Really, if you want to govern halfway decently, all you have to do is ask yourself, "What would George W. Bush do?" and then do the opposite. So I can't beef too much about the Progressive States Network. Except when they're simplistic and Pollyannaish.
Simplistic, as when they tout state or regional "cap and trade" systems for controlling carbon dioxide emissions, without acknowledging why such programs need to be national and, probably, international -- namely, that it may be cheaper for CO2 emitters to move their emissions than to curtail them. (I should add that this willful blindness to Econ 101 when trying to "do something" is not unique to PSN.)
Pollyannaish, as when they do a drive-by on Illinois' trainwreck of a legislative session using the hilariously inappropriate headline, "Progress Amidst Conflict." Their summary gives equal space to a new law forbidding state pension funds from investing in companies associated with Sudan and to the transit situation (which account I quote in its entirety): "The legislature also failed to pass any fiscal relief for the ailing Chicago Transit Authority, causing likely fare hikes, layoffs, and service cuts." Progressives are better served by Oregon US Rep. Peter DeFazio's harsh words, front-paged by the Chicago Tribune: "The state and the governor are walking away from a minimal responsibility to maintain an existing system."
Showing 1-9 of 9
As we sit here with historic lows in unemployment and inflation, no terrorist attacks in 6 year, and a relatively working representative government, it is always astonishing to note that people dismiss George Bush as being all-wrong. Please, elect more people painted as all-wrong by the nitwit press, if that is the case. Harold you have any more mature views on a genuinely complex presidency, rather than joining the shreiking barrelheads at The Nation? JBP
This just in "The economy picked up speed in the summer, growing at a brisk 3.9 percent pace, the fastest in 1 1/2 years and an impressive performance even as a credit crunch plunged the housing market deeper into turmoil." We should do the opposite? Ridiculous. JBP
I assume those two replies were intended as satire, but fairness does require that we amend Harold's governing theory be now amended to, "What would Dubya or Blago do? Then do the opposite."
No Paul, I am in favor of low unemployment, low inflation, and no terrorist attacks. It is a small minority that actually want peace and prosperity, rather than partisan harping. JBP
Heh. Seriously, that's great material. Much funnier than Colbert.
John, you're too easy to bait. I put that line in, partly because it's true (Iraq, Katrina, torture, loss of American credibility worldwide...) but mainly so that you wouldn't notice anything else in the post.
HH, You crafty old devil. JBP
The economy seems to have lost its steam. Also, the S&P 500 is about the same as it was in 2000, within a percentage point or so. Where's this great economy? And, don't forget that the Bush administration changed the way unemployment is calculated early on. All you have to do is think about how easy it was to find a job under Clinton with 5.3% unemployment and then think how easy it is now, with the new "Bush" unemployment figures (4.7% as I write this and NOBODY is paying over $10/hr to hire entry level McDonald's workers, like they in 1999) If inflation is so low, why is the Fed watching it so closely. I need to see some data that shows inflation is low.
HH, Just read the comments from Moon to see why your "baiting" becomes dangerous in the minds of your readers. The Moon would have us believe that low unemployment and inflation are different under Bush than before Bush. Would be pretty hard to contradict that. A great number of people refuse to believe that a strong economy, by all measures is a strong economy, because that negates their partisan rhetoric. They would rather howl and bicker than actually look at what works to learn some sort of economic lesson. JBP
Comments (9) RSS