A Creeping Concern
31 January 2010As I have watched the first year of the current administration unfold, I have increasingly wondered if all of this, at a thirty thousand foot level, is a result of a simple GOP plan first outed long ago, and spoken of frequently during the Bush Era. Called “starve the beast,” it is a much-discussed strategy of spending the US into oblivion while in power, so that the following party has no dry ammunition with which to carry out its programs. Carried further, it suggests a gluttony of spending while in power, so that services, and the government itself, is forced into contraction.
The last administration spent more money from current funds, and indebted us more deeply into the future, than any in history. Was it all just bad management and fake wars? Or was it as intellectually simple and negative as the current GOP refusal to vote for any single bill? It’s a simple strategy. Did it work?
4 Responses to “A Creeping Concern”
February 1st, 2010 at 12:11 am
Of course that was one of the points of the out-of-control, off-budget spending.
Not only did we enrich the military-industrial complex, we tied the hands of the Democratic congress and presidency that everyone knew was coming.
A number of bloggers have been saying this for a while. But as usual, this doesn’t get to be part of the mainstream discussion.
Clearly, Mark, you are a conspiracy theorist.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Can we handle the truth? by Steve Randy Waldman
Both globally and within most nations, the patterns of consumption required to sustain existing social arrangements are inconsistent with the distribution of the fruits of production. Social and economic stability, therefore, depend upon redistribution for which there is no overt legal framework or political consensus. To square this circle, the financial and government sectors have evolved means of hiding redistribution in complex, continually improvised arrangements. Unsurprisingly, massive wealth distributions arranged in this way leave much to be desired, in terms of straight corruption (the financial and government sectors redistribute a lot of wealth to themselves), justice (e.g. wealth is redistributed to those who happen to speculate early in bubbles), and sustainability (the illusion of value behind the claims of those from whom wealth is taken may prove fragile, but “loss realizations” are socially disruptive if they are not carefully paced and allocated).
read more: http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/548.html
February 17th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Deficit Hawks Want New (or double dip) Recession
By Barry Ritholtz – February 17th, 2010,
One of the oddest things to come out of the entire credit crisis, recession and muddling recovery has been the sudden re-emergence of deficit hawks.
While a few honest deficit hawks are out there — the Peterson Institute is a good example of a group looking at long term structural issues, not immediate fiscal concerns — the vast majority of born again fiscal hawks are political hypocrites. They voted for all manner of budget busting programs — unfunded tax cuts, new entitlement programs (i.e., prescription drugs), an expensive war of choice (Iraq).
How is it that they only learned of the evils of deficits after they lose power? How very convenient.
http://bit.ly/bJNAta
February 17th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Think Spring 2009…’
…and substitute “sovereigns” for “banks.”
Quote:
We believe it is inevitable that countries struggling with falling receipts and large debt loads will seek a solution that punishes their creditors, rather than their population, particularly if the debt is held externally. Like the U.S. banking system, we are pessimistic on the earnings outlook; but, when governments signal “don’t be short credit” and they are credible, our inclination is to not be short credit.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/02/17/151246/think-spring-2009/