Even if increased equity were to involve a slightly smaller pie, the resulting social order may be preferred. When poverty declines, the social costs of poverty fall, and despair is replaced by hope.
This is a welcome development: Call them the debt crisis dissenters. The two parties are miles apart on how to cut the deficit and national debt: Republicans want to slash spending even more. Democrats want to raise revenue. And then there are the other Democrats — the ones who reject the entire premise of the current high-stakes fiscal fight. There’s no short-term deficit problem, they say, and there isn’t even an urgent debt crisis that requires immediate attention.
Since the years of Reagan and Thatcher, we have heard a steady drumbeat about the limitations of government. But what about the limitations of the free market?
In 2008, both enthusiasts and enemies of a new New Deal misjudged Obama. They also misjudged the circumstances he faced.
It's official: Congress passed a debt-ceiling deal, and the president signed it. While this is certainly preferable to the country defaulting on its obligations, it's not an inspiring piece of legislation.
"In these tough times, Americans are tightening their belts—and their government needs to do the same." This bipartisan applause line is pithy, full of populist empathy and easy to understand. It's also exactly wrong.