The New York Times’ daily newsletter is an endless fountain of stupidity. Sometimes it is annoying. Sometimes it is unintentionally hilarious. Most of the time it is just tedious. But sometimes, it is just so off-the-charts stupid that it defies belief. Yesterday’s edition was one of those times.
The American left has been trying to rehabilitate big government since at least Barack Obama’s first term, if not longer. Obama got shellacked in the 2010 midterms after forcing the Obamacare shit sandwich down the nation’s throat. However, unlike Bill Clinton before him, Obama was not about to change course after his drubbing. It would be a cold day in hell before Obama would declare that the “era of big government is over.” When it was clear his legislative agenda was dead, Obama famously declared he still had a pen and a phone… i.e. he would implement his agenda by executive fiat, if necessary. Despite his immense personal popularity, the actual Obama agenda was never popular with the American people.
Obama’s economic policies were bad for the country. They led to anemic growth and chronic high unemployment. They caused Americans to be limited to a standard of living far below what they were capable of achieving. But, they weren’t so bad that people faced immediate hardship and suffering. They weren’t bad enough to cause a wide scale revolt. Enter loud-mouthed buffoon Joe Biden.
Drooling dementia-riddled “President” Pants Load has done more to discredit the progressive vision of big government than all of the right wing pundits combined. From the humiliating withdrawal out of Afghanistan, to the supply chain debacle, to the Russia-Ukraine impotence, to the empty store shelves, to the $4.50/gallon gas, to the 40-year high levels of inflation. Literally everything paste-eating dumbass Joe Biden touches turns to shit. He has the Midas touch, except in reverse.
Spin as they may, progressives realize the damage he is doing to their movement. They already know the mid-term election is going to be a blood bath for the Democrats. Even worse (for them), young (i.e. gullible) people might be turned off of big government solutions for the rest of their lives. Some serious damage control is needed. So in steps the New York Times. Their defense of big government is so weak and tone deaf, it almost sounds like a troll.
More than a decade ago, the political scientist Suzanne Mettler coined the phrase “the submerged state” to describe a core feature of modern American government: Many people don’t realize when they are benefiting from a government program.
So, according to the New York Times, the only problem with Big Government is that all of the awesome things it does are hidden from average citizens. The people would love Big Government if they could just understand how much it does for them. The fundamental problem with Big Government is actually just a messaging problem. Or so they claim.
Her main examples were tax breaks, including those that help people buy homes, pay for medical care and save for retirement. The concept also included programs so complex or removed from everyday life that many people did not understand them, like federal subsidies for local governments.
Wow. The best examples she could come up with were instances of the government confiscating less of your money. Golly gee, thanks. And the Feds giving money back to local governments after taking it from the citizens of those local governments seems like a wash at best. Surely, you can do better than that?
Mettler’s thesis is both a defense of government’s role and a criticism of the modern Democratic Party’s preference for technocratically elegant and often invisible policies. It wasn’t always this way, she points out. Social Security, Medicare and the G.I. Bill — as well as New Deal parks, roads and bridges, many with signs marking them as federal projects — helped popularize government action because they were so obvious.
I didn’t realize that “technocratically elegant” was a euphemism for corrupt and incompetent. Apparently grift is a thing of beauty to the left. And it is quite telling that they had to go all the way back to the fucking New Deal to find examples of infrastructure spending that actually went to things humans would recognize as infrastructure.
Unlike the New Deal, however, this $1.9 trillion federal investment in American communities has barely registered with voters. Rather than a trophy for Mr. Biden and his party, the program has become a case study in how easily voters can overlook even a lavishly funded government initiative delivering benefits close to home.
Delivering benefits? Really? Like a 40-year high in inflation? Like using tax-payer money to fund progressive pet projects and pay off Democrat donors instead of purchasing goods and services people actually want? Those kinds of benefits? The Times seems to be genuinely shocked that the American people are not more grateful to the Democrats for printing piles of money to blow on their whims and fantasies. How fucking dense do you have to be to think the American Rescue Plan has been in any way beneficial? I am convinced that the average Democrat is completely illiterate on economics. Every dollar that Big Government (inefficiently) spends on pork and pet projects is a dollar a citizen doesn’t get to spend himself to buy the things he actually wants and needs.
This is so obvious that it resonates with people on a gut level. They see sleazy morons like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi on TV and instinctively know they can spend their own money better than the government can. Over the last couple decades, Democrats have gotten around this obstacle largely by promising they will be throwing around someone else’s money. Be it the “evil rich” or “greedy corporations” or whatever other bogey-man they can dredge up. However, the truth is that the people who will be paying for all of today’s government handouts are our children. Our national debt is exploding, and it will be crippling to future generations. And both political parties are responsible. The Democrats used to be Tax-and-Spend. The Republicans used to be Tax-Cuts-and-Spending-Cuts. Now both parties are Borrow-and-Spend. The only difference between the two is which team’s donors get a cut. Playing to voters’ greed wins elections.
Examples in the American Rescue Plan include community center renovations, housing initiatives and health programs. Collectively, the projects may be valuable. Individually, many may be so modest as to go unnoticed. Americans also may not realize that the projects are connected to a federal law.
Even the money that isn’t wasted and stolen through corruption is largely spent on stupid shit. It wouldn’t matter very much if the world ran on Monopoly money like progressives seem to think it does. But when the federal government printed up a shit ton of dollars to pay for this dumpster fire, every dollar resting in the average citizen’s pocket was instantly worth less than before. Who gives a shit about community center renovations when you can’t even afford to buy groceries for your family? The tone-deafness is stunning. And in no fucking sane universe should Americans be expected to be “grateful” when the government spends our money in ways that actually benefit us. If Kamala Harris goes out and gets a second job to buy me shit, then I will be grateful. But while those DC assholes continue to confiscate my money and give me tiny scraps in return, they can all go fuck themselves.
Many Democrats know that voters remain unsure about how their party has used its control of government over the past 15 months to help people. With their poll numbers sagging, Democrats in Congress are trying to figure out what new pieces of legislation they may be able to pass in coming weeks.
Spoiler alert: Democrats haven’t done shit to help average Americans. They have spent like drunken sailors to please their progressive base and grease the palms of their supporters. And if they do manage to spend even more money they don’t have, it will not be for your benefit. But you will have the privilege of paying for it…. or your children will.
“Democrats win elections when we show we understand the painful economic realities facing American families and convince voters we will deliver meaningful change,” Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote this week. “To put it bluntly: if we fail to use the months remaining before the elections to deliver on more of our agenda, Democrats are headed toward big losses in the midterms.”
Democrats win elections when they censor their opponents, stuff ballot boxes, and bribe voters with other peoples’ money. Their only agenda is to spend more. Always more, more, more. If not for Joe Manchin, inflation might be closer to 40% right now.
It’s a reasonable argument. But the party still does not seem to be reckoning with the problems of the submerged state.
Which raises the question: If a policy passes in Washington and nobody can hear it, does it make any political noise?
There you have it, the New York Times’ best case for Big Government. Convinced yet? I assume that last line is just a throwaway intended to be a cute play on the old if-a-tree-falls-in-the-woods riddle. What a dumbass.
