorce court cannot compensate, so too will we in a collective fashion. And while she probably will never feel regret, she needs to have a judgment against her that will do as much as it can to minimize her gains and make her think twice before doing it again.
But it's up to him to accept that it's over. The only way that the court will not come down on his side 100% is if he goes to easy because he succumbs to the delusion that if he gives her what she wants then maybe she will change her mind, go back to him and everything will be normal again. That's not her nature, and even if she did, it would only be a matter of time before she left again with even more emotion and money extracted.
but blame society in general for having a psychology that caused “the rich” to be “our rich” and “the man” to be “our man.”
It would be nice if society could be structured in such a way to encourage and reward only positive behavior but to a large extent I think things work out better when we take into account our lesser angels as well (Plus, it's impossible to avoid reinforcing negative behaviors if we're going to provide safety nets for people who fall short.)
The lesser angels of our natures thing is why I believe capitalism generally makes a lot more sense than socialism; people generally aren't motivated to be as productive as they can be for the collective good, but when there's a selfish motivator they are. It's up to us as citizens and parents to superimpose the value system on that which says that ambition is good but greed is not, and that the accumulation of wealth should be for some purpose other than pleasure and is going to be more successful if it's planned for long term acquisition and savings, not short term consumption.
Hopefully the younger generation seeing our current collapse will see that their elders deluded themselves into believing the greed was sustainable, and will learn from that. But I hope they see that this was a failing of CEOs and middle class working grunts too- otherwise I think they'll have learned the wrong lesson.
I cross posted- hadn't read your last comment before I posted mine- but you can see that some of the same ideas are running through it about how we have a hard time rewarding positive behavior because we want to also protect people from the bad decisions they make.
CS,
The problem with your claims of where the responsibility lies is that it you completely ignore that real income for the middle class has been flat for years now even before accounting for increased out of pocket health car expenses even for those who have insurance. The volatility of energy costs don't exactly help either. Look where gas prices were before the recession hit. In addition the real estate bubble ate incomes by running up housing costs for large numbers of people.
There is a lot of evidence that social mood both drives and responds to economic prosperity. Rising prosperity is associated with “open” traits such as creativity, exploration, risk taking, social liberalism, etc. while falling prosperity is associated with “secure” traits like respect for tradition/authority, duty, honor, self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, caution, etc.
Of course it's all about extremes…at some point creativity and exploration can become hubris that you can solve anything. Risk taking becomes destructive and personal freedom becomes narcissism. Respect for tradition/authority becomes blind obedience, duty/honor/self-sacrifice become oppressive to self expression, caution becomes helpless fear.
I agree with the observation that not only do are these things evident in a society's values, but that they are self reinforcing to a large extent. While individuals may maintain balance, it is very hard for society as a whole to not succumb to feedback loops that eventually drive to extremes. I also buy the idea that the ideals are generational (there is increasing evidence for this on a physiological level as well) — and at turning points can cause wholescale psychological wounds. My grandparents were telling me how much the Depression and WWII defined their outlook, and how in hindsight their generation tried so hard to shield their children that they were oppressive…and how they felt that a lot of the worst excesses of the 60s and 70s (which backlash to that eventually led to the Gen X mentality…and some of the roots of our hyper consumerism) were due to overreaction of trying to make up for their childhoods.
I'm not really sure there is much that can be done about that, it could just be part of nature. I'm ascribing more to the viewpoint that intelligent people inaccurately think that they can engineer away our problems, that wise people accept that fluctuations are natural and that intelligently wise people recognize that you shouldn't spend all your energy fighting against the tide, but you can spend it to minimize the number of people that are swept away completely.
I also agree with Jim. Test after test shows that happiness is a relative measure based not only on how your needs are met, but how you compare to people around you — especially whether it seems that their compensation is fair. I think that it is only natural that people will be upset if they don't share in wealth gains and thus live closer to the edge when their incomes haven't risen in 30 years. Then when basic needs are rising on top of that and making them effectively much poorer then it is hard to adjust. I'm not sure that the bulk of Americans are really that irresponsible and make adjustments faster than they are given credit for…it's just that inflation in basic needs was making people much poorer much faster than they realized.
Hmm….I thought I had posted a response to Jim earlier but it's either hung up somewhere or maybe I closed the page before it transmitted.
What I tried to say is that I don't disagree about those other factors and I didn't mean to ignore the real ways that income for the middle class has shrunk (or buying power when you're talking about inflation, energy prices, etc.) I was focusing on the other part of the picture because I felt that Kim and Mikkel were too dismissive of it. When talking to conservatives who don't believe that there are real hardships and income disparities, I'd be arguing the other side of the coin because I think it's all of the above.
And in reading your last comment, Mikkel, I still think you're too dismissive in your final paragraph. My parents were part of a generation that didn't see wealth gains either- they were hit very hard by the recession in the northeast during the 70s- but they became more disciplined in their spending habits (and they'd always been responsible anyway), not less. I think it's an excuse to say that if the upper tier is rising in luxuries that it's natural for others to want to share that. Of course they do- but that doesn't mean it's OK to be irresponsible, because acting responsibly is what will eventually have the best chance of helping you rise to the higher standard of living no matter what.
There's nothing wrong with examining the psychology but I think you're wrong to assume that most Americans have been more responsible than I'm giving them credit for. If you're going to base your arguments on that, you'll have to show me some evidence, not just your gut feeling because I see plenty of evidence of the irresponsibility.
“Test after test shows that happiness is a relative measure based not only on how your needs are met, but how you compare to people around you –”
Also meant to mention, Mikkel, that politically I can't get behind the idea of trying to guarantee everyone's happiness and this statement you made is precisely why. There's a reason that the founders named the pursuit of happiness as a basic right, not happiness itself. All we can do with a political system is make sure that the opportunities are there but freedom means that some will be more successful in their pursuit than others.
I'll try to think of statistics that might measure this sort of thing. I'm really not sure even what to look at because my argument is that middle and lower-middle class people have been relatively “responsible” even while having a baseline of luxuries that at one point they could afford but increasingly couldn't. I'm not sure what could measure that because so few statistics are broken down by income group and it's such a multivariate proposal. I'm not sure whether it'd even be possible without constructing a research protocol for testing the hypothesis.
In any case, I will concede that anecdotally I've seen a lot of people that personally lived within their means but then let their children run wild. So many of my friends with parents that have far less than mine have been given so much more than I was and it is obvious that they are struggling to do so even as they live pretty spartan lives. So maybe some of my bias is focusing on how the actual income earners are living as opposed to their overall expenditures.
As for the difference between “natural” and “OK” that touches on a larger point that we just fundamentally disagree with. I believe that being a moral being is something that should be aspired to. In my own life I'd never even come close to living beyond my means and am quite confused about how people (especially without kids) can have such a hard time making ends meet when I do it fine on $24k a year salary. I realize that some of what makes it easier for me is my choice, I could easily make $100k+ working someplace else but I've chosen to stay here the last three years of my life and whenever I had a twinge of wishing I had more money I just remember it's what I want to do. On the other hand, I don't get how people can waste so much money on “stuff” when they aren't in a secure position. And I think it's the parents duty to teach kids to be responsible, live within their means and work hard. There is nothing special about being responsible, it's how things should be for everyone.
However, from a scientific/political point of view I don't believe that you can simply extend personal morality on a larger level. The plural for anecdote is not data, and good individual moral policy isn't necessarily good social policy. I know this is something that you'll disagree with but it is something I find ironic about many conservatives…they rightly chastise liberals for believing that the government can help create a utopia since it's against people's nature, but on the other hand ignore some very well studied aspects of human nature when it comes to some topics like drugs/sex/fairness/individuality.
I'm not calling for the government to ensure that everyone is happy, you left out the end part: “especially whether it seems that their compensation is fair.” Experiment after experiment in both humans and primates (and increasingly other animals) shows that it is natural to work to receive a reward…and that different individuals have different amounts that they are willing to work and be compensated for. When the reward is given freely, then the individuals are less likely to work (or cooperate if they are animals). However, it's also been shown that if an individual is contributing to a group/working for a reward and then feels cheated because they believe the compensation is not just, then they will refuse to work and even perhaps actively sabotage the cooperation. A recent experiment showed how chimps that had trained to do a task to get rewards would continue to cooperate for a long time even after the reward was no longer given, in expectation that it eventually would……..unless they saw another chimp get the reward either without doing anything or by doing the exact same thing that the rewardless chimp was doing. Very quickly they became uncooperative and refused to do the task as their “sense of fairness” was breached. Similarly there are many examples of group experiments with people where if everyone cooperates the group gets richer, but if you trick people into cooperating and you don't then you will be better off…and if no one wants to cooperate everyone is penalized. What they consistently show is that at the beginning everyone wants to be cooperative but if some people stop being cooperative and are getting an undue amount of gain then everyone will refuse to play along and would rather get nothing (to ensure that the selfish person wasn't getting anything) than to go home with something but less than the selfish person.
So when it comes to individual morality I agree with you completely. Regardless of your circumstance there is no excuse to be irresponsible or not be held to account for bad decisions. I'll be the very first one to argue against foreclosure relief even if the person has a good excuse, or that there should be assets protected in bankruptcy (although that goes for companies too, it's up to them to make good decisions…the fact that in credit card debt isn't wiped out in a personal bankruptcy is insane). I even chastise any friend that is making bad decisions financially and try to convince them to save and show them how to live within their means and make a budget, etc. I have no respect for people that don't.
However, I can't condemn them for their decisions when their thinking is just a reflection of those scientific studies. So many times growing up I tried to help kids that were very poor and wanted to be different but they just said “I've tried so hard to do the right thing and no one cares. Even if I'm perfect from here on out I'll grow up and it won't matter because I'll just get screwed since I'm poor.” And several times I convinced them to try only to see their efforts go for naught and saw them lash out. [And that's with my background...I've talked a lot about this with a friend that grew up poor in the inner city and where things aren't mixed and she never even had any clue what the habits were like of successful people. It's not that they had a choice and made a bad decision like some of the people I grew up with...they didn't even know what the options are.]
It's even a long running joke amongst research scientists that we countless hours in the labs, fighting for every scrap, taking years of schooling and tons of debt, and then our work enriches businessmen and doctors who barely even understand the results…but the joke turns to resentment as the dollars dry up, positions are cut, hundreds of grant applications are chasing a handful of grants and we're told that we should focus less on exploration and possibilities of making a real paradigm shift, and more about just doing minor extensions to things already in place. A lot of the best people are so demoralized (not to mention that we spend all our time trying to convince people to give us money instead of being able to calmly and excitedly do science) that it really hurts productivity.
Those are a few examples, but it's pervasive in our society on all levels and it's sick. Teachers/nurses/blue collar workers/academics/service employees/take your pick have millions of people that are excellent at what they do and make a fraction of the amount that a mediocre financial guy or middling middle manager do. Again, I'm not saying this is a good excuse (and I'm not saying that the government can fix it) but when people see this, and they've been working hard for decades and sharing in literally zero of the increase in wealth once you count for (understated) inflation, then of course they are going to tune out and be more irresponsible. It's not what they “should” do, but it's just natural when you're looking at behavior in general. And that's why I focus most of my criticism on the system itself, because while I think it is important for people to realize that they have a role in the problems and can't blame “Them” because we all collectively compromise the system, I do believe that when the system is so broken that abdication of personal responsibility is a given.
I know it would be hard, maybe impossible to get those kinds of stats. I guess what I was getting at is the principle that I know I've heard you espouse- that sometimes when people argue the problem is that their base assumptions are different.
The plural for anecdote is not data, and good individual moral policy isn't necessarily good social policy. True, not always- but the converse isn't true either. Sometimes the individual moral policy really is better for society.
I know this is something that you'll disagree with but it is something I find ironic about many conservatives…they rightly chastise liberals for believing that the government can help create a utopia since it's against people's nature, but on the other hand ignore some very well studied aspects of human nature when it comes to some topics like drugs/sex/fairness/individuality.Well, I actually don't disagree. Both liberals and conservatives sometimes ignore the evidence of what is possible or not possible regarding the shaping of behavior via government policy (and probably even more hypocritically, they both ignore how that infringes on freedom and whether or not it's Constitutional to do those things, etc.)
But I think you're applying too broad of a criticism because often the things the conservatives are discussing involve government policies that are already in place, and regardless of whether or not you take into account the antecedents to people's behavior there is still going to be a consequence that's put in place by the government policy in question. So I think what the conservative side of those arguments usually involves is a reality check on whether the consequence will be a negative or positive reinforcer.
The whole question of antecedents and consequences is no different than in parenting. To be a good parent you have to consider both, but when you're deciding on when and how to put the consequences in place (or if you're going to do that at all) then you don't vary those consequences based on consideration of the antecedents. You don't give in to your toddler's temper tantrum because he's hungry or tired, you just make a mental note to do a better job keeping the schedule so he'll get enough sleep and eats meals and healthy snacks at proper intervals. But for the consequences to be effective (in this case, the consequence that you don't get what you want if you throw yourself on the floor and scream, even if that thing that you were wanting was perhaps possible before you had the tantrum if you'd controlled your behavior and asked for it properly), you have to enforce the consequences consistently regardless of any realization that the antecedents affected the behavior (and even in some cases, the parent being partly responsible for them.)
So it's not a matter of condemning someone, it's just a recognition that the discussion of all of those things that might be influencing the behaviors aren't relevant to whether or not our societal 'rules' are providing consistent feedback to either encourage or discourage the behaviors. And I agree, of course, that everyone has to be realistic about the extent to which we can effect control over those behaviors (or whether we'd want to live in a society that tried to exert that much control) but when we've already decided that we're going to enact policies that do reinforce behaviors (by giving a negative consequence or protecting against the natural negative consequence that would have occurred), then we have to consider that separately from the considerations of what produced the behaviors to begin with.
I feel that your analogy breaks down when instead of applying it to a toddler you are talking about a teenager and even more so when talking about adults. A toddler has no ability to make a social contract or think logically. Teenagers start to assume responsibilities and degrees of independence, so then it is more of a contract that if they uphold their end of the deal they will slowly get more freedom. Adults place a huge emphasis on respect, in addition to whether they are upholding their end.
I believe that the same policy can be both a negative or positive reinforcer depending on the amount and quality of interaction with the participants. The statistics on subprime mortgages are amazing, where some smaller regional banks that really had a personal connection with clients had (I have seen recently but at least as of August) a nearly identical default rate as prime customers because they selected people that they felt had the personality traits to make good and also they had a very open line of communication. Conservatives are very right that large government policies get standardized in a way that destroys that and leads to an entitlement mentality and increases negative reinforcers. However, I feel that they could also be very positive if there was more intimate communication and projects (which is a reason I have no problem with faith-based initiatives since churches are the most integrated social structure in many places) and had competent ground managers that could make judgment calls.
In any case I don't mean this completely just about government programs but about mindsets in general. It's difficult to argue against government expansion to “help people” or to argue that we need to take our lumps, when a lot of the arguments against it don't acknowledge the larger environment as being a very strong factor. I feel that at this point in time acknowledging the climate and talking about suggestions to move towards a different one in the future will get further than trying to talk about unintended consequences.
Your point about the progressive acceptance of more responsibility as we move toward adulthood is ideally true, but even in the examples you gave previously you talk about the wife who's acting badly because she never grew up, etc- and in so many of our social problems today I see that the immaturity is a root cause. If we accept that this is true, then we do have to continue looking at how the societal or governmental placement of reward or punishment is affecting people the same way that parental discipline of children does. Besides, even with maturity there are still some effects that consequences have to make it much more difficult to make the right choices even when one tries to behave in a mature and responsible manner.
I don't understand this statement at all:
I feel that at this point in time acknowledging the climate and talking about suggestions to move towards a different one in the future will get further than trying to talk about unintended consequences.
That sounds an awful lot like a desire to move forward to new ideas and potential solutions before learning what has already had negative effects, and I don't see how you can create a new solution until you know what was wrong with the old ideas. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statement completely though.
Well there will always be people that never grow up and are leeches. The question becomes how to identify them and cut them off and how much should be tolerated “for the greater good.”
What I meant about the statement was that I try to argue against the government spending trillions of dollars to try to prop up asset prices, and people like my dad who is very responsible says things like “well so many people are counting on that, it would destroy their plans. I don't see how we could have all these policies that help the rich but not have any that help most people that are trying to make something and have mostly put a lot of money into their homes.” Or he also said the government should bailout the automakers because it'll be easier to transition to newer car designs that we do need, and I said I didn't think that was necessarily the case and they should fail so they can be replaced.He said that then so many people would lose their jobs that it would be awful and I pointed out that since there is so little demand then it doesn't make sense to waste resources building stuff no one wants when people could just be supported directly at a minimal level. Again he brought up the bank thing and I couldn't disagree.
So when I talk about moving towards a different one I don't mean new ideas and potential solutions apart from the present, I mean addressing people's underlying concerns about fairness, having security if you work full time, etc. I think that a lot of people that are crying out for government handouts (either directly or indirectly…like to prop up prices) do so because they feel that they deserve a part of the pie that they're not getting and won't ever get no matter how hard they work. This is where I think we agree but disagree about the source. We both agree that people are more irresponsible than they should be, but I believe (based on my interactions with people) that a driving factor is hopelessness that independence and prudence will actually pay off. [This is a very well studied component of asset bubbles, where the largest gains come in the last 25% of the length of the bubble...often the bubbles double or triple in value because people on the sidelines that are trying to do the right thing see the irresponsible people raking in "fortunes" and so they get jealous. I think a lot of this issue is because the government's monetary policy has been to provide too much liquidity and support asset increases at all costs.] So where you see government programs as a primary driver behind irresponsibility, I see the existence of many government programs as a symptom of larger imbalances (the same for unions, ideally there should be no need for unions) that are corrupt the government programs. So I see it more as a vicious cycle where many people want to be independent but feel the system is stacked agaisnt them, so they want compensation.
In times like these trying to point out all the negative aspects of stupid government policies is like throwing grains of sand into the wind, because even people that would normally be more critical are saying “enough…we've worked so hard for so long and gotten so little, it's time that we get at least a little.” That's what I mean by how instead we should focus on addressing people's base concerns about both governmental and non-governmental policies and start giving hope about moving to a more fair society. It will be a terrible adjustment, but I think people would be willing to go through it if they felt that their hard work would pay off more in the end.