David "Hoover" Broder and Michael "Hoover" Scherer

From dday:

Hullabaloo: Digby pointed yesterday to David Broder's none-too-subtle warning that the next President had better not get any funny ideas about investing in the future or giving those among the least of society a hand or anything. Obviously we need to get through the next 22 days and usher in a Democratic President. But this is an absolutely vital discussion that we need to be having right now.

Unsurprisingly, Broder's concern trolling about the economic downturn and the debt reflects mainstream Beltway opinion of the moment. There's a reason why the story about the US debt clock needing extra digits got so much attention. Call it neo-Hooverism, as Matt Yglesias has taken to doing. Throughout the debates serious guardians of the discourse like Jim Lehrer and Tom Brokaw have hounded the candidates about what parts of their agendas they would cut or scale back in the midst of the slowdown. Here's Michael Scherer of TIME following their lead.

Neither candidate has the courage to speak straight with the American people about our nation’s fiscal problems. Asked about the financial crisis, McCain talked about energy independence, hitting the same talking points he used in July. Obama talked about the need to give tax cuts to the middle class, and expand spending programs, a proposal he put forward last year. Both men have proposed policies that will lead to an increase in the deficit, according to independent analysts, even without a dramatic economic downturn, which looks increasingly inevitable. Neither man has shown any clear intention to tell Americans to face head on the hard economic times that await us. This is politics. The candidates are playing it safe, not telling voters anything they don’t want to hear. They choose to demagogue Wall Street instead.

This is precisely the opposite of what needs to be done in a recession. In fact, the crisis facing the states right now is emblematic of this idiotic mindset. When the economy slows, tax revenues decrease. The demand for social services increases. So more is needed while less is earned. This leads to deficits, and because of balanced budget amendments at the state level (thank God we don't have them federally), spending cuts are implemented. This shrinking of state and local spending shrinks the economy. Which prolongs the recession and prolongs the pain. That's what the Beltway chattering class is RECOMMENDING.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Comments

[J]

The Beltway Chattering Class is recommending that because THEY aren't in danger of loosing their jobs, health insurance or homes or going hungry. And THEY are in high enough tax brackets that they don't want to pay for the rest of us poor schlubs who aren't in that top 1/10% of household income (about $5.6 million a year in 2007, according to David Cay Johnston. At $5.6 million a year, they can afford to not worry about retirement, as well.)

I wish someone would ask them about that obvious conflict of interest.

[SvN]

For those of you who think of Canada as a socialist state, I thought I should mention that today is election day up here, and throughout the campaign all five national parties agreed on the absolute need to run government surpluses without fail in all economic conditions.

That's right, all five. Yes, even the Green party and the NDP (i.e. "Labour").

Clearly, the inability to speak intelligently about fiscal policy is not just an american problem.