Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:29 PM ET, 12/14/2010

Reconciliation

By Ezra Klein

Recap: How the tax deal could fail; a shot at Senate reform; and the Washington Wizards' theory of inequality and financial crises.

Elsewhere:

1) Dave Weigel rounds up the statements of all the Republicans who might be presidential candidates and who've commented on the tax deal.

2) "This is increasingly my fear: that there is no principled alternative to muddling through; that every ideologue's op-ed is wrong, except the ones serendipitously right. But muddle we must." Will Wilkinson deserves some sort of blogging award for this post.

3) Larry Summers's farewell address.

4) I'll be talking tax deal on Lawrence O'Donnell's show at about 10 p.m. Eastern.

Recipe of the day: spicy red lentil dal (and three more lentil recipes).

By Ezra Klein  | December 14, 2010; 6:29 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: You know what's not working well?
Next: Wonkbook: Senate will vote on tax deal today; House looks to change estate provisions; Admin's housing plans criticized

Comments

I'll comment on Will Wilkinson's post here because I don't have a login at the Economist.

True to his libertarian roots, he addresses the problem through rhetoric and philosophy rather than data. If his thesis were correct, that government power is inevitably turned in favor of those it is meant to restrain, then countries which implement more of the progressives' dream policies would be more corrupt and shower greater inequality in the distribution of wealth and power. You see the opposite. And if it were correct, the past, when these policies were not implemented, would show greater equality than the present. Well, this is a mixed bag. It depends how far back you go. Finally, the retrenchment of progressive policies that we've been seeing since Reagan should coincide with a lessening of inequality as the instrument of abuse was taken away from the abusers. Again, we see the opposite.

Wilkinson's rhetoric waves in an interesting direction, but to the extent that it provides testable theses it is wrong.

Posted by: dfhoughton | December 15, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company