A zombie lie is a false statement that keeps getting repeated no matter how often it has been refuted. Zombies are difficult to kill and they keep coming back. We need a term for a true statement that isn’t believed no matter how many times it is repeated. “Zombie truth” doesn’t seem to quite capture what I’m looking for. My term would describe Bruce Bartlett’s column in today’s New York Times. He makes many true statements that are often repeated but seem to have no impact on our political discourse. At the core, however, is this basic fact:
In January 2001, the [Congressional Budget Office] projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.
Mr. Bartlett details all the factors that combined to take nine trillion dollars away from our treasury during Bush’s presidency. He also explains how we got to the point in 2001 that we were on target to run large surpluses and why Bush’s rationale for his tax cuts was dishonest. For a full accounting, go read his post. The short version is that Clinton’s tax hike in 1993 (that was opposed by every Republican in Congress) and the Paygo rules enacted by Congress in 1990 (which prohibited new spending without new revenues) combined with a booming economy to fill our government’s coffers. Bush eliminated those tax hikes and made deep cuts instead. Then the Republican Congress eliminated the Paygo rule in 2002. The result was much less revenue combined with much higher spending that was not offset by new revenue. It wasn’t just our wars that were put on the credit card. It was Medicare Part D and pretty much everything else.
The first thing the Democrats did when the took over Congress in 2007 was to reinstate the Paygo rule, although they’ve had to waive it a couple of times to deal with the Great Recession.
The Republicans can dangle teabags from their hats all they want, but they created the debt and the financial crisis that required a massive stimulus bill.
They don’t care about debt. They care about low taxes that cause debt. Then they’ll tell you the problem is the spending. Yeah, they spent too much when they had power, too. They simply have no credibility on the economy. Yet, no matter how many times we point this out, they still are taken seriously by more than a hundred million Americans.
Despite its association with Ronald Reagan, the first thing that popped into my head was a ‘Teflon Truth’. Not perfect, but I do have a soft spot for alliteration.
It’s called “an inconvenient truth”.
Well, there’s “crib-murdered truth”.
All I can think of is something related to Cassandra who was cursed to never be believed although she told the truth. So I guess soemthing along the line of Cassandra Truth, although a) I am not sure how many people would get the referenc and b) it just sounds clumsy.
Stillborn? DOA?
“[Republicans] simply have no credibility on the economy”
And the party that signed repeal of Glass-Steagall, thought an $800 billion stimulus would fix the economy, and brags about cutting spending during a depression is different!
That’s not all the party, just one faction, a faction that happens to hold power.
Zombie Lie: Republicans are “Fiscally Conservative.”
Zombie Fact: Democrats actually pay their bills and invest for future generations.
Failure to thrive?
God, over the weekend at a graduation party, somehow Obama got brought up for maybe 5 seconds, but one guy who I consider very smart and intelligent said, “He believes in spending money he doesn’t have.” I just wanted to be like, “Really, Mark? I figured you for a conservative, but not a dumbshit Republican…”
Beautiful!
a Cassandra
Regarding zombie lies, Laffer had an article in the WSJ that claimed the Great Depression was caused by Roosevelt’s deficit spending and overtaxing the rich. Guess they needed European Austerity, huh?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html?mod=googlenews_wsj is the link if you want to waste your time or have a good laugh (or cry).
I haven’t read this book, but it’s in my wish list:
http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Economics-Ideas-Still-among/dp/0691154546/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF
8&qid=1339549791&sr=1-1&keywords=zombie+ideas
Here are the zombie ideas from the book:
The Great Moderation
Efficient markets hypothesis
Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium
Trickle-down economics
Privatization
Expansionary austerity
I haven’t heard of some of those. I’m moving up the priority of the book. Sounds like you read it?
Dean Baker is a zombie now:
Given extra pixels Baker probably would go on to say that there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference, or not a 5% difference anyway, between a Republican advocating for a top earned income tax rate of 35% and a Democrat advocating for it to be at 39.6%.
He does say that, but not that “there isn’t much of a difference.” He argues that we should be worrying about structural forms of inequality rather than strictly drawing lines in the sand over tax policy. And to a point, he’s correct.
It’s all the stock market to them, not jobs or home ownership or kids going to college. The stock market is the sum total of prosperity to jerks like Baker.
Figures, Baker became an economist by studying economics unlike Bruce Bartlett who got his post graduate degree, a Masters, in diplomatic history before joining Jack Kemp to become a tribune for supply side economics in advance of becoming a favorite economist of the progressive community.
You can see from the books he’s written, Baker’s take on politics and economics are not the type with which supporters of President Obama would want to consider as our leader works behind the scenes to strike a bipartisan Grand Bargain with moderate Republicans in order to secure a prosperous economic future for us.
Down with zombie lies. Forward with President Obama.
I apologize for calling him a jerk. Wrong Baker. I was thinking of James Baker.
Still, measuring economic prosperity by the stock market is a very very Republican thing to do.
From 2006, here’s his The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer.
From 2011, here’s his The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive.
His advocacy is for policies outside the confines of the corporate approved economic progressivism which MSNBC and the Democratic party are pitching. You might give them a look.
I will.
I’ll add that the internet bubble had to die, but the damage could have been limited by government intervention, say contracts for upgrading the aging AUTOVON system. This did happen but much later. Meanwhile the Silicon Prairie became the Silicon Desert and, of consequence to no one but me, I entered a two year unemployment that resulted in my exodus from the white collar middle class after a 25 year career.
Apparently Baker is ignoring this.
If he had we can assume he wouldn’t have presumed to try and work out the underlying factors accounting for that surplus turned deficit on his own.
Boy is he going to be embarrassed once he does see it after going on a gobbledygook tangent like this one: