May 20, 2011

Fun with Froma

Justin Katz

Longtime readers know that I've never been much of a Froma Harrop fan. People who know her assure me that she's reasonable, but she starts from (what one might call) the flawed premises of the ruling class. Still, when she focused on Rhode Island, at least she articulated a distinct perspective on matters of local concern; now that she's syndicated, she seems in direct competition with other national liberal pundits who are frustrating to read.

Every now and then, though, it's fun to dip into a column and spot the aforementioned premises, as is the case with last month's "The GOP's Third World vision for the United States":

Government programs are sustainable only if you sustain them. That's done primarily through taxes. Years of tax-cutting have helped drive federal tax revenues to a 60-year bottom relative to the gross domestic product.

Of course, as an economy grows — considering that few government programs necessarily scale directly with the prosperity of the nation (indeed, many should go in the opposite direction) — one would expect government to shrink on a relative basis. If we a priori set government as a proportion of the economy, then we'll ever be looking for programs on which to spend the unneeded money, which actually jibes pretty well with political trends of the past half century.

The interesting point, though, is that one could construct an explanation for that "60-year bottom" so as to credit tax cuts with economic growth. Harrop goes on, and I can't help but interject, here and there:

If low taxes are the key to economic growth, as Republicans assert, then why aren’t we doing better? [Because taxes at all levels of government are still too high, because regulations stifle the economy as well as taxes, and because the economy is cyclical without regard to the government.] What explains the phenomenal growth of the 1950s, when the top marginal rate hit 91 percent? [The Baby Boom and the release of pent up demand and production capacity after World War II.] Or the years following the Democrats' 1993 tax hike on high incomes, when the economy boomed, the budget ran a surplus and the rich did better than ever? [Conditions formed in the '80s and the development of new technologies, notably the Internet.] And what explains the mediocre job growth in 2001-2008, as two big tax cuts went into effect? [The dot-com bust and the shift of capital toward investment in speculative real estate, rather than productive enterprise, as a result of government policies making such speculation seem unreasonably safe.] Then came the crash, fueled by deregulation. [And Harropian liberals credit Obama's stimulus for preventing worse, even as they fail to mention the same possibility when it comes to Bush's tax cuts.]

Of course, my rejoinders are arguably as simplistic as Harrop's assertions, but I'm writing as a hobby on a blog, while she's making a healthy living as a professional opinionista. More importantly, her baseline philosophy initiates an error that affects all that she piles upon it:

Public benefits are what divide a rich-country way of life from the threadbare alternative. Let's assume that Americans want the blessings of the former.

To the extent that such a statement is true, it's circumstantial. The European model is pretty much the only "rich-country way of life" by which Americans can measure themselves, and just because Europe does things a certain way doesn't mean that the Continent is providing an objective example of what civilization ought to be.

Acknowledging that leads to the question of what the objective of a civic system ought to be, at which one must consider the longevity with which that "rich-country way of life" can be sustained. On that count, I'd suggest that we'd be much better off pursuing an alternative method of distributing our national prosperity that doesn't measure success by the amount of public benefits (either relative to the economy or in absolute terms), but in the well-being of the individuals who make up the citizenry.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Froma reminds me of an early economics professor, who began his course by raising his arms in a circle above his head and saying, "Assume the world..." He than laid out all of his utopian assumptions that completely conflicted with reality, and based the theories he taught on those false premises.

Froma begins every column with a lie and then goes off on tangents and name-calling. Just like the little Lefties around here.

Posted by: BobN at May 20, 2011 2:08 PM

I have been unable to take Froma seriously since she did an entire column on women shaving/waxing their pubic hair. Her thesis was that they were responding to men's desires that they appear pre-pubescent. I wondered if she had ever heard of the bikini.

Regarding the column under discussion, it is simply a "gloss", not an analysis. Sure the highest marginal rates are lower than they formerly were. But, the shift in tax burden to the high income earners has continued unabated. I have seen various numbers, but if you restrict yourself to "income tax" and ignore all other "payroll taxes", the top 25% of earners carry the country. With the increase in "working couples", there has been an increase in "high earners".

If Froma attempted to delve into facts, I am sure she would "cherry pick" the facts she liked.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at May 20, 2011 3:56 PM

To a liberal like her there are never enough taxes and fees. If you have a govt. program that received 1 billion dollars one year and 500 million the following year people like Froma call it a 50% cut. That is the insanity of the big govt. lefties.

Posted by: ANTHONY at May 20, 2011 4:16 PM


It's actually one better than that, very often: If the program gets $1 billion and asks for $1.5 billion the next year but only gets $1.25 billion, they call that a $250 million cut.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 20, 2011 4:50 PM

Credibility? Have we forgotten her entire column about Republicans taking their shirts off. That about says it all.

Posted by: Max Diesel at May 20, 2011 7:53 PM

She has also been on Amazing Women (630-PRO on Sunday mornings) a couple of times and listening to her is more frustrating than her two-bit writing.

Posted by: dave at May 21, 2011 11:01 AM

Dave, mosey on down to the studio in your scruffiest shorts and most moldy T-shirt. Froma is obsessed with how people dress, and if you don't meet her standards, she's out of there.

Posted by: bella at May 22, 2011 10:33 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.