. . . Forever Will It Dominate Your Destiny
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Darth Cheney | Deficit Spending | Democrats | Economy | Republicans — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Remember the scene in The Empire Strikes Back when Luke Skywalker ventured into the Dark Side Cave on Dagobah, encountered Vader, decapitated him in a lightsaber fight and then found his own visage contained in the helmet? It was a lesson designed to teach the young Jedi apprentice that he too could be seduced by the dark side of the Force and become the very thing he hated.
Coincidentally, let us recall that Hillary Clinton recently compared Vice President Cheney to Vader.
Consider the above points. And now . . . ahem:
If our Washington, D.C., readers noticed a cortege of blue suits carrying a casket in front of the Brookings Institution last week, be not mournful. You were merely watching the leading economists of the Democratic Party burying the faith once known as Rubinomics. May it rest in peace.
Read on . . .
Rubinomics is the concept of "deficit reduction" as growth policy: Lower the federal budget deficit and, as dawn follows night, interest rates will fall and prosperity will break upon the land. Named for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and much celebrated in the 1990s, the concept was embraced as gospel by nearly all Democrats as recently as a few weeks ago. But last week it officially expired, as those same Democrats reconverted to Keynesian deficit spending in the name of "economic stimulus."
Mr. Rubin's successor at Treasury, Larry Summers, started the bidding with a $65 billion tax rebate and spending plan. Hillary Clinton saw that and raised, and now wants $40 billion in tax rebates and $70 billion in new spending for unemployment insurance, housing assistance, home heating subsidies and green technologies. Barack Obama joined the fray Sunday, proposing a $75 billion "stimulus" that would have the government send millions of Americans a check for $250, plus another $250 in bonus Social Security payments.
But wait, what about those evil Bush deficits? Only weeks ago, Democrats claimed those were the road to perdition, even if the deficit had shrunk to 1.2% of GDP last year thanks to booming revenue growth. Remember the imperative of "pay as you go" budgeting? Ah, that was all before Iraq faded as a political winner and the economy became their favorite issue for regaining the White House. Now, all of a sudden, their motto is tax cut and spend.
"Stimulus shouldn't be paid for," declared Mrs. Clinton on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The stimulus, by the very nature of the economic problems we're facing, is going to require an injection of federal funding." And no less than the oracle himself, Mr. Rubin, appeared at Brookings last week to declare that a deficit-padding stimulus "can give the economy a timely boost in the face of great uncertainty and concern with the short-term economic outlook." The coroner will note that the cause of death here is suicide.
Now, I happen to think that deficits do matter since (a) spending more than we have is a sure way to increase the size of government and (b) it is morally wrong for us to egregiously outspend our current reserves. That having been written, I can't help but have fun with this. As the last sentence of the article states, Democrats now believe--as Dick Cheney allegedly did/does--that deficits don't matter. How long before Hillary Clinton sports a lightsaber with a bloodshine color?
. . . Forever Will It Dominate Your Destiny 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Yeah. I can honestly say that I don't get any of the SW references, myself, having never seen one of the movies. I guess I was just too old for it when it came out (I was 14 in 1976) and always figured it had to be for kids younger than I was. I suppose that if there were at least an attractive female lead, my teen-age boy self might have been persuaded, but alas on that score as well. Also, as those as old or older than me will remember, SW was the movie that gave us what you could call 'modern levels of hype'. You know, the toys in every Burger King, the references in everything, everywhere, regardless of how unrelated, the t-shirts, freaking *pencils* with 'Star Wars' stamped on them, and so on. I was dead tired of it a week after it came out, and I hadn't even seen it.
I have to add that this was not an attitude I was inclined towards, generally. I was by no means a slouch as a consumer of pop culture as a 14 year old. But Star Wars was the first thing that ever pegged my "Nope. Just NO... I'll be damned" -meter.
Each to his own and all that, I suppose, but Star Wars, ....nope; never got it.
I thought he got taken out with the trash at Citigroup. Chuck Prince was his protege, among other things.
One point about the Star Wars quote. It's a good quote, but...
Yoda was obviously wrong, because at the last minute, after going down the dark side for twenty-something years, Vader/Anakin turned back to the good side of the force. Therefore, it will NOT forever dominate your destiny. Yoda had grown too pessimistic in his old age.
Anyhow, just thought I'd mention that.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Dubious and morally ambivalent as he became, he was still someone special, in contrast to the previous millennium of Sith
initiates, as one who brought balance to the Force through his progeny (and not accidentally in the form of fraternal twins).
I don't know if this is a good segue or a threadjack, but I've pondered missed opportunity on Obama's part. Not only has he reserved comment on the current state of affairs in his father's homeland of Kenya, he's also avoided any dialog about his father's journey from Muslim to apostate. I guess it doesn't help that his own pastor is such a crackpot; he could really do some good for both the national and the international conversation if he'd open up about these things.
I must say, I would really like to shake your hand someday. It is truly a treat to read your posts (even though I may not always understand everything you say...I barely survived ECON in college). Please continue to bring us outstanding commentary. Thanks. [Damn. A one word sentence.]
I have to laugh at this. I've never been a fan of Bob Rubin, but OTOH I wasn't paying that much attention to him during the Clinton Administration, other than to notice that when he did speak, I usually didn't agree.
As Rubinomics is described, the concept behind it is obvious. As noted, "Lower the federal budget deficit and, as dawn follows night, interest rates will fall and prosperity will break upon the land." OK, makes sense, decrease government borrowing demand on the money supply and interest rates will fall, all else being equal. All else being equal. As the WSJ pointed out, all else is not equal and a deficit within bounds is insignificant. Heck, a deficit out-of-bounds doesn't change much in the short run.
What's funny is that the Democrats are now very quick to abandon Rubinomics, and apparently so is Rubin. So Hillary is back to priming the pump with big spending programs, but she wants to raise tax rates at the same time. The result would be lower tax revenues, bigger deficits, higher interest rates and possibly stagflation.
And it seems that Rubin is with her on this. Tell me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Robert Rubin supposed to be our smartest/best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton? How can he be so smart and so wrong at the same time?
Reaganomics, however, is eternal. Cut tax rates, lower spending, reduce deficits until they are eliminated, let the people keep more of their own money, interest rates remain low and go lower, and we are now talking a thriving economy. Sorry. I couldn't help myself.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I once had lunch with Larry Summers and he told me the reason he's a Democrat (though a conservative one, he claimed) is because he thinks they "fight for the little guy." Clearly, with these stimulus proposals they're no longer fighting for the little guy, since they're the ones who will be hurt most by the increased deficit, higher future taxes, and expansion of government dependency. If you haven't already, read Amity Shlae's book "The Forgotten Man"-- it gives a great (and depressing--pun intended) history of what FDR's Keynesian policies did for the "little guy" and America in general.
if you take money out of the economy and then distribute it as you wish, while helping the revered little guy, the economy will improve.
If you leave the money in the economy in the first place things will only get worse. It's all clear to me now.
Doubtless people who think like this are destined to rule the country, and the schmucks who believe them. To paraphrase, it is breaking the pump and priming the people for worse yet to come.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The problem is we're picking on the wrong party.
Take Vader's words and put in the mouth of our favorite Democratic presidential nominee, and tell me they don't fit.
"You can dispense with the pleasantries, Commander Petraeus, I'm here to put you back on schedule."
I'm going to shamelessly pimp here - because I'm a Star Wars fan, and made a video of Hillary doing her best Vader impressions.
http://www.24thstate.com/2007/09/who-is-the-real.html
While it's silly to use movies to discuss real events, it's always fun to turn a politician's words against her.
Is that I've alwasys thought the Dark Side of the Force to be cooler, and Lord Vader is my all time favorite. To which I must say I find your lack of faith...disturbing.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Rather than just let us keep our own money by reducing taxes (and one could argue here that reducing taxes on middle income earners would re-enter the economy faster than tax reductions to the wealthier), the Democrats would much prefer they be the ones to decide to whom these stimulus funds should go. typical..
I just have to, Pejman, and it's nothing against you, because I read your posts daily and I enjoy them and I've profited from them, but one of the things I would add to absentee's list -- now and in the future -- is the use of any Star Wars saga metaphors to describe anything in Republican/Conservative politics. They were overused in 1982 and they're even more beaten-to-death now. It's gotten so bad that the movies are unwatchable to me at this point. We've politicized them even more than they deliberately politicized themselves.
I really think we should just stop using the series as a reference point for anything. As absentee wrote, the Star Wars parallel is...