Kommentarer til: Junk-journalistik: Poul Høi om nulstats-konservatisme

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:58:52 +0000

Mere om Høi: Kim Møller fra "Uriasposten" har en kommentar til Høis tilsyneladende non-stop deroute i journalistisk standarder:http://www.uriasposten.net/index.php?p=2619

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:22:27 +0000

Yderligere up-date igen-igen: Brendan Miniter fra Wall Street Journal har i sin faste klumme lejlighed til at cementere avisens vedvarende kritik af Bush-administrationens tendens til “Big Government conservatism” (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110007283):”In ripping through the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina has peeled back the lid on Republican rule and many Americans aren’t happy with what they see. This isn’t about a slow response anymore. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is on the ground, troops have restored order, and the water in New Orleans has long since begun to recede. President Bush and Republicans in Congress are now taking a hit not for when but rather how they have responded. And unless they change course, Republicans will pay a steep price in next year’s midterm elections and leave Democrats in the driver’s seat for 2008. What President Bush, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republicans haven’t figured out yet is that deficit spending isn’t a problem for them unless it endangers the broader conservative agenda. If it does, it will become the electoral issue. And what we’re seeing is that Katrina is swamping every goal conservatives have, from limiting government to cutting taxes to reforming entitlement programs. Katrina spending has already imperiled plans to repeal the death tax, and Congress is already $60 billion into a spending binge. Handing out $2,000 debit cards was just the beginning. The conservative Congress has brought back the welfare state. This isn’t all Katrina’s fault. Republicans have been kidding themselves for years that they are still the stewards of fiscal conservatism and limited government. The Medicare prescription drug plan is just one example. Run down the list of the some 80 federal entitlements–including Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, Pell Grants and so much more–and it becomes clear that little has been done to take these massive programs off of spending autopilot. Welfare reform and Freedom to Farm in the 1990s were nice, but what has the GOP done lately? In many cases Republicans have ramped up spending and then bragged about it.What we’re seeing in the wake of Katrina is that despite all the winks and assurances to the contrary as they passed the energy and transportation bills, Republicans in Congress don’t know how to control spending and are at a loss as to why they even should. That’s one way to govern. But if Republicans no longer believe in smaller government, why not put the Democrats back in charge?”Lyder noget af dette bekendt i andre, mere geografisk nærliggende sammenhænge …?

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:22:31 +0000

Yderligere up-date: Til forskel fra David Brooks (ovenfor), så er WSJ-kommentatoren Stephen Moore (tidl. fra Cato Institute og Club for Growth) ikke begejstret for Bushs “big government conservatism”–hvilket han gør klart i sin klumme i dagens Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007278). Her er et uddrag:”When President Bush announced last Thursday that the feds would take a lead role in the reconstruction of New Orleans, he in effect established a new $200 billion federal line of credit. To put that $200 billion in perspective, we could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beach front home virtually anywhere in America.This flood of money comes on the heels of a massive domestic spending build-up in progress well before Katrina traveled its ruinous path. Federal spending, not counting the war in Iraq, was growing by 7% this year, which came atop the 30% hike over Mr. Bush’s first term. Republicans were already being ridiculed as the Grand Old Spending Party by taxpayer groups. Their check-writing binge in response to the hurricane only confirmed, as conservative leader Paul Weyrich put it, that “the GOP, once the party of small government, has lost its bearings and the Republican establishment doesn’t seem to get the message that the grass roots of the party is enraged.” Congressman Todd Aiken of Missouri complains that Congress was forced to vote on the $62 billion first installment of funds “even though we knew a lot of the money may go to waste.” Mr. Aiken and several dozen other House conservatives proposed an amendment to the $62 billion hurricane relief bill that would offset at least some of the emergency spending by cutting other government programs a meager 2.5 cents out of every dollar that federal agencies spend. Was the amendment defeated? No. The Republican leadership would not even allow it to come to a vote, on the grounds that there was no waste which could be easily identified and cut….It’s only been 10 days since reconstruction funds were voted out of Congress, but there are already stories of misspending. For example, the Louis Vuitton store reported selling two monographed luxury handbags for $800 each, both paid for by women with FEMA’s $2,000 emergency disaster relief debit cards. Rapacious trial lawyers are already on the hunt rounding up Katrina’s victims to unleash a barrage of multimillion dollar lawsuits. Now they have been empowered by Congress to finance these lawsuits against taxpayers . . . with taxpayer dollars….Conspicuously missing from the post-Katrina spending debate is a question for some brave soul in Congress to ask, What is the appropriate and constitutional role here for the federal government? Before the New Deal taught us that the federal government is the solution to every malady, most congresses and presidents would have concluded that the federal government’s role was minimal. One of our greatest presidents, Democrat Grover Cleveland, vetoed an appropriation for drought victims because there was no constitutional authority to spend for such purposes. Today he would be ridiculed by Ted Kennedy as “incompassionate.”….Alas, in the world of compassionate conservatism, the quaint notion of limited federal power has fallen to the wayside in favor of an ethic that has Uncle Sam as first, second and third responder to crisis. FEMA, despite its woeful performance, will grow in size and stature. So will the welfare state. Welcome to the new New Dealism of the GOP. Both political parties are now willing and eager to spend tax dollars as if they were passing out goody-bags to grabby four-year-olds at a birthday party.”

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:38:34 +0000

Den konservative kommentator David Brooks har dd. sin faste klumme i New York Times, hvori han--applauderende--redegør for, hvorledes Bushs nuværende politik er udtryk for "big government conservatism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp). Jeg er faktisk ikke sikker på, at Bushs politik er helt så ideologisk og velovervejet, som Brooks påstår (og håber), men nu er de interne fronter på den amerikanske højrefløj ihvertfald trukket op.

Af: Martin Rannje

Martin Rannje — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:41:34 +0000

Det har altid gådet mig en smule at republikanerne konsekvent er blevet opfattet som det "liberale" parti i USA. (forstået i den Europæiske opfattelse af liberalisme, som statsfjendsk og markedsfanatisk) Det er da korrekt nok at Reagan førte en politik der var inspireret af Friedman og andre udbudsøkonomer - men samtidig førte han jo også en dybt ekstravagant forsvarspolitik, der var med til at slå bunden ud af kassen på den amerikanske økonomi, med hans massive "twin-deficits". (der endte med recessionen i starten af 90erne)Nixons økonomiske politik var jo nærmest katastrofal keynesianisme og galbraithianisme. (men omstændighederne på det tidspunkt var da også påvirket af det forrige årtis politik under Kennedy og Johnson, kan man vel med nogen ret hævde)Hvis man kaster et historisk blik på republikanerne, virker det nærmest som om at det er den omvendte verden - republikanerne har da historisk været kendt som et protektionist parti (hvilket de vel delvist stadig er, selvom det naturligvis er svært at generalisere republikanerne), der ofte søgte at beskytte deres eget klientel med subsidier og tariffer (fx McKinleys i 1890erne og Smooth Hawley i 1930erne). Denne politik har da altid været en central del af republikanernes platform. (Derudover var de jo også føderalister, men det kan man vel godt være og stadig være liberal)Robert Ekelund argumenterer i denne artikel på mises.org for at den eneste grund til at republikanerne i dag opfattes som et "liberalt parti" er at demokraterne efter 1930erne har været endnu værre end dem. (hvilket umiddelbart forekommer mig at være et udmærket argument)http://www.mises.org/story/1476Hvis vi vender tilbage til nutiden står vi så med republikanerne i 90erne, der egentlig ikke har fået udrettet noget særligt på "statsreduktions-fronten" - i hvert fald ikke såfremt man skal tro denne artikel på reason.com: http://www.reason.com/links/links080805.shtmlMan kan dog sige til det at det er ofte er temmeligt svært at aflive føderale økonomiske programmmer, men Joseph Stiglitz argumenterer i bogen "The Roaring Nineties" for at republikanerne faktisk blokerede for en del liberaliserende og omkostningsreducerende reformer som Clinton administrationen søgte at gennemføre (da Stiglitz selv sad i OMB, hvilket måske gør ham til en lidt biased kilde, hans politiske observans taget i betragtning i særdeleshed). Og nu har vi altså Bush, hvis økonomiske politik opsummeres udemærket i ovenstående artikel. Det er derfor at jeg stiller mig en smule skeptisk overfor republikanerne - for mig virker de mere som populister og opportunister (og nationalister) en egentlig liberale. (selvom der igen naturligvis er stor forskel på republikanere, men man kan ikke undgå at generalisere lidt når de organiserer sig under samme mærkat)Det var blot et par hurtige skud fra hoften...Mvh Martin

Kommentarer til: Junk-journalistik: Poul Høi om nulstats-konservatisme

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Af: Martin Rannje

Kommentarer til: Junk-journalistik: Poul Høi om nulstats-konservatisme