An enduring tendency of human nature is to cling to myths way beyond the time when one would expect reality to prevail. This is particularly so in the non-world of politics.
Myths perpetuated by the vacuous mainstream media include the notion that Republicans, with their self-proclaimed "no-nonsense" attitudes toward money and spending, are superior to Democrats at balancing public budgets and more likely to preside over eras of general prosperity and rising financial markets.
In last week's column (Times, May 1) we reviewed progress of two similar states, Wisconsin and Minnesota, since 2010. Wisconsin went with the prevailing trend of 2010, replacing a Democratic governor with Republican, Mr. Walker who, with the cooperation of a Republican legislature, promised a "business friendly" attitude that would create 250,000 jobs.
Minnesota went counter to the Republican trend of that year, replacing a Republican governor with Democrat Mark Dayton.
Those succumbing to myth would see this as a perfect formula for Wisconsin, governed by "business-friendly" Republicans, to easily outpace hapless Minnesota, governed by "anti-business" Democrats.
Instead, the opposite has occurred. The Minnesota economy is flourishing, even as Wisconsin ranks a dismal number 40 in job creation.
Success has a thousand fathers - failure is an orphan. Wisconsin's Gov. Walker, as he trumpets Wisconsin as an example for the nation, blames previous Gov. Doyle for current budget problems. Minnesota's new state house speaker, Republican Kurt Daudt, claims Minnesota success is due to new found optimism of Minnesotans with the 2014 Republican takeover of the legislature's lower house. Never mind that Minnesota's progress was attained before the election of 2014.
New Senate Majority Leader McConnell tried the same gambit, claiming national economic recovery, such as it is, is due to national joy over the Republican takeover of the Senate. Neither Minnesota's Speaker Daudt nor Sen. McConnell seem to have gained traction with their claims of prosperity due to optimism over their ascendency.
Then there is Kansas once again, with Gov. Brownbeck having successfully implemented large tax cuts intended to make Kansas a Mecca for business, demonstrating the merit of tax cuts and setting an example for the nation. The anticipated influx of businesses never occurred. Kansas public debt has been downgraded and the state is dealing with a $422 million budget shortfall.
How about Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jindal, who thinks he is presidential timber? He's presiding over a $1.6 billion budget shortfall.
Okay, so conventional wisdom remains that Republicans are superior to Democrats in managing public budgets. It proves my point - the myth persists in spite of reality.
Conventional wisdom holds that "tax-and-spend" Democrats are responsible for annual budget deficits and large federal debt.
Ronald Reagan in 1980 campaigned on the promise to cut taxes, cut annual deficits, and increase military spending. He did cut taxes and increase military spending. But annual deficits and the public debt mushroomed. He blamed the Congress for the deficits because he insisted that he needed a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. Of course there was nothing to prevent President Reagan from presenting a balanced budget to the Congress. Unfortunately, neither Congress, nor the mainstream media, challenged the president to "present a balanced budget to the Congress and we'll take a look at it."
Then there is President Clinton and the Budget Act of 1983 with its modest tax increases. According to critics, that was going to tank the American economy. Instead of economic collapse, the nation enjoyed eight years of prosperity. If Democrats are "anti-business" and bad news for financial markets, how come the Dow tripled during his reign?
Okay, maybe, as conservative columnist George Will observed, President Clinton was "just lucky." But a shocking thing occurred. Not only were federal deficits reduced, but eliminated. Budget surpluses, the first since FY 1969, were accrued during the last several years of the Clinton Administration.
Enter year 2000 and election of George W. Bush. All talk of paying down the public debt with those annual surpluses disappeared. Taxes were cut, and with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deficits soared once again. Deficits were excused by Republican apologists because of the war. But if those Republican politicians are as responsible and astute at managing money as they claim to be, they would have insisted that we pay our bills. Never before in history has this nation gone to war and cut taxes at the same time.
None of this is to argue that Democrats are pure as the driven snow when it comes to managing the economy. There is plenty of blame to go around for financial deregulation that was instrumental in leading to the Great Recession. But let's face it - when it comes to re-regulating banks and financial institutions, it is the Republicans who are kicking and screaming, urging repeal of the Dodd-Frank bill that takes very modest steps to regulate banks that are "too big to fail."
So, along comes the Great Recession in 2008. Between war spending, tax cuts, and decreased revenue due to recession, deficits and public debt balloon once again, a situation inherited by President Obama, elected that same year.
So when President Obama proposes federal spending as stimulus to counter recession, a logical step that will increase deficits, he gets blamed for the deficits accrued because of previous tax cuts and war spending. Stimulus spending will necessarily increase annual deficits until the economy gains traction.
And that is exactly what is happening. The economy is increasing, though at a slow rate - no mystery regarding the slow pace of recovery. Hollowing out of America's middle class, stagnant wages, good jobs shipped overseas - but that's a topic in and of itself.
The point is that as the economy improves, deficits are falling - yes, once again under a Democratic administration.
But with the obsequious cooperation of the profit-oriented, corporate-owned and controlled mainstream media, the myth that Republicans have that magic elixir persists.
Sure, but it's really economic snake oil.
- 's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Myths perpetuated by the vacuous mainstream media include the notion that Republicans, with their self-proclaimed "no-nonsense" attitudes toward money and spending, are superior to Democrats at balancing public budgets and more likely to preside over eras of general prosperity and rising financial markets.
In last week's column (Times, May 1) we reviewed progress of two similar states, Wisconsin and Minnesota, since 2010. Wisconsin went with the prevailing trend of 2010, replacing a Democratic governor with Republican, Mr. Walker who, with the cooperation of a Republican legislature, promised a "business friendly" attitude that would create 250,000 jobs.
Minnesota went counter to the Republican trend of that year, replacing a Republican governor with Democrat Mark Dayton.
Those succumbing to myth would see this as a perfect formula for Wisconsin, governed by "business-friendly" Republicans, to easily outpace hapless Minnesota, governed by "anti-business" Democrats.
Instead, the opposite has occurred. The Minnesota economy is flourishing, even as Wisconsin ranks a dismal number 40 in job creation.
Success has a thousand fathers - failure is an orphan. Wisconsin's Gov. Walker, as he trumpets Wisconsin as an example for the nation, blames previous Gov. Doyle for current budget problems. Minnesota's new state house speaker, Republican Kurt Daudt, claims Minnesota success is due to new found optimism of Minnesotans with the 2014 Republican takeover of the legislature's lower house. Never mind that Minnesota's progress was attained before the election of 2014.
New Senate Majority Leader McConnell tried the same gambit, claiming national economic recovery, such as it is, is due to national joy over the Republican takeover of the Senate. Neither Minnesota's Speaker Daudt nor Sen. McConnell seem to have gained traction with their claims of prosperity due to optimism over their ascendency.
Then there is Kansas once again, with Gov. Brownbeck having successfully implemented large tax cuts intended to make Kansas a Mecca for business, demonstrating the merit of tax cuts and setting an example for the nation. The anticipated influx of businesses never occurred. Kansas public debt has been downgraded and the state is dealing with a $422 million budget shortfall.
How about Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jindal, who thinks he is presidential timber? He's presiding over a $1.6 billion budget shortfall.
Okay, so conventional wisdom remains that Republicans are superior to Democrats in managing public budgets. It proves my point - the myth persists in spite of reality.
Conventional wisdom holds that "tax-and-spend" Democrats are responsible for annual budget deficits and large federal debt.
Ronald Reagan in 1980 campaigned on the promise to cut taxes, cut annual deficits, and increase military spending. He did cut taxes and increase military spending. But annual deficits and the public debt mushroomed. He blamed the Congress for the deficits because he insisted that he needed a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. Of course there was nothing to prevent President Reagan from presenting a balanced budget to the Congress. Unfortunately, neither Congress, nor the mainstream media, challenged the president to "present a balanced budget to the Congress and we'll take a look at it."
Then there is President Clinton and the Budget Act of 1983 with its modest tax increases. According to critics, that was going to tank the American economy. Instead of economic collapse, the nation enjoyed eight years of prosperity. If Democrats are "anti-business" and bad news for financial markets, how come the Dow tripled during his reign?
Okay, maybe, as conservative columnist George Will observed, President Clinton was "just lucky." But a shocking thing occurred. Not only were federal deficits reduced, but eliminated. Budget surpluses, the first since FY 1969, were accrued during the last several years of the Clinton Administration.
Enter year 2000 and election of George W. Bush. All talk of paying down the public debt with those annual surpluses disappeared. Taxes were cut, and with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deficits soared once again. Deficits were excused by Republican apologists because of the war. But if those Republican politicians are as responsible and astute at managing money as they claim to be, they would have insisted that we pay our bills. Never before in history has this nation gone to war and cut taxes at the same time.
None of this is to argue that Democrats are pure as the driven snow when it comes to managing the economy. There is plenty of blame to go around for financial deregulation that was instrumental in leading to the Great Recession. But let's face it - when it comes to re-regulating banks and financial institutions, it is the Republicans who are kicking and screaming, urging repeal of the Dodd-Frank bill that takes very modest steps to regulate banks that are "too big to fail."
So, along comes the Great Recession in 2008. Between war spending, tax cuts, and decreased revenue due to recession, deficits and public debt balloon once again, a situation inherited by President Obama, elected that same year.
So when President Obama proposes federal spending as stimulus to counter recession, a logical step that will increase deficits, he gets blamed for the deficits accrued because of previous tax cuts and war spending. Stimulus spending will necessarily increase annual deficits until the economy gains traction.
And that is exactly what is happening. The economy is increasing, though at a slow rate - no mystery regarding the slow pace of recovery. Hollowing out of America's middle class, stagnant wages, good jobs shipped overseas - but that's a topic in and of itself.
The point is that as the economy improves, deficits are falling - yes, once again under a Democratic administration.
But with the obsequious cooperation of the profit-oriented, corporate-owned and controlled mainstream media, the myth that Republicans have that magic elixir persists.
Sure, but it's really economic snake oil.
- 's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
