Hillary Clinton Doesn't Listen to Economists
When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”
That’s the problem: Politics as usual.
The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.
In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
I know several of the economists who have been advising Senator Clinton, so I phoned them right after I heard this. I reached two of them. One hadn’t heard her remark and said he couldn’t believe she’d say it. The other had heard it and shrugged it off as “politics as usual.”
That’s the problem: Politics as usual.
The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.
In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.
Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?
posted by Robert Reich | 11:20 AM
158 Comments:
Amen. It would be great to have a President who had the courage to use his brains, and who got help from experts.
Dr. Reich:
As a learned, scholarly gentleman it is not surprising that you find politics abhorrent. I don't know of many "common" folks who find it enjoyable. Most of us do understand it.
Yes, it's pandering; it's talking down to the public; it could be viewed as trashing the intelligence of the average voter. But it could also be a small glimmer of an example that someone cares; that someone is willing to posit even "dumb" ideas to make a difference to the little people.
Both Hillary and McCain know it ain't gonna happen, so it is false hope, but it does resonate. If it gets a few votes that is the name of the game, especially for the candidate running behind.
You have written much of your desire for a change in political dialogue. There is not enough room in your corner for all of us who would share that desire. Ain't gonna happen because one man comes along preaching about it. Even if that man has the backing of a legion of supporters. It is a change that could be effected over time but it will take a number of politicians speaking the word rather than a number of academics along with, pardon the expression, a bunch of other elitists.
I have written much on your blog about the need to create new legislation immediately by an incoming administration and Congress. Changing the dialogue and attempting a reasoned consensus will eat up valuable time and energy and impede getting important things done. Best case may be inane compromise legislation that will create more problems than it solves.
Already we have Senators and others blowing the trumpet about universal health care not happening in the first year or two of a new administration. Many experts feel that if it doesn't happen in the first two years, or some feel the first year, that it is dead at least until the 2012 elections.
The naysayers state the problem is funding not necessarily the votes if a strongly controlled Democratic new Congress. It is highly unlikely that the Bush tax cuts will be reversed with only a year or so to go. The politically expedient thing will be to let them run out after 2010. This will mitigate some of the tax and spend rhetoric that you know will intensify.
As far as Hillary's economist derision: Face it, economists are not high on the pecking order of the common man, her immediate constituency. To most of the little people economists are elitists who have no idea of their concerns and problems. We know that this is not true but as you know, in politics, perception is reality. The bulk of the well educated and the academics will all understand that her statement was just politics. You know that but you make it an issue on your blog. Are you not indulging in some of your own pandering?
I can appreciate your support of Obama. I have no problem with it. But engaging in the same sort of political speak that you suggest is abhorrent comes across as somewhat disingenuous.
Neither does Bush or McBush... And this country doesn't need four more years of old-fart politics.
Dr. Reich:
I forgot, one other question. I know relying on short term polls appears a poor governing methodology but we keep hearing the cry of a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people". Now how exactly do "we, the people" let our elected folks know what it is we desire? Are our desires remanded to only the periodic election cycles? Do we have no vehicle available in the interim?
I do realize there can be problems with who is doing the polling and how questions are framed; maybe a government polling agency should be formed. Emails and phone calls seem to have some impact but they also tend to represent the activist group and may not be representative of the entire populace. I don't have an answer but have always found the hue and cry over politicians reacting to polling as somewhat of a red herring.
What's even worse is that Hillary Clinton when pressed to name a single economist who supported the notion of a gas tax holiday retorted that she didn't care too much for elite opinion. That the Bush administration had showed us how disastrous elite opinion can be.
1. The problem with the Bush administration is that it didn't listen to "elite" (aka expert) opinion.
2. That sounds like a Republican talking point ... the sort of thing George W. Bush would say to dismiss criticism.
Mr. Reich,
This is called politics and it is what wins elections so you can actually make real changes that benefit people...Of course, this is what inspired you to famously leave the Bill Clinton administration. And, yet, for all its problems, the Clinton Administration did make real improvements for real people, the very people you want to help...Yes, sometimes politics is ugly, but until proven otherwise (see Dukakis, Bill Bradley, Al Gore, etc., etc.), hardball politics is the only way elections are won...
It's nice to have a politician who will ignore the will of the populace, for sound reasoning. However, in this Supercapitalistic society in which we currently live, it's unimaginable to have a politician who will ignore the will of corporate America.
There's a good video on YouTube about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbfa2WJuqc0
There you go Dr. Reich, with your "elite opinion." You, with your books , degrees, and both job and life experience -- you gotta go with your gut! You know, that same gut that says to vote for a war without reading intelligence reports.
Dear Professor Reich and art a layman,
Couldn't agree more, Professor Reich. Obama's choice not to support this idiotic policy speaks a million words about his character.
However, the very fact that voters are so easily swayed by irrational propositions, thinking that it will serve them because some presidential nominee told them so (who will say anything to get votes, and in a manner that much contemporary marketing and psychological literature claims to be effective) speaks about much of the voting blocks behavior. Thats why I wouldn't take it so far as to say that there indeed IS a new politics. It is slowly changing, and we can only hope that peoples efforts (such as yours and many others) continue to bring changes. And it would be INCREDIBLY FOOLISH to ignore the progress that is so evident in this election (albeit, it does have its limits).
thats why, art a layman, when you state that it "ain't gonna happen because one man comes along preaching about...even if that man has the backing of a legion of supporters", i can't help but wonder whether you may not be as "learned" and "scholarly" as you think. many of the freedoms we enjoy today is because ordinary people got together, organized movements, and demanded that their freedoms shouldn't be taken for granted. if youre willing to concede this truth, perhaps you may realize how retarded your phrase is.
and not only the one i quoted, but much more so, what you end with in your entry. its one thing to disagree with Professor Reich, as I'm sure he welcomes, because at the end of the day he's an intellectual, and debate comes with the territory. But to make accusations of "pandering", and being "disingenuous"? Are you fu$ken kidding me? Professor Reich was simply writing about the most recent ridiculous tactic by McCain and HRC; why on earth would any "scholarly" person be offended by that? Where the hell is your evidence that Professor Reich is "pandering", because theres none in your blog entry, and I can't for the life of me note an example where he wasn't being genuine?
aly k
It amazes me that for years now we Liberals/Democrats have been longing for a new type of political discourse in this country which is honest and rational, and yet we still get Democratic candidates who continue to play the same old political games. I'm not saying that Obama is going to be our savior, but the fact that Clinton insists on sticking with this ridiculous gas holiday is really disappointing. And what I find even more disappointing is that a lot of Democrats are falling for it.
For as much as anyone defends this idea by saying it's (gulp) good politics, I don't even think it's that. There's a reason why Hillary's ads don't tell people how little she'd actually be saving them (assuming it saves them anything), and there's a reason why Americans hate George W. so much: Because the truth is that Americans aren't nearly as stupid as Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Hillary think they are. Sure, everyone wants to save money, but it's obvious that people also want a functioning government and are willing to pay for it. Once upon a time, responsible government was part of Hillary's sales pitch and she posed as the big wonk. But now that zero-hour is upon her and the game is almost over, she's promising us ponies in every garage; paid for by the evil oil companies.
Hillary wants to keep people in the dark because it's the only way they'll continue to support her, and even her more intelligent supporters have to toss their credibility out the window to even offer a halfway rationalization for her absurd "tax holiday." There's a reason why low-information voters prefer Hillary, and she wants to keep them that way. She thinks we're all idiots and her supporters can't think to do anything but thank her for it and ask for more.
Dr. Reich,
Your observations are spot on. One of the single most pressing issues facing the country over the next 4 years will be the stagnant or declining global oil supply. The fact that Hillary Clinton is willing to pander on this issue clearly demonstrates that she is not serious about addressing this problem head-on. The fact that she is willing to dismiss the entire field of economics as elitists in order to support her pandering is even more troubling.
Here is a good story where the author is unable to find a single expert anywhere who will support the idea of a gas tax holiday.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/84237/
I’m not saying HRC is George Bush.
I'll say it, then. From her Rovian campaigning to her stance on this issue to her denial of reality regarding the delegate count - especially her recent statement, 'if only the Democrats nominated a candidate the way the Republicans do' - she has proven she is just another Republican-lite in Democratic clothing.
Art A. Layman (a pseudonym I presume), it sure takes a Bush-league reality distortion field to consider this kind of pandering to be a positive for Hillary. This nation is going to face a tough row to hoe the next several years and we are going to need real leadership, not pandering for short-term gain.
I've been lukewarm on Obama until now; his stance on this issue has given me hope he can lend the kind of leadership this country is desperately going to need as we begin to clean up Bush/Cheney's messes.
Why listen to economists when you can get FREE STUFF??!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhUpiASBOU
I blundered on to your blog almost by accident and was stunned to see your masthead reference to being the "22nd Secy of Labor." Considering your endless Clinton bashing, I find that a bit much. Regarding your position on the gas tax suspension, didn't the people of Massachusetts indicate quite clearly what they thought of your political views (as in, don't call us; we'll call you)the one time you submitted your ideas to the electorate (as opposed to being appointed by friends)?
well here come the Clinton trolls, with their Karl Rove/Fox News-style ad hominem smear-the-messenger attacks in place of, you know, debating the issue at hand using facts.
I'm starting to feel sorry for ever having defended Hillary W. Clinton against the right-wing slime machine attacks on her.
I have no problem with any politician voicing their disagreement with "expert opinions", so long as they then explain clearly and specifically WHY they disagree. In this case, I simply would like to hear Hillary explain where she thinks economists err in saying that a tax holiday would likely result in higher prices and why it's a good thing to drain 9 billion from funds needed for road and bridge maintenance. If her aim is to put another $30-$70 in people's pockets over the summer, wouldn't it be easier to just go the Bush route and send everyone a check? And why favor people who drive a lot?
I don't know, Rynato. Charles Nau does make a good point when he mentions that it's "a bit much" that Reich's masthead says he was "22nd Secretary of Labor," yet speaks ill of Hillary. And seeing as how Reich didn't get to be Governor of MA pretty much refutes anything he has to say about anything. I'm convinced.
I'm not sure what this "ad hominem" you speak of is, but if it means that somebody loses the right to state their opinions based upon their personal imperfections, that sounds good to me. As Jesus once said, "Let he who is without sin tell the rest of us what to believe, and everyone else is a sucker MC who needs to step off." That may be a paraphrase, but that was the general gist of it.
So until Reich can prove that his poop doesn't stink, he has no credibility on anything and nobody even needs to explain why he's wrong. That's just how it works.
Paging Paul Krugman...
Now that Hillary is sounding just like Bush, and dismissing (economic) reality when it clashes with political expediency, will we finally hear some real criticism of her from Mr. K?
Mr. Reich, has anyone actually done research/modeling to show how a gas tax holiday "increases" consumption during a recession and an ongoing credit crunch?
Can you cite a single study that has shown this? Or are you simply offering a "political" interpretation favorable to Obama.
You were also against the Welfare Reform bill that Bill Clinton signed. And according to your learned opinion, it would cause great distress to the poor. Well you were dead wrong, and I am glad Bill Clinton didn't listen to you.
A gas tax holiday would save truckers, deliverymen, etc. a lot of money and help them adjust to the shock of a new high gas environment.
"We draw our economic lessons from our politicians only at our peril."
-- Joseph E. Stiglitz
Oh, go lock yourself back in your cabinet.
Dr. Reich,
Hillary Clinton's pandering, arrogant, "know it all" posture is disgraceful, disappointing, and deeply embarrassing. With every day that goes by in this campaign she stoops lower and lower, as does her husband. The idea of these 2 shameless, self-absorbed, power hungry, amoral individuals again holding the reins of the presidency is simply terrifying. How is it possible, I ask myself, anyone is willing to support her candidacy after hearing her talking about obliterating Iran? painting all economists who disagree with her regarding the gas tax moratorium as elitists? Who is she talking to?
As her constituent and her contemporary I am deeply embarrassed she represents the state of New York. I will never again consider voting for her for any public office. When I think my family represents, throughout the years, 16 votes for the Clintons, I ask myself how is it possible.
When we have such an extraordinary candidate in Senator Obama who offers us the once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for what promises to be a truly life changing great presidency, the possibility that we might be robbed of this chance, plunges me into deep despair. Watching him on Meet the Press today should have again convinced everyone he is in a class all by himself. It is not only a question of a brilliant analytical mind, eloquence, depth of knowledge but of character. Senator Obama's composure, temperament, transparency are truly something to behold.
Hardball politics is OK if it helps good people like the Clintons get into power? Is that it Mr. Art? I remember the fear and lies that Bill Clinton spread about Paul Tsongas in Florida in '92. It worked! Perhaps Prof. Reich remembers that one. And look what we got? Some good. Some bad. And no real change.
It's time for a change. Art is probably right that it won't happen. But if you don't try you're wasting brain cells following politics.
Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics? Beats me.
Let's not forget that while the Hillary gas tax plan won't save the consumer any money, it won't cost a lot of revenue either, since she combines it with an extra tax on oil companies (and refiners? Who knows?)
Clinton's policy isn't bad, it's just pointless. This contrasts with McCain's disguised give-away to to the Oil Cos.
I'll take "Popular and pointless" over "Feel-good and harmful" any day.
The funny thing about all this is that this isn't really a policy question.
What it did was frame Obama as associated with intellectual specialists and Clinton as associated with the everyman.
Obviously, Hillary isn't going to suddenly start ignoring economists. As put in your post, this is politics as usual and has been the case for a long time.
Predictably, the blogosphere, largely composed of relatively well-to-do and educated people, disliked Hillary for distancing herself from them. On the other hand, your typical blue-collar found themselves a bit closer to Hillary. It's just more popularity-contest churning. It says very little about what either Hillary or Obama will do in office -- this isn't a question of the tax, but a question of the rhetoric used to defend it -- yet it's managed to shift blue-collar and white-collar sympathies.
It's the same thing with religion -- the GOP pulls in many votes for using religious references in its rhetoric, and alienates secular voters.
It's all a rhetoric game.
Dr. Reich,
When Americans are in such straights their vote is influenced by DUMB economics because it "resonates," then you realize how much trouble our social-economic system really is in. Noone ends up trusting anyone about anything with this process of communication.
Finger pointing and calling people stupid and blind, who propose a Deficit inducing tax gift of tiny real value, has limited usefulness. Hillary and McCain are both being advised by economists who want to throw a "bone" to sooth the masses. Everyone plays the win a vote game.
BUSH Jr. is already doing that with the recent Tax Stimulus and another one in the making. These will also have to be financed by China, but will certainly have a much stronger short-term effect than the tax holiday idea. So why add further to Deficits ... rationalized by another unthoughtout idea of a "Windfall Tax" on oil companies?
The general public wants to hear a reasoned, balanced, structural solutions to our many problems, not "ad hoc" solutions that create more problems than they solve...that are convenient political sound bites.
I just watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer spend almost two hours "with television's best team" beating the Rev. Wright event and the gas tax holiday idea to death. Blitzer superficially thinks these are examples of substantive differences between Obama and Hillary. The program self-fulfills its own illusions by the time it spends on such nonsense. Blitzer doesn't even realize a truly large difference between the Democratic candidates is their totally different approach to the housing mortgage bailout crisis, for example. And there are other differences of substance upon closer examination -- for example, concerning approaches to foreign policy; how to specifically help the working class; and how to generate new jobs over next 4 years; or what to do about Bush's tax cuts.
A McCain supporter erroneously claimed that the gas tax holiday would be a positive stimulus to the economy. CNN's Blitzer accepted this in a non-informed, non-probing manner because no research had been done by the TV station that would have shown such a suggestion is wishful thinking, to say it politely.
The TV media should engage some economists so they are better technically and factually informed when their guest speakers make wild assertions on economic policies or ideas that are just that...wild. Try for once to get away from the surface cliches and questioning that never exposes premises, historical facts or the station's own independent research.
The national TV media loves the game of asking someone a question and then mechanically ask the other his reactions with no indepth, informed opinion by the station spokesman (e.g. Blitzer) based on his/her own research --and doing so without always taking sanctity in pole results -- to sharpen the dialogue/ assumptions/reasoning with guest speakers.
In my next post, PART III Transition to a Stable Economy, I will try to become very specific about near and short-term solutions to our social-economic problems. But I will do it in a way that, hopefully, shows a non-contradictory, balanced framework of actions/policies for taking our economy forward and for reducing the severe economic stress and cultural decay of our lower-middle class... without exploding the Deficits further.
This will be a simple layman's observations about problem solutions. The politicians, media, and other higher brains would do all Americans a great service if they would go deeper and more cleverly in bringing forth near and long-term integrated, solution possibilities -- devoid of "quick fix" thinking and deceptive political dogma that substitutes for creative thinking in behalf of All Americans -- that structurally address our massive Tax/Spend choices noted in my last post to you, Dr. Reich.
I fully agree with Mrs. John Edwards recent critism of the media's laxity, trivial innuendos and reflections typified by poor, professional beneath-the-surface focus on the real issues confronting our nation. Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
I remember a president who did a great job at listening to the experts and also coming up with his own great ideas. His name was Bill Clinton. Now though, I see Barack as the person who will best be able to handle the complexities of the executive office.
btw, be sure to check out.
www.change-congress.org
Mr. Reich,
I wanted to congrat you on endorsing Sen. Obama.
I am curious over the recent statements being made by Hillary. She threatened to obliterate Iran, Told democrats re: the gas tax 'you're either with us or against us' which is the favorite threat by Bush.
She is going around telling gun owners she backs them but, Obama will take those away.
Ect., ect.
what is wrong with her? I know she is in war mode against rivals for the white house. But, she is now taking to backing and mimicing republicans, their tactics and policies.
It's like she's running for the republican nomination.
What happened to her or has she really always been this way?
While I agree that the proposal to suspend the gas tax is not just bad public policy, but utterly idiotic, I endorse not listening to economics.
Economics is a branch of theology, not science. Economists reasons backwards, from a set of assumptions which are demonstrably false, to a theory which has no connection with reality.
Anyone in the reality based community should support relegating economists to the museum, next to readers of entrails and necromancers.
I don't think we can afford to be cavalier.
Another President that is willing to disregard educated experts in favor of "politics as usual" may just spell an end to us all.
Robert says....
"That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling".
It does suggest an anti-intellectualism which could prove to be very destructive. How many people needlessly lost their lives because our current president is incurious and failed to listen to
objective sources about what would happen when we invaded and occupied Iraq?
We don't need another president with similar characteristics. Better not even roll the dice with Billary.
This long primary campaign does give us a better glimpse of the candidates not possible with a quick nomination. Hillary's mediocrity can't be glossed over.
Although I won't vote for Obama, I hope you dems do get him elected president. He has far more potetential than Billary or McCain. We already know what these two bring to the table.
She thinks Americans are stupid. She probably is right. We get the goverment we deserve.
I'm a disgusted Republican - fed up with what has happened the last eight years. I would vote for Obama, because I think he would change the process. Based on stuff like this, no way I am voting for Hillary Clinton. If it comes down to her and McCain, it's McCain.
And all the folks out there who think being dumb is smart, who hated the smart kids in school, who like seeing economists and experts and reliance on facts get put down - they aren't going to vote for Hillary in any general election. She might outpander Obama, but McCain will take those votes without even trying because they will recognize at a glandular level that Hillary is exactly the overly bright striver they always hated.
In 1992 it was "It's the economy, stupid".
In 2008, "It's the economists who are stupid".
I really hope this backfires on her, big time. I'm tired of a President who doesn't have any respect for education and expertise. Enough, already.
Spot On!!! America be afraid, be very afraid
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?hp
wouldn't it be more intelligent to repeal the 54 cent per gallon import tax on ethanol from Brazil. It would lower the run on corn and also lower food prices?? maybe
The United States needs a Ron Paul right about now. If Hillary was president, I have a feeling there would be more screw ups than George Bush.
Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a nutty purveyor of crank-economics. His pushing of the gold standard places him well outside of mainstream economic thought.
No, we don't need another leader combining a weak grasp of empiricism with strong sense of his own ideological fortitude.
"Politics!" "Yeah, the President was just speaking to its 'destroy all humans' base"
I think economists lack credibility with voters because following their pro-globalization and anti labor policies has led to 30 years of declining wages and benefits. Other scientists, not so much.
What would it take to get Hillary to commit to shutting down the Federal Reserve?
We don't need a bunch of rotten bankers running our economy and making a killing off of fractional-reserve lending!
Art A Layman:
"Both Hillary and McCain know it ain't gonna happen..."
Then why is she bringing legislation: Gas-Tax Holiday Bill?
Just for fun?
"I’m not saying HRC is George Bush."
No, not yet, but she's moving in the Right direction.
Have you seen the new gun ad?
Media would spin anything to favor HRC - it is a rule.
The WaPo article does support the Mickey Kantor video.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thewarroompghowe_a0b00d.htm
Quote form the article:
"a Mickey Kantor comment about the people of Indiana (when it looks as though Clinton's ahead in Dan Quayle's state) attest to ...".
Ironically, Hillary's husband is one of only two presidents who has actually paid any attention to his economists, the other was JFK. EVERY other president has only listened to politicians when drafting a budget.
But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise
By this logic, gas prices can *never* go lower.
Better manufacturing, new oil fields, etc - *nothing* can make oil prices go down because "it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise".
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a simple economist.
Nice ARTICLE
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
By this logic, gas prices can *never* go lower.
Better manufacturing, new oil fields, etc - *nothing* can make oil prices go down because "it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise".
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a simple economist.
Uh... no. New oil fields woudl increase the supply which would cause prices to fall. Also gas prices can go lower if something decreased demand (say, more people switching to greener forms of transportation).
Thank you Professor, I also find it refreshing to see that Obama is more interested in crafting solutions than trivial pandering. It's been a while since we had a president who could lead and listen at the same time.
While I agree with the poster who stated that one man isn't going to be able to fix the system, he's the only one making a convincing start at it, and his oratorical abilities are an important piece of the puzzle. One thing I'm pretty sure of: change isn't going to happen if empty, token gestures are what rule the day.
Barack Obama is the only candidate with any shred of integrity in this race.
No more Bush/Clinton please? It is getting so tiresome.
Obama will get my vote.
To Art Layman,
Did you consider who would end up paying for the $8.4 billion dollars that this gimmick would cost? Did you consider that this could cost 300,000 people jobs (and health care) and that their unemployment benefits need to be paid somehow? And did you consider that the oil companies might not pass on this price "reduction"? Did you consider that there might be enormous costs associated with infrastructure that is crumbling - just look at the cost in lives and reparation of the one bridge collapse? Did you consider the effect this measure might have on the environment? Please tell me, after taking these factors into account, who really cares about "we, the people"?
Paging Paul Krugman...
Now that Hillary is sounding just like Bush, and dismissing (economic) reality when it clashes with political expediency, will we finally hear some real criticism of her from Mr. K?
Doubtful. He's done his level best to ignore her backing of the McCain fantasy. (Oh, she says, but it's different! I'll make up the revenue shortfall from a windfall-profits tax that I'll never get through Congress!)
Meanwhile, Obama knows that the idea stinks because he was in the Illinois state lege when they tried a state gas-tax holiday in 2000; he even admits voting for it then. The price at the pump didn't budge because the oil companies sucked up the difference, but that didn't stop the Republicans from trying to make the "temporary" holiday a permanent one -- which Obama voted against.
Thank you
Apparently, the pen is still mightier.
In the last seven years, only a few like you, Dr. Reich, have been willing to stand up and speak real truth to power - thanks for your wisdom
and understanding of the larger truths that bind us all.
I'm not sure if it even matters who wins anymore. Are any of the politicians getting the fact that our material world is crumbling down? Basic necessities are not attainable for many Americans anymore. Our capitalistic society is breaking the foundations of life. Someone, somewhere, decided that we should pay $6.00 for a coke at a major league baseball game, so that some player can make $30 million a year. IS ANY ONE HUMAN BEING WORTH PAYING $30 MIL? How many people would $30 million feed? I will never waste another dime on such stupidity again. I don't want to give an HMO money so that they can deny someone coverage. We need a president who will slow our own demise. We are idiots with 4 car garages, granite countertops, big tv's, and parents of kids who are failing miserably. I don't want a bandaid on the gas tax, I want to be able to afford a hybrid car. I want Americans to build economical cars that last. I don't want to pay taxes to support state and federal workers who get the best health coverage in America. Everyone should get health coverage. This country is due for an economic quake of epic proportions or a civil war. I am ready for change. Bring it on Mr. Obama
Hillary's pandering is just incredible. Just cannot believe that yet again she is trying to pull a Clintonista. What a woman, how disappointing... just cannot believe my ears!
All I have to say is "wow". That's why I like Obama. I'm accustomed to stupid politics in my birth country of Pakistan, but it's hard to believe sometimes that a Western politician can get away with saying something like that.
Apparently, economists don't know as much about the economy as lawyers do.
-Shan
www.globallyrational.com
Gracious me! I'm not sure whose blog this is. I seem to be taking more heat than Dr. Reich and I might add, unjustly so.
I would love to respond to each by name but there are so many and especially so many anonymouses that I could be here for hours.
Suffice it to say that the gas tax holiday is a really stupid economic idea, I never suggested otherwise. As a political idea it ain't bad. The fact that Hillary proposed a bill to that effect means what? Nothing! She is playing the game to its fullest. Talk is cheap (read Obama) she is taking action by presenting a bill in the Senate. Do you know how many bills get proposed in the Senate and never see the light of day?
Many here have denied the stupidity of the American populace when it comes to voting and determining the best candidate. I offer in evidence, as Exhibit 1, the many posts here that substantiate the premise.
Along comes a handsome, articulate, well-educated, minority fella, full of promise and promises who hasn't the faintest idea of how the hell he will pull it off and do anything substantive. But in your frustrated zeal for anything approaching a different tone you are willing to accept that words alone will turn the tide. Apparently many of you don't bother to listen to the other side. Right now they are being very coy. Pronouncing him to be a nice guy but with questions. Questions, how existential. They are setting up to crucify him and when all is said and done you'll think that Hillary was Joan of Arc. Even if his insistence to "stay the course" and not meet fire with fire works and he should get elected he will quickly find out that life in the big leagues is far from beautiful, meaningful rhetoric.
Besides meeting a huge wall of resistance to any "liberal" proposals he will be pillaried as naive and inexperienced and foolish and ineffective. Movement conservative will have him for lunch and while many of you well meaning supporters will cry and complain, many other Americans will buy the program and he'll last one term.
Obama is a nice guy with a nice feeling message. That and a buck and a half will get him a latte at Starbucks and little more.
One could do a psychological profile of Obama and turn up many issues. Questions as to what really drives him; as to what his strengths are; as to what his weaknesses are. Rhetoric is a marvelous tool but if not backed up with a mean, take no prisoners style, it ends up a wonderful epithet. Bill Clinton was an eloquent orator exceeding even Obama. When it came to getting things done he didn't rely on rhetoric; he got down and dirty.
You can't be effective in the job if you never get the job. Hillary, as dumb as some of her ideas may be; as nasty as some of her campaign tactics may be (you ain't seen nothing yet); is fighting one hell of a fight. Anyone who appreciates the political game has to admire how well she has done. For all intents and purposes folks this primary is a dead heat. Yea, the crazy way we Dems define things probably ensures an Obama victory, but damn, she has been fantastic. You may abhor her tactics, her rhetoric, but as the game is played she has been masterful.
Look back over the political history of this country. Hell, she hasn't even scratched the surface of dirty.
Dr. Reich is pandering! He uses phrases like "old politics". Not to define things but to stir emotions. He professes shock at Hillary's denouncement of economists, not because he is shocked, but because he sees political advantage. Dr. Reich is truly a bright, learned scholar who deserves to be listened to when he speaks of those issues where his expertise shines. When he becomes just another political hack he deserves no more audience than any other.
There is a wake up bell folks. There will be a time when the campaign rhetoric is over and the proof will be in the pudding. My bet is Obama will not make the grade. It is a shame for he has much to offer and timed right, with the proper preparation, he may very well be the Valhalla you all think he will be. That time ain't now.
Chastise Hillary all you like; denounce her; critize her tactics; find her behavior abhorrent. If you want someone who can and will deliver, she is your best bet now. Obama is a wonder whose time is yet to come. Make the wrong choice and we will be awaiting the next reincarnation of Ronald Reagan sooner than you think.
Have at it guys/gals. I have broad shoulders and I can take a punch.
frank thomas:
Love ya guy! But I find, from your vantage point, your perspective on what Americans want; wanting.
Parts of this need to be in Barach's speech tomorrow in Indianapolis, IN.
"Ron Paul is a nutty purveyor"?? look it up, boy! everyone who ever heard of him and took a look at his ideeas, just LOVE him. He is the most popular presidential candidate on the internet, even with the MSM doing its best to not mention him. Go to www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ and see for yourself
It seems some don't get the point but it's pretty clear for anyone willing to understand.
So to anyone that wants to complain : Before writing a comment 3 times the size of the article, try to understand what is beeing said please.
Stop pretending, stop supporting candidates that only know how to pretend. Don't say it HAS to be like that, it doesn't.
80% of Americans think God sent his son to earth to be crucified in order to teach us all a lesson about sin. Hillary's gas tax holiday should go over quite well.
@art a layman:
To send you back your words : "When he becomes just another political hack he deserves no more audience than any other."
You speak with so much certitude on things that cannot be know for sure, that either you're wrongly believing in your assumptions (or somebody else's), either you're "just another political hack". Think of it.
@doctor biobrain
"Hillary wants to keep people in the dark because it's the only way they'll continue to support her".
If you knew such things as well as you want to make it look, you would be president. You're juste there, stating that you know better than Barrack (and many more) how the american public reacts. What about a big plate of truth before coming here to give it ?
I have been closely following the whole campaign and I honestly have trouble finding a reason to call Hillary a Democrat. I have actually started wondering why other people think this is a "Democratic primary", while it is very clearly a contest between a Democrat (Obama) and a Republican (Hillary). No wonder Bill O'Reilly looked positively purring with her, why Richard Scaiffe Mellon endorsed her: Republicans are going to get their person into the White House under assumed identity. Somebody said here that she is doing "politics as usual" at the moment in order to be able to do greater good while in power. What grounds do we have for thinking so? To me, it looks like she is doing "politics as usual" (and then some!) to be able to continue with politics as usual when in power. Her program looks progressive but from the whole of the campaign a pretty sure prediction can be made that she is not going to deliver on it - just because actually fulfilling her promises would need the force to fight for principles, while she has a lot of strength, but only when it comes to fighting for her own power. There will be four more years of Bush under her and at least some of her supporters will shrug all of it off as "politics as usual". It is such a pity that not only are smart people like Dr Reich in a minority in this country but also that they always have to apologize for their smartness. A country that does not value thinking and education in today's world is in a downward spiral.
Hillary Clinton could be channeling Cheney et company whose highly successful political stance has been to always -always- be further to the right than most Republicans. In this case she apparently thinks the important middle ground lies to the right of Obama. But whereas Cheney tried to seriously push and pull opinion rightwards, Hillary is just doing it as a political tactic. I fear this is also playing into the current administration's hands by effectively giving their political agendas further credit, by giving the impression there is merit to their ideas.
It could of course be that Hillary Clinton sees herself as playing a game that Tony Blair perfected in the UK. That is to aggressively marginalize the right by co-opting their most popular policies. Of course, that would work better with McCain than Obama, whom she has to beat first.
"But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen."
Free trade is a lousy idea yet practically every respectable economist around America agree that it's a great idea. So what are we supposed to do about free trade?
Or let me put it this way: how does economists' certainty that free trade is a great idea compare to their certainty that HRC's gas tax idea is a bad idea?
Sounds like more Clinton bashing from a guy whose career was made by that family. Even you stated, "The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else."
Yet somehow, you lump Hillary in with Dubya over the issue. Talk about your Rovian tactics! Shame on you, Robert Reich.
Btw, what position have you been promised in the Obama administration, if he gets elected?
Hillary Clinton, 1/9/03: "I realize the President's economic advisors don't think long-term budget deficits are a problem, but just about every economist, textbook, policymaker, Wall Street analyst I've come across does."
Hillary Clinton, 8/8/07: "But instead of investing in the infrastructure of the future and growing our economy, we continue to make do. We patch and repair. We ignore the advice of our engineers, economists, businesses, unions, community leaders. We try to build our children's future with our grandparents' infrastructure. And we are falling further and further behind."
Hillary Clinton, 10/8/07: "I will also harness the power of innovation to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. This is a problem that if we don't deal with it we're going to be slowing our economic growth. Economists estimate that every $1 billion spent on fixing crumbling infrastructure creates nearly 48,000 new jobs. My Rebuild America Plan invests $10 billion over ten years in an "Emergency Repair Fund" to begin addressing the extensive backlog of emergency repairs needed in our country."
Iowa caucus, 1/3/08: Barack Obama wins. Sen. Clinton finishes 3rd.
Hillary Clinton, 1/11/08: "If you’ve lost your job because construction has slowed down, you don’t care what the economists are talking about, do you? What you care about is who is going to help me?"
Not only the courage to use his (or her) own brain, but the wisdom to know when he should listen to experts, and not force the science to comply with the party line.
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
Monday, May 05, 2008
Clinton Calls for "Bad Weather Holiday"
"When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
The gas tax holiday is...so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling."
-Robert Reich, May 4, 2008
I know we've got those "intellectual", high-falutin', elitist meteorologists, those "forecasters" with their complicated charts and their mumbo-jumbo, their high fronts and their low fronts, their Doppler radars. But I've come to say that we're going to put an end to all of that.
When my daddy and I went out in the morning in (Scranton, Indianapolis, Durham, Hagåtña, Charlotte Amalie, San Juan), and he said "It's going to be a sunny day today", well, that was good enough for me.
And that's why, if you vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3), I will put into effect a "Bad Weather Holiday" running from the years 2009-2012--and potentially extendable for another four years.
That's right. We shouldn't have to eat our (hot dogs, barbecue, tamales, Chicken Estufao, Stewed Oxtail) under rainy skies. We've had enough of going off to work in the (streets, sands, seas) of this most beautiful (state, territory) only to face a cold, cloudy day. We know what it's like to rest our weary bones after a hard day of labor in the nearest (local watering hole, locale taberna, berlina) only to step out into a stiff, tiring wind.
The Weather issue is very real to me, as I've been meeting people across this nation who (walk, drive, sail, ride ox before stewing tail) to work, and would save precious sums if they did not have to spend their hard earned money on "umbrellas" and "rain coats" and other high priced, high class items of the upper crust. In my daddy's day, a newspaper held over the head by a worn, calloused hand was just fine.
So I say: Let the 'Umbrella Lobby' take the brunt--not our hard working citizens. Oh, sure. I know elite opinion and so called "academic experts" say that my plan would cause 12 straight years of hail, swarms of ravenous locusts, and a vortex of hurricanes ranging from the Mideast to the West Coast.
But I don't put stock in experts. And neither should you. And that's why you should vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3).
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
Shorter art a layman:
You're all stupid for falling for Obama's BS, unlike me, who knows that Clinton's BS is stupid but falls for it anyway.
I hope Senator Clinton reads your blog. After the gas tax remark I decided to stop sending her money.