Sunday, January 03, 2010

The Party of No: Part II

There is a good article in the Washington Post today, detailing the quandary of California and how it may foreshadow a continuation and amplification of the nation’s financial crisis: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123103487_pf.html. As author Klein argues, underlying the financial problems is a profound political problem, the unwillingness of Republicans to collect necessary taxes to provide the social services the state needs. California has a unique problem in that the passage of Prop 13 in the 70s limits the ability of the state to raise property taxes, the major source of income in many states (along with sales taxes). This is underlined by a Republican party that believes we need tax cuts when times are good and tax cuts when times are bad. Klein thus poses the question, "What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?" The party of no has succeeded as never before at backing their political and economic ideology under the guise of the financial crisis. Funding for schools, roads, social services, universities, healthcare, retirement, policing and all those services that fall under the rubric of “quality of life” are being cut as states teeter on the edge of bankruptcy and financial ruin.

Too many Americans continue to believe the Reagan line that government is not the solution, but the problem. They believe that markets and individuals are better able to solve our social problems. But as Herbert Hoover all but proved in the late 20s and early 30s, counting on the kindness of corporate and non-profit strangers to serve the needs of the larger society does not always (or even generally) work. The profound crisis facing America requires the government to intervene in areas like economic regulation, healthcare, support for American manufacturing (see the article in Harper’s: www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/0082768), economic stimulation and support for those suffering through the crisis and a host of other problems that have only grown in the past few years. Republicans continue to claim that government can’t do anything and that it will only exacerbate the problem and destroy America. But what’s really destroying America? And can we really count on those doing the damage to suddenly reform themselves and change? Ultimately the question is whether obstructionism (a strategy first used very effectively by Newt in the 90s) is good for much more than winning elections (if even that anymore)? If I could place a bet, it would certainly be on the short side.

No comments: