Follow the Yellow Brick Road to economic recovery

[InkAddict]

A responder to post in LBN suggested that recovery might be a case of clicking one's heels together Wiz of Oz style. I'd be fascinated to hear DUers take-offs on political characterizations/symbolism gleaned from this childhood favorite. Come on, re-tell the story on your terms.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. OK starting from the top down

The Wizard would probably Bush's puppet master Cheney...the evil witcheds would be the admin and lobbyists for the corporateers, the scarecrow would be the centrist voter who sees their wealth evaporating yet still votes against their own interest. The Lion...well..pick your Dem.....I'd have to say if we are in an allegory then it would be GORE. Dorothy well...she's any DU'er still bothering to vote...care to take up where I left off?

[jafap]

4. then Glenda would be?

Arianna Huffington?
Molly Ivins?
Hillary Rodham?

[jafap]

2. I have been trying to work that in

"There's no place like full employment" click, click, click "There's no place like full employment.
You do know the classic meaning don't you all?
Oz - abbreviation for ounce (gold being priced by the ounce, yellow brick road - gold road, wicked witches - the eastern and western establishments, the Wizard - the president, cowardly lion - William Jennings Bryan, tin man - factories which were idle and rusting, scarecrow - farmers, too stupid to know what's good for them, Dorothy - just plain folk.

[jafap]

3. and my letter to the editor

using some Oz imagery:

It must be tough to be Jayson Blair. His little lies were exposed and denounced, while larger lies are given a free pass. One would hope that journalism would stand up for Dorothy, the small and meek. Yet instead of exposing the "man behind the curtain, " the media acts as a propaganda arm for "the great and powerful Oz".
A case in point is the editorial from Connellsville's Daily Courier which was reprinted in Friday's Leavenworth Times.
First, there is the specious defense of Bush's latest tax cut for the wealthy. Bush throws a few nickels to the middle class to hide the briefcases full of hundred dollar bills that goto the wealthy. Instead of exposing this fraud, the Daily Courier defends it. "Pay no attention to Cheney's $40,000, look at the shiny new nickel you are getting."
Second, they re-write history to slander the Democratic party, blaming the deficits of the 1980s on the Democrats in Congress. Al Franken refutes this: "Over the eight years of the Reagan Presidency, the Gipper asked Congress for $16.1 billion more in spending than it passed into law."
Finally, there is the Blair-like assertion that the Reagan tax cuts increased government revenues. As a former teacher of college macroeconomics I know that is absolutely false. Here are the numbers on Government income tax revenues in billions of constant (1982) dollars. Starting in 1977 - 241, 256, 286, 287, 307, 298, 277, 276, 301, 304, 337, 333, 355, 355. It is clear that from 1981 at 307 until 1986 at 304 that there is no increase. Also, the jump in 1987 is no more impressive than the jump from 1978 to 1979.
People read the newspaper to keep informed. It does not help when the newspaper spreads mis-information.