Dean Baker, like any great thinker, has certain ideas that he pushes. (More on that later today.) One of those ideas is that an aging population is not bad for retirement programs. The common refrain from people, who are not nearly as smart and knowledgeable as Baker, is that fewer workers for each retiree will bankrupt the system. Baker notes that this is not true because the effects of productivity gains swamp the effects of an aging population.

Today, he wrote, Ross Douthat Thinks Sub-Saharan Africa Is the Richest Region on Earth. This is a typically sarcastic title from Baker—I’ve come to think that I have never in my life known anyone as sarcastic as this man. What he is doing is making fun of Douthat, “Douthat seems to believe that we face some terrible fate if the population of the United States stagnates or even declines.”

Dean Baker then goes on to discuss why a falling US population would be a good thing. He notes that a 20% decrease in our population would decrease our carbon footprint by 20%—without doing anything! And if there is one thing you can say about the United States, it is that we are good at doing nothing.

The main thing is that Ross Douthat, like most commentators—especially on the right—is worrying about a nonexistent problem. Baker shows this by presenting a graph that charts the funding effects on Social Security of an aging population as well as productivity growth.

Now that Dean Baker has drawn a picture, maybe people like Douthat will finally get it.

Update (3 December 2012 1:27 pm)

Matt Yglesias takes Douthat to task for “condemning the ‘decadence’ of people responding to the situation that actually exists.” It is a fun read and shows that Douthat is wrong even if you accept his claim that we need more babies.

One hundred and fifty-three years ago they hanged John Brown in Charles Town, Virginia. On that morning before his execution, he wrote, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” As ambivalent as I am regarding Brown’s actions, no truer words have ever been written.

I used to think that the Civil War was not inevitable. It’s clear that the institution of slavery was holding the south back. My thinking was that eventually southern whites would see this. There was no doubt that I was wrong. The problem is at the core of how slavery was implemented. In the early days of western settlement of America, slavery was not race based. This caused a problem for the ownership class: the lower classes had a nasty habit of joining together and demanding things the rich don’t like to provide for anyone but themselves: rights and pay. Although there were doubtless many and varied reasons for race-based slavery, one was to solve this problem. By making slavery apply only to blacks, they cut any solidarity between poor whites and blacks. And it made poor whites feel better: at least they weren’t slaves.

This always reminds me of this story that Anderson tells in Mississippi Burning:

“If you ain’t any better than a nigger, son, who are you better than?”

I think that the vested interests of rich white profits and poor white self-respect would have kept slavery alive in the south until its end was forced. And look at the effect of emancipation. It led to Jim Crow. When it was ended, we had the racist “drug war”—a term that first shows up only a few years after the 1965 Voting Rights Act. So I think that John Brown simply had a clearer view on the problem than just about anyone else.

I highly recommend that you listen to Sarah Vowell’s exceptional history of the song John Brown’s Body. It is live and very funny.

There was a good discussion of filibuster reform on Up with Chris Hayes. But some of it was confusing. There were two pro-filibuster guests on the panel. Richard Arenberg and Alan Frumin who both argued energetically for the filibuster. But I found their arguments strangely uncompelling. I was expecting that they would have some great points that I had never thought about. This was not true in the least.

Their argument came down to one very simple point: the Senate is a place where minority rights are cherished. Or something. The truth was the argument wasn’t clear, but it was more or less, “Minority rights are good!” And I agree. Minority rights are good. But this isn’t really minority rights. This is just the minority party using its leverage to stop the majority party from doing anything at all.

I get it. At one time, the filibuster really was used only in extreme cases where the minority was really against something. But the following graph tells you everything you need to know about the modern filibuster:

Note that anyone would have to be crazy to say that “both sides do it!” Clearly, there is something entirely new over the last four years.

What no one on the panel mentioned was that the Senate is already a non-democratic chamber of the legislature. What’s more: it is heavily biased towards the Republicans. So the use of the filibuster by the Republicans is just adding insult to injury. Another thing no one mentioned (Dare they?) is that regardless of what happens, as soon as the Republicans control both the White House and the Senate, they will not only reform the filibuster; they will eliminate it. Republicans play for keeps. So it is fine to say we ought to keep the filibuster, but it isn’t up to the Democrats. The only question that is up to the Democrats is whether they will be allowed to legislate for a couple of years before the Republicans take back control of the Senate.

The most interesting thing in the whole discussion was how Arenberg and Frumin, when it comes down to it, agree with all the proposed changes to the filibuster. Their only concern is that once it is changed it will be easy to change it again, thus leading to its end. But as I said: this is inevitable regardless. And it shows their political naivete that they think it is otherwise.

In personal correspondence, I was reminded how much I like Dead Milkmen. They are what I’ve always thought punk was at its core: fun. All the great punk bands have much more enthusiasm than talent, and that is entirely true of them. In fact, they hearken back to early Ramones. Anyway, here are Dead Milkmen doing their hit “Punk Rock Girl” which includes a bit about the also wonderful Mojo Nixon:

Okay. Okay. Here’s some Mojo Nixon doing the great “Don Henley Must Die”:

John Nichols discusses some shocking results from the latest Gallup Poll on economic and ideological terms. Almost one-quarter of all Republicans have a favorable opinion of the word “socialism.” It has been well know that for a while, the “S” word had lost its scare power. But in the last two years, the number of Republicans who say they like the word has gone up from 17% to 23%. All the other group categories have seen increases in positive reactions to the word, but it is most intense among Republicans and conservatives.

Nichols thinks that the reason for this is the glib way that conservative politicians and pundits throw around the word “socialism.” I’m sure that he’s right. And this effect must be biggest on Republicans because they hear this kind of garbage the most. How else should people react when popular laws and politicians are labeled “socialist”? Remember when Clinton was president? There was blanket coverage in the right wing media calling him a socialist. Now, even or perhaps especially to conservatives, he was a great president. How can that not take some chill off “socialism”?

Most of the article is about the early history of the Republican Party and how radical it was. He even discusses the direct connection of the Republican Party with none other than Karl Marx. This is all straight out of his excellent book The “S” Word, which I reviewed for May Day. I highly recommend reading it; it is filled with forgotten history—or at least history that a large part of those in power wish was forgotten.

I think there is another aspect to all this increasing love for socialism. People make a distinction between “communism” and “socialism.” Communism is that totalitarian system practiced in Russia that collapsed due to its own weight. Socialism is the system they have in Switzerland, Finland, and even the United Kingdom. These are systems that are just as free as ours, but they are “nicer.” People still get rich. Markets still function. Yet the poor aren’t tormented, the sick get treatment, and minorities are protected. At the end of the day, that sounds pretty good. Is there anything great that our nastier system provides that theirs does not? Increasingly, our answer is no.

There is a question that is always floating around the minds of liberals: why don’t perfectly respectable progressive policy ideas get any media attention while wacky conservative ideas get promoted like journalists are being paid by marketing companies? Earlier today, Paul Krugman posted a really great, if short, article that gives an example of this—contrasting what is considered “serious” versus what is not. Raising the Capital Gains and Estate taxes is not serious. Raising the age of eligibility for Medicare is Very Serious indeed.

But here’s the thing. Krugman looks at the total in new revenue that Obama is suggesting: $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. Raising the Medicare eligibility age would save $0.113 trillion over the next ten years. That means that the unserious Obama proposal would raise almost 15 times as much money as the Serious Republican proposal would save.

What’s going on here? Krugman says that a proposal is only considered serious if it is painful for the poor and middle classes. But I think he’s just being glib—although certainly not completely wrong. I do think there is a common mindset in America that the only way a proposal can be effective is if it is painful. This is the “no pain, no gain” philosophy. And I am with Krugman in that this is part of the story. But there is a much more important part.

The most important issue here is that the media are just too cynical to accept that any plan that makes demands of the rich is politically viable. Like everyone else, they are so used to a system that is overwhelmingly tilted toward the rich, that they can’t imagine that things could be any other way. Thus, when presented with a budget proposal that would do much good but demands sacrifice from the rich, it is labeled a non-starter. (See, for example, the People’s Budget.) But a budget proposal that does little good while harming the poorer classes? They’ve seen that before! They know that’s definitely a possibility.

Of course, the media have been completely corrupted. Conservatives have been so successful playing the media, that they no longer even need to call foul—the media will do it for them. And this is what we get from even smart pundits like Ezra Klein who claimed that Obama’s proposal wasn’t serious. C.A. Rotwang in Cliff Notes, offers up what a truly progressive budget proposal would look like. What Obama offered is what would be called a moderate (centrist) proposal in any other developed nation. Here of course, it “unserious” and a “non-starter.”

This is the legacy of our media: only slightly less infatuated with power than fearful of being called “liberal.” The right has done an amazing job with the mainstream media. There are dictators all around the world who dream of such a “free” press. And this is perhaps the biggest reason that Washington continues to pass laws that are more conservative than what the vast majority of the voters want.

Ed Rendell is the prototypical New Democrat. Or as I like to think of him: an Old Republican. He is a good example of what I’m talking about when I say that any Republican of 40 years ago who really believed in what his party stood for would now be a Democrat. Any person still a Republican is either evil or just not that bright. But it goes further than this.

More and more, what it means to be a Democrat is to be socially liberal and economically conservative. And this is not a deal that I’m willing to make. I just don’t care so much about reproductive rights and gay marriage to abandon economic equality for them. But Ed Rendell, like most supposed liberals, depends upon these issues for his reputation. And I will grant him all of this: he is on the right side of all the really vile social issues that the medieval crowd make us fight over.

But the big issue is economic. We have ridiculous levels of inequality. This has led to far less tax revenues and thus deficits and debt. A big part of this is under-funding Social Security and Medicare—programs that the rich pay almost nothing into. And the solution for people like “liberal” Ed Rendell is simple: fuck the poorer classes!

Jonathan Valania writes about this in The Philly Post, Ed Rendell Is on the Wrong Side of the Class War. He starts by noting that he likes Rendell. I alway hate this kind of thing. So what? Andrew Breitbart seems to have been a personable guy, but the world is a much better place since he died. I care about Rendell only as much as he makes the world better, and it just doesn’t matter how many minor issues the man is right on. When it comes to the big issues, he is wrong.

Valania points out that in addition to being a corporate cheerleader for an investment bank (which somehow is never worth disclosing during any of his endless appearances on MSNBC), he a chairman of the steering committee of Fix the Debt. So the next time you see Rendell on the TV machine, ask yourself, do all of his nice words about marriage equality really make up for the fact that he wants to fuck the poorer classes with cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

I have never read any of John le Carré’s books. But I have seen two movies based upon his books. The first was many years ago: The Little Drummer Girl. It is an interesting film, but not all that good. It is probably worth revisiting, especially with the continuing problems between the Israelis and Palestinians. The movie goes along with my many years of experience in academia: taken out of the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians love each other. Why? Because they are the same fucking people!

Last night, I watched The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Unlike The Little Drummer Girl, it is a great film. Above all, the film is beautiful to look at. I really love the lighting and camera work of Oswald Morris (Look Back in Anger). But also, the story is stronger, and acting better, and the film just reeks of Cold War tension.

On a basic level, these two films are the same: individuals matter and states are just evil institutions. In The Little Drummer Girl, this is more implicit. Of course, it was written 20 years latter. Apparently, when le Carré first published The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, it created quite a stir. People were used to the James Bond crap and thought of spies as cowboys (Western) and Indians (Eastern). Le Carré was more sophisticated, saying in effect, “They’re all assholes.”

It was funny watching The Spy Who Came in from the Cold last night. This story, created almost 50 years ago, evidences so much more nuanced an understand of foreign affairs than we get today even in serious reporting. I think we’ve taken a big step backwards. If The Spy Who Came in from the Cold were released today, it would be savagely attacked on Fox News. And this is after Dick Chaney and company said publicly what Control says in the film: they need to be as evil as the other side.

Of course, if this is all that le Carré had on offer, both these movies would be nothing more than exercises in extreme cynicism. But they aren’t. This is because they provide the one defense we have against an evil world: our individual relationships. This is what makes the ending of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold so noble, if sad.

I’m a big fan of Liberal Viewer (see the link on the sidebar below). Still, I don’t think he has ever created as good a video as he did yesterday on Fox News’ coverage of the “War on Christmas.” Check it out:

This morning Ezra Klein wrote, The Reality of Tax Reform: Less Charity, Smaller Homes, Higher State Taxes. It gets to the heart of politics, but most especially Republican politics. It’s all about vagueness of proposals.

The reason I associate it with Republicans is that their policy prescriptions are generally unpopular. So rather than say “cut popular deductions” they say, “Let’s broaden the tax base.” That sounds great, right? Broaden the tax base! It sounds like getting other people involved in paying taxes. What it means is making you pay more in taxes.

Klein quote Peter Orszag, who notes that 90% of all deductions (or “base broadening,” if you prefer) is in the form of three deductions: home interest, charitable giving, and state and local taxes. The home interest deduction was put in place to encourage home ownership. In general, I’m not in favor of it. Home ownership tends to tie workers down and make them more compliant. In fact, I think this was the main purpose of it; the government doesn’t really give a rat’s ass about who owns property; someone will own it who will pay taxes.

I also don’t think much about the charitable giving tax deduction. I tend to think that people give to charities because they want to. The fact that they get a deduction is just icing on the cake. The state and local taxes deduction, on the other hand, is very important. These taxes tend to be regressive or at least not progressive. Providing a federal tax deduction limits some of the harm that these taxes cause.

The main thing to notice about these tax deductions is how much they would affect the middle class. This gets back to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Mitt Romney’s budget proposal. The problem was that there just weren’t enough upper class deductions to pay for the upper class tax cuts. Of course, Romney knew that. He just didn’t think that anyone else would notice.

And so the Republican Party continues on with their vague plans to “broaden the tax base.” This is because they know that “screw the middle class” would not be very easy to sell. But that’s what it is. If someone will not give you details, it is because it is a bad deal. In this case, it is a bad deal.

Update (30 November 2012 10:23 pm)

I just saw Ezra Klein hosting The Last Word. He noted that people making over $200,000 per year give 20% of the nation’s total charitable giving. This represents about the top 2.5% of income earners. But let’s look at the top 1%, because I have data on them. They earn 24% of the total yearly earnings. They own 40% of all the wealth in the country. My point here is that the rich apparently don’t give to charities at as high a level as their income and wealth would indicate. As usual: fuck the rich. They are a bunch of selfish assholes. Ezra Klein needs to stop pointing out the large absolute value of their giving and put it into perspective.