Posted by NowIGetIt on 08/19/09
Last updated 08/22/09

I am writing in response to a note posted by my good friend Josh.  Josh's note is reproduced below in its entirety, and it will repeat below that with my responses inserted in blue text throughout.  For the record, I will admit that while I align more with the GOP than I do the Democratic Party, I am at my core an independent and libertarian.  I am not a fan of Obama.  I was at one point a Bush fan, however, but I gave that up after his first term because I felt that I had been duped and betrayed (a feeling that I believe is likely to be shared by many who voted for Obama these days).  I welcome any rebuttals, critiques, questions, or other efforts to keep an intelligent and respectful debate going amongst us, since we are certainly not getting it from the establishment.

Marty

*************************

Josh's Entry

I had an epiphany about the 'debate' on Health Care reform; not only have I not heard about or read a single DETAILED plan originating from the GOP- easier to crap on someone else's ideas than come up with your own, I suppose- all the blustering is for naught since Congress isn't in session.

Technically speaking, the GOP portion of Congress (at least the Senate) isn't actually NEEDED to pass bills. Since the olive branches repeatedly extended to them from the POTUS & Co. are repeatedly being shouted and slapped away, a forward-thinking (if not 'universal') Health Care reform bill CAN pass this fall without so much as a spell-check from the other side of the aisle.

The GOP members of Congress will then have to explain to their voting constituencies (especially in 2010) why it's more "patriotic" and/or more "American" to allow Insurance and Pharma dictate which citizens should get quality health care. They can explain- on record, on camera and with a live mic under their nose- why living a better, healthier and more productive life is a luxury and not an American Value. They can explain why having more money to put back into the economy is a Socialist ideal when the last POTUS repeatedly insisted we spend, spend, spend (what we didn't have) after 9/11. They can explain why a consultation with your doctor about a DNR or other end-of-life choices we will ALL face should NOT be covered by your insurance.

Last time I checked, the pursuit of happiness is a Constitutional guarantee and the pursuit of a corporation's fatter bottom line is not.

I do not believe this would EVER happen, but I would LOVE to see a signing statement from the POTUS that repeals the free health insurance for ALL members of Congress with the addendum that they're forbidden to give themselves a raise to cover the cost. With an average salary of $169,000 and a legally guaranteed 3.9% annual raise, surely they can afford to pony up for their own insurance, no?

Not that the Democratic Party doesn't have its flaws, but the GOP of the 21st century is more than a little bewildering to me. They claim to want the government to stay out our lives when it comes to Health Care, but they attempted to pass an all-encompassing law regarding the end-of-life care choice of one family (Terri & Michael Schiavo). They scream 'n' shout about the right to privacy, but they insist they had the right to eavesdrop without court-ordered warrants. They claim to be 'pro-life' but appear to have no qualms about sending (just about everyone else's) children to war or making our own weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminately selling them to the highest bidders.

One last thought has been gnawing at me for a few weeks...and while I'm aware this might get me in trouble with some friends 'n' family, but I feel the need to speak my mind:

It can be fairly said that the base of the GOP is 'The Right'. It can also be fairly said that said members of 'The Right' describe themselves as being Christian(s). I've only had 35 years of Catholic and Jesuit teachings under my belt, but for the life of me I cannot recall a single chapter or verse in the New Testament wherein Christ preached Hate.

**************************************************

I had an epiphany about the 'debate' on Health Care reform; not only have I not heard about or read a single DETAILED plan originating from the GOP - easier to crap on someone else's ideas than come up with your own, I suppose- all the blustering is for naught since Congress isn't in session. 1) Of course, Congress will come BACK for another session, so it's not really a futile exercise. 2) Is it necessary for an opposing idea to be presented in order to justify calling a bad idea what it is - a bad idea? MUST the GOP present an alternative healthcare plan in order to express valid logical and economic concerns about the Democratic-proposed plan? Imagine that you came across a loved one who was preparing to take a dose of drugs so large and potent that, unbeknownst to them, they would certainly die of overdose.  Assuming that you are concerned about that person's well-being, would your pleas for them to not take that dose be less valid simply because you do not have an alternative proposal other than "Don't do it. It will kill you"?  Or would you feel obligated to recommend an equally dangerous, but DIFFERENT drug to be taken.  Face it, sometimes people - and governments - want to do things that are simply bad ideas, and the best way to prevent that is to show why it's a bad idea and how bad of an idea it really is.  The national healthcare system is a bad idea not only because it is impossible for our country to finance it, especially based on our current condition, but it would inevitably lead to some form of rationing.  (I do not say that as a "scare tactic," and by the way, when Obama says things like "we'll be in WORSE shape if we DON'T do this NOW" - THAT is a scare tactic.) The Law of Supply and Demand cannot be repealed or amended.  If the price is low enough on a desirable good or service, demand increases proportionately.  How much demand will there be when healthcare is "free?" Supply will simply not be able to keep up - and rationing will ensue. It's an economic reality that connot be avoided.

Technically speaking, the GOP portion of Congress (at least the Senate) isn't actually NEEDED to pass bills [true, for the moment]. Since the olive branches repeatedly extended to them from the POTUS & Co. are repeatedly being shouted and slapped away, a forward-thinking (if not 'universal') Health Care reform bill CAN pass this fall without so much as a spell-check from the other side of the aisle. Sadly, I readily submit that I myself do not trust all of the grandstanding taking place on the GOP side of the aisle to be genuine.  That being said, I do not know of many "olive branches" that have been extended, as the House and the Oval Office have recognized a remarkable opportunity to steamroll legislation through with the solid majority that is held by the Democrats, such as the Stimulus bill and Cap & Trade - both bills as guilty of cronyism under this administration(to unions and huge corporations -General Electric, in particular) as it was under Bush and his buddies at Hallibutron.  Interestingly enough, the Dems don't even have control of their own party, with enough Democratic members (to date) withholding their support due to their own fiscal concerns about the viability of the healthcare bill.  So even if the GOP's spell-check is not required...it will be necessary for the Dems to deliver an economically feasible plan in order to enroll the support of the Blue Dogs (unless they choose to employ strong-arming, but nobody ever does that, right?).

The GOP members of Congress will then have to explain to their voting constituencies (especially in 2010) why it's more "patriotic" and/or more "American" to allow Insurance and Pharma dictate which citizens should get quality health care. Three points here;  1) with the amount of restrictions and regulations placed on insurance companies (by government) regarding how they can do their business, it can easily be said that it is the government itself that is restricting coverage - not the insurance companies.  Being able to compete across state lines, for example, would deliver more competition and is likely to result in better coverage & lower premiums.  Or, what about making health insurance more like term life insurance, purchased by the consumer rather than being provided by the company?  Such as system would make health insurance portable from one job to the next and virtually eliminate the "pre-existing condition" exclusions of coverage.  There are certainly alternative solutions to giving more power to the government in this area (or any other).  2)  Pharma doesn't make such decisions about who gets coverage or care - that's not their game. 3) I would argue that what is "patriotic" and "American" is to advocate any position that reduces the role and influence of government into our daily lives, so long as it still exists to protect our natural rights to liberty and property.  They can explain- on record, on camera and with a live mic under their nose- why living a better, healthier and more productive life is a luxury and not an American Value. It's not a luxury, but it is a choice.  People who eat McDonald's every day and then sue when they get fat or sick has become the American way for many, and it's disgusting.  What's an American value?  Self-determination. They can explain why having more money to put back into the economy is a Socialist ideal when the last POTUS repeatedly insisted we spend, spend, spend (what we didn't have) after 9/11. I once heard Peter Schiff say "Republicans only act like Republicans when they're in the minority." He continued to say that they stopped acting like Republicans as soon as they were in power.  I very much agree.  Bush advocated the same fiscal irresponsibility while in office, he just spent that money in different ways - primarily on the military.  His policies were every bit as ludicrous as Obama's are - Obama's just kicking it into a higher gear.  But most directly to the point about "putting more money back into the economy," I sincerely believe that nothing could be further from the truth.  Money is being taken from the productive areas of our economy and directed towards non-productive areas.  Markets do not depend on government to operate, although they manage often to survive when the governments run over them roughshod.  There are more families and small businesses that are worse off now than they would have been if the government had stayed out of the way.  Our economy got into this problem time because of too much debt, too much leverage, too much spending - which happened at the local/individual level and at the highest levels of government.  But none of the experts saw any of it coming (except a select few such as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul - see some of their famous video clips here and here)They can explain why a consultation with your doctor about a DNR or other end-of-life choices we will ALL face should NOT be covered by your insurance. It's not that they shoudln't be covered by insurance - it's that it shouldn't be the role of a branch or agency of government.

Last time I checked, the pursuit of happiness is a Constitutional guarantee and the pursuit of a corporation's fatter bottom line is not. 100% agreed!!!  And that is specifically why the government should NEVER be permitted to bail out any corporation, enterprise, or (dare I say it) union.  Likewise, when companies act recklessly or irresponsibly, or fail to adequately serve the needs of their consumers, it should not be the role of government to prop them up, or as has happened most recently, to take them over or nationalize them.  No company is too big to fail, just like the Titanic was never too big to be "unsinkable."  The laws of neither physics nor economics can be repealed.  Many companies and/or banks that have been deemed "too big to fail" were only able to become so big due to their preferential treatment (legal privileges, subsidies, etc.) from government to begin with.  Again, the government is proven to be the problem and not the solution.  Allowing companies to fail is the market's way of cleansing itself, allowing it to survive and evolve - just like we exhale after breathing in to make room for more air, the market will eliminate bad companies so that they can be replaced with good ones.   Respect for the Constitution and adherence to the limitations of power declared in it would do wonders to heal our economy, restore growth, and establish peace here and abroad.  Governments are established to be the referees in the game of life, not to be playing for one team vs another.

I do not believe this would EVER happen, but I would LOVE to see a signing statement from the POTUS that repeals the free health insurance for ALL members of Congress with the addendum that they're forbidden to give themselves a raise to cover the cost. With an average salary of $169,000 and a legally guaranteed 3.9% annual raise, surely they can afford to pony up for their own insurance, no? Better yet, let's make sure all of 'em, the Prez included, has to use the same plan that they would force on the public.  Many have already proclaimed on camera and with a mic under their nose that they would not do so.

Not that the Democratic Party doesn't have its flaws, but the GOP of the 21st century is more than a little bewildering to me. They claim to want the government to stay out our lives when it comes to Health Care, but they attempted to pass an all-encompassing law regarding the end-of-life care choice of one family (Terri & Michael Schiavo). They scream 'n' shout about the right to privacy, but they insist they had the right to eavesdrop without court-ordered warrants. They claim to be 'pro-life' but appear to have no qualms about sending (just about everyone else's) children to war or making our own weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminately selling them to the highest bidders. The hypocrisy is downright sickening, is it not?  There is no defense that the GOP of recent years can possibly mount that would hold water.  They make a mockery of what was a fine tradition and defense of values that were at the core of the Republican party. Values liek you mentioned earlier, the right to be left alone/privacy, to be secure in your person & property, the right to live your life how you want to as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.  But neither party - Republicans or Democrats - defend those principles any more.  Bush brought us the war on terror, the Patriot Act, suspended habeas corpus, and more that I don't even want to start with.  Instead of reversing or repealing those horrific laws and gross violations of our Constitution, Obama has spent his time advancing an agenda even more radical that that of his predecessor, while allowing those mistakes to remain unaddressed.  Perhaps the special interests - the men behind the curtain - are hoping that by the next time an election comes around we will have forgotten that these violations not only took place, but are still in effect.  Face it, they want us to focus on the differences between the Right and the Left (and all of the issues that come along with it) so that we can be distracted enough to not notice that we are losing the battle between We the People and the Government that we created.

One last thought has been gnawing at me for a few weeks...and while I'm aware this might get me in trouble with some friends 'n' family, but I feel the need to speak my mind:

It can be fairly said that the base of the GOP is 'The Right'. It can also be fairly said that said members of 'The Right' describe themselves as being Christian(s). I've only had 35 years of Catholic and Jesuit teachings under my belt, but for the life of me I cannot recall a single chapter or verse in the New Testament wherein Christ preached Hate. Agreed.  And once again I do not defend the right or the GOP in responding to this point, but I will respond to speak my mind as you have.  It is written in scripture that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish he will eat forever.  The Left has a long history of giving fish, without teaching anyone how to fish.  And to stick with the anaolgy, the government (right OR left) cannot really teach another HOW to fish, because it does not know how to do so itself.  No government program in our country (or elsewhere, to my knowledge) has ever become self-sustaining through profitability.  Rather, in order to "eat" or sustain, governments and their programs have had to take fish that they did not pull from the sea themselves, but were reeled or netted in by fishermen (an obvious analogy for taxation).  And they do so through force or the threat of force (don't pay your taxes - go to prison).  Nowhere in the Bible or any scripture that I know of is there chapter or verse that parises or promotes the practice of elevating one's own stature by causing others to become dependent on you, even if one did so in the name of charity, justice, or equality.

Posted 09/05/09 Voice0fReason Silver Spring, MD

I can't believe no one has responded to this post, Marty. I just came across it when I searched under "Republican party". It's the most eloquent I've seen. You covered all the arguments I make in my head, but can never quite express.... when I try to have a reasoned discussion with someone who holds the irrational belief that well-intentioned government manipulation can make the world a better place. ....nd

Posted by NowIGetIt on 10/02/09

Of course, true capitalism exists, Jimbo!  You practice it every day.  We all do.  Any time one makes a mutually voluntary exchange with another, that's capitalism.  And the reason why it not only works but is ethical is because of 1) the "voluntary" element - nobody is acting against their will, and 2) such voluntary transactions will always deliver a benefit to the parties involved. In fact, more often than not, the involved parties will come out ahead in terms of perceived value.  Someone who spends $3 on a gallon of milk likely has a more immediate need for the milk than he does the money.  The guy who sells the milk could afford to sell it for less if his goal was to just break even, but he has to be able to provide not only for himself, but for delivering more milk - which is why the price is what it is.  Think about the so many ways that you practice capitalism in true form every day.  You do it when you buy your coffee, when you negotiate a job offer, and when you even decide how and with whom to spend your free time.  You (as well as Moore) can't blame capitalism any more than you can declare a cause & effect relationship between capitalism and corruption.  Corrpution is everywhere (although there seems to be a higher-than-average concentration in government offices).  That would mean there's no corruption in despotism, anarchy, or communism - which is obviously not true.  So given that corruption knows few borders, if any, the best question is how can corrupt people, organizations, or companies be prevented from continually defrauding others, whether it be between individuals, in a town, or across a nation or globe? 

The answer is in transparency, which is absolutely necessary in order to have enough clarity to determine the amount of risk inolved in any situation.  And you can't have that without either seeing something for yourself or having a trustworthy advocate see it up close.  This is where things go wrong in our system.  The cries we hear today for "more regulation" are not new - they've been heard before.  And the reason that we heard them before is that we expect that the government is going to minimize our risk through branches such as the SEC.  It's the same reason that was given to justify establishing the Federal Reseve, to provide a "stable monetary and financial system" (according to http://www.federalreserve.gov).  The assumption that any branch of government is going to serve as the "trustworthy advocate" that we should rely on to determine the levels of risk inherent with any venture, exchange, or investment is, at this point, obscenely naive.

Ever been to/played in a football game where the referees are throwing all sorts of flags in favor of one team over the other, even though no such infractions of the rules took place?  Pretty good deal if you're on the right team, otherwise you're screwed.  The problem is not in the game itself!  The problem is simply and only in the fact that the refs are in the pocket of one team instead of being impartial to everything but adherence to the rules.  Such it is with capitalism.  It's an honest and fun game that everyone can enjoy playing, have good or bad games/seasons, and ultimately others will want to play, too.  But when the rules are written by members of the green team such that "no player wearing a red jersey can cross the green team's goal line," and THOSE are the rules the refs enforce...the game is over before it starts.  Shame on the green team? No, because who wouldn't want an advantage??  Shame on the refs for allowing the green team to write the rules.

Capitalism is fine, and it's a good game.  And regrading Michael Moore, he's got an opportunity with a film like this to show his true colors...  Is he educating the people about how to change this rigged system based on the relationship between government and business, or is he just going to promote his own brand of class warfare? 

My guess is the latter, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

Luv ya, pal!  See you in a few weeks....

Moose

Posted by NowIGetIt on 07/31/09

Our healthcare system was/is the best one the world has ever seen.   More diseases and conditions can be disgnosed and treated today than in any time in history as a result of the innovations in science and medicine that all occured without interference from the government.  There is no question that health care has never been more expensive, of course.  But to debate solutions before identifying causes is folly.  Hardly anyone in government allows the questions to be asked that would investigate how prior government actions may have contributed to the current situation. Rather, the solution is assumed to be a greater governmental role and increased powers. It is the same in the housing sector, as Congress is passing more legislation that will either re-institute or expand beyond previous measures the ability of people to borrow money - which is clearly what got us into this economic mess in the first place.  The primary reason that health care costs have increased so much is due to the unscrupulous measures by which elected officials have sold out their sworn duties as representatives of the people to special interests such as the insurance companies.  Once health insurance was instituted on a national scale by Washington, costs went through the roof because the doctors knew that the patients did not have to pay directly - so they rang up the bill.  This is a moral hazard.  But it is also a moral hazard by design.  It is, after all, the corporations that are writing the bills that our elected officals vote on (after they receive campaign contirbutions and fail to read the bills, I might add), and stand to reap unbelievable profits when such legislation passes.  The public interest is never truly represented, though it is lip-serviced ad nauseam.  How many of our Congressional reps are going to abandon their cushy health plans to enroll in the option being so carefully crafted for the benefit of the public? I dare you to find me ONE.  I digress... My point is that our system of health became the world's envy simply because of it's ability to grow and improve without government interference, and has only been so difficult to manage/afford in our lifetimes because the gov't became a player instead of a referee. 

Our educational system, also, should not be centralized under federal authority, either.  Our adult literacy rate is just plain weak, with 1 in 7 adults in our country functionally illiterate.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-08-adult-literacy_N.htm  If the Dept of Education, created decades ago, is charged with providing excellence in education - they're failing.  In addition to literacy rates, the national performance of our students in the fields of math & science are lower on the global scale than they have ever been. 
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/12/09/study-us-trails-asian-countr
ies-in-math-and-science.html  Considering that our government has only gotten more and more involved in education in the last several years rather than less and less, it stands to reason that the efforts of government to have a positive effect on education are in vain.

Societal inequalities, to address your final point, cannot be regulated away.  You are correct in that there are vast differences in income levels throughout our country.  Is there a country that does not have this condition?  To regulate prices and wages in order to promote equality is not only (to borrow your phrase) both "absurdist and utopian," but actually leads to LOSS of jobs and opportunity.  It does the opposite of creating opportunity for people.  If raising the minimum wage was the solution, we could just raise it to $100 an hour, and everything would be fine, right?  But what businesses could sustain their profitability - and therefore their business itself - if they had to pay no less than $100 per hour for every job, skilled or unskilled?  Businesses would close down or lay people off because they simply could not afford to keep them.  It's these types of policies that would give incentives for companies to replace their auto-line workers with robots, to serve your food on paper plates to avoid paying dishwashers, to replace phone operators with automated touch-tone systems, and to install credit card readers at gas pumps so they can avoid employing more people and paying them that wage.  The two-tiered society that you fear and hope against will be more and more likely to come around (and will get here faster) as the government expands its power, and the two classes will be those who are elected or politically connected/favored and then those who are not.  The money will be distributed in a similar fashion and proportion to political clout.  This is unavoidable.

But the root of all of this dicsourse between us, Dan, really seems to me to boil down to this one point.  You have faith that those who seek, obtain, and exercise political power are mostly (if not always) honorable, altruistic, and wise.  That they will always put the needs of "We the People" ahead of their own needs or (dare I say it) agenda.  I believe this to be the exception, rather than the rule.  I look towards people who seek power over others with great skepticism.   I do not have faith that anyone who wants to hold any power over me or others is doing so for anything other than self-interest or self-preservation.  I believe that granting excessive powers over others will eventually lead to tyranny, as history has repeatedly shown to be the pattern.  Which leads me to back to my original point...  Governments are instituted among men in order to protect our inalienable rights, and when they extend beyond that basic function, they tread on the slippery slope that leads to gross abuses of power and greater societal injustices than would have ever occured had the government respected and adhered to its originally limited authorities and powers. 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  - George Washington

Posted 07/31/09 sjaye Chicago, IL

Love the blog. It's interesting because I was just having a discussion about the health care bill with someone who was telling me that I am assuming the "worst case scenario" when I say I fear some will be denied treatments. What I brought as to why we were reading the same exact bill text differently almost mirrors what you wrote in the last paragraph here. One thing you said that here that is more powerful than any of my arguments was "I do not have faith that anyone who wants to hold any power over me or others is doing so for anything other than self-interest or self-preservation." I will have to remember to use this when debating any proposed expansion of government power.

Posted 09/06/09 Voice0fReason Silver Spring, MD

Another home run, Marty. Every point right on. ....nd

Posted by NowIGetIt on 04/02/09
Last updated 04/02/09

Counterpoint to the article written by Robert Borosage, "Learning Deficits":

(And please note that it is not a defense of Republicans. Just sound economics.)

1. While I support the position that berates the previous Republican administration for their irresponsible spending practices, their hypocrisy - which is what it is - does certainly not provide grounds to defend or justify the continuation of the same practices at the same level or higher. To stick with Borosgae's analogy, this is the equivalent of one drunkard warning another person of the effects of drinking, and that other person using the drunkard's behavior as a valid excuse to go on an all-out, record-setting binge. Pointing out one's flaws does not give another license to enact the same flaws and be immune from criticism. Anyone with a sense of decency would know that.

2. Too small of a deficit? Are you kidding, Mr. Borosage? Why are consumers cutting back, would you suppose? Why have exports plummeted? Borosage claims that "the only thing lifting this economy is deficit spending at the federal level." In other words...even our government is throwing around borrowed money, not exercising the common sense that the consumer/taxpayer has come to realize - that sometimes spending too much can be dangerous. In a hard economic climate, no individual would actually worry that they had not maxed out their credit cards and that they did not quite owe enough money, so why would that faulty logic become valid when applied to the case of our government? And the folly of ignoring the long-term financial ramifications of the interest of this debt simply cannot be understated. Considering the future is not a "dangerous distraction." Rather, it is a moral imperative.

3. Contrary to Mr. Borosage's claim, we cannot afford to take on this debt. The $15 trillion that Borosage quotes as our "very big economy" is an aggregate number that makes no distinction on one of the most important factors in determining the health of any economy - production. In other words, that $15T number does not tell us how much of that money came from manufacturing, services, consumer spending, etc. The number is therefore misleading. According to the Federal Reserve, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Census Department, as of 2007 the total credit market debt shown as a percentage of GDP came to approximately 350%. This includes both public and private debt. In the times immediately before the Great Depression, that number capped out at approximately 275% of GDP.  And now Borosage expects his readers to believe that we can take that number even higher and still be OK?  To believe that taking that number higher will make eveything better?  It's insulting.

4. "The most dangerous deficit..." Evidently, Mr. Borosage either is overlooking or is completely unaware of the US Trade deficit. A trade deficit is created when one country exports less to other countries than it imports from them (Example: The US imports $500 in goods, but exports some number less than $500 in goods). Right now our trade deficit is enormous - about $47 billion. This is most certainly the most dangerous deficit to our country, as our role right now is to simply consume the products that the rest of the world creates. Peter Schiff outlines the scenario in his book "Crash Proof" in which 6 people are on a desert island - 5 Asians and one American. Responsibilities are divided, and each of the Asians is responsible for hunting for food, fishing, finding fresh water, making clothing, and building shelter. The American is not to do any of that work, but rather his role is to eat the food and fish, drink the water, wear the clothes, and live in the shelter. Everyone else on the island just gets what he doesn't consume - his scraps. Sooner or later the Asians will realize that their quality of life on the island would improve drastically if only the American were forced to work/produce something of value to them, or just get off the island so they could enjoy the fruits of their labor! This is our current reality. The United States government would do well to address our trade deficit and work out of it. This can only be done by making our country more attractive to businesses big and small to produce goods that can be delivered to market at reasonable prices. Guess what would be necessary to do this? Tax incentives for such businesses who create those products and the jobs necessary to produce them. Our jobs are going overseas because, relatively speaking, it's cheaper to do it over there (wherever "there" is), and a BIG reason that's the case is because of the taxation and other costs that businesses have imposed on them by our leviathan of a government. "To move our country to sustainable growth" is a noble goal, one that will be necessary to attain if our country will recover and flourish again. But simply spending for the sake of spending isn't going to do the trick.  Rather, what we need is an environment that will allow sustainable growth specifically in the area of production.  

Final Note:  Mr. Borosage reveals a certain level of ineptitude and arrogance in his opening remarks when he refers to the fears of our country's economic demise and the devaluation of our dollar as "babble."  Unfortunately, nearly 100% of our elected representatives would likely refer to it in a similar fashion, save for a few honorable members of Congress such as Ron Paul (R-TX) and Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), who understand the perils our country faces by continually debasing our currency.  Assuming that the reader is unaware of this danger, here are the fundamentals.  The US Dollar is currently the "world reserve currency," in other words, it is the benchmark against which all other currencies are measured and the standard of global commerce.  Because of this prestigious status of our dollar, foreign investors, companies and governments have all stored up significant sums of US dollars in cash as a manner of preserving and storing their wealth.  (Why else do you think that when Saddam Hussein was pulled from his foxhole that he had with him approximately $750,000 in US $100 bills instead of his country's own currency?)  It has been estimated by the Federal Reserve that over 70% of the cash dollars that exist today are kept overseas.  Over 70%, of all the cash in existence, overseas.  Now, consider the FACT that every time new dollars are printed/created that the value of each dollar already in existence is lessened.  This is an eocnomic certainty.  It's called "inflation," and it is defined as an increase in the supply of money.  As consumers, we often think of inflation as prices going up over time (this is called "price inflation," and it happens because of a drop in the purchasing power of the dollar itself - not because goods are becoming more valuable).  So, if over 70% of our dollars are not even in circulation at this time because people around the world are using it to store wealth - and their efforts to secure that wealth are being undermined because those dollars are losing their purchasing power as a result of printing huge sums of new money, why would they continue to hold those dollars?  The answer is that they won't.  They will lose faith in our dollar, which may lose its status as the world reserve currency.  And when this happens, all of those dollars in storage will re-enter circulation and come back within our borders.  When you have more money chasing the same amount of goods and services, prices go up - and in this case they wil go up exponentially.  This will lead to a hyper-inflation similar to Germany's Weimar Republic.  History has shown this to be the natural and unavoidable course of printing money endlessly.  It happened in Germany, in Argentina, and Zimbabwe...all in this century.  Further historical data to support the perils of inflating currencies include the Continental dollar in the early years of the USA and go all the way back to the Roman Empire.  But every time a government starts down this road they say "it will be different this time." Sure it will.  Is the course of history simply "babble" to you, Mr. Borosage?    The solution to our woes does not lie in bigger, more powerful, further-reaching government.  Such growth and involvement from government will only make things worse.  Most of these career politicians have minimal expeirence in the private sector, if any at all.  Allowing them to determine the course of our economy is not only unconstitutional...it's just stupid.  Nor will our salvation come from the inflationary monetary policies of the Federal Reserve system, as history has proven time and again. Our way out of this is for our elected officials to act with humility rather than hubris, to use a sound monetary system that cannot be manipulated, and to govern with restraint on themselves, as our Founding Fathers intended. 

Posted 04/02/09 Haystacks Calhoun NEW YORK, NY

Very well-written post. One question I had was about the line, "And when this happens, all of those dollars in storage will re-enter circulation and come back within our borders." ___ I'm assuming this isn't a necessary pre-condition for an economic collapse? Even if those dollars remain 'in storage,' but the Chinese refused to buy any of our future debt, the Fed would essentially have to buy it - resulting in excessive printing and hyper-inflation?

Posted 04/20/09 NowIGetIt Chicago, IL

Haystacks, Thank you for your comment. I beleive that you are correct, and that the release of previously stored dollars is not the only circumstance that could lead to the hyperinflation and collapse. The refusal of other countries, like China, to buy our debt is easily a circumstance that could come about and deliver the same result. I imagine that there would also be other scenarios that could arise, but most all of them would stem from a common theme - a loss of confidence in the faith and credit of the United States government, aka - their ability to make good on their debts. I don't know why that would happen, though - as the government's track record of keeping promises thus far is nothing short of superlative (sarcasm).