The line I've been hearing from sophisticated and unsophisticated commenters alike (that's when it really concerns me) these days is to mock sequester because it's not an "existential crisis" (yes I've seen that phrase at least onc) - that it's not the horror show we're told it's going to be.
It's a classic strawman. Nobody said it was going to be an existential crisis, of course. Nobody said there will be blood in the streets. But the fringe that actually likes this is using that line to trivialize it.
The thing is, it doesn't have to be an existential crisis to be a bad idea. The economy is growing right now, just like they all love to point out that government spending will still grow after sequester. The economy doesn't present us with an existential crisis. We aren't all wasting away in the streets right now (some people are, and services to them will be weakened by sequester, but let's put that aside for now). Does that mean the economy isn't in bad shape? Of course not. So let's cut this rhetorical trick out.
95% of economists apparently agree that sequester will be bad for the economy. The consensus against the minimum wage is nowhere near that, and I've been told repeatedly that I'm abandoning econ 101 even in just shrugging my shoulders at the minimum wage (as regular readers know I haven't exactly been a cheerleader for it).
Second only to cutting spending so much in a recession in stupidity is that the cuts we're doing don't even hit the genuine problems with the budget. We do have budget and debt problems. The problems leading up to now have largely been the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded war spending. The tax cuts were partially dealt with (again, though, not the wisest thing to do in a recession). The biggest problems going forward are the entitlement programs.
And guess what two major spending categories are exempt from sequester?
Direct war spending and entitlement spending.
It's insane. If you're one of the ones going around saying this is a good idea my confidence that you are actually concerned about fiscal responsibility has gone down.
It's not an existential threat, but it's bad policy.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"Nobody said it was going to be an existential crisis, of course."
ReplyDeleteAre you really that sure about this claim? Because frankly much of the language used to discuss Iraq and WMDs is also being trotted out for this particular event as well.
The words I have noticed the most regarding the sequester are "disaster" and "decimate(tion)." The general tone we get from at least the political opponents of the sequester is of the "dogs and cats living together" variety.
ReplyDelete"95% of economists apparently agree that sequester will be bad for the economy."
This is what the link actually says:
"A National Association for Business Economics survey of 49 economists, released Monday, found that 95% say the uncertain U.S. fiscal situation is a drag on the country’s growth prospects."
I am pretty sure that I could line up forty-nine economists to agree on almost anything shy of say the benefits of beating baby seals to death. :P
1. It practically decimates the areas is cuts - over 8%.
Delete2. "I am pretty sure that I could line up forty-nine economists to agree on almost anything shy of say the benefits of beating baby seals to death." - except the minimum wage.
I don't know - your experiences are very different form mine. I've seen the most outrageous talk about the sequester from critics trying to paraphrase the people that are suggesting it's bad policy. I'm not saying you can't google and find someone going over the top - you could always do that. I'm saying the picture presented by critics isn't representative.
They aren't using the word decimate in that sense. I shouldn't have to point that out though. No one uses the word in that sense except for pedants like myself, particularly not journalists and political types.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that this debate is full of lots of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric. Situation normal in other words.
You don't think I could round up forty-nine economists 95% of whom were all in for the minimum wage (either enthusiastically or guardedly)? I think I could if I knew what I was doing. Anyway, I couldn't read the entirety of the aforementioned article so I can't say how they picked these "top forecasters" - so I could just be all wet.
Editorial:
I think it is safe to say though that no matter what happens a "slow growth" forecast is the prolly the best one could make right now and hope for it to come true. Clearly lots of people are grasping for magic bullets when there are none to be found. Just be happy that we're so fabulously wealthy that what we whinge on about would make people a hundred years ago blush with envy (see Edward Bellamy's _Looking Backward_ - we live in their utopia).
re: "You don't think I could round up forty-nine economists 95% of whom were all in for the minimum wage (either enthusiastically or guardedly)?"
DeleteWell if you hand pick them! But that's not what we're talking about.
"we live in their utopia" - minus the socialism, thank god.
re: "Just be happy that we're so fabulously wealthy that what we whinge on about would make people a hundred years ago blush with envy"
See, now this is just a twist on the same dumb things people talking about "existential crisis" are saying. Nobody is unhappy about our fabulous wealth. But you don't walk around and say "gee I'm fabulously wealthy so I just won't worry about making bad decisions". No! You say "gee I'm fabulously wealthy and I'm going to keep trying to make good decisions".
The next time you complain about some policy choice I'll say "hey - we're fabulously wealthy so you shouldn't complain". Let's see how you react. Probably the exact same - as I am here: of course we're fabulously wealthy, that's great, but it's no reason not to make good decisions.
"Nobody is unhappy about our fabulous wealth.'
DeleteGee. It seems to me that there are lots of nihilists out there who think that we live in the worst of the worlds they are capable of imagining - including a lot of Libertarians and Republicans who feel that the American state is seriously oppressing them. The rising wealth of the top 10% in particular seems to have addled their minds to the point where they deeply resent the poor.
"Well if you hand pick them! But that's not what we're talking about."
ReplyDeleteLet's just say that a sample size of forty-nine people - no matter how "qualified" they are - isn't very convincing.
"...minus the socialism, thank god."
I was thinking of its description of a music room (you go in and push a button and out comes music - wow!); which frankly we've got them beat on by a couple of touchdowns if not more.
"See, now this is just a twist on the same dumb things people talking about 'existential crisis' are saying."
No, it isn't dumb; it is Epicurean solace. You should try it sometime. :)
Anyway, I suspect that the hope by some* about the sequester is that like a game of dominoes that it will lead to further cuts down the line; the notion is that you've got to start somewhere in other words. That's been my thought on the matter since I first heard about sequestration. That hypothesis is about to be tested.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, looking it up, to give just one example the Obama administration claims that sequestration will be "deeply destructive to national security," a claim that I don't buy for a minute. It could be deeply destructive of a certain concept of national security - namely the notion of the United States as world straddling enforcer of the international peace - but that is a different issue entirely.
*There are other motives by other groups of people I am sure.
"Nobody is unhappy about our fabulous wealth."
ReplyDeleteI think you should stop using the term "nobody." :)
Daniel, you really ought to take some measure of personal responsibility about the sequester. You say there are "idiots," but you more than anyone tolerate idiots as shown by your exchange, above, with the very low information troll, TLSB.
ReplyDeleteBy encouraging idiots you encourage idiocy.
Here is an excellent example of invincible ignorance. TLSB writes: Obama's statements that "sequestration will be "deeply destructive to national security," a claim that I don't buy for a minute. It could be deeply destructive of a certain concept of national security - namely the notion of the United States as world straddling enforcer of the international peace . . .
This statement could only be written by someone who has never attempted or succeeded at organizing volunteers as school crossing guards.
The unhappy fact is that the United States has no choice but to straddle the World and enforce international peace. If not us, Who? China? Russia? Any exit by us will only create a vacuum that will draw in others.
This statement says nothing about who, what, when, where, how, or why as to any particular. It is simply that neo-isolationism is the talk of idiocy.
The next 10 years is going to stress our national security, fiscally, in ways not seen since WWII. While maintaining a conventional army, navy, and air force, we are going to have to transition in two opposite directions: asymmetric and cyber/robotic. And, we must start planning for the day we loose or must replace our trump card, the nuclear submarine.
If you had wisdom, Daniel, you would be asking TLSB, in ten years, are we going to have more or fewer Islamic Extremist engaged in asymmetric warfare? In ten years, are we going to have any solutions to the three challenges to World Peace: (a) Wahhabism and the other extremes of Islam, to which more than 90% of Islam subscribes; (b) the battle between Shia and Sunni that Bush II stupidly unchained by invading Iraq; and (c) the continued preservation of Israel.
Consider only Iran. It is a nation of 75 million people at the other end of the World, and supply chain. Are we supposed to make policy on Iran with people on furlough? If we forcefully stop their nuclear program, how many acts of asymmetric warfare will Iran push outward? Do you want the Shia/Sunni conflict to become nuclear, with car bombs being replaced with tactical nuclear explosions? I could go on, but sequestration is idiocy. And, the biggest idiot was Obama, who, as is always the case, mis-estimated. He thought the penalties were enough to force the Republicans to bargain. How wrong he was.
You write, "The unhappy fact is that the United States has no choice but to straddle the World and enforce international peace. If not us, Who? China? Russia? Any exit by us will only create a vacuum that will draw in others."
DeleteIronically, this statement represents the emptiness that you suggest is in the arguments of others. The whole comment, in fact, is evidence of dis-attachment with a more sophisticated understanding of world changes -- yes, it's that naïve. (See, I can play this game too!)
Low information troll Finegold. The attendant reader will easy read that my comments are solid and you are the one playing games.
DeleteAll you do is play games. We all know that. But, it is nice for you to confirm such.
You seriously have nothing to offer. You have nothing to offer for you have never thought seriously about anything, wholly lacking the ability to do such.
Like all low information trolls your fundamental premise is a false one. Life is conflict. If we do not mind our own self interest, no one else is going to do such for us. Do you want to move to Isolation, leaving the world to China and Russia? That is a very simple question. If the answer is yes, to think such would work is naive.
If my premise is false, wherein or why?
Note, the premise says nothing about who, what, when, where, why, and how we should act or refrain from acting. The premise is just simple and straight forward: in a nuclear world, neo-isolationism is not option.
Similarly, in in a nuclear world, the madness of the impact of Sequestration on Defense is, per Daniel, idiotic. It makes no difference what mission you have for the DoD. Given the stakes, to expect to accomplish the Mission operating under conditions of Sequestration and furloughs is idiocy. Soldiers expect to be housed and feed, to have good dry boots and socks, etc. Moral Foundation and Morale are everything. The idea that Defense is so lacking moral support that is is subject to Sequestration gives me fundamentally doubts about Obama.
The public statements about military spending being a jobs bill sends the entirely wrong moral lesson to the World. What we spend on defense should be what is morally justified in defense of ourselves and Modernity, no more and no less. To say that we need military spending as a jobs bill is amoral, for it lets a target in Yemen claim they were a target so that Boeing workers would have nice cars.
A.H.
Finegold,
DeleteAs further evidence of the low information and word games of your trolls, I took a moment to click through to your web page where in turn you have a link to Don Boudraeux on import-led growth.
Talk about a word game.
First, four or false false scenarios are given.
Second, no attempt is made to explain why China and Germany, today, are performing as they are relative to the rest of the World
Third, no attempt is made to explain why America's best years were when we had export lead growth.
Last, by the logic of piece, GB, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Eastern Europe should be wildly successful, as none suffer from the disease of export lead growth, but again no attempt is made to explain "How's this Hope and Change working for you."
A.H.
Finegold,
Deleteyour duplicity has no bounds. Dan's loves great sentences.
On your blog you write this one, "A consistently successful military, therefore, has to institutionalize excellence."
Sequestration and furloughs are diametrically opposed to any institutionalized excellence, regardless of how one draws the Mission.
Troll away
A.H.
To quote Paul Kennedy:
Delete"The task facing American statesmen over the next decades, therefore, is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to 'manage' affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage."
The U.S. continues to do everything but that. Instead it (to quote Kennedy again), like past top powers, "allocates more and more of ... [its] ... resources into the military sector, which in turn squeezes out productive investment and, over time, leads to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes, deepening domestic splits over spending priorities, and a weakening capacity to bear the burdens of defense."
Today we award TLSB the Captain Obvious medal for useless trolling and a second medal for mendacity.
Delete1. It is obvious that if we don't manage well, we could become our own worst enemy. This is the very reason why this entire Sequestration episode is one of idiocy and why TLSB is an advocate for idiocy by his support for such. Sequestration and furloughs are no way to run a military, regardless of its mission.
Obama made a horrible strategic and tactical blunder by agreeing to letting the Military become hostage. People ought to be asking themselves, What have we become when our choices were between the incompetence of Jim Talent, Romney's foreign affairs dude, and Barrack Obama? And, what is worse is the Media giving Republicans a pass on taxes. The Speaker was all puffed up yesterday---not one cent in taxes to pay for the Military taking having one's cake and eating it too to heights never before witnessed.
2. Paul Kennedy, BTW, was completely wrong in his 1987 book. First, he thought Japan and Russia would replace us. Second, he wholly missed radical Islam. Third, his take on Grand Strategy entirely missed asymmetrical warfare, i.e., the post 9-11 World.
Finegold,
DeleteReally the only way to deal with a troll is to ignore the troll.
"low information troll"
DeleteOh, the irony ...
lulz
DeleteThere certainly was an existential crisis for the National Drug Intelligence Center. :P
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/white-house-report-claims-sequestration
It may be a bad idea, but the alternatives suggested generally aren't much better, and what is bad economically may not be so bad politically, especially over time.
ReplyDelete