mondrian’s neon fantod

Perhaps you heard about Republican Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia and his bellyaching over the fact that apparently the incoming Democrats are going to try to get Congress to work – horror of horrors! – a five day work week. In case you didn’t, though, here’s what he said:

“Keeping us here eats away at families,” the Georgia Republican told The Washington Post. Hoyer and the Democrats who will soon take control of the House, Kingston charged, “could care less about families – that’s what this says.”

Well, here’s what liberal blogger Nancy Greggs had to say in response:

Representative Jack Kingston
2242 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

Having read your quote of last week in response to the announcement that under the newly elected Democratic majority, you will be working a five-day week as opposed to your traditional three-day workweek, I have to say that I truly commiserate with your desire to spend more valuable time with your family.

As you so graciously put it, “Keeping us up here eats away at families,” and who could possibly argue with that statement?

When one thinks about all of the people who will not be spending time with their families, especially as the holidays draw near, it is a truly depressing state of affairs.

There are those who, thanks to your support of this president and his policies, will be missing family members who they will never see again, because they died in Iraq fighting for that Noble Cause we’ve heard so much about. I’m sure that many of them would be willing to work 12-hour workdays, without a single day off for the rest of their lives, if they could spend one day, or even one hour, with their child, their spouse, their best friend who is no more.

There are those from New Orleans who will not be spending any time at home with their families, because their homes no longer exist. They were destroyed while you and your colleagues did nothing, and still stand in ruins in a city that waited for assistance that never came.

There are those who cannot spend time with their families because they now have to work two jobs, sometimes three, in order to make ends meet, while your party supported the outsourcing of the one good-paying job they used to hold.

There are those who cannot see distant relatives as frequently as they used to, because the price of gas has made driving long distances unaffordable, in spite of the tax breaks you supported for the oil companies and their record-breaking profits.

There are others who cannot afford to travel because they are paying for the prescription drugs their elderly parents need to survive – drugs on which, due to your party’s endorsement, pharmaceutical companies reap enormous profits without having to offer any discounts to those in dire need.

And sadly, there are those whose families were scattered when they fell below the poverty level under your party’s rule, families that can no longer afford to stay together under one roof – unless it is the roof of a cardboard box on a street corner, or the roof of an abandoned car.

Yes, there is nothing more important than being able to spend more time with one’s family – especially someone like yourself, who has worked so tirelessly for the good of your constituents, and for our nation as a whole.

One can only imagine how exhausting it has been to spend three days per week rubber-stamping Bush’s every whim, trying to act busy when you are supposed to be exercising oversight and are instead doing nothing, staying ever-vigilant about your colleagues lest you get caught up in the corruption that seems to be rampant among Republican elected officials these days.

No one would dispute the fact that bearing such a heavy workload for three days out of every seven would require long periods of relaxation with your family.

I would strongly suggest that if the Democrats are going to insist on a full workweek for the paltry $165,200 they pay you (plus benefits, pension and perks), perhaps you should just hand in your resignation now. I have no doubt that a hard-working American like yourself will have no trouble finding more reasonable employment in the booming economy that you and your party have worked so hard to create.

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not mention your statement that “the Democrats could care less about families — that’s what this says.”

Well, that’s the Democrats for you, and you should have seen it coming. They are just too focused on making things better for all American families to devote their time exclusively to you and your family. What a bunch of uncaring, unpatriotic bastards.

I sincerely wish you and yours a wonderful holiday season and a Happy New Year, and hope I have not ruined your family togetherness by reminding you that your family is not the only family in the country experiencing rough times.

Yours with all the respect you rightfully deserve,
Nancy Greggs

Visit Nance Rants for the aftermath and all.

I heard Dean Baker on the Sam Seder Show on Air America my way into work this morning. He’s released his latest book, The Conservative Nanny State as a free ebook. It contains information and insight such as this:

As this book has argued, it is ridiculous for progressives to embrace a position that puts the government acting in the public interest in opposition to the market. The market is an incredibly powerful force. Good policy seeks to harness it in ways that produce desirable social outcomes. It is much easier to have the river flow in the right direction, than to try to block its path and have it flow backwards. The nanny state conservatives have spent the last quarter century putting in place a set of policies and rules that ensure that the river flows in a way that sends income upwards. If these rules are not challenged, then it will be impossible to design policies that ensure that the bulk of the population enjoys a decent standard of living.

It is also ridiculous to claim that conservatives don’t like government or that they don’t run it well. It is true that conservatives don’t like big government social programs, but that is because they want to redistribute income upward and big government social programs are designed to provide security for the entire population. But conservatives are enthusiastic supporters of the big government policies that send income flowing upward, and they are quite effective in running the sectors of government that bring about this end.

In the Reagan and Bush administrations (as was also the case in the Clinton administration) there were no serious problems with foreign doctors or other highly paid professionals practicing in the United States and competing down the wages of U.S. professionals, as the government quite effectively limited such competition. The Fed has been quite successful on several occasions in raising interest rates and keeping millions of people from holding jobs. Pfizer, Microsoft, and Time-Warner have been able to have their patents and copyrights successfully enforced not only in the United States, but increasingly across the globe, as U.S. trade negotiators have forced other countries to provide stronger patent and copyright protection in recent trade agreements. The nanny state conservatives even gave the government an enhanced role as a bill collector in the bankruptcy law that Congress passed in 2005.

The reality is that the nanny state conservatives want a big role for the government in the economy and they are very effective in managing the government when it comes to having it do the things that they care about. They might not do a good job in saving the people of New Orleans from a hurricane, but saving poor people is not the agenda of the nanny state conservatives. Their agenda is making sure that no one mass produces copies of Windows without Microsoft’s permission. Enforcing this type of monopoly, and other interventions that distribute income upward, is the role for government preferred by the nanny state conservatives, and the government performs these functions very well under their watch.

In addition to being essential for the effective design of government policy, reframing the debate is also crucial for the prospects for political success. The basic point is very simple: if progressives argue their positions using a script written by conservatives, then we lose. If we argue about “free trade” agreements, which have as one of their primary purposes increasing patent and copyright protection, then we start with a huge disadvantage. Even worse, progressives will sometimes talk about restricting drug patents (as in requiring compulsory licensing for essential medicines) as a form of interference with the free market. The hearts of the nanny state conservatives must be filled with joy when they hear their own rhetoric spouted passionately from the mouths of their political opponents.

The nanny state conservatives have largely been running the political show in the United States over the last quarter century. This is due in part to the fact that the liberal/progressive opposition has been so incredibly confused in trying to lay out an alternative framework. At the moment, there is nothing on the table that passes the laugh test in either its policy coherence or political appeal.

In order to have any hope at succeeding, we will have to move beyond the political framing of the nanny state conservatives. Many people have become comfortable with the framing “we like the government, they like the market,” but it is both wrong and politically ineffective. If liberals/progressives insist on adhering to this framework, then they guarantee themselves continuing failure in the national political debate. This framing would be fine if the point is to simply show up and be the perennial losers of national politics, but if the point is to actually change the world in a way that makes it better for the bulk of the population, then we must be prepared to move beyond the ideology of the conservative nanny state.

So if you’re interested in approaching political and economic debate from an educated, left-leaning perspective, you should probably download the ebook and read it. No, really. Read it.