Sen. Bunning, and the Liberal-Conservative Divide
As one CNN commentator just said, Bunning’s choice to stand on the ground of unemployment payments to demand that the U.S. government pays for what it spends is on the surface a strange one. In holding up unemployment benefits with the statement,
“If we can’t find ten billion dollars for something we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this U.S. senate”,
he is knowingly leaving himself very open to accusations of meanness, and he is standing on ground that would be politically suicidal were he not about to retire.
However, his point about spending is probably correct, and his assertion is certainly supported by most of the proceedings of the U.S. House over decades.
But this episode points something even more fundamental – the nature of the divide between economic Liberalism and Conservatism in the U.S.
Many Liberals identify as such because of their political intentions, whereas conservatives (the old-fashioned ones – not the religious right or neo-cons) identify as such because of their understanding of the practical results of government policy.
From within the Liberal paradigm, conservatives’ tendency to deny the social and economic benefits that many government programs are claimed to deliver, seems to be mean. From within the conservative paradigm, the belief that government programs do in fact deliver social and economic justice in the long run, seems to be naive. In this particular respect, most of the data (from all over the world, back to the beginning of the twentieth century) favor the old-fashioned conservatives. Any fundamental political coming together in this country (which may of course be just fantasy) will require a psychological acceptance of the other side. Liberals must accept that conservatives are not meaner people, but have a different understanding about what brings about economic fairness and well-being. Conservatives must accept that Liberals do not have a fundamental instinct to dictate to others, but in many instances have not been exposed to relevant historical data.
Not that anyone cares, but Bunning’s stand speaks to this. Unfunded government welfare programs do make the poor poorer in the long run (mostly through inflation and dependency). If we really care about economic justice, we have to swallow this fact, and recognize that sometimes our preferred means do not deliver our preferred ends. Then, we need to pay for our choices. There is nothing right-wing or mean about that. In fact, the opposite. It is merely to be sensitive long-term to the well-being of people in a highly complex system.
Bunning has said he supports welfare for job-seekers. He says, “let’s pay for it”. If the government does pay for it (rather than borrow or debase the currency by inflation for it), it will be serving those who need help not just in the short run, but also in the long-run. And before the Keynesians sharpen their knives, remember that even Keynes did not support the running of structural deficits in the good years – which is what has left us now with no dry powder.
Reid’s question as to where Bunning was when he was supporting Bush in spending on wars and all the rest of it, is a perfectly good one, and deserves an answer. But that doesn’t mean that was Bunning right when he was supporting unfunded spending under Bush and wrong now.
Bunning has made himself an easy target, and many commentators are firing at him today in a rather snide way. However, not only must his point be taken eventually because the survival of these United States depend on it, but also Bunning’s decision to make this stand on this ground should motivate introspection about what divides the American Left from the American Right.
19 Responses to “Sen. Bunning, and the Liberal-Conservative Divide”
“From within the conservative paradigm, the belief that government programs do in fact deliver social and economic justice in the long run, seems to be naive. In this particular respect, most of the data (from all over the world, back to the beginning of the twentieth century) favor the old-fashioned conservatives.”
Yeah you get right on compiling and presenting this data in an *actually persuasive* way. Otherwise, I'm not exactly inclined to actually discuss anything. I mean, seriously, does anyone actually care to even imagine, for example, the US without the New Deal (men who -non-ironically- wear bow-ties excluded)?
The problem with Koerner's claim about what historical data “proves” is that we now exist in a world that changes drastically even within a generation. And our economic system is not one that produces anything resembling stability. Koerner is just throwing out conservative talking points again.
Without commenting on Bunning's hold (which is silly in my opinion), does anyone find it a bit odd that the first bill considered by Congress after passing PAYGO with much fanfare (even though many things are statutorily excluded) is excluded from the rules?
It just indicates the Bankruptcy of the PAYGO statute in the first place.
I'm not impressed by the CNN lightweight. This is about something obvious and long-standing and plenty of us have written plenty about it already.
The silly reaction to it by the dinosaurs actually resembles the stupid response of Pelosi (and those taking her side) when she was asked about the constitutionality of having the federal government require people to pay for health insurance under a federal scheme. Those who can't understand are unfit; those who would recoil are not merely ignorant, but diseased. Oh, for a fit, qualified suffrage…
DLS – To you everyone is stupid except yourself and anyone who agrees with you. It comes across as arrogant to the extreme. I don't know you but, as with everyone in this world, a little humility goes a long way. No matter what anyone's backgound, experience, or education is if they disagree with you they are stupid, lazy, lightweights etc. Please tell us about all the great things you have accomplished in this life with your unparalleled brilliance.
Right on cue, there's more poor reaction. To what extent it's agitation about the Congressional health care legislation remains of interest.
Ironically, given this on this thread, Pelosi was also haughty and (actually) arrogant as well as impudent when asked the unconstutionality question.
While I am not defending Bunning I do think it is fair to say there are two sides here.
Why can't they find the funds for this package and thus eliminate his argument ?
The wingnuts didn't have a problem with two wars on Chinese credit, but a few billion for unemployment is going to bankrupt this country – LOL. Where was the fiscal conservatism then Bunning?
Not to derail the thread too much but..
My views on Iraq are, I think, pretty clear. I have long considered it a boondoggle.
But when I hear the comments about 'two wars' I have to wonder.
I thought everyone (including the left) said Afghanistan was 'the good war' ?
I thought everyone (including the left) said Afghanistan was 'the good war' ?
Its charm is somehow lost on me.
I think it's a lame point. Where will they get the funds? From the general fund, of course. That's where all spending comes from. With every single bill, we decide, according to our priorities, on what we will spend it. To declare that all bills NOW have to be PAYGO is to claim that every cent of current spending is sacrosanct and only “new” spending must have some offsetting funds. The GOP is saying “we had our spending spree and we'll keep all of it.” But for you guys it's austerity.
it's arrogant, but I generally support conservatives baring their teeth and showing us their mean-spirited stuff. All spending on the greedy = good. spending on the needy = bad.
So Green, you agree therefore that PAYGO should not have been passed?
That's an honest point of view.
It is just crap timing
which I blame on Congressional leadership.
I'm saying the GOP has no moral authority here. The national debt IS A GOP CREATION.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Since WWII, EVERY president has paid off a bit of the war debt, except 3. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. TThey are responsible for around10 trillion in debt. The Republican party is the party of fiscal irresponsibilty. They are the “borrow and spend” party. Dissembling doesn't challenge the facts, which is why I ALWAYS appreciate another chance to set the record straight. Take a look at the chart. It is from White House figures (Reagan, Bush and Bush included) and absolutes proves my point.
“From the general fund, of course. That's where all spending comes from.”
And Medicare patients don't have problems getting doctors to see them. Check.
(The sad part is, many people might actually believe federal funding for everything would be solved simply by making appropriation for everything mandatory by law. [burying face in hands])
DLS, I've pointed out the Medicare new patient rate many times to you. I've also pointed out how exclusive and expensive medical school is, and the HUGE numbers of willing, capable and accomplished students who can't get in. You continue to dissemble about Medicare being rejected by doctors to actually CRITICIZE the most effective cost control policies in the entire country. Medicare pays 19% less for doctors and 25% less for hospitals, yet nearly all doctors and hospitals are glad to accept Medicare patients. That is a fact.
I prefer to deal with the facts, not your politics-and-wishes-biased contentions.
** TYPICAL **
http://www.kirotv.com/money/22686467/detail.html
http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=12072013
http://www.skainfo.com/health…/physician_acceptance_...
See? that's just what I mean about not believing your biased rants. I link scholarly research and the analysis of the Medicare Advisory Board, and you give me some lame local news BS.
I'll take the facts from the people who actually cut the checks any time. If a doctor tells local news he's never going to take another Medicare patient, then requests a check from Medicare for one, I'll believe Medicare, rather than his angry denials.
So a Seattle news story says “No one's accepting new patients.” But Medicare itself says yeah, 97% of doctors are accepting Medicare patients and we have the proof. Well you believe what suits your bias. I'll believe the check-cutters every time.
“that's just what I mean about not believing your biased rants”
You don't like the truth, but too bad. It's all around you if you want to situate yourself so you can observe it, if not experience it around other patients and have to prepare for it yourself (including discussing it with doctors), as I have. (Not that I, at least, wouldn't have to go that far, or live and travel all over the country, to understand the obvious all across the nation.) The doctor surveys about new patients (as well as what they have to say about plans if Medicare payments fall) speak for themselves.
A source I used was MedPAC, so don't try to misuse its data, translating only 3% accepting all Medicare patients as “97% accept new patients,” which is weasel language.
What MedPac, the source I provided, said, was this:
“Specifically, 74 percent of physicians reported that their practices accepted all or most new Medicare patients, and 87 percent reported accepting all or most new privately insured patients. (These percentages include practices with potentially low shares of Medicare patients, such as pediatrics.) Physicians’ acceptance of new Medicaid patients was lower (53 percent) than for Medicare and privately insured patients. African American physicians were more likely than white physicians to accept new Medicaid patients. Physicians in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to accept new patients of all insurance types.”
And of course, the acceptance percentages aren't uniform…never mind, that's more unpleasantness.