Support the Democrats in the Mid-Terms
I will provide seven reasons why a Republican Congress is a very bad idea. I will stick to the salient issues today where the composition of Congress can have a real impact. I will ignore a large number of important areas that will not be affected by the mid-term elections – including abortion, war, the death penalty, and gun control. Here we go:
1. Fighting the recession. A key problem with the latter-day Republicans is that they do not understand basic economics. They fail to understand that a combination of monetary, fiscal, and financial policies prevented a calamitous downturn and even the possibility of a second Great Depression. They fail to understand that – unsavoury as it felt – the TARP succeeded in ending panic and restoring financial stability and is actually turning out to be a pretty good investment for the taxpayer. They fail to understand that, especially in conditions of a liquidity trap when interest rates are close to zero, fiscal policy is the sure way of restoring aggregate demand. And within that, they fail to understand that government spending has larger multipliers than tax cuts, and therefore provides better stimulus. Right now, there is too much pressure to adjust in the short-term, and any loosening at the federal level is being offset by procyclical tightening at the level of the states. The Fed is willing to do more, but even further quantitative easing cannot do that much under liquidity trap conditions. The crisis is not over, and we can’t let our guard down. We simply cannot trust the Republicans on macroeconomic policy.
2. Unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits provide effective stimulus. In most countries, this would be considered part of automatic stabilizers but the weak safety nets in the United States means that discretionary periodic extensions are needed. With unemployment near 10 percent, and in the midst of the greatest global slowdown since the Great Depression, Republicans have been trying to block these extensions. We must remember the horrendous human costs of unemployment – long-lasting income reduction, poor health, risk of dying younger, likelihood of children doing worse in school, a breakdown in social trust. This problem is urgent – 1.2 million people could have their unemployment benefits curtailed next month if Congress fails to act.
3. Long-term fiscal health. Ironically, while Republicans are racing to victory on a budget-balancing platform, their actual policies (as always happens with Republicans) would make the longer-term debt sustainability problems far worse. They want to extend tax cuts to the rich that would cost $700 billion, and have a whole host of further costly tax cuts up their sleeves. And despite the rhetoric, they have no plans to cut spending (sorry, earmarks don’t count). They would rather disband as a party than touch out-of-control military spending. And they are on record as wanting to repeal the cost controls embedded in the Affordable Care Act.
4. Climate change. The Democratic House passed a cap-and-trade bill, only to be stymied by the Senate. This was only a first step toward curbing carbon emissions, but it was a necessary first step. With a Republican Congress, all attempts to address climate change and protect the environment are dead. In fact, denying that basic scientific consensus on global warming now dominates a more-extreme-than-ever Republican party. We should take them at their own words – they have made preventing the EPA from regulating carbon emissions as one of their key objectives. And you can be sure that big oil companies will be back in favor.
5. Regulation. Even though the roots of the financial crisis can be traced to inadequate regulation, inadequate supervision, and inadequate crisis resolution powers, the Republican party is still wedded to the deregulation mantra. They opposed the Dodd-Frank bill, which did not go far enough, but still represents the largest muzzle placed on Wall Street in a generation. Expect the Republicans to try to loosen the restraint. More generally, expect them to try to roll back labor protections and to fight for the interests of big business.
6. Immigration. The chances of meaningful overhaul of the broken immigration system, along the lines supported by the USCCB, will fall to zero under a Republican Congress. Even George Bush supported meaningful immigration reform, but today’s Congressional crop has taken to demonizing immigrants and foreigners more than ever before.
7. Procedural issues. Mitch McConnell is on record saying that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. We know what that means; we’ve seen it before. Do not expect any interest in good governance. Expect instead a slash-and-burn strategy that is designed to destroy Obama’s legacy, and force him out in 2012. They will choose symbolic victories over meaningful policies. They will use any chance they get to try to overthrow the Affordable Care Act and its important protections. They might shut down the government. They might even try to impeach Obama. Like I said, we see this every time a Republican Congress faces a Democratic president. Except this time, they are more rabid and extreme than ever before.
There is a lot to be said for checks and balances. But for all of these reasons, and for many others, the Republican party does not deserve to control Congress. It has not earned that right.
Comments are closed.
This is not the UK, Israel, Poland, etc. We do not vote for a party or a “list.” I cast a vote for a specific person who will represent ME. I will vote for the individual my judgment tells me will support the best policies, regardless of the letter after their name. That is my responsibility, to make sure the person representing ME is the right one … not fancy projections of what power plays may occur in DC.
Lizzy, I fully agree with you and I hope my fellow American citizens, unlike me, who have repersentation in Congress cast a wise vote.
While I don’t have that right, I would recommend several outstanding Republican candidates including Jo Ann Emerson (MO), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Chris Smith (NJ), Walter Jones, Jr. (NC), Steve LaTourette (OH), Jim Gerlach (PA), Tim Murphy (PA), Frank Wolf (VA), and Tom Petri (WI). They are all honorable public servants.
IF economic sophistication means that our politicians spend billions of dollars on useless construction projects , racking up unheard of amounts of debt, count me proud to be a simpleton.
Bad choices, including bad economic choices, have unavoidable bad consequences. Putting economic policies in place that provide temporary relief do nothing to resolve our deeper problems, and in fact make the hole we have dug ourselves into much deeper.
And you make me laugh, stating that Congress will not (and implying they cannot) act with respect to the war or abortion or the death penalty.
Just two things:
Why is abortion irrelevant? If the GOP can control the Senate, or at least have a good size, they could theoretically halt pro-abortion justices. With ginsburg’s retirement continuing to be rumored, this is not small matter.
Second, I don’t think there is any chance for immigration reform under either party. The GOP is nativist, and the Dems flat out don’t care. Nothing was done the past two years on that score; why think another two will do the trick?
I will not be sad to see the man who tried to shut down the Louisiana economy and use healthcare as an excuse to fund abortion lose his support in Congress. While the Republicans have a whole host of problems, I very much subscribe to the “kick the bums out” philosophy, and the Dems are the bums in office at the moment.
I won’t call you names, Zach, but I will merely point out that your economic analysis is seriously flawed. The stimulus is not responsible for the rise in debt – it accounts for only a small portion. Debt rose because revenue collapsed because of the recession. It’s that simple, but people out there think there was a giant spike in spending. Remarkable.
As for resolving deeper economic problems, what do you think the financial sector regulation was all about? Yes, nobody is doing enough to tackle inequality but the Democrats are still light years ahead one this one.
And the issue is not what Congress can and cannot do on war, abortion, and the death penalty; it’s that the composition of Congress will have no impact on these issues.
Just to show that Vox Nova isn’t some Democratic Party hack job:
I won’t vote for either party, and not especially because neither represents a real Catholic approach. Neither represents a human or rational approach, not even entering into arguments of political theology. Within ten years, our political system will be that of a banana republic. On the one hand, you don’t have anyone who is willing to put forward a tough austerity plan that would be needed to restructure the captialist economy (either in the form of radically cutting social benefits and keeping taxes where they are to pay off the governments obligations for these programs), nor do you have voices radical enough to question the entire system in general (such as the radical trade unions in the 1930′s, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s and so forth). At most, the only popular action you have is by the brainwashed and atomized Tea Parties that are funded by Wall Street and are sorry dupes who don’t know that there is something called the class system and that they will never see its upper echelon.
In other words, DON’T VOTE. No babies will be saved, no immigrants will get their green card, and no jobs will be created if you do or don’t. Stay home, because the decisions are made in places you will never see nor influence. It’s more dignified that way. Democracy is a farce.
Neither party deserves to control Congress, and I can’t say the Democrats have earned any right to remain the majority party. Whether either party deserves power more really isn’t the question, though.
This will be my first ever straight dem ticket. Blame MM. ;-) Just kidding, at least the part about blaming MM.
I’m not an economics guy, I just don’t care enough about it to pay attention. I have philosophical objections to the government propping up big businesses and controlling the economy in general. P
I can understand that the economy collapsed and tax revenue declined so the federal government can no longer pay for it’s expenses. How is it that the solution is for the federal government to spend more money on frivolous or useless jobs?
Careful Kurt. Someone might think you’re *gasp* pro-life. (And non-partisan to boot.)
Abortion will be affected by the midterms, as every reasonable person knows, because the butchers that MM supports won’t be able to continue to make thinks worse, and prolifers will be able to squeeze some fixes into larger packages that Obama can’t veto. Commenters at this very blog have claimed that Repulicans not only can but will likely reverse the Obama-Democrat-authorized taxpayer blood money for abortions in DC.
It’s that simple, but people out there think there was a giant spike in spending. Remarkable
Dear M.M. Facts are stubborn things:
But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama’s major contribution to deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009 expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the overall spending increase was 22%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
Indeed, Vermont Crank, facts are stubborn things. But misinterpreting facts can be even more stubborn!
What does this number mean? Not a lot. First of all, the 2009 outlay represents the 2009 budget – from the Bush administration – in conjunction with an increase in social spending as a result of the crisis and related huge spike in unemployment. In fact, goverment consumption and government investment did not change at all. In other words, there has been no discretionary spending spree.
What do I mean by that? I mean that they continued growing at their pre-crisis trend rates. The massive deficits are almost solely due to the recession and the unfunded spending and tax cuts of the Bush era. True, Obama has not cut the rate of growth in spending he inherited, but is that wise in a recession? Hardly.
Thankfully, Paul Krugman has done all the heavy lifting here, so I will just link to his sequence of posts on this issue. They are pretty easy to understand:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/even-more-on-the-origins-of-the-deficit/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/why-have-deficits-exploded/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/the-non-surge-in-government-spending-continued/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/special-bulletin-fractions-have-denominators/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/hey-small-spender/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/big-spender-update/
I’m not letting this degenerate into another fight about abortion. The tried-and-tested technique of using the unborn to shield some really ugly economic policies will not work around here. Address these actual policies. Republicans don’t give a tinkers damn about the unborn. They care about tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back regulations.
As for who the real “butchers” are, I suggest you take a look at wikileaks.
[excluding those issues that] will not be affected by the mid-term elections – including abortion, war, the death penalty, and gun control
Nothing like stacking the deck, huh? Do you not realize that those elected in this mid-term will then go on to serve during times when these issues will be affected? How can you then say these are not affected by the mid-terms?
You are the one who brought up the abortion issue. But your false statement was rebutted, so i’m certainly content win that.
prolifers will be able to squeeze some fixes into larger packages that Obama can’t veto. Commenters at this very blog have claimed that Repulicans not only can but will likely reverse the Obama-Democrat-authorized taxpayer blood money for abortions in DC.
Are you saying pro-lifers won’t even try to stop the authorized taxpayer blood money for abortions in the 50 states and the territories other than DC?
Despite claims to the contrary by MM, Obama greatly increased Discretionary Spending
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/the-obama-budget-spending-taxes-and-doubling-the-national-debt
They want to extend tax cuts to the rich that would cost $700 billion,..
That type of collectivist Washington Speak is economic illiteracy. Not taking money from wage-earners is not a “cost.”
Whereas taxes, which you appear to love, reduces the actual income/money a Union Laborer has to spend on his family; and you favor open borders which reduces the wages of the union worker; and, in addition, you want to keep abortion and war out of the question.
You Catholic Obama voters have got to face-up to the fact that he totally fooled you.
Failing that, you ought to Confess you understood his plans for America and Abortion and you ought to get thee to your Confessor
First the Wall Street Journal and now Heritage? What’s next, Glenn Beck?
For a start, a deficit is affected by both spending and taxes. In the fairy-tale la-la-land of Republicans, you can reduce the deficit and give massive tax cuts at the same time. It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t matter what you think about the upper-income tax cuts; letting them expire will increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade.
Do you really think there are many union members that would benefit from a tax cut for those making more than $250,000? I would say that number is very very few. Most union members would indeed benefit from Obama’s proposal, which is being held hostage by the Republicans with their “bail out the rich or everybody suffers” position.
You seem to ignore Catholic Social Teaching on the necessity of taxes, on the duty to pay tax, and on the need for taxes to be progressive (see Mater Et Magistra, by Blessed John XXIII).
As for the claims from the Heritage Foundation on the last budget proposal – come on! It knocks the administation for a temporary stimulus, and at the same time for (i) calling it temporary; (ii) paying for it with tax hikes; (iii) attempting to re-introduce PAYGO. Some people might call that responsibility.
Please read the Krugman analyses. Read Martin Wolf in yesterday’s Financial Times. Just look at the increase in debt and ask yourself how much is due to Obama discretionary spending (stimulus and TARP). Last time I look, it was about 7 percent of it (and probably less now, as TARP is becoming quite profitable). The rest? Divided equally between the recession, and the Bush legacy on unfunded war, unfunded tax cuts, and unfunded medicare expansion – each of which cost more than either the stimulus or the gross healthcare subsidies and none of which was paid for. The tea party was awfully quiet back then. But Bush wasn’t black, was he?
It’s all very well, and quite fashionable these days, to denounce both parties, but the Tea Baggers seem to me to be particularly unsuited to public office. Is there a gram’s worth of difference between what the Tea Party wants and what George W. Bush gave us? I’m honestly not sure that the Tea Party/GOP deserves to come out of the wilderness just yet.
Morning’s Minion,
I would recommend voting for a third party. Granted that Republicans are hypocritical on abortion and advocate harmful economic policies, the Democrats as a party still support abortion. Unless you find a candidate who explicitly rejects that part of their platform, you’re voting for someone who will vote in favor of abortion along with his party.
As for this being a fight about abortion – it’s justified. Unjust economic policies drive people into poverty, but abortion kills them.
“I can understand that the economy collapsed and tax revenue declined so the federal government can no longer pay for it’s expenses. How is it that the solution is for the federal government to spend more money on frivolous or useless jobs?”
Countercyclical spending. The government borrows in lean times (in an effort to make those times less lean) and pays it back in good times.
It makes perfect sense: borrow money when you don’t have it, pay it back when you do.
“You Catholic Obama voters have got to face-up to the fact that he totally fooled you. ”
The only thing Obama “fooled” me on was his torture policy; he has done nothing to reverse the wrong headed and bloodthirsty policies of Bush/Cheney.
As for his “collectivist/socialist/evil” policies. . . he’s performed pretty much as promised, given the political opposition he faces. Nothing he has done would meet with the approval of Ayn Rand, but I’m just evil enough to consider that a GOOD thing.
M’s Minion telling us to back the Dems this time out? I am shocked–SHOCKED, I say! What a stunning revelation!
the Democrats as a party still support abortion. Unless you find a candidate who explicitly rejects that part of their platform…
That would be Democratic Senate candidates Charlie Melancon (LA), Joe Manchin (WV), Brad Ellsworth (IN) and Harry Reid (NV).
Whereas taxes …reduces the actual income/money a Union Laborer…
As opposed to the Republicans who just wish to suppress union labor and send working class jobs overseas.
If you would like to avoid the accusation of partisanship, it would probably help to avoid posts advocating blanket voting for a political party.
This is different form endorsing a particular candidate, or saying that a party us superior on a particular set of issues. Or that that particular set of issues should take precedence over others.
And if you do advocate blanket voting for a political party, you have to honestly account for the entirety of that Party’s positions, and not just wave them off.
For example, I think to adopt a general blanket support for the Democratic Party sends them the message that their positions on issues you’d rather not discuss are acceptable. Must this be the only consideration? No. But I think I rigorous case needs to be made that the benefits of supporting the Democrats outweigh this negative.
As for me, I am abstaining from my state’s (MO) Senate election, because I don’t think either candidate has demonstrated by they deserve my vote.
I tend to agree with the writers who advocate against blanket endorsement of either party. I would also caution against blanket condemnation of either party. I see good elements in both parties which should be encouraged and bad elements in both parties which should be discouraged. Also I am sick of the polarization and gridlock that results from everyone on both sides taking an all-or-nothing approach to politics. Also I would note that some writers are equating George Bush and the Tea Party movement. I think the Tea Party people are generally anti-Bush (and anti-establishment GOP) and strongly opposed to his policies. I think they blame Bush for the current economic troubles, which is not an extreme position, although it’s at best a gross oversimplification.
“I think the Tea Party people are generally anti-Bush (and anti-establishment GOP) and strongly opposed to his policies.”
This is disingenuous at best. There is incontrovertible proof that the Tea Party is not strongly opposed to Bush: they didn’t oppose him.
Unless they sprung fully grown from the earth in November of 2008, they had every opportunity to speak out against Bush’s policies, to vote against Bush, to support Ron Paul in 2004, etc.
The Tea party may have some honest small government types in it, but as far as I can tell, it’s a cynical attempt by the GOP to regain the power it squandered so badly under Bush.
I really have no desire to see a return to Bush-style governance. Does any one?
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Melancon has voted pro life–occasionally. He voted for embryonic stem cell research, however. He is in favor of rape/incest exceptions.
So, there ya go. A marginally pro life guy.
First the Wall Street Journal and now Heritage? What’s next, Glenn Beck?
Tsk, tsk, the genetic fallacy is your first fall-back position?
But Bush wasn’t black, was he?
LOL That’s it, it’s racism.
I am with on the wars. But, The Bamster has killed far more with Drones than Bush ever did and Bambi also committed more troops to Afghanistan.
And you oppose of all of that so that makes you racist
As for his “collectivist/socialist/evil” policies. . . he’s performed pretty much as promised, given the political opposition he faces.
Poor man. All he has had is majorities in both The House and The Senate.
“Poor man. All he has had is majorities in both The House and The Senate.”
If only he were a strong leader like Bush! I don’t remember the GOP led congress giving Bush any problems at all. He snapped his fingers and things got DONE: war, torture, medicare spending.Where3as these crazy democrats. . . it’s as if they don’t know what Congress is for!
Adolfo,
I think your definition of marginally pro-life includes Senator McCain.
If only he were a strong leader like Bush!
From the beginning, I thought Bush was a tool of the Neo-Cons and, outside of his fewand tepid prolife policies, I thought he was the worst president ever – until The Bamster rolled into town
“From the beginning, I thought Bush was a tool of the Neo-Cons and, outside of his fewand tepid prolife policies, I thought he was the worst president ever – until The Bamster rolled into town”
But Bush is no longer an issue. You will not be voting for Bush, you will be voting for the political party that gave Bush every little thing he wanted without criticism or complaint.
Conservatives are always cackling that liberals “worship” Obama. . . but nothing compares to the servile attitude the GOP had towards Bush.
And these are the people who will be “taking back their country.”
Yikes.
Kurt,
I rarely disagree with you on the statments you make. However you did state above that Tim Murphy PA is an outstanding candidate. I have to disagree with that. I guess you are basing that on his pro life views. Yet, his reputation precedes him as pro-drilling and accepting substantial donations from the gas fracking industry. He is perceived as putting our Citizen’s health second behind the economic interests of the industry. The accidents, and negative environmental and health impact will forever be associated with his political posture. He makes no mention of the air contaminants these well sites emit, which the primary issue we face with the industry planned drilling so close to our school complex in South Fayette and the actual drilling occurring across from the Ft Cherry school complex just southwest of our community. There are already 8,000 permits issued in Pennsylvania alone. Can we first determine the impact of the 8,000 before we allow more to be drilled? Especially those next to our homes and schools? People have written letters personally to Tim Murphy and the fact of the matter is, he just doesnt care. So outstanding? I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. Here in PA, our water is becoming toxic, and residents are angry. Yet, most don’t realize what is really going on here in our state.
I really don’t know what it will take for our policians to listen to people in our state, about the fracking. Maybe a nice glass of well water from some of the homes affected would do the trick for them? Maybe Mr. Tim Murphy would come over for some water and a sit down?
October 28, 2010
Catholic voters have a “very serious” moral duty to use their ballots to defend the natural law, says Archbishop Raymund Burke.
In an interview with Catholic Action, conducted shortly after the announcement that he would be elevated to the College of Cardinals in November, the former Archbishop of St. Louis said flatly that one “can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion.”
Clarifying his stand, the cardinal-elect said that if there is no pro-life candidate in a race, a voter might choose the candidate “who will most limit this grave evil.” However, he said, it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who promotes unrestricted abortion.
Archbishop Burke said that he hopes Catholic politicians who have caused scandal by voting for unrestricted abortion will experience a “genuine reform of heart” and make a public disavowal of their pro-abortion views.
Vermiont Crank,
See. . . but if I were to claim that the Church cares about abortion and nothing else. . . not torture, not war, not poverty, just abortion. . . Catholics everywhere would huffily tell me I’m crazy. but I honestly don’t recall any bishop or cardinal ever instructing the faithful to NOT vote for a torturer. In fact the torturer carried the catholic vote in 2004.
The pro-life movement needs a new slogan. “Abortion = Murder” is outdated.
“Abortion > Murder” is more accurate.
And the pro-choice candidate carried that Catholic vote in 2010….
But I assume that none of them were under the impression that they were obeying the magisterium when they voted for Obama, whereas there was real confusion about the church’s stance on torture. Because the bishops didn’t speak out against it.