Dean Baker — Paul Ryan: Top Republican Budget Wonk, Wants to Shut Down Air Traffic Control System, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and Every Other Non-Defense Portion of Government

US "emerging" into the Third World?

Ryan essentially proposed eliminating virtually all of the federal government by 2050 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of his plan that was done under his direction. According to CBO's analysis (page 16), under his plan in 2050 government spending on the military, infrastructure, law enforcement, research, and all non-health forms of income support, would be 3.5 percent of GDP. This is roughly equal to current levels of military spending, a level that Ryan and other Republicans have indicated they want to maintain. The implication is that Ryan would shut down just about all other parts of the federal government.

It would be more informative to readers if the NYT told them what Ryan's "thinking and philosophy" is rather than devoting an article to praising him for having one.

Beat the Press
Paul Ryan: Top Republican Budget Wonk, Wants to Shut Down Air Traffic Control System, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and Every Other Non-Defense Portion of Government

Dean Baker

Why Climate Change Will Make You Love Big Government

Such calamities, devastating for those affected, have important implications for how we think about the role of government in our future. During natural disasters, society regularly turns to the state for help, which means such immediate crises are a much-needed reminder of just how important a functional big government turns out to be to our survival.

Read it at TruthDig
Why Climate Change Will Make You Love Big Government
By Christian Parenti, TomDispatch

Mark Thoma on the hidden agenda behind "expansionary fiscal austerity"

Mark Thoma doesn't buy that the people running things are so dim that they don't see that "expansionary fiscal austerity" is an oxymoron. Their agenda is the same old conservative agenda of shrinking government.

There clearly is a class of people willing to sacrifice the livelihood and well-being of others in pursuit of their ideological goal of a smaller government (so long as their own future remains secure). The notion of "expansionary austerity" was the cover, but so long as government shrinks as a result of the policy, the expansionary part is secondary. If reducing the size of government slows the recovery, that's a small price to pay for such a worthy goal -- for them anyway, the power behind this is in no danger of becoming unemployed. The main thing is to impose the small government ideology whenever there is a chance, and to use whatever argument is needed to serve that purpose, austerity is expansionary, tax cuts pay for themselves -- whatever works -- the ideologues will even embrace Keynesian economics if it allows them to argue for tax cuts that might further "starve the beast" (e.g. see Bush's argument for the first round of his tax cuts). But in the end the goal is a simple one, reduce the size and influence of government, and everything else is just a means of getting there.

Read it at Economist's View
The Purpose of Macroeconomic Policy?
by Mark Thoma

Morons or evil geniuses? Or may a combination of both?