Public vs Private Interest

This is a fascinating time for a national discussion of the public interest versus the private interest and the role of government in our society. The Repuglican party advocates for a mostly private system where the markets are left unfettered to do the voodoo that they do so well just the way they always have - in the repuglican's fevered brains.

In the context of the movement that led to the F.D.A. following publication of Sinclair's "The Jungle", this Maddow segment (which should be required viewing for every social studies student in America) discusses the role of government in serving the public interest and notes that "the basic idea of the government's regulatory role is anathema to the conservative movement." "Industry will, rightly, pursue its private interest, which these days is both profit and not getting sued. ... It's the role of government to look after public interest."
Did spreading salmonella deserve a high grade? March 6: Rachel Re: Rachel Maddow gives props to a New York Times investigative piece about how private food inspectors, not the kind employed by the FDA, gave the Peanut Corporation of America high marks, while it is now known they were shipping out salmonella.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Krugman on the Party of uh-huh-huh-huh

I’m as cynical as they come. Even so, I’m shocked by the total intellectual collapse of the Republican Party in the face of this economic crisis.

I suggested a little while ago that the GOP has become the party of Beavis and Butthead, reduced to snickering at line items in legislation that sound funny. And we’re not just talking about the usual crazies: we’re taking about Saint John McCain, cracking jokes about “Mormon crickets” and “beaver management” when a minute or two on Google reveals that these are, in fact, serious issues.

But it’s getting truly serious when the House minority leader — essentially, the nation’s second-ranking Republican (after Rush Limbaugh) — declares that the answer to the economy’s downward spiral is a spending freeze. That’s not a retrogression to Herbert Hoover; even Hoover knew better than that.

I’d really like to see some genuine bipartisanship in America. But that can’t happen until we start having at least somewhat sane partisans.

• Benen adds that THEY'RE NOT EVEN TRYING....
  

  This is, of course, completely insane. As Pat Garofalo recently explained: "The economic stimulus package's main purpose is to close the GDP gap and jumpstart the economy by spurring spending by households, government and the private sector. A spending freeze would act as an 'anti-stimulus,' cutting spending precisely when it's too low and the economy is moving too slowly."

  But stepping back and considering the larger context, that the top House Republican is seriously and publicly advocating such an idea is genuinely scary. ...

  Given the truly bizarre ideas coming from congressional Republicans, there's really no reason to engage them in good-faith discussion. A group of people are working diligently to put out a raging fire, and the failed minority party, which helped set the blaze, can't imagine why no one is taking their more-lighter-fluid agenda seriously.

  I know President Obama likes bipartisanship. I know voters love the idea of well-intentioned patriots from across the spectrum getting together to work out meaningful solutions. It somehow seems unfair to block elected officials out of the governing process, just because they've created a crisis and are determined to make it worse.

  But Republicans, at this point, just aren't trying anymore. They deserve a lot of things -- ridicule, scorn, derision -- but at a place at the policy negotiating table isn't one of them.