So often are the certitudes and pronouncements of the chattering class simply mistaken that they must always be treated with deep skepticism. That is especially true when anything important is at stake — from the arguments for invading Iraq several years ago to today’s economic stagnation. Whatever the conventional wisdom tells you must be true is almost certainly false.
The choral complaint emanating from every mainstream-media outlet — and the mouth of nearly every mainstream pundit — is that the federal government is spending too much and that the public will not stand for it anymore. “We must bring deficits under control!” they tell us. “The American people distrust government because spending is out of control!” they cry. Rick Santelli, the loudest mouth on the CNBC business cable channel and a revered figure in the tea party movement, put it most succinctly the other day when he screamed, “Stop spending!”
Cutting spending is not just bad economics; it’s bad politics, too.
Demands for the government to stop spending usually come with an asterisk and a footnote: stop spending on everyone except me. A self-styled conservative in Congress who supposedly hates spending will vote against extending unemployment benefits, then turn around and protect federal subsidies to wealthy corporate farmers. Other conservatives will fight against increased spending on mass transit, new schools or infrastructure, while promoting bloated weapons programs that the Pentagon doesn’t even want — because the contractor has donated to their campaign or operates a manufacturing plant in their districts. Cut spending, but don’t cut spending on my priorities, no matter how wasteful.
Even if hypocrisy were not so rampant, however, the demands to slash government spending at this stage in the economic recovery are profoundly in error. While one pundit after another warns of the risks of growing deficits, none of those potential risks is imminent. Instead, the nation and the world face the risk of a renewed recession, worse than the last — just as the country sank into recession again in 1937, following the first signs of growth after the Great Depression.
Corporate investment and consumer confidence aren’t nearly strong enough to provide the number of new jobs needed — and only when employment begins to move sharply upward will revenues begin to grow and deficits start to shrink.
Cutting spending is not just bad economics; it’s bad politics, too. The Obama administration’s stimulus spending last year was just enough to prevent the Great Recession from deepening into another depression, but not nearly enough to lift the country toward a broad and full recovery. Lacking the courage of their traditional convictions, the president and his Democratic majorities in Congress tried too hard to please the Republicans, the conservatives and the Washington press corps. Trimming the stimulus too much and refusing to push hard for a second round this year has made the Democrats look weak — and left too many working families in distress.
The noisy Santelli and the publicity surrounding the tea party movement have fostered the misleading notion that most Americans oppose spending to put the country back to work. In fact, as Michael Lind pointed out recently in Salon.com, the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that a substantial majority favor more spending rather than less. Published last month, that survey reported 60 percent support “additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy,” with fewer than 40 percent opposed.
For Democrats hoping to stem their expected midterm losses in November, that poll contained an important message. Fully 83 percent of Democratic voters and 52 percent of independents said that they support a second round of stimulus spending — while 61 percent of Republicans were opposed. The Republicans who favor more spending, nearly 40 percent, are most likely to be white working-class males who have lost their jobs or fear losing them. Why are Democrats in Congress and the White House missing the opportunity to motivate their own base, while appealing to independents and disaffected Republican workers?
They are listening too closely to the conventional wisdom, that’s why — and as always, it is leading them in the wrong direction.
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com).
Copyright 2010 Creators.com
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.