Did you read the article?

Tony,

I have a few things to say in response to your recent posts.  First is that "Keynesian" has become the new "socialist", in that it's thrown around in a semi-descriptive half-truth sort of way; I would lay 5-1 that the majority of people using it couldn't even define it.

A basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the invisible hand doesn't always work exactly right (that a bunch of self-interested actors, left to their own devices, won't necessarily lead us to an optimal position).  Sometimes, it's necessary for the government to step in and guide the economy, whether it's spending in one place, taxing in another, or cutting taxes someplace else.  My reading of her conclusion wasn't that we need to adopt a Reagan-esque (the myth, not the man- he actually spent a buttload of money) tax-cutting and spending-slashing policy- it was basically a "deficit be damned we need to do everything we can to breathe life into the economy now; cut taxes and spend".

I don't disagree that that might be a good short-term strategy, but it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.

The second thing I want to say is, even if Keynesians believed that it is important to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and assuming that Ms. Romer changed her beliefs, why is that like a smoking gun?  Just like the Muslims with no knowledge of what might go into the "Ground Zero Mosque (Eff you Jesus, America, and football)"  (which I think is the new official name for the thing) shouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the Muslims who want to build the thing, I don't think that her words should carry any more weight when she falls on the other side of an issue than they have for the past couple years.

Finally, to get back to the question that you asked a week ago, whether it could possibly be good for the economy to let some tax cuts expire, the short answer is yes.  The argument is:
(1) tax cuts will lead to less tax revenue (a position that's generally difficult, but not impossible, to argue with)
(2) all else being equal, less revenue will mean less of a surplus or a larger deficit (impossible to argue with- depending on a person's intellectual honesty, he might succumb to the temptation to throw "you liberals could just spend less" in there, but that would be ignoring the "all else being equal" part.  If you allow finger-pointing, then it gets very difficult to make subtle points)
(3) a larger deficit (or less of a surplus) makes it harder for the country to borrow money, it also means that there is less faith in the dollar, which will make it weaker relative to other currencies.  (tough to argue w/ this)
(4) if the dollar seems to be weakening, people w/ capital and the ability to invest elsewhere will, which will slow down the economy.

Basically, if you believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you have to be at least partly behind the idea that a tax cut could be bad for the economy.  If you don't believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you're probably not one of the people complaining about out of control spending.

The Ground Zero Mosque

I want to get up on my soapbox and speak briefly about the whole "ground zero mosque" controversy.  In my opinion, this is everything that's wrong with our dysfunctional mess of hyper-politicized news, including the fact that the news stations prey on people who are unwilling to even consider subtlety.

Let me start by saying I totally understand the initial reaction that the mosque being placed there is in poor taste.  The headline itself, "Ground Zero Mosque" is a funny mix of words that pulls out the xenophobia in me; I'd imagine it does the same thing to others, as well.  However, although the headline is true, it's my understanding that it's not exactly accurate.

First of all, according to a member of the forums at Slickdeals (I know, not exactly like citing case law), the area in question used to be a Burlington Coat Factory.  It's two blocks from "ground zero", but the site of the WTC is, apparently, huge.  According to this user, a two block radius from the WTC is a few square miles in NY- which has an incredibly dense population.  The proposed mosque will not be some substantial shrine to the terrorists- it will be one of a bunch of buildings, dwarfed by others up to 10 times as tall.

Further, the mosque itself sounds more like a YMCA than anything else- it apparently will have a swimming pool, a gymnasium, some shops, and other stuff.  Also, to contrast with the church nearby that the government is "not rebuilding", the investors here are paying for the whole thing and aren't breaking any zoning laws.  (the other church was apparently offered $60 million to rebuild and turned that offer down)

In my opinion, assuming all of this is true, the reality of the situation (nondescript building, one among many others in the area) is far different from a temple being constructed on the rubble of the WTC (the image I get when I read "Ground Zero Mosque").  With that in mind, I want to take a look at some of the other stuff being said.

First, there's the "admission" by some Muslims that this is a shrine to the terrorists.  Those Muslims aren't part of the committee behind this, so their thoughts are only speculation.  I don't like that the fact that someone is Muslim means that person can speak to the intent of every other Muslim out there.  I'll address this more later (when I talk about the initial terrorists themselves), but I know that I don't want a lazy white male Christian speaking on behalf of all other lazy white male Christians.  I don't think that a bunch of white business owners would be too happy about me admitting, on their behalf, that our country is racist and intentionally holds minorities down.  The fact that my skin is the same color doesn't give me some magical ability to read their minds.

Next, I want to talk about the freedoms we enjoy as a country.  I still don't know all of the amendments, but I'm pretty sure that the government isn't allowed to discriminate based on religion.  That means that you can't forbid Jews from building a temple someplace where you would allow Christians (or something very close to that).  Here, the problem isn't that there's going to be a place of worship in the area- the problem is that there's going to be a Muslim place of worship.

So, the question becomes- do we punish an entire group of people based solely on the acts of a few radicals who happen to practice the same religion?  The answer is obvious.  I know that this is a low blow, but we don't prevent Catholic churches from existing within a few blocks of schools, even though a few rogue priests were perverts.  I don't see a meaningful distinction here.

As a matter of fact, this situation isn't totally unprecedented.  Pearl Harbor was horrible- we had a lot of righteous angry energy, and we decided (in the name of anger and paranoia) to take it out on an entire group of people, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbor itself.  That reaction is something that I, as an American who wasn't even alive at the time, am ashamed of today.

I think that, if we figure out some way to prevent the mosque from being built, we will someday realize that we maximized our losses following September 11th.  In addition to the actual lives lost that day, we have already given up our time (see airport security), our common sense (again, see airport security), and a large chunk of our optimism.  If those who oppose this mosque emerge victorious, we will have also given away our principles and have exposed our national hypocrisy.  We will have treated a group of people worse than another, at the whim of the majority.  In less than a century, we've moved from throwing people in internment camps to integrating schools, to electing a black president.  I don't want to take a big step backwards.

On that note, I also want to complain briefly about the common thinking that president Obama "backpedaled" with his statements.  He first said that it would be legal for the mosque to be built (or something like that).  He then said that it's legal for the mosque to be built, but that he's not going to comment on whether or not it is poor taste.  Those two positions are hardly contradictory.  The man was a constitutional law professor- surely we can forgive him for basing his initial answer on a legal analysis of the merits of the situation, rather than how it will play among a bunch of brainwashed zombies who won't read past the headline.  Saying that something is legal is far from endorsing it.