Pixel Tracker

Thursday, January 17 , 2019, 7:39 am | Fog/Mist 59º

 
 
 

David Sirota: The Money Paradox Still Counts in Today’s Politics

Depending on whom it serves, cash is billed as both all-powerful and completely powerless

If there’s one thing you can still count on from today’s increasingly erratic politics, it is pure unadulterated paradox.

In a Washington circus that features as many morons as oxymorons, we have self-described deficit hawks who promote tax cuts, alleged war opponents who back war escalations, and supposed anti-government conservatives who press to expand the National Security State. Heck, we even have senators who famously brag of voting for things before voting against them.

That said, for sheer Ringling Brothers-grade flamboyance, none of those contradictions matches the one relating to money. With spectacular regularity, cash is now simultaneously billed as both all-powerful and completely powerless, depending on whom the particular definition serves.

Exhibit A is the December fight on Capitol Hill over spending and tax cuts. A standard back and forth over macroeconomics, the debate saw politicians of both parties assert that different ways of deploying taxpayer resources would guarantee different results from economic actors. Pass more tax cuts, Republicans said, and profit-seeking small-business owners will be motivated to hire more workers. Provide more unemployment benefits, Democrats said, and the jobless will be moved to spend more on consumer goods.

These messages, unflinchingly transcribed by a servile press corps, all echoed the basic assumption that money is the prime motivator of human action. The underlying theory is simple: Cash goes in, actions automatically come out. It makes basic mechanical sense — until you listen to what else is being said at the same time.

A week after the tax cut bill passed, the Washington Post reported that Democratic Montana Sen. Max Baucus had held a big fundraiser on the day the Senate was voting on the legislation. Since the measure disproportionately benefited Baucus’ rich donors, the question was simple: Did the campaign cash influence his yes vote in the same decisive way that his Senate colleagues said tax-cut cash would affirmatively influence employer hiring?

“Money has no influence on how Sen. Baucus makes his decisions,” the senator’s spokesman said.

The refrain epitomizes how Washington regularly writes cash out of the political narrative. But it’s merely one of many examples, and not just from politicians either. The whitewashing pervades much of the political media, too.

For instance, The New York Times’ Matt Bai recently penned a slobbering paean to Rahm Emanuel that simultaneously omitted the Chicago mayoral candidate’s investment banking career and aggressive corporate fundraising, while definitively declaring that Emanuel has “spent most of his adult life doing the people’s work.”

Last week, most of the political press touted two prospective White House staffers, Bill Daley and Gene Sperling, primarily as “former Clinton officials” rather than as a J.P. Morgan executive and a Goldman Sachs contractor, respectively. This week, you can bet it will be more of the same.

“The political and media class says money never motivates anyone in politics at the same time they insist we live in a free market whose only motivating factor is money,” MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur said, summing up the paradox.

Which is reality? Does money play a major role in human behavior — and specifically in both economic and political decision-making? Or does money play no role at all? It simply can’t be both at the same time. So which is it?

The answer should be obvious in this golden age of political corruption. As alien and bizarre as Washington, D.C.‘s culture has become, money is still money — even in the nation’s capital. It buys, incentivizes and persuades, no matter if the transaction is documented on a grocery-store receipt or a campaign finance report. The paradox may distract us from that axiom, but it is, indeed, an axiom — and it holds true regardless of whether a widget or a congressman is up for sale.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books Hostile Takeover and The Uprising and blogs at OpenLeft.com. Click here for more information. He can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.