David Broder of the Washington Post is widely acclaimed as the dean of Washington political reporters. Lately, alas, he’s been sounding more and more like a dean, which is to say often like Dean himself. Today’s column, however, “One Bold Thinker Among the Democrats,” suggests that he may finally have lost his grip.
The “bold thinker” is none other than Barney Frank, the 12 term liberal from Massachusetts. As it happens I agree that Frank is smart, and articulate, but even so I was taken aback by the extravagance of Broder’s praise. Some snippets:
- Frank took a “commonplace” about jobs “and probed it in a depth one rarely hears from a politician”;
- “he carried the jobs debate to a level where the policy choices become so basic — and challenging — that ordinary pols and pundits fear to tread”;
- While others propose modest tweaking to produce more jobs, “Frank offers a more sweeping and disturbing hypothesis”;
- Frank endorses many conventional remedies, but he “does not stop at that point. Just as he is bold in diagnosing the cause of the problem — a private economy geared to producing wealth, not jobs — he is equally daring in his remedies.”
At this point, as you can well imagine, my curiosity knew no bounds. I couldn’t read fast enough to get to Frank’s Broder-shattering insight. What was it, I couldn’t wait to find out, that had so impressed the Dean that he was atwitter with the excitement that comes only from exposure to genius? Are you sure you’re ready for this? Anyway, here it comes, ready or not:
Toward the end of his speech, Frank uttered a sentence one can hardly imagine coming from the mouth of a 21st-century American politician. “Our problem today,” he said, “is too little government.”
More specifically:
His proposal is to tax some of the wealth the private sector is now producing so abundantly — “a fairly small percentage,” he said, without being specific — “and use it to employ people on socially useful purposes.”
Frank urges that we “take some of the wealth that is being created by this wonderful thing, this increased productivity, this new technology and the ways of using it, and all this innovation, and let us use it for our own undisputed public purposes. Let us give cities and states more money so they can have more people policing, fighting fires, cleaning up the environment, repairing facilities that need to be repaired, enhancing train transportation, building highways, helping construct affordable housing in places where that is a crisis, helping pay for higher education for students.”
Now, my point here is not this is necessarily a bad idea. I am not as opposed to taxes as many of you readers, and even public works programs have their place.
My point is that Broder must be out of his gourd to view what even Frank acknowledges “smacks ‘to some extent [of] the New Deal philosophy'” as so profound, so deeply and boldly original, that no 21st century politician dare speak its name.
Now, my point here is not this is necessarily a bad idea
We will just take a little off of the top. Nobody will even notice the missing profits. Oh wait, we need some more money for cities and states “so they can have more people policing, fighting fires, cleaning up the environment, repairing facilities that need to be repaired, enhancing train transportation, building highways, helping construct affordable housing in places where that is a crisis, helping pay for higher education for students.” Let’s take a few more percent. After all, its “for the people”.
John what is happening to you? I fear you have been in academia too long. Bad idea? No, it is a horrendous idea. We already have more than enough socialist countries in Europe.
I am not as opposed to taxes as many of you readers, and even public works programs have their place.
Capitalism doesn’t work unless we allow companies to make profits. And no, profit is not a dirty word. Do you think that we are now in a great depression and we must have a WPA program to put the people to work? And even then it didn’t really solve the problem. It was World War II and not the policies of the Roosevelt administration that got us out of the depression.
I remember listening to Gus Hall, the US communist party head, many years ago. He stated that US companies made so many billions of dollars (I don’t remember the exact numbers) of profit every year. Now contrary to what you may be thinking, he did not want to take it all. He stated that he would allow they to keep 5% to show what a reasonable guy he was. Just what percent will Mr. Frank and the rest of the Democrats allow business to keep after they pay for their pet projects? Like the goose that laid the golden eggs, once they kill capitalism, where will the money come from to pay for government?
However, this policy will solve the diversity problem. Once we allow government to take over, we will all be equally enslaved.
Yes John, you pressed my hot button!
Richard,
I got a great kick out of your “for the people” trademark. I wonder what other left-wing shibboleths are similarly protected?
Almost certainly this list would include “for the children” and tax cuts “for the rich.” Though I would imagine that there must be many others such as:
1) “Hate speech” defined as principled arguement against government-sponsored racial discrimination.
2) “Nuance” A moral relativism which denies the existence of right or wrong.
3) “Diversity” (the timeless classic): Black
4) “Culture”: Black
5) “Fundamentalist”: Used as a pejorative; A law-abiding white Christian.
6) “Civil-rights leader” An outspoken black racist who has never held a job.
7) “The economy” A measure of how socialist the occupant of the white house leans. Thus a 10,000 Dow and 5.6% unemployment under Clinton was a “Strong economy,” but under Bush it is a “weak economy.”
I would add more, but that would just be a “unilateral” action, which would “drain national resources” and ultimately lead to a “giveaway to the rich” wherein Dick Cheney would “line the pockets” of Halliburton. At least this is my understanding of current left-wing thought.
As I sit here trying to figure out the AMT, I am not thinking that we need bigger government.
How about better govt. How about govt out of education, for starters.
Mr. Frank’s idea to have the government “create” jobs is so ludicrous I would just laugh about it but I know many might take this seriously. For starters, each job created would certainly cost far, far more than any economic benefit to the worker. Why not just give them welfare?
I think FDR tried this jobs approach in the 1930’s. Didn’t work then either. (8 years of depression followed by 4 years of war, how’s that for a GREAT leader and great policies, both domestic and international.)
Joel
StuartT,
That is a pretty good list for starters. I would also add “for the environment”. That one is always a perfect excuse for giving government carte blanche to do whatever it wants. And then there is always “its for your health”. That allows the food Nazis to decide what we are allowed to eat.
By the way John, if I appeared to respond a little too strongly to your post, you can blame it on the fact that I was doing my income taxes at the time!
If you give the government an extra dollar today, it will spend an extra $1.50 today (and commit to spending an extra $1.25 each and every year to come). The only fiscal safety the American people have is to keep as much money as possible out of the government’s hands.
StuartT wrote:
Thus a 10,000 Dow and 5.6% unemployment under Clinton was a “Strong economy,” but under Bush it is a “weak economy.”
In an election year, it’s all relative to the previous administration. Consider the unemployment rates of the past few election years:
1992 – 7.5%
1996 – 5.4% (relatively good)
2000 – 4.0%
Feb 2004 – 5.6% (relatively weak)
The Dow rose astronomically during the Clinton years and under Bush has had some real ups and downs, though current trends are good.
Those who didn’t have jobs in 1992 but did by 1996 were inclined to look upon Clinton favorably, even if it’s unlikely he had much effect in those four years on the creation of jobs. And as unsustainable as a 4% rate might be, some of those who had jobs in 2000 but don’t come this November aren’t going to think highly of Bush, and this election could, like the last one, come down to a very few votes. The basic question asked every presidential election is “am I better off now than I was four years ago?”
But I already give my money to my state and city and they waste it.
He wants to give them more???
Of course, it’s my money, not his.
Profit is the reward for efficiency. – Thomas Sowell.
John, feel free to give your money away, no need to have the gov’t order you to do it under penalty of jail.
Giving government more money is not necessarily a bad idea? Oh, John, too long in Hookville, my man. If Broder has lost it, can you find it? May I suggest a little Milk of Milton (Friedman) for what ails you?