Definitions (NOT fiction)
Question for Dean Baker, or Harpers...
Re: Harpers, June 2003, Tom Frank, the Budget for 2004
Subject: Does anyone really believe in the New Economics of Budget 2004?
I have wondered: Do they (by "they" I mean, loosely, the administration, the motivators behind the "New American Century," and the scribes who assembled the proposed Budget for 2004) really have a philosophy for what they are doing? (I do not mean this question rhetorically. The is an honest question.) Is the economic planning which has the administration trashing the federal budget, borrowing unprecedented sums for the maintenance of a federal budget that will never be balanced, the gift of relief to the biggest spenders, i.e., those who already have numerous loopholes. etc., merely a backlash to what this group considers "lliberal" trends in giveaway programs to an undeserving lower class, a response to attacks on their benefactors, the big companies and lobbies of special moneyed interests? Or is there a coherent philosophy of economics which supports this action? That is, do they really believe that they are onto something? I mean by this, not the obvious rich-kid apologies of Ayn Rand, nor the war-lord reasoning of a WWII generation who got used to thinking of nations outside our borders as being either allies or enemies, rivals or subordinates, or who believed as a response to their upbringing that there are real humans and, the bulk of humanity, wisps of beings who inhabit the slums of India and the ghettos of Los Angeles. Does the philosophy really hold water? Does the president really believe himself when he pretends that the working people are really going to benefit from the "tax cuts" that will allow those with a hundred times their buying power to get enough "relief" to start hiring these ingrates to clean their fishponds, etc. ? Do they really believe that Ken Lay and his colleagues are basically honest men who made a few bad bets? Do they really expect that the American economy will get a "jump start" from this? Do they really give a hoot about what happens to America?
It would seem to be the responsibility of the press to point out the incoherence of this "economic philosophy," if that's what it is. It would seem right for the daily news, in reporting the president's "economic stimulus package" that there seems to be no support from credible economists that would make it appear that there is any expectation that anybody will benefit from this other than the big campaign contributors who put the president (and most members of congress) in their offices. Shouldn't a responsible report from tv news point out that there seems to be no responsible economic thinking behind these proposals? Or (another honest question) does the press operate on the belief that if a package comes from the president then it must be reported as if they believe that the president believes in this himself?
economic notes