Sen. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio is getting plenty of attention lately, in large part because we know he's being considered for the Republican vice presidential nomination. And given his notoriety, it was interesting to see Portman, George W. Bush's former budget director, deliver his party's weekly address over the weekend, arguing, "We need to face facts: we're going broke."
There was some irony in Portman's complaint: the senator simultaneously complained about the deficit and the proposed tax increases on the wealthy that would reduce the deficit.*
But that's not the interesting part. Rather, there are two broader angles to keep in mind here. The first is that Portman seems unnervingly confused about what "broke" means. We learned recently that global demand for U.S. Treasuries is so remarkably strong that investors will literally pay us to borrow their money.
Imagine a family household with a steady income, but high debts. If banks are tripping over one another, begging that family to borrow the banks' money -- charging negative interest rates -- is that family broke? Of course not. But that's the situation the United States is in. On the contrary, we have the world's largest economy, we're paying our bills, and it's literally never been so easy for us to borrow as much as we want. Either Portman is ignorant about America' finances or he's trying to deceive the public.
But even if we put all of that aside, the other problem here is that Portman is focusing on the wrong problem: he sees the debt as the main issue, while unemployment is what really matters.
Indeed, none other than George W. Bush -- Portman's former boss -- has a new book out this week, which argues, among other things, that prioritizing deficit reduction right now is a mistake. This week's Republican address pushed a message that even Republicans don't agree with.
Taken together, we need to face facts: Rob Portman doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
* edited slightly for clarity
Leave a Comment:
We're not going broke, we are broke. If you have to borrow to meet your budget when you're already in debt, you're broke.
Oops, wrong place.
So if you have a home mortgage and a car loan and the total debt exceeds your ANNUAL income, you are broke? Only if the bank calls your loans, which they would be foolish to do. And so it is with our national debt and our debtors: They would be foolish to call our loans, because then they only get a fraction of their money.
And let's not forget: we owe more to ourselves - the SS trust fund - than we owe to China; and we owe even more to various pension funds, public and private. Going back to the original analogy, this would be a little like your spouse saying you have to pay them their share NOW. A pretty absurd scenario.
No, Pauly. If you have a home mortgage and a car loan and you have to borrow more to meet your budget needs, then you are broke.
Simple folk confuse- and compare-their own situation with the United States Government. Simple folk cannot print money in the basement, the Government can.
Leave the high finance to people like Paul Krugman, and devote you energies to making this week's vig to Tony Soprano.
A government is not a household. That's been covered many, many times before. Way over the tedium level at this point.
Those on the right will seldom hesitate to repeat bunkum no matter how many times it has been refuted. It's the old "Repeat a lie often enough..." trick.
Thank you all. I fully understand that a country/government is not a family household. In fact, they must actually work to opposite ends - short term, at least.
I was going to the point (not obvious) that we are NOT broke. The United States is and remains the richest country in the world, by pretty much whatever metric you want to use.
John -
I guess, to carry my simple example to the next step, I would say that to say we need to borrow money to meet my budget needs is like if I put huge amounts of money into a 401k and then didn't have enough to pay buy groceries. The US puts huge amounts of money into programs like DOD, way more even than DOD has asked for, and allows even more to not be collected through tax breaks/credits/loopholes.
Yes he does know what he is talking about, and that is why he wins elections. He is talking to the intuitions of the voters, not the facts.
Liberals pose a false dichotomy between facts and literature, thinking that one is antithetical to the other. One represents journalistic integrity, and the other with political hucksterism. Regarding the intuitions of people as something ugly and beneath one's dignity to appeal to is a typical self destructive meme in liberal circles. The truth is that intuitions can be beautiful and Liberals can project both the facts while capturing the imaginations of the American public. At 20% rates of Americans who self identify as liberals, the go it alone on facts strategy is demonstrably stupid.
Just stop it Steve. Please stop. Try to understand the literature of politics and the morality keys that Portman is hitting. Debt is a huge morality play for Portman, and he is telling the US that they must do penance. The obscenity is that the ones that did all the sinning are on Wall Street and are laughing at the pious Fox viewers prepared to lie even more prostrate before their Bull god.
ha ha ha ha! the person responsible for creating this massive debt in the first place is now telling us we must do penance? oh, please! that is just too much.
I think John is begging to keep and accept ignorance as the rule; to play by the gut intuitions that the government is just a big household, and not bother with any intimations or explanations that's it's not.
That just ain't the way to go in my opinion. Especially in an economy that hasn't repaired itself from the world-beating fraud over the last 15 years and enabled by deregulation and rules put in place by those who wish to transfer wealth from bottom to top.
I agree with this. I've had the same feeling about raw, naked facts not being
enough. Conservatives serve their lie-turds decorated like birthday cakes on fine
china and 'muricans lap them up. Liberals splop their truth-turds on the bare
table and don't understand why everyone backs away. Liberals need to appeal to
our better natures by painting pretty pictures of an alternate alternate
reality.
I don't think that is Steve's job, however. I like him for his
unselfconscious truth telling. (I can't stand the amount of self-awareness,
self-absorption, and self-promotion that wafts off of his replacement on
Washington Monthly.) Capturing the imagination of the American public is the job
of liberal and progressive leaders. They need to stop playing truth-defense and start projecting their vision for a strong middle class supported by
a fair and caring government.
Which they are beginning to do.
If Jonathan Haidt is correct, if morality has 5 pillars, liberals and
progressives need to figure out how to work identity, submission and
religion--as well as care and fairness--into the beautiful fact-based intuitive vision.
Haidt and others in his field should be required reading for those who are interested in persuading the 6 percent of swing voters who will decide this election in 7 states.
Then they might understand how providing evidence along with a compelling moral narrative is not the epitome but the antithesis of Luntz like tactics of appealing to ignorance.
Liberals are not opposed to the moral pillars that the Right habitually use. Take authority. The right constantly makes appeals to authority- eg. protesters are lawless, disrespect institutions and experts on the economy (Wall Street) who really know how to generate prosperity. The left in contrast is loath to counter attacks on the president with a moral message: eg. this is an national emergency, this is our president, we need to have a unified strategy against these economic challenges. Paint the lunatics on the right in the same terms as protesters are: disloyal anarchists which a hidden agenda. Does that go against the facts? Limbaugh certainly is disloyal, he certainly has a hidden agenda. Pundits on the left simply can't bring themselves to go there.
Nonetheless, the Left actually is motivated by rage that authority is not respected. Climate change is a perfect example. The narrative there is not simply about climate disaster- it is the anarchy and apocalypse for America if we submit to the rabble who will not submit to the authority of science, the respect of which delivered the prosperity that America enjoys. We can weave all sorts of science stuff of culture heros in- Ben Franklin, Edison, Jefferson's scientific approach to horticulture, America landing on the Moon. Then paint the science deniers as positively unAmerican threatening to return us to the dark ages of superstition that crippled western civilization for 6 hundred years. Paint the apocalyptic picture of fear- that American technology will quickly degrade if we no longer dedicate national resources to defending our supply of university graduates who keep American and her military strong.
See what I mean? The subject is climate change but the narrative is respect for authority, keeping america strong, sacrifice for our children's future, fear of ignorant forces of anarchy and the uncertain future those forces are driving our country towards.
Show me how that is an appeal to ignorance. All of the intuitive appeals have facts to back them up, and we provide them as part of the package.
So please, show me how appealing to the imaginations of Americans is appealing to ignorance. Was JFK's appeal to the imaginations of Americans appealing to their ignorance? Was he engaging in empty hucksterism? Was he just a good used car salesman tricking America into a rational technocratic solutions to America's challenges? How about FDR's appeals?
Why indulge in the false dichotomy that to be on the side of facts, one must be against intuition? It is both uniformed about the neuroscience of cognition as well as a rational that drives politically inept strategies of persuasion.
See what I mean?
Oh, yes! And you express it very well. I would replace the word intuition with something less noble, however, something like public relations or even marketing. "Strategies of persuasion" involve advertising, if not propaganda, and the appeals need to be sold. The right uses propaganda disingenuously, giving it a bad name. What you're really saying is that the left is loath to resort to propaganda, but that is what we need to do!
It looks to me like people on the left are beginning to realize this, and that they are starting from the place you eloquently describe. It needs to go further, however. The fact based appeals should not be defensive. They should ignore conservative ideology altogether and offer another reality by emphasizing the positive results of respecting the authority of science, strengthening America by advancing our technological edge, etc. Music building to a crescendo, the flag waving serenely, the heavens opening...all that crap belongs as much to us as to them. We should put it to work for our vision.
Not at all. Understand the distinction. If a position is not grounded in sound logic and facts, it is propaganda. Otherwise, it is the antithesis of propaganda. Liberals should never stoop to propaganda or other forms of non rational persuasion which is not accompanied by the rational argument that corresponds to it. What I am saying is that sound logic and facts are all head and no heart. If people are robbed of any opportunity to understand the argument intuitively, then the voters will not understand it.
This is precisely the reduction that rationalists make. "Intuition can be tricked by propagandists, therefore anything with a non rational component is propaganda!" "Neuroscience tells us that our decision making is fundamentally non rational and that what we think are our rational decisions are nothing of the kind. Therefore the only alternative is to throw in the towel! We should all out Goebbels amateurs like Luntz!"
It really is no longer a philosophical issue. Modern neuroscience is giving us a clearer picture how we think, and rationalists don't like it, because it violates the religion they have built around the idea that everything outside the gates of reason is chaos that must never be talked to and must be subjugated by the iron hand of reason. When this rationalist veil of illusion is lifted, the rationalist recoils in horror because their immediate reaction to the forces they have always demonized is that chaos will reign unless they make some demonic deals with these forces.
Its a pretty dumb narrative. There are alternate ones of harmony and beauty between head and heart. Where neither is lying to the other.
Perhaps you are laboring under some illusions about cognition which have been blown away due to innovations like fmri imaging of brain activity.
GW Bush's "former budget director" (and hence, Chief Navigator on Shrub's Titanic) is a Very Serious Person, and a Senator, and quite possibly on the short list for the "Not Worth a Pitcher of Warm Spit" position on the Republican ticket!
So, when he tells you the sky is green, you need to go adjust your box of crayons.
W's budget director doesn't understand the mess he caused, doesn't realize the failure of their 30+ reign of economic error and idea failure? What a surprise!
Or, in my opinion, they know their ideas and policies are theoretical and empirical garbage, they know what they did, and they can't admit it or risk political extinction. So they'd rather double down and cause yet more economic devastation in a reverse Robin Hood act to transfer wealth n the wrong direction. And the Useful Idiots foaming at the mouth and slobbering all over themselves watching Fox are all too willing to help.
Bingo! Portman's party has been morally and intellectually bankrupt for years.
We all know what his ideas led to. Do we want that again? He is an elected Senator, he can be removed, when the people of Ohio wise up.
As far as the household, my wife and I have trouble paying our bills, due to her health insurance doubling the past 2 years. I'm on disability, she gets paid by a monthly salary. To be able to pay our bills, to make up for the increase, she took on another part time job. To get more REVENUE....get the point.
I find it interesting that conservatives want liberals to throw in the towel, figuratively speaking, on their economic strategies after 6 months to a year, two years at the most, claiming failure. But they want to pursue their economic strategies for over 30 years saying, "Just try it a little longer. We are almost there."
Those on the right are nothing if not shameless.
"....the senator simultaneously complained about the deficit and proposed tax increases on the wealthy that would reduce the deficit."
Um, Steve, wouldn't that be"opposed"?
try the sentence this way
"....the senator simultaneously complained about the deficit and THE proposed tax increases on the wealthy that would reduce the deficit."
Thank you Russell and Arlington. I thought I was losing my mind...I couldn't believe Portman was advocating raising taxes on the wealthy. Its much too sane a position for the current GOP.
He would be a great democratic choice for Romney's VP. All I have to say is, "Portman, George W. Bush's former budget director..."
Is he boring enough to not upstage his running mate? I couldn't watch!! Okay, I did.. Weakly address maybe.. I love how the argument against the President is based on what he inherited from the @!$%#ing GOP.. These people should face firing squads. When I hear this guy make these statements I seethe with rage at the blatant falsehood and I really want to get the @!$%# out of this country. If this is what it means to be "Amercian", to be the biggest liar, to be the stingiest, self-centered abhoration with no humanity and only a bucket of horse@!$%# towards the common good then I've had enough.
Portman is toeing the Republican line about taxes and the debt. This repetition of debt and taxes being too high is designed to condition public opinion. Mr. Portman has a lot of explaining to do if he becomes the VP nominee and Biden will kill him in the debates. I have serious doubts that Romney wants to get tied to the Bush policies in name, although Romney's economic policies are no different than what we have for the last 30 years. Dems need to put a stake in the heart of trickle down economics and job creator rhetoric. Let Romney put Portman on the ticket and that will open up the debate about the Bush economic policies, tax fairness and the Republican war on the middle class and poor.