Americans enter 2014 with a profoundly negative view of their government, expressing little hope that elected officials can or will solve the nation's biggest problems, a new poll finds.
Half say America's system of democracy needs either "a lot of changes" or a complete overhaul, according to the poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Just 1 in 20 says it works well and needs no changes.
Americans, who have a reputation for optimism, have a sharply pessimistic take on their government after years of disappointment in Washington.
The percentage of Americans saying the nation is heading in the right direction hasn't topped 50 in about a decade. In the new poll, 70 percent lack confidence in the government's ability "to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014."…
Regardless of the issue, however, Americans express remarkably little confidence that the federal government can make real progress.
For instance, 86 percent of those who called health care reform a top priority said they want the government to put "a lot" or "a great deal" of effort into it. But about half of them (49 percent) are "not at all confident" there will be real progress, and 20 percent are only "slightly confident."
The third item on the lest is the deficit and debt. Even the authors of this report is clueless that the deficit and therefore the debt are endogenous.
Even on an issue completely within the federal government's control, the budget and national debt, 65 percent of those who called it a priority say they have no confidence in the government's ability to fix it. Another 20 percent are only "slightly confident."But the good new is that people are at least looking for change. Time to propose a complete overhaul, putting people first and thinking globally, which is what it will take to address climate change.
The Huffington Post
Half Of Americans Think Our Democracy Needs 'A Lot Of Changes' Or A Complete Overhaul
Charles Babington and Jennifer Agiesta
10 comments:
"Endogenous" is a vague and almost meaningless term in connection with debt and deficits. If the statement that deficits are endogenous means that policy choices can't precisely control the exact quantity of the annual deficit, then the statement is true but utterly trivial, and unimportant.
If the statement instead means that policy choices have no impact whatsoever on the size of the annual deficit, then the claim is ridiculous and without evidential support.
then the statement is true but utterly trivial, and unimportant.
Trivial perhaps, but not unimportant. Even policy makers think (erroneously) that the deficit is exogenously determined by the budget, so that a balanced budget will automatically result in a fiscal balance. That is not true given there are variables involved that are determined cyclically based on economic outcomes, e.g., automatic stabilizers and tax revenue, as well as interest charges. I'd say this is a big deal. It's why neoliberal economists were surprised that expansionary fiscal austerity didn't work in the EZ, for instance, when tanking AD didn't result in internal devaluation that would raise exports and decrease imports. Instead, it resulted in increased stabilization and lower taxes, driving up deficits.
It's those pesky variables.
Tom, I don't know what percentage of policy makers actually believed that their governments have total control over the size of the deficit, but I can't believe it was actually many. And among economists of all persuasions, the percentage must be close to 0%.
In any case, stressing this fact in the context of real-world fiscal policy decisions seems to be missing the point. Policy-makers need intelligible and sensible policy rules, not just reminders of the opposite.
I meant "reminders of the obvious".
There is a strong push for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, and it looks like a majority of the public is on board.
Balanced Budget Advocates Seek Article Constitutional Convention
Balanced Budget Amendment: Instrument to Force Spending Cuts, Not Tax Hikes
Democrats have already agreed that spending increases have to be paid for.
Dan to quantify this a bit...
If you look at the govt baseline budget here on page 187,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf
the existing baseline had the deficit planned to come in at over 900B in 2013 just finished where we came in at around 600, so they were off by about 33%...
Now for 2014 they are projecting 627B and just for Oct and Nov we are already at 227B so looks like we will blow thru their '14 numbers on the high side by close to 50%...
So I dont know how much value there is in their trying to manage this number... perhaps the 'endo/exo' is not the best adjectives but I think it is fair to say these numbers are not directly controlled by the govt sector in any meaningful way... like if we were talking about a household budget or a firm's P&L.... which are very manageable/controllable for given stable revenues for each of these types of non-govt entities...
So the govt case is very unique if nothing else (which we know...)
rsp,
"are not directly controlled by the govt sector in any meaningful way..."
Even if they are not precisely controllable, Matt, they depend on policy. So they are not endogenous. If they were endogenous, then within the MMT macroeconomic framework there really wouldn't be any reason to offer any fiscal policy prescriptions whatsoever.
With this kind of insoucient hand-waving, it's not surprising that MMT never got past first base with serious progressive policy-makers like Bernie Sanders.
Dell Dan I see a bit of a conflict within MMT where some of the leaders will recommend modulation of 'the deficit' while some do not....
Warren definitely is looking at the deficit as something the govt can control (exogenous?) while Bill M not so much (endogenous?)
I lean heavily towards Bill's version...
So this is hard to get a handle on for me anyway... might be the same for someone like Sanders...
rsp,
"Well Dan" not "Dell Dan" (unless dude you got a Dell Dan... sorry watching football!) rsp,
"There is a strong push for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution"
Wouldn't this mean elected officials were acting against the general welfare of the United States?, and if so, couldn't a lawsuit be filed against them?
Post a Comment