A Federal Case
If it weren't that the issues are rather serious, as are their implications, one could almost chortle with a gleeful sense of schadenfreude at the way some Republicans are revealing so clearly that their sanctimonious rhetoric is just so much hot air.
This past week, against the backdrop of the attempted emotional exploitation in the Terri Schaivo affair, we've seen that the party of liberty and restricted government are happy to toss "sanctity of marriage" and "state's rights" to the wind and — literally! — make a federal case of it. In fact, I was quite pleased to understand the "make a federal case of it" platitude so clearly at last, although I could have done without the actual federal case.
The next to fall is one that's been irritating for longer than we remember: the anti-social experimentation argument. You may recall from the previous election (seems so far away already) that gay marriage (it was claimed) should not be rushed into because marriage as an institution was just too important and fragile to be the laboratory for "social experimentation".
But I can remember now that the argument was key to those who could not abide the idea of gay people serving their country in the US military: the military was too important an institution to allow it to be a laboratory for "social experimentation".
Nathaniel Frank ("Bush Team Theme — 'We Were All Wrong'"), while discussing this curious phenomenon of TeamBush inviting everyone under the big tent when it comes time to admit a mistake ("Welp, I guess we were all wrong on that one!"), mentions this:
Indeed, Democrats have been saying for years that there is too little evidence to justify trickle-down economics — the theory that cutting taxes for those who earn the most would encourage business investment, thereby increasing both jobs and tax revenue. Bush's unprecedented tax cuts have produced the notorious "jobless recovery" and historic budget deficits. Yet Greenspan says he'd do it all again.
Now, if something like "traditional" marriage is so delicate that it should be protected against "social experimentation" (from a "threat" that would really have no effect on "traditional" marriages), you'd think that the entire US economy might be an important enough institution that, gosh, maybe it shouldn't be the laboratory for untried "social experimentation"?
Evidently not, as we've seen. The economy is something that everyone has an interest in, something that affects every citizen, and yet Republicans have continued their claims that we must continue cutting taxes — if only we'd do it enough, revenues will sky rocket! One thinks of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and that football.
If ever there were a persistently stupid idea that should not be forced upon all of America as a "social experiment", that should be it. But, but….
Not that I want to make a federal case of it.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 25 March 2005 at 00.13
Permalink
Trickle-down economics was tried in the Reagan years and proved to be an unmitigated disaster. A Reagan administration insider and economic advisor, David Stockman, famously wrote that it was really a smoke-and-mirrors gambit in a tell-all Atlantic Monthly article. That bit of candor earned him the undying enmity of hardcore Reaganites to this day.
There is exactly one situation where trickle down might do some good. That is if taxes were so high, inflation was so chronic and high, and the economy was so sluggish about growth for an extended period that people were buying, say, Iraqi government bonds in preference to making investments in U.S. securities. We've seen such a situation during a particular time in our history. It came about because of particular circumstances.
That was more than two decades ago and we've not seen anything like it since, nor are we likely to anytime soon. Not only is there no shortage of working capital, there's been a glut of working capital for nearly 20 years. Where from? Largely, from baby boomers looking ahead to retirement who pumped billions into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate, etc.
What that led to, in part, were the gross excesses of the recent "tech bubble," wherein twentysomething coders with less than 18 months at a company were being treated to new BMWs, fitness club memberships, fancy catered brunches and generous stock options. Meanwhile, companies that had never earned a dollar were leasing fancy buildings, buying costly image-building advertising and trying to one-up the "competition" by throwing money around.
We need to stimulate more of that like we need to bring on a flu epidemic.
Bush and his economic team are absolute proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
on Friday, 25 March 2005 at 00.21
Permalink
Additionally, trickle down isn't really a social experiment. It's voodoo economics.
I don't see making the option of marriage-like civil unions available to gays and lesbians as much of an experiment. Except for gender, I expect the uniting gays and lesbians would conduct themselves pretty much like everyone else.
I've yet to hear a coherent explanation of how and why gay unions threaten heterosexual marriages. The whole supposed controversy strikes me as one Big Enchilada of a wedge issue for right-wing Republicans to exploit their so very exploitable "base" with.