Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The Terror of Elephants in “Must”

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in

By Peter Galuszka

As minutes tick by, the behavior of Republicans in Congress, especially Virginia’s ultra-rogue junior elephant, Eric Cantor, becomes increasingly fascinating.

They have become, suggests  David P. Barash, psychology professor at the University of Washington, elephants in “must,” meaning that the usual rules of rationality and brinksmanship have become moot. Mind you, the elephant has long been extremely accurate symbol of the GOP (I don’t go for the “clan” nonsense Risse dishes out any more than I respect his “vocabulary,” hah!)

It does seem that elephants fit the bill. They are big, ungainly and overfed. They like tax breaks, especially for the fatter elephants. And, from time to time, they get a little ditzy and when they do, brother, watch out!

This is what has happened. After years of blowing out the federal budget under their Chief Elephant George W. Bush, the herd went nutzy in January 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated. We were entering a terrible recession and suddenly, overnight, the elephants got the religion of fiscal discipline. It all became Obama’s fault, the elephants agreed.

So now comes the debt ceiling. The Elephants want to link that to all kinds of spending cuts. They do not care that by doing so they may well crash our anemic economy back into recession. They forget that the late King of Elephants, Ronald Reagan, raised the debt ceiling 18 times.

Oh no. They want to stampede. Rationality doesn’t apply. And here’s what psychologist Barash reports will happen. The elephants have reached a state of “must.” It isn’t a pretty picture:

“It’s a tactic that works surprisingly well, because male elephants can be in fact temporarily “crazy.” One of the most terrifying sights in the animal world is an elephant in a state of must: Huge bulls, oozing a weird, foul-smelling greenish glop from glands near their eyes, behave with violent abandon, taking risks, and defying the basic rules of pachyderm propriety(and also giving rise to the term “rogue elephant”). Facing an elephant in must, other elephants  –not to mention people — are well advised to get out of the way. ”

So you have it from the animal world.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

25 responses to “The Terror of Elephants in “Must””

  1. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    As I recall, Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling during the last administration. But that was different, of course, he was Obama. Look how much money was wasted. The Stimulus basically went to save public sector jobs. The wars continue and have been expanded.
    Let’s do the Canadian Plan from the 90s. Six dollars of spending cuts & one dollar of tax increases.

  2. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Interesting perspective on the Republican imagery with the Elephant. The Democrats have a much more appropriate symbol … the jackass.

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I like TMT’s proposal.

    Not a single Republican, including Cantor has yet to produce a “cut-only” plan that totals 1.5 trillion in ANNUAL cuts much less a plan to reduce the 14+ trillion deficit that they had a major hand in.

    these guys are total hypocrites.

    At least Mr. Obama and David Stockman have the guts to say we can’t get this done without additional revenues.

    The Republicans have lost all credibility as fiscal conservatives and have turned into ideologues who really don’t care about the deficit to start with except as an excuse to wipe out programs they don’t like but won’t do much to actually cut real spending.

    Ron Paul is about the only one with any real principles. At least he recognizes the dimensions of the problem and has SOMETHING on the table worth discussing.

    Cantor and the rest are dimwits… whose only goal seems to be to get rid of Obama and replace him with one of their own unprincipled zealots.

    Lord help this country.

  4. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    One place where I find the Democrats to be hypocritical is on the definition of rich. They go to $200,000 per individual and $250,000 for a married couple. More evidence liberals are anti-family. This puts two successful federal workers in the same bracket as the Hollywood crowd, the athletes, the overpaid top executives, etc. Why not define rich where their favorites would be nailed?

  5. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    When elephants do battle, it is the grass that gets trampled.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    And when jackasses do battle the grass gets smoked and the only sound one can hear is the stoned braying of stubborn and dull witted animals.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    EXCELLENT!

    Let’s see how far we can take the animal analogy.
    PG

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Peter:

    Are you really suggesting that we continue to play chicken with this elephant – jackass analogy? I think going much further with this will cause the entire comment string to flounder.

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Flounder? No sir! We’d better laugh as the jackals dog Congress.

  10. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I am laughing like a hyena as I type.

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Jackasses have a strong sense of prervation, hence they can be stubborn if asked to do something they perceive as dangerous. They have worked for mankind for thousands of years doing menial work for very little pay. They subsist on a third of the food as horses, and many times less than elephants. They are friendly protective, and docile, often adopting a horse foal after it is abandoned by the mare.

  12. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – in terms of hypocrisy – and the definition of “rich”… I’m not sure it’s hypocritical …. in that many RICH Democrats themselves say that the rich should pay more.

    but I AGREE that making this issue about the “rich” no matter how you define them.. is a loser…..

    it ought to be about the fact that we have spent 14trillion dollars on two wars and it’s a bill we all owe – rich or poor – pay your fair share and let’s get the country out of this debt.

    you simply cannot “cut taxes” further to reduce/eliminate the debt.

    that’s what is so bizarre to me about the Republicans position.

    No total blame…. both sides helped out but the Republicans sure had no problem signing us up for two wars and Medicare Part D and their primary response is that if we cut taxes, the increased revenues will pay for all of it.

    Of course they said this for 8 years under Bush and it never happened and now they’re saying that they are sure if we continue lowering taxes that sooner or latter the revenues will kick in.

    the problem is -they have no plan B is the revenues don’t show up.

    apparently …PlanB is the “cut” but not a one of them has chosen to show how cuts alone get the job done.

    We want these folks to run the country?

    I don’t think so.

    Here we have the Republicans saying we need to balance the budget with cuts alone – but they won’t show how and instead say that Obama is the one who has to do it – when Obama has said that we cannot do it with cuts alone.

    Take Obama out of the equation and tell me how we get there with the Republican philosophy. We don’t. We continue the Bush era approach.

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry. Larry. Larry …

    “it ought to be about the fact that we have spent 14trillion dollars on two wars and it’s a bill we all owe ”

    You don’t really believe that, no do you?

    The total debt is $14T. You don’t assign it all to two wars, do you?

    Additionally, the two wars were happening when Obama was inaugurated. He claims that he’s ended one of the two (he usually conviniently forgets that he has started two or three more wars). Yet, spending has increased 23% since he took office.

    So, we were at war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we’re at war with Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Somalia.

    We had runaway spending. Now, Obama has increased spending by 23% in the last two years.

    I agree with your point about the Republicans being more hat than cattle. But please don’t tell me that raising the debt ceiling should be a normal, usual, almost automatic event.

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry. Larry. Larry …

    “it ought to be about the fact that we have spent 14trillion dollars on two wars and it’s a bill we all owe ”

    You don’t really believe that, no do you?

    The total debt is $14T. You don’t assign it all to two wars, do you?

    Additionally, the two wars were happening when Obama was inaugurated. He claims that he’s ended one of the two (he usually conviniently forgets that he has started two or three more wars). Yet, spending has increased 23% since he took office.

    So, we were at war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we’re at war with Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Somalia.

    We had runaway spending. Now, Obama has increased spending by 23% in the last two years.

    I agree with your point about the Republicans being more hat than cattle. But please don’t tell me that raising the debt ceiling should be a normal, usual, almost automatic event.

  15. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    We owed 5 trillion when Bush took over then 10 trillion when he was done – the nation-building wars (unlike the kind that are not) – not only ADDED 5 trillion but a PERMANENT ANNUAL 1.5 trillion deficit and when Obama tries to get out of those wars what do the idiot Republicans say? BAAAD Obama.. he’s NOT LISTENING TO his field commanders – right?

    Admit it Groveton.

    The Republicans want us over there nation building but they don’t want to pay for it.

    How many times did the Republicans RAISE THE DEBT under Bush I, Bush II and Reagan?

    but that’s fine… there is merit in the idea but the timing is pure political.

    If the Republicans were TRUE to their ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES – they would not only oppose the debt ceiling but they would ALSO say that it is not needed because they have a “cut only” plan that will wipe out the 1.5trillion structural debt AND generate enough additional to pay off the 14 trillion.

    Instead, these idiots say we have a spending problem but it’s up to Obama to fix it and the man has already said – he does not see a way to fix it without more revenues. David Stockman, Reagans supply-side budget director AGREES with Obama.

    So you tell me. Do you want these Republicans back in charge of the country?

    Obama has his problems but these guys are pathological in their refusal to deal with simple realities.

  16. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Here’s the simple reality that our so-called “conservative” friends refuse to answer.

    We have a 14+ trillion debt that we owe and being the self-avowed fiscal conservatives they say they are – they refuse to own that debt.

    In fact, they say it’s “anti-American” to cough up the taxes to pay that debt.

    they’d rather owe it to the Chinese.

    My question here is – when did those guys who say they are Republican and fiscal conservatives turn into what they are now which is totally irresponsible types?

    It seems to have started under Bush II when we were attacked – and it was stated that because we were attacked, we had to respond.. but… we did not have to pay for it.. at least not then….

    Now… the antidote to this debt seems to be …. tax cuts…

    Now Groveton takes a look at this same situation and somehow comes up with Obama being the culprit.

    He’s had his share of “expenses” but when the man says the party is over and we have to start paying the debt – “fiscal-conservatives” like Cantor flee wailing from the talks.

    they all blather on about thefactwehave a “spending”problem but not a one of them has presented a plan that pays off that debt with cuts alone.

    In fact, they’ve not presented a plan that even pays off the 1.5 trillion.

    Groveton.. is AWOL on solutions here …instead seemingly content with taking pot shots at Obama…. rather than “man-ing” up to the problem and what we need to do to solve it – without regard to who shot John.

    Groveton, my man, TMT offers an approach to the budget and I don’t think TMT is a lover of Obama either.

    What would be YOUR approach to us paying off the 14 trillion debt?

  17. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Requiring a super-majority to pass spending bills would push down federal spending to controllable levels. Liberals would be able to check conservatives; conservatives would be able to check liberals. The fiscal power of Uncle Sam would weaken over time. And there would be many fewer lobbyists.

  18. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Let’s try again Larry …

    Here is what you wrote …

    “it ought to be about the fact that we have spent 14trillion dollars on two wars and it’s a bill we all owe ”

    That’s not true, is it Larry?

    Nobody spent $14T on two wars.

    $14T is the total debt – not what was spent on the wars.

    Before we talk solutions, let’s talk facts.

  19. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry … let’s continue “fun with numbers” …

    You wrote, “We owed 5 trillion when Bush took over then 10 trillion when he was done –”.

    So, that’s an increase of $5T in 8 years.

    What do we owe now?
    $14T.

    Obama has added $4T in 2 1/2 years.

    Which is worse – adding $5T in 8 years or $4T in 2.5 years?

    If Obama continues at this pace and, God forbid, serves two terms, how much additional debt will we have added?

    How does $12.8T sound?

    Or, more than 2.5 times as much debt as Bush added.

    And you wonder why the Republicans don’t want to raise the debt ceiling. Really?

    Before we talk solutions, let’s talk facts.

  20. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    well.. I think I said.. forget the argument about who shot John… i.e. we’ll assign “blame” equally but let’s cut to the chase.

    Do we OWE the 14 trillion?

    If we OWE it…. should we not be paying it?

    How will we pay it?

    will be pay it by arguing about who caused it?

    will we pay it by claiming that supply-side economics will pay for it?

    oh…. and how will we keep it from adding 1.5 trillion this year….and next year, etc.

    how will we pay for the 1.5 trillion deficit?

    We take in 1.1 trillion in income taxes and we spend ALL of that PLUS we spend ANOTHER 1.5 trillion dollars.

    Got 1.5 trillion worth of “cuts” so we don’t have to pay higher taxes?

    my problem here is that way more people seem interested in assigning blame than agreeing to pay ….

    so… the politics are to argue… instead of pay?

    Groveton. I don’t really care where the 1.5 trillion deficit came from. I’m asking how we get rid of it.

    more supply side blather?

  21. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the answer I do not get here is this… the “budget” revenues are deceiving.

    it says that we are taking in about 2.1 trillion and we are spending 3.6 trillion (give or take) but the thing to take especial notice of is the fact that almost half of our tax revenues are FICA taxes for Social Security, DI, and Medicare Part B – programs, by the way, have over 60+ years, either broke even or generated a slight surplus that now totals about 2.1 trillion dollars.

    So what we are left with is 1.1 trillion in income taxes (and some other minor sundry revenues) … BUT we are not only spending the 1.1 trillion, we are spending an additional 1.5 trillion which if you think about it is pretty astronomical because it is STEADILY ADDING 1.5 trillion ANNUALLY to our existing 14+ trillion debt.

    Now.. with this staring us in the face.. what is it that we do?

    Well.. first, we “blame” social security -which if you look at the numbers for the CURRENT deficit .. have virtually NOTHING to do with the CURRENT deficit.

    In other words, we are spending 1.5 trillion each year additional NOT on Social Security but instead other things.

    So.. my question continues to me. How do we deal with the current 1.5 trillion deficit that is adding each year to the 14+ trillion debt?

    well.. so far.. what we do.. is we blame Obama for the stimulus and we say that entitlements are the cause.

    A very cursory look at the FACTS will tell the average person (who really wants to know) that about 1/3 of the current budget is Medicare Part B and Medic Aid. Admittedly a large a worrisome component of the deficit but – not the other 2/3 of it.

    So what do we do about this?

    well.. so far.. we …play.. the blame game about who caused it.

    and we say that we have a “spending problem” but we never really get to a bill of particulars about WHAT spending.. much less to a list of cuts – that total to 1.5 trillion, much less additional, to pay off the 14 trillion debt.

    What I get out of this .. is that.. despite all the fire and brimstone about our deficit and debt.. not many people are REALLY serious about it .. LEAST of all those who say we have a big problem and must deal with it – because NOT a ONE of those folks from Cantor to Boehmer have done the simple thing that John Stossel has done -which is to list out the agencies and the cuts…necessary for us to actually deal with the problem.

    So what are we really doing here?

    does anyone have an answer?

  22. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    The country gets bigger, the economy gets, bigger, the govt vets bigger, the budget gets bigger. Why do you think we should not have debt that gets bigger?

    It needs to be in proportion, not constant. Has not your credit company raised your limit periodically?

  23. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    If they set a details t ceiling as no more than 7% of gdp, it would rise automatically, and we could forget this crap.

  24. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Larry … I do believe in getting the facts on the table before making a decision. Regardless of who caused the debt. And, I am a fan of computer visualization. Here is a good start:

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    I think Hydra and TMT have good plans although I like Hydra’s better. TMT’s idea of maintaining a fixed ration of tax hikes to budget cuts sadly allows the criminals on Capitol Hill to intentionally mis-define both tax hikes and budget cuts. In this debt ceiling debate there have been numerous attempts to lie about cuts, mostly by claiming that things which have never been paid but won’t be paid count as cuts. If we had a reasonable sense of honesty among our political elite we could use TMT’s approach. But we don’t.

    Hydra’s plan is more “cut and dried” although I think we’d need a way to lock in on what “debt” and “GDP” mean. It wasn’t that long ago that a sitting president debated the meaning of “is”.

    I also think the need for a constitutional amendment regarding the debt is very, very valid. Whether it’s a balanced budget amendment or a requirement for a 2/3 vote to add to the deficit or Hydra’s proposal, it must ultimately be enshrined in the US Constitution. I see no other way to even try to keep Congress honest. Although, when Congress decided that abortion should be legal their co-conspirators at the Supreme Court found a right to privacy written in invisible ink within the Constitution. I make that comment regarding the political process rather than the ethical question of right to choose vs right to life.

  25. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I still think all the “talk” about what to do… STILL …EVADES…the central point which is we owe 14 trillion dollars and we ought to be paying it.

    instead.. we keep yammering about who caused it and how we keep keep from “over-spending” in the future.

    When I hear people say that we ought to be paying off the 14 trillion AND cutting back 1.5 trillion a year – I’ll start to feel like people are taking it seriously.

    Until then… it’s basically kabuki theater… both the politicians AND us.

Leave a Reply

Read More