Month: April 2021

I am old enough to remember a time in which the GOP genuinely believed in small government and balanced budgets. That hasn’t been true since Reagan. What happened?

Two things. First, the PBPs concluded that the benefits of regressive tax cuts exceeded the dangers created by deficits–a decision that was supported by falling interest and inflation rates over time. Second, the Reactionary faction, which has become the largest grouping within the party during this period, has no interest whatsoever in deficits. Its agenda is to support an anachronistic white Christian nationalism by any means possible. These two factions make up the vast majority of the current members of the GOP, so they drive the train.

To summarize, if you’re a Reactionary, why would you worry about paying for the future, when your entire objective is to live in the past?

If you ask a Republican member of Congress why he opposes the Biden infrastructure bill, he is likely to tell you that the price tag is just too high. It is unfair to burden our children with the mountain of unnecessary debt, he will say.

Given the GOP’s behavior during several Republican presidencies, including Trump’s, this line of argument can’t be taken at face value; after all, it was Dick Cheney who told the world that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” But it’s worse than that. When Democrats make the exact same argument about protecting our children from climate change, Republicans blow it off, and tell us to live for today; doing anything meaningful to limit climate change will cost jobs and money, and who wants that? Why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?

It’s enough to turn your stomach.

It may be April Fools’ Day, but the Biden infrastructure bill is a Christmas tree. It has something for almost everyone: unions; environmentalists; rural residents; and China hawks, just to name a few. As of today, it polls very well with the public.

And that’s good! As long as money remains essentially free, there is no real down side to courting popularity with spending.

One thing Obama didn’t do well is get the politics right on his stimulus bill. Biden has learned from that mistake, with some help from the GOP, which is already whining about debt to an indifferent public.

M: Good to meet you! I’ve heard a lot about you!

S: And I’ve heard a lot about you, too. You’re one of those RINOs. You’re a right-wing weenie.

M: Why do you say that? I believe in limited government, low taxes, and freedom. I have voted for Republicans all my life. How does that make me a RINO?

S: You didn’t support Trump.

M: Well, I admit I had serious misgivings about the guy, but I voted for him. What do you mean I didn’t support him?

S: You accepted the results of the rigged election, and moved on.

M: There’s no credible evidence that the election was rigged.

S: Sure there was. It was overwhelming. I heard it on Fox News.

M: Anyway, what would you have me do? Support the rioters?

S: You mean the patriots? Damn right! They were just trying to save America from going down the toilet.

M: How was that?

S: They understood that Trump stood for real America against the homosexuals, the minorities, and the people who hate Christianity. They were fighting to keep our country alive.

M: What about the Constitution and the law?

S: The Constitution was written by white Christians for white Christians. America is a white Christian country. Everyone else is an interloper. They don’t belong here.

M: So where, in your opinion, did America go wrong? How did Biden get 81 million votes?

S: The most important mistake was the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments, of course. The amendments infringed on the rights of states to make their own decisions about who was a real American and who wasn’t. Then you had the civil rights uproar and all of that voting legislation in the sixties. In addition to all that, you have the evil influence of the media and the universities. They’re turning our kids away from our culture. They have to be blown up and restarted from scratch.

M: How, in your opinion, did the media and the universities turn against real America? Aren’t they run by real Americans?

S: No, they’re not. They’re run by Jews. Everyone knows it.

M: I think we’re done here.

Here are my initial reactions:

1. “Infrastructure” used to mean hiring small armies of strong young unemployed men to build roads. That isn’t true anymore, because we don’t need more roads, and road projects aren’t a great source of employment. Just ask Obama.
2. We do, on the other hand, need to repair lots of existing roads and bridges. The bill wisely provides for that.
3. In the long run, assuming it passes, the meat of this bill is elsewhere: in the broadband, charging station, and industrial investments provisions. They aren’t “infrastructure” in the traditional sense, but they could make an enormous difference in the future.
4. Business doesn’t like the corporate tax increases that are part of the bill. But what is their alternative? What tax increases are they proposing to pay for it? Or are they going to say that huge deficits are now OK? The MSM should inquire on this point.
5. The logical consequence of 40 years of tax cuts and deregulation is lousy public services and a hollowed-out middle class. The bill is an attempt to move away from what I call “right-wing recycling” (cut taxes for the rich, and they use the money to buy up the new debt–not for productive investments) to a model intended to provide more widespread prosperity and hope for the future. Will it work? I don’t know, but it is long since time to try something new.
6. If the bill passes, look for the GOP to take credit for it in the usual fashion, and for the left to whine that $2 trillion is chicken feed, which it isn’t.

Marxism is a European idea which purports to identify a universal law of history. The CCP pretends to believe it, but in reality, it has no use for universal laws of anything. Its real ideology is Chinese exceptionalism. As a result, the Chinese leadership is only responsive to arguments based on national self-interest.

How can this work in practice? Take the Uighur issue. There is no point in framing an argument based on universal human rights when the Chinese don’t even accept that concept. What you can say, however, is that public opinion throughout the world is outraged by the Uighur camps, and that Americans in particular fear the prospect of being sent to similar camps if China ever becomes the predominant power in the world. China’s rise will thus be imperiled by international opposition if it continues to oppress its own people in such an outrageously blatant way. Is the short term benefit worth the long term risk?