but still?!

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know this will read as nit picking but when Mat writes:

 Bush pushes tax cuts (for wrong
> reasons and targeted to wrong sectors, but still)

i don't there should be any "but still".

for it implies that  Bush's hyper commercial keynesianism is *functionally*
equivalent to say a galbraithian liberal expansionism--to use Lekachman's
terms-- and thus to be preferred over the democrats' orthodoxy. it's this kind
of argument i believe that led some here to abandon the democrats only to allow
bush to win by casting a symbolic vote for nader (note: i am not arguing
against abandoning electoral politics or parliamentary socialism as herman
gorter and anton pannekoek described it).

at any rate, this "but still" attitude towards the republicans strikes me as
politically pernicious.

first, it reveals the positivist muck of keynesianism. Two different political
programs are indistinguishable towards the goal of full employment. One would
have to prefer military keynesianism over orthodoxy. Where do values other than
full employment come into the analysis? Are they just an after thought once the
positivist keynesian scientist has done his technical analysis?

second, mat is making too much of the stimulative effects of bush's tax cuts.
if you believe the fundamental keynesian psychological law, there should hardly
be any multiplier from this obscenely regressive tax cut. there should in fact
be massive leakage; it would have been better to keep the money in the govt's
hands and pushed the democrats to cheat on their pledge to use the surplus only
for debt paydown.one could trusted the democrats to break their promises
of fiscal rectitude, and spending had indeed increased in relative terms in the
last couple years of bubba's rule.

Plus, even if bush allows for deficit financed govt expenditures, it will be
for  an expansion of a capital intensive military at the expense of social
programs which should greatly boost the mpc...so one should expect a small
multiplier  from the kind of spending which bush is planning.

there should be no "just still" about bush in my opinion. it opens--nay has
opened--the door to reaction.

lastly, i think the real question remains why both parties are so commited to
keeping a lid on spending, i.e., why are they acting like govt expenditures are
no better than a destruction of capital. Why doesn't bush just allow the
surplus to be spent and then borrow more for spending on say rumsfeld's pet
projects? why are the democrats so scared of using the surplus for anything but
debt paydown. why does the mixed economy seem to have reached its limits, no
matter the party in charge?

Rakesh