Recent Posts
Under our system Obama's health care plan would have been debated and then passed within 4 months of it being tabled.
Which is what I like about our system. Even if the party in power isn't one I voted for, s**t gets done.
If they won the election (regardless what you think of the parliamentary system) they have the mandate to enact laws. And in a minority it's even better; we don't have gridlock - we have actual compromise.
Whoda thunk?
Greg
I don't see it as 'trouble' in that I don't see it as a monolithic 'party' Who knows, maybe it will lead to a reorgization.There may be trouble for the Tea Party.
As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.
But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.
The problem is that the "Culture Warriors" do see the GOP as a Monolithic Organization. This is the faction most distressed by the "lack" of social conservative elements in the Tea Party movement.
Patrick Curtin
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
The problem is that the "Culture Warriors" do see the GOP as a Monolithic Organization. This is the faction most distressed by the "lack" of social conservative elements in the Tea Party movement.
Maybe because the fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of the culture warriors wasting everyone's time trying to shoehorn the government into a 'morals police' role. How is that any better than having the government be a nanny to everyone? Government can't solve social ills by legislation anymore than it can solve poverty by legislation.
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.
Maybe because the fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of the culture warriors wasting everyone's time trying to shoehorn the government into a 'morals police' role. How is that any better than having the government be a nanny to everyone? Government can't solve social ills by legislation anymore than it can solve poverty by legislation.
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.
+1
Maybe because the fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of the culture warriors wasting everyone's time trying to shoehorn the government into a 'morals police' role. How is that any better than having the government be a nanny to everyone? Government can't solve social ills by legislation anymore than it can solve poverty by legislation.
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.
You've beautifully summarized most of my political views as well. I'm not a "tea party" kind of guy, though, because I believe that a tax base is needed for infrastructure and defense -- and because too many Tea Party supporters and candidates are social crusaders in disguise, using a new strategy to troll for votes.
The problem is that the "Culture Warriors" do see the GOP as a Monolithic Organization. This is the faction most distressed by the "lack" of social conservative elements in the Tea Party movement.Maybe because the fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of the culture warriors wasting everyone's time trying to shoehorn the government into a 'morals police' role. How is that any better than having the government be a nanny to everyone? Government can't solve social ills by legislation anymore than it can solve poverty by legislation.
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.
So you want the Government to stop providing Education?
And as part of "Protecting the citizenry from each other, how agreesively should the government be regulating large corporations and financial instutions.
You've beautifully summarized most of my political views as well. I'm not a "tea party" kind of guy, though, because I believe that a tax base is needed for infrastructure and defense -- and because too many Tea Party supporters and candidates are social crusaders in disguise, using a new strategy to troll for votes.Maybe because the fiscal conservatives are sick and tired of the culture warriors wasting everyone's time trying to shoehorn the government into a 'morals police' role. How is that any better than having the government be a nanny to everyone? Government can't solve social ills by legislation anymore than it can solve poverty by legislation.
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.
The problem we are running into is that ...
Going back to the OP's original point.
This is what Senator Bunning was complaining about.
... Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg's municipal offices.
Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come. ...
Years of "borrow and spend" have put the U.S. government into an even worse pickle then they were to start with.
When the Congress wants to pass "Emergency Spending" - with LOTS of riders attached - without finding the funding to pay for it, responsible Senators are right to filibuster.
If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical? Man, I got to move to Cali, I think I need a doctor to proscribe some herbs to see the logic in that.This insider thinks the paranoia is ludicrous too. Furthermore it's totally hypocritical and always has been.
For an "outsider" like me, the level of mistrust in the Federal government in the US seems quite staggering. I guess I just don't understand why that same level of mistrust doesn't exist at all levels of government.
What sort of disturbs me in all this is that America has, since World War II taken the role of leader of the free world. If you guys are so certain that your government is incompetent and not to be trusted it stands to reason that the rest of the western world ought not to trust American initiatives either (since any American initiative will originate from the government).
The other concept here that befuddles me is you guys don't trust your government...except with the lives of your young adults - There is something profoundly disturbing about this.
Patrick Curtin
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
So you want the Government to stop providing Education?
That falls under infrastructure IMO. As does fire and police. That being said it is time to reexamine the tenure guidelines of public-school teachers and the retention policies of their fire and police comrades as well.
And as part of "Protecting the citizenry from each other, how agreesively should the government be regulating large corporations and financial instutions.
Well, I guess that depends on where those opaque banking instruments came from. A mixture of corporate greed and political fumbling IMO. Still, no one put a gun to the head of all those idiots signing on the dotted line of no money down adjustable rate mortgages. Should banking practices be watchguarded? Certainly, but the government should also not have relaxed restrictions in banking practices that had worked for decades, such as having to have 10% to deposit on a house to get a mortgage or having an income stream that could conceivably pay for the loan.
What that crisis boiled down to in the end was one word: Greed. There was greed all about: In the banks, in the offices of Washington, in the kitchens of suburbia. Everyone thought the gravy train would choo choo on forever. Remember house flipping? Refi for vacations? no-children couples buying 8-bedroom McMansions? People with no job and dodgy citizenship buying houses? It all happened. I was working in the construction field, I watched these people spend spend spend with nary a care for the future. Problem is the future always comes. The market always peaks, the adjustable rate on that teaser loan always resets. People just don't want to face the consequences of their actions.
What sort of disturbs me in all this is that America has, since World War II taken the role of leader of the free world. If you guys are so certain that your government is incompetent and not to be trusted it stands to reason that the rest of the western world ought not to trust American initiatives either (since any American initiative will originate from the government).
The other concept here that befuddles me is you guys don't trust your government...except with the lives of your young adults - There is something profoundly disturbing about this.
Werll I can't speak for 'you guys' but I don't trust my government to do what's right, I trust it to do what's expedient. We've broken a simple promise made 100 times, and it does bother me. "Never again." Twice now, in world politics, we've (meaning the US) been handed the 'world leader ball' and dropped it. Once after WW II and once after the 'Conservative Trinity' brought the USSR crashing down. The problem with trusting the government isn't the black helicopter types, from people like Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Van Jones on the left, to Ron Paul* on the right. The problem is the road to hell.
I don't honestly believe that the people who brought us the 'Great Society' sought the destruction of families. I don't believe the people who brought us the increased drinking age, CAFE standards, or the 'Dole light' wanted to fully micromanage the people and their freedoms.
Reagan even fell into this, making the Faustian bargain with Iran Contra to placate a (at the time) small threat (Iran) to fund a fight against a bigger foe (communism in South America).
Heck, I honestly don't believe that the current administration wants to destroy our (semi-)free market economy health care and build on the ashes. I do believe that they want to transform it into a more socialist/single payor model, and that's the problem.
That problem is, no one is honest anymore. I mean, look at the current health care debate. A 2003 page bill in the house, that no-one has read. Really? This is supposed to be open and fair government? Political leaders handling problems 'quietly' will see those problems blow up in their face. Mark Foley is an example on the right, he was disciplined on e-mails in 2005, so the sleeze goes to IMs which he thought weren't as tracable. Both parties are to blame at that point. His own for not keeping a better eye on him when they were aware of the issue, the opposition for holding on to the knowlege for political gain. The correct action to corruption is more transparency, not "Look over there!" Suck it up, take the blame for your mistakes, and let the polls sourt it out. If you're going to call yourself a 'political party' then you police your own.
That's not to say the government doesn't need to have some secrets. I have to assume that things like Area 51 are there for a reason, and that reason isn't a functioning Stargate.** I know we don't find out things until well after the fact, whether it be the infiltration of Nazi groups on the east coast in the 30's and 40's (released in the 90's) or who knows how many close calls we have had in the past 20 years*** Those I have to trust my goverment is doing the right thing, as transparency on who all of our covert agents around the world is a contradiction in terms.
*
**
***
I want government to to three things:
- Maintain the infrastructure
- Defend the borders
- Protect the citizenry from each other (not themselves)
THAT'S IT.So you want the Government to stop providing Education?
And as part of "Protecting the citizenry from each other, how agreesively should the government be regulating large corporations and financial instutions.
Define, 'the Government'. :-)
Education is a state and local level issue. And it again goes back to letting our states hang themselves. If Maine wants to fund diversity over math, social justice over science, then let them. But also let their economy flounder and fail when they have a bunch of diverse, socially motivated people who lack basic skills. In theory, smart families will either a) leave or b) homeschool or find other methods of educating their children. I don't mind Ohio setting standards, I do mind the federal government. And no, ketchup is not a vegetable.
The problem is that the "Culture Warriors" do see the GOP as a Monolithic Organization. This is the faction most distressed by the "lack" of social conservative elements in the Tea Party movement.I don't see it as 'trouble' in that I don't see it as a monolithic 'party' Who knows, maybe it will lead to a reorgization.There may be trouble for the Tea Party.
As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.
But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.
Which is why it's not a problem for me. :-) My definition of 'Culture Warrior' is, as long as I'm not hurting anyone, leave me the frak alone. If something disturbs me, I'll call it out, but I won't make it a campaign to erradicate it.
Beyond that your wrong about the winner takes all mentality - its you guys that have the checks and balances. We have 4 year dictatorships - unless we end up in a minority parliament (as we have currently). If Obama had been running under the Canadian system (well British Parliamentary System really as that is what we use) we'd not be having this debate, With that kind of support from the electorate those numbers would translate into an absolute majority in parliament and the winning party would simply settle down to implementing their agenda - there would be nothing the opposition could do about it really except try and point out flaws and make political sound bites pooh-poohing the governing party. In fact this effect is so strong that its common for politicians to carefully dole out their promised reforms. Don't want to accomplish to much in your first year or it'll look like your sitting around doing nothing for the next 4 years.
Under our system Obama's health care plan would have been debated and then passed within 4 months of it being tabled.
One can make the arguement that this is why the 'health care reform' plan sucks, or President Obama can't lead out of a paper bag. The Democrats have a majority in the house, (had) a super majority in the Senate, and the White House, and still can't get anything done?
This was as close to a 'four year dictatorship' as you can get in the US, and they're still forced to resort to parlimentary trickery to get their agenda done.
Patrick Curtin
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
That falls under infrastructure IMO. As does fire and police. That being said it is time to reexamine the tenure guidelines of public-school teachers and the retention policies of their fire and police comrades as well.One could argue that animal control, health care, or ownership of all industry fall under "infrastructure." It's super vague.
Sure. It IS all super vague. Isn't that why we are sitting here trying to draw lines in the sand? I'm just clarifying what my expectations of government are. Believe me, if I really thought that the government would do a good job of delivering healthcare I would be right onboard. I just can't. I have yet to hear a convincing argument, and I see nothing to engage my faith.
This is important stuff, and vital not to screw up. We all gotta stand for what we believe to be true.
That was me. How many tens of trillions of dollars of our grand kids money do we have to spend for the state to help our fellow man? How and when do you plan on dealing with the money? Shall we just just let the federal government print more money and destroy the spending power of those on a fixed income and the working poor? Shall we double or triple the taxes of working families and corporations and drive even more jobs out of this country? Do we even begin to comprehend how much money ten or twenty trillion dollars is and what that means to our kids and economy!?
I care how much it costs! I care how much it costs my grand kids who didn't make this train wreck! Why should they have to, "...deal with the money later."? Do you have any idea what you're asking of them? Why should they be born into tens of thousands of dollars of debt to pay for some sense of nanny state crap that happened before they were born? Seriously WHY?
I'm with the group that feels that at some level you really do have to put a price on peoples lives. This is in fact part of the debate and its part of the debate in every system with any significant healthcare.
The American system is so complex that it can disguise and even distort that choice a lot more then those of us with single payer systems funded by taxes but in the end we are all deciding what percentage of our disposable income should go to healthcare. In a single payer system thats pretty much a stark choice - better healthcare is available but you have to vote to raise your taxes and at some point you reach some kind of an equilibrium between the taxes the populace is willing to pay and the quality of the healthcare they receive but there is always a choice. Even among western nations that have cradle to grave health care and clear systems that involve a choice of levels of taxation versus quality of care one finds a fair range of different choices by nation though there are some broad trends.
This recently appeared in the NY Times, thought I would share becuase I feel Paul Krugman's view on this is correct.
Senator Bunning's Universe
By PAUL KRUGMAN
What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.
I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is not even what the economics textbook Krugman wrote says. Go to Google Books and find his textbook, then go to page 210. He and his wife basically say the exact opposite of his statement above, that unemployment payments reduce the incentive to quickly find a job.
Link to book: http://books.google.com/books?id=dpTBdNGGrtUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&am p;dq=krugman+eurosclerosis+unemployment+incentive&source=bl&ots=GiM UCFpvMz&sig=vCcb2wkdXyBbx7wMDf_pjewae2U&hl=en&ei=FRORS-_BD8H08Q aU9dz2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB QQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is not even what the economics textbook Krugman wrote says. Go to Google Books and find his textbook, then go to page 210. He and his wife basically say the exact opposite of his statement above, that unemployment payments reduce the incentive to quickly find a job.
Reducing the incentive to find a job is not the same as increasing unemployment. So no, he didn't contradict himself.
Let me put it to you this way: people have many reasons to seek employment. If the state passes a law mandating the summary execution of the unemployed, that's a big incentive to seek employment. But it does not follow that the removal of this incentive alone will increase unemployment in the presence of other incentives.
Nor, incidentally, would its doing so be much of an argument in favor of such a policy.
But you cut out the part of the article where he actually explains how extending unemployment benefits reduces unemployment:
Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That's because the economy's problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.
Textbook economics indeed. You can build all the widgets you want, but if nobody has the cash to buy them your widget factory will soon go out of business. Then your employees will join the hordes of the cash-strapped who not only can't afford your widgets, but also can't afford anybody else's. (This is how economies go into tailspins.) But give them some cash and it's a win-win. (Well not exactly, if you give cash to people likely to pocket it you're just wasting money. That's pretty much what tax cuts on the wealthy accomplish.) They'll spend it and contribute to the economy by creating demand, which translates into more jobs and you can sleep nights knowing the negative effects of the economic downturn on peoples' lives are being somewhat ameliorated.
First: Samnell, nice pwnge. Carry on. :D
Second: Here's what needs to happen:
1. We need to cut entitlements; we simply can't afford them current structure.
2. We need to raise taxes.*
And that, folks, is how we kill the deficit. This is a painful message for everyone, and I don't see either side compromising to get it done. The right won't budge on taxes, because they see it as a issue of principles, and the left won't budget on entitlements for the same reason. Both sides seem to have forgotten the definition of compromise.
* Yes, I know all about the Laffer Curve. The problem is no one can prove exactly what the curve looks like, or even where we are on it. All that is certain are the end points. Personally, I find the historical case for cutting taxes resulting in increased tax revenue to be pretty poor.
First: Samnell, nice pwnge. Carry on. :D
Second: Here's what needs to happen:
1. We need to cut entitlements; we simply can't afford them current structure.
2. We need to raise taxes.*And that, folks, is how we kill the deficit. This is a painful message for everyone, and I don't see either side compromising to get it done. The right won't budge on taxes, because they see it as a issue of principles, and the left won't budget on entitlements for the same reason. Both sides seem to have forgotten the definition of compromise.
You are right!
But, we need to add:
3. We need to dump the current crop of politicians.
They (members of both parties) have proven that they cannot handle money in a responsible way. :(
Charlie Bell
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
Second: Here's what needs to happen:1. We need to cut entitlements; we simply can't afford them current structure.
2. We need to raise taxes.*And that, folks, is how we kill the deficit. This is a painful message for everyone, and I don't see either side compromising to get it done. The right won't budge on taxes, because they see it as a issue of principles, and the left won't budget on entitlements for the same reason. Both sides seem to have forgotten the definition of compromise.
You are correct, and you are also correct that it will never, EVER happen. The reason is that politicians get elected based on their promises to voters. Rich voters want to keep their money (no higher taxes) and poor voters want more money (entitlements). No politician could ever get elected on a platform of higher taxes and reduced government programs.
Bread and circuses, my friends.
Doesn't Canada have proportional representation? There is no such thing as a "wasted vote" because of that. The US system is very different in that respect.Well, yes, we have proportional representation. And yes third and forth party candidates do get elected to the House of Commons. But, what I was refering to was effectively voting for a candidate that has no hope in hell of getting elected.
WHAT!?!
Whoah - slow down. We don't have Proportional Representation as it is understood in Pol-Sci speak.
Proportional Representation means that if 10% of the population votes for the 'Happy Camper' Party then they get 10% of the seats in Parliament. We don't have that at all. In Pol-Sci speak we have a First Past the Post system with the person with the most votes winning the seat - I think its like the American Congress system - people of area X vote for various people running in that area and the one with the most votes wins.
I sometimes wonder if implementing run-off elections nationwide would encourage people to vote for more third parties. It could theoretically make people more comfortable voting for them without feeling like they are throwing away their votes, and over time might make a difference.
That said, there are states where there are run-off elections for legislative and other offices and they still tend to be relatively two-party races anyway. That's not encouraging, but perhaps if it was nationwide, and given enough time, people might start to vote differently.
I like this method a lot in most forms of democracy. Now I'm presuming you mean a kind of high tech approach where you get you vote in numbers and you mark a ballot (probably best to use an touch screen) with your first choice, your second choice, your third choice etc. down to something large but reasonable like say 5.
Then on election night essentially the votes get tallied and if there is not one guy with 50%+1 the guy with the fewest votes gets dropped and all the people that voted for him have their votes switched to their #2 choice and this goes on until some one has 50%+1.
What I like about this option is that it really does mean that people can vote their conscience instead of forcing parties int big blocks. For example for a short while 15 or so years ago Canada had the conservative party split with one wing going socially conservative and the other wing redefining themselves as socially very liberal but fiscally very conservative. I'd never voted for a conservative party before but suddenly I was intrigued - I'd never vote for a party that was not socially liberal but one was both socially liberal and fiscally conservative...well I could go for that.
Sadly the party had to merge and the socially conservative one because the two parties where splitting each others votes which meant that the liberals where always winning the seats even if combined they might have more votes.
It made political sense to merge the parties but its unfortunate that the voters lost the opportunity to vote for a party that better represented their values. Right now voters in Canada often vote from fear - we really don't want party X to gain power so vote for the largest party that is not party X, with runoff voting you can vote for your preferred party but then hedge your bet so that if your favourite party is to small you vote eventually gets to a candidate you can live with instead of feeling you have to vote for that compromise candidate first for fear that you'll split the vote and the scary candidate will win.
On the other hand I hate proportional representation - because that means that there are politicians sitting in parliament that no one actually voted for - these people owe their fealty only to the political machine that gave them a seat based on their party having 20% of the vote or whatever. In other words a person in parliament should always have a constituency s/he is working for. Political parties are fine in and of themselves but they are inherently untrustworthy organizations and its a terrible idea to have them get to put people in power that the populace did not actually physically vote for.
It isn't really any surprise why so many people see no point in voting. As you point, the world is not likely to come to an end, no matter who is ultimately elected to any given position.
Reminds me of a joke I read somewhere. The background for the joke requires that you understand that, statistically speaking, a single vote is so infinitesimal in something as large as a national election that its probably not worth the energy.
So its voting day and an economist goes to the polls with his wife and while waiting for his turn to come up he is horrified to see a colleague of his come in. Well his colleague notices him and heads over, so he hangs his head in shame and mutters "My wife made me." His colleague pats him on the shoulder and says "Its all right George, I understand, my wife made me, too."
from what I understand is that is wide ranging per Province, and that is some Provinces the wait lists are much worse then others.I looked up the statistics on this between Canada and the US. Canada has 2.2 doctors per 1000 people while the US has 2.4.
To my fellow posters in other countries with universal health care and low costs. Is there any issue with having enough doctors? If prices are kept down, then that would seem to mean that the pay of doctors must also be kept down. That would seem to be a disincentive for someone to become a doctor or to stay in the system instead of leaving it for somewhere they could make more money. Is this a concern in those systems or is there no problem with maintaining enough doctors for the system?I ask, because sometimes what looks like a good idea, can have drastic negative unforseen consequences.
No doubt - most people want to work in something that at least resembles urban, I mean doctors make big bucks - but whats the point if you live so far out in the sticks that you have nothing to spend the money on and no real way to reap the rewards for your hard work. Hence the provinces usually hand out significant bonuses to work in the outback but in reality the money is generally not that much of a motivating factor - the people working out in the sticks are usually idealists. So I'm sure places like Montreal and Toronto do better then some of the more rural provinces but really I think this is more a urban/rural divide then a provincial divide.
So about 8 1/3% less as compared to the US. Now the question becomes, which is closer to the number needed. Is Canada approaching a shortage or is the US approaching a surplus?I looked up the statistics on this between Canada and the US. Canada has 2.2 doctors per 1000 people while the US has 2.4.
To my fellow posters in other countries with universal health care and low costs. Is there any issue with having enough doctors? If prices are kept down, then that would seem to mean that the pay of doctors must also be kept down. That would seem to be a disincentive for someone to become a doctor or to stay in the system instead of leaving it for somewhere they could make more money. Is this a concern in those systems or is there no problem with maintaining enough doctors for the system?I ask, because sometimes what looks like a good idea, can have drastic negative unforseen consequences.
We both have a shortage but its not as simple as that, the brits beat us both with 2.5 per thousand.
Not only that but this number is not all encompassing - if one gets 8.333% more doctors but has to pay each doctor twice as much its probably not a good deal. So there are other factors to consider when looking at this number.
Proportional Representation means that if 10% of the population votes for the 'Happy Camper' Party then they get 10% of the seats in Parliament. We don't have that at all. In Pol-Sci speak we have a First Past the Post system with the person with the most votes winning the seat - I think its like the American Congress system - people of area X vote for various people running in that area and the one with the most votes wins.
Sorry. My bad. I shoulda looked it up. I meant "proportional" with regards to HoC seating.
I guess I didn't know the formal definition.
I stand corrected.
Greg
Reducing the incentive to find a job is not the same as increasing unemployment. So no, he didn't contradict himself.
I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is not even what the economics textbook Krugman wrote says. Go to Google Books and find his textbook, then go to page 210. He and his wife basically say the exact opposite of his statement above, that unemployment payments reduce the incentive to quickly find a job.
Here is his exact quote, since I still can't figure out how to do a link...
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. Most economically advanced countries provide benefits to laid-off workers as a way to tide them over until they find a new job. In the United States, these benefits typically replace only a small fraction of a workers income and expire after 26 weeks. In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So yes, what it does is make the structural unemployment rate higher, as he says in the very first sentence. It doesn't cause a person to lose his job in the first place, but it can lead to more people taking longer to start looking for a job, which will drive up the unemployment rate as more people do the same thing.
The other point that Bunning was making was that even if you think we should increase the benefits, we should actually pay for it. It was about $20 billion if I remember. After passing an $800 billion stimulus package last year, and driving double digit growth in the budget this year, this was not important enough to find $20 billion to offset it? If Congress can't find the will to do that for a relatively small amount now, how are they ever going to cut the budget from its large growth later on? Every single bit of spending in the federal budget is sacrosanct?
Finally, back to Krugman, has he ever considered some of the other policies he has pushed for might be contributing to the high unemployment rate? The direct cause of high unemployment is not a lack of demand, its a lack of companies deciding that they have a reason to hire more workers. Low demand for the products or services the company produces may give them a reason not to hire new workers. But they can also decide that potential rising costs are a good reason not to hire anyone new.
For example, if the government decides that passing a cap-and-trade bill that increase energy costs is a good idea, a company may decide that the additional cost of energy does not leave enough room in their operating budget to hire any new workers. Or the potential cost for verifying compliance to a new health care program that might pass, compliance which could cost more than the health care, might make a company gun-shy. Or that the large budget deficits from all of that extra spending is going to have to be paid for eventually, and there's a good chance that your company's taxes are going to grow high enough that asking for overtime from existing workers will be more cost effective than hiring new workers.
These are all just off the top of my head. I'm sure that I can find quotes from plenty of textbooks, or economists, that can go into a lot more detail about just such arguments.
