Wednesday, March 30, 2011

IS ADVOCATING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR FOR AMERICA REALLY EXTREMISM?

“Republicans’ decisions to abandon the three-week proposal negotiated by their own party’s leadership suggests that Tea Party lawmakers are unwilling to accept anything short of the extreme cuts in the House budget, even if it risks a shutdown. This is a bad omen that shows how difficult it will be for Speaker Boehner to bring the Tea Party along for any long-term compromise.”
--U.S. Senator Charles Schumer

Schumer's view may appeal to the "Liberal Elite", the "X generation" and the "victim culture"; however, it flies in the face of  the emerging neoliberal philosophy which defines the Tea Party movement and is gaining significant momentum within the Millennium generation (the young folks who will ultimately be saddled with this ever mounting reckless National debt).
Neoliberalism supports a fiscal policy which precludes governments from running large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens.  They believe that constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and therefore must be avoided.

Neoliberalists emphasize the efficiency of the private sector and the promotion of free trade in determining the political and economic priorities of the state. The premise being that when America's economic driving force is transferred from the public to the private sector; our government will become more efficient and the economic health of our nation will be restored.

John Williamson's, "Washington Consensus",  provides a ten (10) point list of Neoliberal policy proposals which has garnered support from Washington-based international economic organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank:
   1. "Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can only have a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes;"
   2. "Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies") and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment--with the common sense caveat that responsible behavior is not only encouraged but rewarded and irresponsible behavior is met with appropriate consequences;"
   3. "Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;"
   4. "Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;"
   5. "Floating exchange rates;"
   6. "Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth;"
   7."Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country with parity;"
   8."Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition;"
   9."Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;"
   10. "Legal security for property rights and financialisation of capital that preclude politically correct government mandates which led to the housing crisis/meltdown".

Even Chicago University's School of Economics in Obama's quasi-hometown, emphasizes non-intervention from government and rejects regulation in laissez-faire free markets as inefficient. 
The school rejects Keynesianism in favor of rational expectations and has impacted the field of finance by the development of the efficient market hypothesis which stresses "positive economics"– that is, empirically based studies using statistics to prove theory.

NOTE: The University of Chicago economic department is widely considered one of the world’s foremost economics departments and has fielded more Nobel Prize winners (Obama's Nobel desecration notwithstanding) and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university.

So, Senator Schumer, should we simply deplete the blood bank while ignoring the arterial bleed; or is it FINALLY time to apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding?
If we, as a people,  persist in confusing a lynching with the proper application of a tournaquet; America will indeed be hung to her death..................and in very short order.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Are you dim? The Teabaggers are neonazis and haters not neoliberals.