Talking tough
A conversation with Robert Samuelson
by Dan Kennedy
by Dan Kennedy
"I'm a reporter," he says. "I've always been a reporter. I don't have any aspirations to be anything but a reporter."
Despite his disdain for ideological labels, Samuelson's new book, The Good Life and Its Discontents, lends considerable intellectual heft to the notion that modern life has been shaped by a liberal consensus that even Newt Gingrich has no intention of undoing. Samuelson has been criticized by Robert Kuttner, in the New York Times Book Review, and Paul Krugman, in the Washington Monthly, for his thesis that government activism has essentially reached its limits. Kuttner and Krugman are particularly unhappy with what they think is Samuelson's passive acceptance of growing inequality and economic insecurity.
Samuelson's response: "Government does not know enough to really fundamentally change the distribution of income in our society."
Samuelson sat down for an interview with the Phoenix during a recent swing through Boston to promote his book. Some highlights:
* On big government. "Big government is a permanent aspect of American life. So when Bill Clinton says, `The era of big government is over,' that is just wrong. And it is wrong when Republicans say it. Because in general they don't mean it. If they meant it, they would say, `We're going to get rid of Social Security. We're going to get rid of Medicare.' And almost nobody wants that. But it doesn't mean that Medicare ought to remain exactly as it is."
* On economic insecurity. "Actual job stability has not declined so much as anxiety about it has increased. I think that there are things the government can do to help deal practically with some of the insecurities and anxieties that people have. I think we ought to make it easier for people to carry health insurance. I think we can make it easier for pensions to be portable between companies. But if you make it too costly for companies to fire workers, to lay them off when they feel they have to, they won't hire them. The ultimate job security we have is the ability of the economy to create new jobs. It's not protecting the existing jobs."
* On European-style social benefits. "Between the early 1970s and the mid 1990s the unemployment rate in Europe has gone from three percent to 11 percent. These societies are basically in economic and social disequilibrium, where their governments have, either through mandates or benefits, promised more than they can deliver or than their economy can produce the resources for. They are now facing a very, very difficult dilemma. We face the same dilemma, but our dilemma is not in my view as hard, because we haven't gone as far as they did."
* On the appeal of protectionism. "Sears was not challenged by some company in Japan, it was challenged by Home Depot and Wal-Mart. IBM and DEC were not challenged in the main by Japanese companies, they were challenged by Compaq, by Intel, by Microsoft, by Apple, and they were forced to lay people off. I don't want to defend all our trade practices with Japan. Their market has been excessively closed. But to imply, as Buchanan has, that it's a major part of our economic problems is just a form of political propaganda."
* On liberal proposals not to count so-called investment spending when calculating the federal budget deficit. "When a business spends, it hopes to get a higher return on its investment than its cost of funds, so it can repay its borrowings from the return on the investment. The government would essentially not have that discipline. So the answer is, in theory it's appealing, in practice it would be a catastrophe. It's just another excuse."
* On political discourse. "I'm not a politician. I'm not running for office. If I did run for office I would almost certainly lose. All I'm saying is that we deserve to be addressed as mature people who are capable of considering complicated ideas. Bill Clinton shouldn't describe the Republicans as destroying Medicare when they're simply modifying it. We can debate whether the modifications are good or bad, but to basically raise people's fear of change -- he's not being terribly candid. I mean, what can I say? This is what he does. You can find problems like this with all of these politicians, some more than others. Clinton is heavy on the hypocrisy. It's part of his character."