Following the dubious lead of Rachel Maddow, the New York Times editorial page (when it's talking about federal and not state public finances), Michael Moore and countless others, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has embraced the "nu-uh" counter-argument to the cold hard fact that We Are Out of Money. "We're not broke," Dionne claims, bizarrely:
Yes, nearly all levels of government face fiscal problems because of the economic downturn. But there is no crisis. There are many different paths open to fixing public budgets. And we will come up with wiser and more sustainable solutions if we approach fiscal problems calmly, realizing that we're still a very rich country and that the wealthiest among us are doing exceptionally well.
There is no crisis. OK, let's take a quick tour around the allegedly crisis-free fiscal landscape:
* The town of Prichard, Alabama, population 27,000, has not been paying pensions to retired public employees for 18 months. Why? "The pension fund had been hemorrhaging money for years before it finally went broke in 2009." Note the word "broke."
* The bankrupt city of Vallejo, California, population 120,000, is choosing between canceling $45.9 million worth of public property leases and cutting $100 million in services and public sector payouts. Note the word "bankrupt."
* The most respected bipartisan chin-stroker in the deep blue state of California, the Little Hoover Commission, issued a report late last month [PDF] that began like this: "California's pension plans are dangerously underfunded, the result of overly generous benefit promises, wishful thinking and an unwillingness to plan prudently. Unless aggressive reforms are implemented now, the problem will get far worse, forcing counties and cities to severely reduce services and layoff employees to meet pension obligations." Note the word "dangerously."
* The president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, said last October that "we're facing an untenable fiscal situation." Note the word "untenable."
* Noted non-libertarian Ben Bernanke that same month issued this colossal buzz-harsh of a prognosis:
If current policy settings are maintained, and under reasonable assumptions about economic growth, the federal budget will be on an unsustainable path in coming years, with the ratio of federal debt held by the public to national income rising at an increasing pace. Moreover, as the national debt grows, so will the associated interest payments, which in turn will lead to further increases in projected deficits. Expectations of large and increasing deficits in the future could inhibit current household and business spending--for example, by reducing confidence in the longer-term prospects for the economy or by increasing uncertainty about future tax burdens and government spending--and thus restrain the recovery. Concerns about the government's long-run fiscal position may also constrain the flexibility of fiscal policy to respond to current economic conditions. [...]
Our fiscal challenges are especially daunting because they are mostly the product of powerful underlying trends, not short-term or temporary factors. Two of the most important driving forces are the aging of the U.S. population, the pace of which will intensify over the next couple of decades as the baby-boom generation retires, and rapidly rising health-care costs. [...]
[P]rojections by the CBO and others show future budget deficits and debts rising indefinitely, and at increasing rates.
Note "unsustainable," "increasing pace," "especially daunting," "powerful underlying trends," "will intensify," and on and on.
The headline on Dionne's fantasy is "What if we're not broke?" Which is a lot like saying, "What if there was a million-dollar bill in my pants?" Only it's much worse"“the consequences of this dream not coming true are truly terrible, at least as bad as Bernanke outlines above. And the defiant can-kicking by Democratic dead-enders is only tacking a premium onto our future pain.
Was Dionne attacking Obama's Republican predecessor for jacking up spending and deficits? You have to ask? Is alleged policy wonk Ezra Klein hi-fiving Dionne's dubious findings? Base your community on reality!
Nick Gillespie wrote in more detail about our broketasticness last week. Related Reason.tv content below.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Headlines with question marks are usually indicative of Pulitzer quality work.
So, "Is EJ Dionne the latest Fiscal Denialist?"
It sounds so much more open minded (i.e., intellectual) with the question mark...like there's a possibility that the answer could be yes, no or maybe.
F*cking Magnets...how do they work?
The electrons run north, the electrons run south....you can't explain that...
...and that the wealthiest among us are doing exceptionally well.
Dammit! Wealthy people are still wealthy!
What's really cool about this, from the "progressive" point of view, is that once you take away the wealthy peoples' wealth they won't be wealthy anymore; but those once called "middle class" will now be the wealthiest. And hence Evil. And hence next in line for the soaking.
Of course reality won't work that way, but that won't stop the "progressives" from dreaming and spanking that monkey.
Wealth is the best example of likely "and then they came for me" scenarios. Although at least you'll probably get out of it broke and alive.
Much the opposite of the least interesting person in the world.
Those bastards!
Therefore, we should defund Planned Parenthood and NPR. That will fix things.
Our budget issues are not intractable. Unless you are a slave to an ideology that refuses to entertain tax hikes, ever. Since most of the budget problems are Republican's fault, you'd think they'd be willing to give up some of their pet boondoggles, including their unjustified welfare checks for the rich.
Re: Tony,
And the NEA, and the Dept of Education, and the Dept of Energy, and Defense (except the Navy), and Social Security, and the FDA, and the EPA, and Medicare/Medicaid, and all welfare schemes, and all of the things that the Constitution does not allow in the first place.
Clearly, the constitution does allow those things, since they exist. Aren't you against government in principle? Why are you OK with a socialized Navy? If you're OK with that, what's wrong with the other programs? The constitution doesn't say what you think it does, as evidenced by reality.
Clearly, the constitution does allow those things, since they exist. Hardly. It's easy just to ignore it, or get Judges in place that will approve of whatever you want.
The constitution doesn't say what you think it does, as evidenced by reality. Sure, it can say anything you (Tony) and those who agree with you want it to say.
I don't think constitutional requirements are ever ignored in the legislative process or judicial review. But the constitution does say, in reality, what constitutional case law has determined it to say. There is no external reality to this. You might disagree with the interpretation, but it's not like the constitution is infallible holy writ whose eternal meaning is etched into the universe--it means whatever the interpretive branch says it means, end of story. For example, I have to acknowledge that the constitution allows for an individual right to bear arms, even though I don't think that interpretation is correct.
"...even though I don't think that interpretation is correct." But I thought there was no external reality to this. Sure, according to you, whatever interpretation the judiciary comes up with is the correct one?
The Constitution is not a living document.
You might disagree with the interpretation, but it's not like the constitution is infallible holy writ whose eternal meaning is etched into the universe--it means whatever the interpretive branch says it means, end of story. For example, I have to acknowledge that the constitution allows for an individual right to bear arms, even though I don't think that interpretation is correct.
That's absolutely asinine and Orwellian.
There is no power on Earth that can make "Congress shall make no law..." mean "Sometimes, Congress shall indeed make a law..."
Why you have capitulated your basic judgment as a human being so totally that you're willing to engage in that kind of doublethink?
It's kind of pathetic that you would come on here and talk about being a slave to ideology when you are such a slave to statism that you're willing to sacrifice logic and language itself to it.
To you, since it's necessary for statism for the Constitution to be an "unperson", it is. That's good enough for you.
"Congress shall make no law" is usually the easy part. It's the language that follows that usually needs interpretation in specific cases.
Re: Tony,
So indeed there is no need for a Constitution, as case law determines what is and what is not. That is what you're implying, in case you are not aware of it.
Read Full Article »