Voodoo Economics 2

London has always been known for its fog, but by 1905 Londoners realized there was toxic smoke mixed with the fog–and the word smog was born (EPA).  Over the long weekend of Dec 5-9, 1952, the London smog killed more people than would later be killed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Four thousand people died during the infamous “London Fog” weekend of 1952.  Several thousand others died later from lingering illnesses–the total number of fatalities may have reached 12,000.  (“The Killer Fog of ’52” NPR).

Republicans were not always opposed to regulations protecting the environment.  By the late 1960s, rivers in the United States were on fire, and the health hazards of smog in large industrial cities were well known.  Some of the most important environmental legislation was passed under the watch of Richard Nixon (Nixon and the Environment).

It wasn’t until the Reagan Revolution that the Grand Old Party of Teddy Roosevelt began to mock environmentalists and portray them as opposed to progress and part of the lunatic fringe.   Under George Bush’s watch, reports from EPA scientists were “redacted” under orders from Dick Cheney’s quarters, indicted criminals were appointed to chair hearings into infractions of environmental protection laws–the foxes were allowed to dismantle the chicken coop.  According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,

“You simply can’t talk honestly about the environment today without criticizing this president. George W. Bush will go down as the worst environmental president in our nation’s history.”  (Interview)

Environmental regulations, like brakes on a runaway train, do slow the economy.  During the era of the the Reagan Revolution of deregulation, the economy did accelerate.  Without burdensome gas mileage requirements, the U.S. auto industry, for example, made a killing on SUVs during the nineties and for a while into the new millennium.  General Motors was riding so high on its fleet of gas guzzlers it abandoned its billion-dollar investment in the electric car.

But the voracious appetite for fuel in the U.S., along with China’s unregulated industrial growth, eventually let to to $150.00/barrel oil.  The perfect storm of deregulated forces finally came together, and now we have the nationalization of the whole financial sector and a trillion dollar debt to pass on to our grandchildren.

The End of Voodoo Economics



Well, I hope we have been rescued from economic meltdown; I hope I won’t be out in the street selling pencils next month.

I remember the election campaign of 1980; The father of our current president was seeking the nomination of the Republican party.  He called Ronald Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.”  Regan of course, prevailed, and his philosophy is now sometimes called Reaganomics.  Reaganomics is the economic theory and practice that has prevailed for the past 28 years.  The key elements of Reaganomics have been deregulation, deficit spending, and income redistribution.

First, a disclaimer: economics is messy and complicated.  In fact the current economic crisis is based on economic instruments so complicated even the banks that own them don’t understand them.  So what follows are the memories and reflections of a marginal participant in the U.S. economy, not those of an expert.


One of the basic principles of American democracy is the balance of power.  Our political creed is based on a fear and loathing of tyranny, a belief that the concentration of power in any one source or segment is dangerous.  Reaganomics is based on a fear of government–which is genuinely part of our heritage: That government is best which governs least.  But with Regan this became absolute: Jefferson with a vengeance.  President Bush can still recite the words, “I’m from the government, I’m here to help” as a self-evident joke (and verified by hurricane Katrina).

Anyone who has ever dealt with a bureaucracy can understand this side of Reaganomics.  But the other side is an unbounded confidence in the good will and ability to do good of the free market.  There is no attempt to balance the evils of big government vs. the evils of big business.  Reaganomic diehards would see no irony in the words, “I’m from the global oil company” or “I’m from your HMO, and I’m here to help.”

Regulations were designed primarily to protect the public against three dangers: reckless gambling with other people’s money in the financial markets, the loss of genuinely free markets through concentration of power in monopolies, and damage to the air, water and other natural resources we all depend on.  Reagan and his disciples saw environmental protection as a threat to the free markets.  They managed to portray those who wanted to conserve nontoxic air and water for their children as a crazy bunch of deranged tree hugging Luddites who wanted to stop progress.

In response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, President Carter initiated a series of energy-saving programs that actually worked.  By the 1980s and 90s the price of oil had plummeted–to the point that we got fat and lazy and started driving gas-guzzlers again.  But that’s another story.

One of Carter’s projects was to install solar panels on the White House.  One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts as president was to remove them.  They were a reminder of the need to conserve, of the fact that resources are finite–and as such they did not convey the kind of optimism he wanted to mark his presidency.

So, for nearly the past thirty years, regulations have been rolled back or swept under the rug–and it worked.  It produced a booming economic bubble.

But now the bubble has burst and some of the financial gambling turned out to be losing bets.  Now Congress has to provide a security net for the Wall Street high rollers.

That’s Disrespectful

Maybe I’m naive, but I assume people’s good intentions until proven otherwise.  I assume senators McCain and Obama are both honorable, decent men with a genuine desire to serve their country.  But now that the race is coming down to the wire, the campaigns on both sides have started slinging a little mud.

Senator Obama commented that trying to put the Republican party’s failed economic policies in a good light is like putting lipstick on a pig.

What were you thinking, Senator Obama?  How do you expect to get the votes of Iowa hog farmers if you go on insulting their pigs like that?

(By the way, if you like images of pigs–check out Kerfuffles.)

While Condaleza Rice was meeting with Moamar Kadafi, Bill O’Reilly was interviewing senator Obama.  I watched a few minutes of the interview/attempted ambush.  Mr. No-Spin kept trying to indict candidate Obama for his associations.  He kept saying, “you’re comfortable being around some pretty radical people.”

It seems to me, anyone who works in inner city, poverty-stricken areas is going to run into some angry, bitter people.  Anyone who tries to bring diverse groups of people together for the common good is going to associate with some controversial people.  I’m sure Chuck Colson, in his work in prisons, has associated with some unsavory characters.  But Mr. Fair and Balanced kept smiling and interrupting, trying to nail Barack for his associations.

Earlier in the day O’Reilly had criticized those who criticized governor Palin’s church affiliation.  He said as long as they aren’t hurting anybody,  it’s nobody’s business.  I tend to agree with that.  I love the pastor of my own church, for example, but (no disrespect intended) I wouldn’t want to be held accountable for every remark he ever made in a sermon.  And, even though he has allowed me to cover for him when he was away on vacation–I’m sure he would say the same about me.

I’m pretty suspicious of conspiracy theories myself.  But if my ancestors had been kidnapped and forced into slavery, if I had counseled people who had experienced police brutality or profiling,  and people who had experienced discrimination in other forms, I might be a little more cynical.  In light of the Tuskeegee experiment, I might even suspect the government of having something to do with AIDS.

There is disrespectful distortion of the candidates’ words and positions on both sides.  Sarah Palin has been misquoted as saying that the war in Iraq is God’s work.  What she actually said was we should pray for those in uniform that they do God’s work.  A prayer for something and a claim that it has been accomplished are two different things.

If governor Palin slashed funding for teen mothers in Alaska, on the other hand, that is fair game.  It is a matter of policy not personality.  If Obama is committed to his party’s position on abortion, that also is a matter of policy.