Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate:

Troubled Ties: The Clintons and populism

What's behind the sudden outburst of populism in the Democratic Party?

Partly the weak economic recovery. Most economic indicators have turned positive -- economic growth is up, unemployment down, the housing market is in recovery. But ordinary Americans are not feeling it. In last month's CNN poll, two thirds of Americans said the nation's economy was poor. More than half expect it to remain poor a year from now.

People at the top of the income ladder have been raking in the money while wage growth for working Americans has stagnated. That's a recipe for a populist explosion.

Remember the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that started in 2011 and spread across the country? Most pundits don't believe it had any impact, especially compared with the Tea Party. They're wrong. In a stroke of marketing genius, the Occupy movement introduced the phrase “1 Percent” into the nation's political vocabulary. That's what defeated the Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. Romney was Mr. 1 Percent.

The Occupy movement won a big victory with the election of Bill de Blasio as mayor of New York in November. De Blasio's issue was the growing economic inequality that's painfully visible in New York City: gleaming new condominiums for the very rich alongside deep and increasing poverty.

from The Great Debate:

Democrats must overcome Clinton nostalgia

Photo

President Bill Clinton salutes supporters at a campaign rally Oct. 31, 1996. REUTERS/Archive. 

Democrats now delight in watching Republicans flounder as they try to free themselves from the failures of President George W. Bush and the extremes of the Tea Party. But the GOP’s tribulations should not blind Democrats to their own challenge. The party must free itself from the legacy of former President Bill Clinton and the centrism of his New Democrats.

from The Great Debate:

Can GOP blame Obama for the sequester?

Photo

More than 25 years ago, Representative Jack Kemp told me, “In the past, the left had a thesis: spending, redistribution of wealth and deficits. Republicans were the antithesis: spending is bad.”

He went on to explain, “Ronald Reagan represented a breakthrough for our party. We could talk about lower taxes and more growth. We didn't have to spend all our time preaching austerity and spending cuts. The question now is: Do we take our thesis and move it further, or do we revert to an anti-spending party?”

from The Edgy Optimist:

Obama sees the limits of government

Photo

President Barack Obama made the middle class the focus of his State of the Union address on Tuesday. He was lauded by some as fighting for jobs and opportunity, and even for launching a “war on inequality” equivalent to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1960s War on Poverty. He was assailed by others for showing his true colors as a man of big government and wealth redistribution.

Yet the initiatives Obama proposed are striking not for their sweep but for their limited scope. That reflects both pragmatism and realism: Not only is the age of big government really over, so is the age of government as the transformative force in American society. And that is all for the best.

from David Rohde:

Obama’s ‘war on inequality’

Photo

He quoted Jack Kennedy but sounded more like Lyndon Johnson.

In an audacious State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama made sweeping proposals to reduce poverty, revive the middle class and increase taxes on the “well off.” While careful to not declare it outright, an emboldened second-term president laid out an agenda that could be called a “war on inequality.”

“There are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead,” Obama declared in a blunt attack one a core conservative credo. “And that’s why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.”

from James Pethokoukis:

Six ways government helped cause the financial crisis

Market failure or government failure? The BigGov party is promoting the former narrative, but the latter is more accurate in explaining how government created incentives for disaster. Mark Perry and Robert Dell lay it all out. Here is a sampling, but I urge you to read the whole thing:

1. Bank misregulation, in particular the international Basel capital rules, including a U.S. adaptation to them—the 2001 Recourse Rule—and the outsourcing of risk assessment by regulators to government-sanctioned rating agencies incentivized (not merely “allowed”) the creation and highly-leveraged systemic accumulation of the highest yielding AAA- and AA-rated securities among banks globally.

from James Pethokoukis:

The new Era of Big Government … is not popular

I think this Gallup chart is pretty stunning, especially when higher economic insecurity was supposed to push Americans toward a greater embrace of government. And it did for a bit, but that effect has more than reversed itself:

gallup

from James Pethokoukis:

Will Washington bail out the MSM with an iPad tax?

This is actually quite astonishing. A "staff discussion draft" from the Federal Trade Commission recommends ways the government can save journalism.  First, it lists a number of ways Washington can subsidize the media (to the tune of $35 billion a year):

-- Establish a “journalism” division of AmeriCorps.

-- Increase funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

-- Establish a National Fund for Local News.

-- Provide a tax credit to news organizations for every journalist they employ.

-- Establish Citizenship News Vouchers (lets you direct money from tax return).

And here is where the money would come from, which I will quote directly:

Tax on broadcast spectrum. They argue “commercial radio and television broadcasters are given monopoly rights to extremely lucrative spectrum at no charge,” and this is a massive public subsidy. They therefore suggest the revenues generated by that spectrum be taxed at a rate of 7 percent, which should result in a fund of between $3 and $6 billion. In exchange, commercial broadcasters would be relieved of any obligations to engage in “public-interest programming,” which the broadcasters claim costs them $10 billion annually.

from James Pethokoukis:

Big Government and the Big Split

The WSJ nicely sums up 2008:

To prevent crumbling housing and credit markets from sinking the broad economy, the Bush and Obama administrations and the Federal Reserve spent, lent and invested more than $2 trillion on one initiative after another. If you owned a credit card or a money-market fund, had a savings account, bought a Dodge pickup or even a hunting rifle, or borrowed to buy a home or finance a small business, odds are good that the U.S. stood behind you or the firm that served you.

Washington pumped $245 billion into nearly 700 banks and insurance companies and guaranteed almost $350 billion of bank debt. It made short-term loans of more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies. It propped up life insurers and money-market funds.

from James Pethokoukis:

Tracking the ‘Nanny State’ deficit

From Ed Yardeni:

Meanwhile, the “Nanny State Deficit” soared to a record $740.9bn (saar). It is simply the gap between the social benefits provided by the government minus the payroll taxes paid by employees and employers to pay for them. This deficit was close to zero at the start of 2001, the start of the data in the monthly personal income release. Such benefits were equivalent to 34.1% of wages and salaries in May. That’s a record high and well above readings of 10% before the start of the Great Society in the mid-1960s.

  •