What Do Republicans Really Want?

The media is full of information about the demands by Republicans and the offers made by the Obama administration to settle the disputes about fiscal policy.  The pundits in the media take the typical centrist position that both sides should compromise and make a deal.  They assume that the Republicans will make a deal as long as they get what they want.  The president has actually offered a deal that would have been acceptable if they wanted to make a deal.  That is not their objective. Their real intent is to limit the ability of the Obama administration to function.  They have not accepted the results of the last election.  The president has finally recognized that he can't operate the government as long as the GOP controls the House.  He has shifted his attention to the 2014 elections.  He hopes the make the GOP pay for disabling the government.  This is not your father's GOP and it is not like any version of conservatism of which I am aware. 

The Fundamental Tenets Of Conservativism

The article that follows this post is by a conservative political scientist who offers his analysis of rising income inequality and what to do about it.  I thought that it would be helpful to provide the philosophical perspective of the author who wrote the article.  It is informed more by his philosophical perspective than by the simple minded commentary that is typical in the media.

What To Do About Rising Inequality

Jerry Muller is a political scientist who has published several books and articles on the historical tradition of conservatism.  In this article he criticizes Republicans and Democrats on their approaches to income inequality.  The GOP fetish with tax cuts and a smaller government is wrong.  The Democratic focus on tax increases to fund more government spending is also wrong.  Neither will insure social prosperity and social stability.

Muller discusses the prospects for reducing income inequality and increasing social mobility and he concludes that government should accept capitalism for what it is.  The task is to maintain its dynamism so that it can provide increasing benefits for everyone,  and also manage to pay for social welfare programs under conditions of rising inequality and economic insecurity.  Republicans make the mistake of idealizing capitalism and many of its critics demonize it.  Muller believes that we should accept it as it is.  We may need to reform our social welfare programs, but we need reasonably generous programs to maintain social stability.  On the other hand, we should stop wasting money on government programs to reduce income inequality.  They don't work and they may impede the dynamism of capitalism. 

Muller's pessimism about the ability of government programs to reduce income inequality is based upon the key role that the family plays in developing human potential.  Children who have been born into the right kind of family are educable.  The education gap between them and other children only increases as education improves and becomes more available.  That results in even greater income inequality and social immobility.  Immigration policies in the US also contribute to inequality.  We attract the best and the brightest from other countries, but we also accept those with less potential for development.

Some capitalist countries have less income inequality and more social mobility than the US.  Muller attributes this to the ethnic homogeneity in those countries.  He does not believe the cultural practices that work in those countries are applicable to the US.  Maintaining a country's culture has been a basic tenet of conservatism throughout history. 

Muller does a good job of tracing rising inequality to broader topics that have contributed it.  He argues that the financialization of the US economy has increased income insecurity because business executives have focused on short term goals to manage stock prices.  That leads to churning and higher unemployment.  Globalization has also eliminated many low skilled jobs that used to pay decent wages, particularly to men, when they were the sole breadwinners for their families. This has affected families in many ways.  Divorce is more common, especially among low income families.  We have more single parents struggling to manage their children and their jobs.  Middle class families have two wage earners, and they can more easily afford childcare and other services that enable both spouses to work.  Their children will be more able to benefit from  quality education that will lead to higher incomes in our Post Industrial society.

Progressive critics of rising inequality differ from Muller in many ways.  They believe that government policies have contributed to rising inequality.  Globalization has been poorly managed; tax policies have become less progressive; deregulation has led to self serving management and weak corporate governance; our electoral system has been distorted by the dependence of politicians on campaign contributions from the wealthy; etc. etc. etc.

Muller ignores most of the progressive analyses of rising inequality.  He agrees, however, that inequality is likely to get worse rather than better.  Progressives believe that inequality can be reduced if the right things are done.  Muller believes that little can be done to arrest growing income inequality.  Government should focus on managing the impact of rising inequality on social stability.

The War Is Not Over At The University Of Virginia

Helen Dragas, led the effort to remove the UVA president from her job last year.  That effort failed and it should have cost Dragas her job on the UVA Board.  She was reappointed by the governor and she is still after her prey.  This article describes the battle.  Dragas is using an old management ploy to get the job done.  She gave the president a list of 65 goals that she must meet.  Many of the goals cannot be met in the allotted time and they go down four levels in the organization.  They do not include the top goals that the president submitted to the Board.  She will not be able to meet the goals set by Dragas.  This will provide Dragas with grounds for the president's dismissal, or it will provide a signal to president that her position is untenable.  Helen Dragas is not the kind of person who gives up when she does not get what she wants.  She won't be happy until she can bring in a president that will do her bidding.

Factual Information About Social Security

Social Security is one of the largest sources of federal spending.  It is funded by the payroll tax which has provided more revenues that are paid out in benefits for over 30 years.  This article provides useful information about where the money goes and how it effects living standards for the elderly.  It also discusses the long term finances of the program.  This another area of federal spending that is poorly understood.  Many young people do not believe that Social Security will be available to them when they retire.  They have been convinced that the program is going to be insolvent.  That is not an accident.  Young people have been intentionally misinformed about the solvency of the program because it reduces their support for the program.  That is precisely what is desired by those who would like to end the program or privatize it.

An Analysis Of Federal Spending In 2011

Governments raise money by taxation and they spend it.  Most people don't know where the money comes from and whether it is spent on things that contribute to their well being.  If they were better informed we would do a better job of running the government.  This article provides a detailed analysis of US government spending in 2011 (details for all of 2012 are not yet available).  Most the current debate in Congress is about a relatively small portion of government spending that we call non-defense discretionary spending.

Sources of Projected US Debt to GDP Ratios

This is the updated version of the debt to GDP ratios for the US through 2019.  The projections are based upon projections from the Congressional Budget Office.  The Bush era tax cuts, most of which have been made permanent by the Obama administration and Congress, along with the effects of the recession, account for the bulk of the projected deficit growth.  The Bush tax cuts, and the loss of tax revenue during the downturn is much like what happens to a business when revenues decline.  On top of the lost revenue expenses also increased.  Wars are not cheap,  and the expenses incurred continue long after the wars are ended.  If the US were a business, its stock price would have declined and the management would have been replaced.  The electorate, however, is poorly informed relative to those who invest in stocks.  The electorate gets most of its information from TV, and other media sources.  Investors make lots of mistakes but they have better sources of information.