It's bad news when a prestigious member of your own party and a former Secretary of Defense calls you out on your intransigence and stupidity. Yet that is what happened on Monday when it became clear that talks by the - and here's a funny term - "supercommittee"(as though there is anything super about Congress) fell apart.
The talks were never going anywhere in the first place. It isn't a secret that Republicans think they can use stubbornness and stupidity to win next year's elections. It's bad politics and it's bad for America, but it's the Republican plan. But now their intransigence isn't only preventing an economic recovery, it could very well be endangering America, and on Monday, as talks collapsed, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen called Republicans on their dangerous game.
Due to the failure of the supercommittee to reach a compromise - a failure that, like most recent failures, can be blamed on Republican refusal to give an inch to gain a mile - an automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts is set to take place. Of course, Congress is full of people - in both parties - who are wholly incapable of holding themselves accountable, so those cuts are not scheduled to take place until 2013. Nonetheless, as of today, the cuts will go into effect since no deal was reached, $600 billion of that $1.2 trillion is to come from the Pentagon's budget.
Put simply, because Republicans refused to compromise, they are now responsible for budget cuts that would "truly devastate our national defense" according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Cuts that would devastate our national defense over higher taxes for millionaires, many of whom are strong proponents of higher taxes on millionaires...disgraceful and embarrassing, a display of cowardice and incompetence by a group of people who are truly unfit to lead.
The issue of closing the budget isn't going away despite the fact that it should have been the secondary issue from the get go, but each successive failure to reach a deal on the deficit cements its position as the leading issue of the day. The most recent failure obviously does nothing to alleviate the problem - Congress will probably find a way to avoid enacting the cuts - but it does highlight the incompetence of our legislators (one group of them in particular), and it is ominous that even when our national defense is on the line, we still cannot reach simple compromises.
Polls show that most Americans believe the nation is on the wrong path, and until recently I did not count myself among them, but now my faith is wavering - there is a way forward but it seems as though our government is not interested in traveling that road. I never thought that Republicans would go so far as to gut national security to protect millionaires, but I was wrong. It is time for a serious national gut check because it is now not only our fiscal house that is in trouble, it's our security system as well.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Race to Cut
Rick Perry's stumble at the GOP debate last week was a lot of fun wasn't it? It's always bad news when Ron Paul makes you look bad. As bad as Perry's gaffe was for him, it is a much worse harbinger for what could happen if a Republican candidate is elected next November.
Perry says he wants to cut three government agencies if elected, a number that seems small in comparison to the five Ron Paul would put on the chopping block. That's all well and good, but is it true? Have these people put a moment of thought into what they would be cutting or is the race to be the guy who can cut the most simply the litmus test all Republican candidates must take to pass muster with the Republican base?
Take for example the Department of Energy, the federal agency that, among other things, oversees the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Remember how opposed Republicans were to passing the New START treaty last year because they were worried that dismantling part of our nuclear stockpile would threaten national security? Well now they want to dismantle the entire agency that is responsible for for that nuclear stockpile. I would attribute that to hypocrisy, but I don't think that's fair; I think Republicans haven't actually put much, if any, thought into their positions. The overwhelming desire to pass the ideological purity test has led to wanton statements about cutting without any forethought, plan or strategy. The reason Rick Perry can't remember which agencies he would cut is because he's probably never really thought about it. He's not being a hypocrite, he's in a race to prove that he can cut the most mindlessly, and last week he got a bit ahead of himself.
Is there waste and inefficiency in the federal government that could use trimming? Absolutely there is. But Rick Perry and the rest of the lot - Ron Paul exempted, but he's just crazy - haven't studied the system enough to know where that waste is and what we can do to eliminate it. What they do know is that the more they offer to cut, the louder the cheers get and the higher the poll numbers go, so Rick Perry is going to eliminate three federal agencies not because he knows what they do or whether they are necessary but because that makes him look good in the eyes of the conservative base.
This reckless desire to cut is poorly thought out and could have potentially disastrous consequences for the economy and the nation, but more importantly - and this message is for the conservative base - it's just not realistic. Maybe people get fired up when Perry talks about cutting three federal agencies, or when Ron Paul waxes poetic about the joys of anarchy, but it's not going to happen. President Perry (god forbid) would never be able to fully eliminate federal agencies the way he talks about. Many of those agencies provide important services and even Republican Senators and Congressmen would fight to save agencies that provide those services or create jobs in their home states.
The current Republican positions, therefore, aren't only silly, dangerous and not at all thought out, they're empty promises. And the really scary part about this is that if Perry were to become president and subsequently fail to eliminate those agencies - which is what would happen - the rabid far right would simply find someone else who promised to cut four agencies or seven agencies, or just eliminate the government altogether...Ron Paul!! It's a vicious, self-feeding cycle and it's driving the country in the wrong direction.
Perry says he wants to cut three government agencies if elected, a number that seems small in comparison to the five Ron Paul would put on the chopping block. That's all well and good, but is it true? Have these people put a moment of thought into what they would be cutting or is the race to be the guy who can cut the most simply the litmus test all Republican candidates must take to pass muster with the Republican base?
Take for example the Department of Energy, the federal agency that, among other things, oversees the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Remember how opposed Republicans were to passing the New START treaty last year because they were worried that dismantling part of our nuclear stockpile would threaten national security? Well now they want to dismantle the entire agency that is responsible for for that nuclear stockpile. I would attribute that to hypocrisy, but I don't think that's fair; I think Republicans haven't actually put much, if any, thought into their positions. The overwhelming desire to pass the ideological purity test has led to wanton statements about cutting without any forethought, plan or strategy. The reason Rick Perry can't remember which agencies he would cut is because he's probably never really thought about it. He's not being a hypocrite, he's in a race to prove that he can cut the most mindlessly, and last week he got a bit ahead of himself.
Is there waste and inefficiency in the federal government that could use trimming? Absolutely there is. But Rick Perry and the rest of the lot - Ron Paul exempted, but he's just crazy - haven't studied the system enough to know where that waste is and what we can do to eliminate it. What they do know is that the more they offer to cut, the louder the cheers get and the higher the poll numbers go, so Rick Perry is going to eliminate three federal agencies not because he knows what they do or whether they are necessary but because that makes him look good in the eyes of the conservative base.
This reckless desire to cut is poorly thought out and could have potentially disastrous consequences for the economy and the nation, but more importantly - and this message is for the conservative base - it's just not realistic. Maybe people get fired up when Perry talks about cutting three federal agencies, or when Ron Paul waxes poetic about the joys of anarchy, but it's not going to happen. President Perry (god forbid) would never be able to fully eliminate federal agencies the way he talks about. Many of those agencies provide important services and even Republican Senators and Congressmen would fight to save agencies that provide those services or create jobs in their home states.
The current Republican positions, therefore, aren't only silly, dangerous and not at all thought out, they're empty promises. And the really scary part about this is that if Perry were to become president and subsequently fail to eliminate those agencies - which is what would happen - the rabid far right would simply find someone else who promised to cut four agencies or seven agencies, or just eliminate the government altogether...Ron Paul!! It's a vicious, self-feeding cycle and it's driving the country in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Election Day 2011
In a story receiving little coverage due to more important issues like the Republican presidential circus, Americans headed to the polls yesterday for "off-year" elections. Yawn. Some governors were elected I think, maybe a few judges, perhaps even a couple Congressional seats were filled through special elections. Whatever...
This year's election day cannot be dismissed as easily as I just tried to make it seem. In two states, including my home state of Mississippi, important referenda were on the ballots and - cheers America - I'm happy to say that in both Mississippi and Ohio, American voters showed up, cast their votes, and made the right choices.
Let's being in Ohio, one of those swing states that is always so important and prominent during presidential elections. Last year, Ohio, along with Wisconsin, passed draconian anti-union laws designed to "cut costs." In reality, cutting costs was nothing more than a facade for dismantling unions. In fairness, public sector unions do need to undertake serious reform, but the laws passed in Ohio and Wisconsin were designed to eliminate unions, not reform them. In a referendum on Tuesday, Ohio voters overwhelmingly overturned the law, rejecting Republican attempts to make life even harder for working class people. Perhaps next time Republicans want to enact meaningful policy - and I say again, there is much room for reforming public sector unions - they will focus solely on the meaningful policy rather than pursuing an anti-working class agenda under the guise of "cost control."
Meanwhile, in my home state of Mississippi, arguably one of the most conservative states in the nation, voters rejected the "personhood" amendment, an abomination of a bill that would have made abortion illegal and effectively turned birth control bills into murder weapons. Unlike the anti-union laws, there is nothing positive to be said about Mississippi's initiative 26. Although it would have surely been overturned in federal court since it is a direct violation of federal law, the bill was nothing short of an embarrassment that would have stripped Mississippi's women of their rights - the law went so far as to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
So sprinkled in with those judiciary elections there were important takeaways and important decisions made yesterday. Regardless of what, if anything, these results portend for the 2012 elections, we should be happy that our countrymen made the right decisions on some key issues. Good Day, USA.
This year's election day cannot be dismissed as easily as I just tried to make it seem. In two states, including my home state of Mississippi, important referenda were on the ballots and - cheers America - I'm happy to say that in both Mississippi and Ohio, American voters showed up, cast their votes, and made the right choices.
Let's being in Ohio, one of those swing states that is always so important and prominent during presidential elections. Last year, Ohio, along with Wisconsin, passed draconian anti-union laws designed to "cut costs." In reality, cutting costs was nothing more than a facade for dismantling unions. In fairness, public sector unions do need to undertake serious reform, but the laws passed in Ohio and Wisconsin were designed to eliminate unions, not reform them. In a referendum on Tuesday, Ohio voters overwhelmingly overturned the law, rejecting Republican attempts to make life even harder for working class people. Perhaps next time Republicans want to enact meaningful policy - and I say again, there is much room for reforming public sector unions - they will focus solely on the meaningful policy rather than pursuing an anti-working class agenda under the guise of "cost control."
Meanwhile, in my home state of Mississippi, arguably one of the most conservative states in the nation, voters rejected the "personhood" amendment, an abomination of a bill that would have made abortion illegal and effectively turned birth control bills into murder weapons. Unlike the anti-union laws, there is nothing positive to be said about Mississippi's initiative 26. Although it would have surely been overturned in federal court since it is a direct violation of federal law, the bill was nothing short of an embarrassment that would have stripped Mississippi's women of their rights - the law went so far as to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
So sprinkled in with those judiciary elections there were important takeaways and important decisions made yesterday. Regardless of what, if anything, these results portend for the 2012 elections, we should be happy that our countrymen made the right decisions on some key issues. Good Day, USA.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Our Do Nothing Government
Congress has reached a new level of dysfunctionality. After almost forcing America into default over the summer, Congress imposed on itself a deadline by which to reduce the deficit by November 23rd, a date that is fast approaching. Needing to trim the deficit $1.2 trillion in order to avoid $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts, the bipartisan committee charged with agreeing on the cuts has so agreed upon $0 worth of deficit reduction...imagine that.
I'm going to take my usual dig at Republicans here since, indeed, they deserve much of the blame. Democrats on the committee offered a deal that would have cut the deficit by $2.5-3 trillion with cuts to entitlement programs and new tax revenues. Republican, predictably, placed rigid and outdated ideology over the good of the country.
But the purpose of this article isn't to slam Republican intransigence. Because right now Congress - both parties - is making a complete mockery of itself which is saying quite a bit given how worthless Congress has been for the last two year. As I mentioned before, if Congress fails to reach an agreement on how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, then previously agreed upon automatic cuts will go into effect. While none of this automatic deficit reduction will come through higher taxes, around $500 billion will come from the Pentagon's budget. This provision was included to counter cuts to domestic spending, the idea being that Democrats would be willing to negotiate to avoid cuts to domestic programs and that Republicans would loathe the idea of cuts to the military so much that they would compromise.
The assumption about domestic cuts was clearly correct as evidenced by the Democratic offer. But problematically the assumption about military cuts was a poor one. Not only are Republicans refusing to budge on taxes, but Republicans and Democrats both are now trying to pass new legislation that would prevent cuts to the military from taking place. Congress can't get anything done. Congress can't even hold itself accountable. This is a true embarrassment.
No one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, wants to make America less safe. Testimony from the Pentagon brass claims that $500 billion in cuts would hollow out the military. It's probably true, and no one wants that. Could the military allocate money more efficiently and spend less? Absolutley, but no one wants the country to be any less safe. And that is exactly the reason it would be a real travesty for Congress to undermine whatever shred of credibility they have left and negate the provisions of the law that would cut military spending. There is another, better way to avoid military cuts - make a deal!
What message does it send about the American government that our politicians can't take the steps to improve our America and then can't even hold themselves to a self-imposed ultimatum? Is this really the best we can do for our country?
Speaker Boehner, a political rollercoaster, came out against changing the law. Like everyone, he wants to avoid cuts to the military. Like me, he thinks the best way to do that is through a deal on the deficit rather than by giving America yet another glaring example of how ludicrous our politicians (and his party in particular) have been for the last few years.
America deserves better than the circus happening in Washington, DC. While one party is more to blame than the other, the current debacle is being driven by by Democrats and Republicans. The only display of bipartisanship in months is the attempt to wiggle out of the minimal commitments that Congress wasn't able to reach.
If this is the best we can do then perhaps we don't deserve solutions. I wonder if the Kardashians are annoyed that Congress is stealing their dramatic thunder. If anything can surpass the vapidness of E TV it is surely the national embarrassment occuring in our nation's capitol.
I'm going to take my usual dig at Republicans here since, indeed, they deserve much of the blame. Democrats on the committee offered a deal that would have cut the deficit by $2.5-3 trillion with cuts to entitlement programs and new tax revenues. Republican, predictably, placed rigid and outdated ideology over the good of the country.
But the purpose of this article isn't to slam Republican intransigence. Because right now Congress - both parties - is making a complete mockery of itself which is saying quite a bit given how worthless Congress has been for the last two year. As I mentioned before, if Congress fails to reach an agreement on how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, then previously agreed upon automatic cuts will go into effect. While none of this automatic deficit reduction will come through higher taxes, around $500 billion will come from the Pentagon's budget. This provision was included to counter cuts to domestic spending, the idea being that Democrats would be willing to negotiate to avoid cuts to domestic programs and that Republicans would loathe the idea of cuts to the military so much that they would compromise.
The assumption about domestic cuts was clearly correct as evidenced by the Democratic offer. But problematically the assumption about military cuts was a poor one. Not only are Republicans refusing to budge on taxes, but Republicans and Democrats both are now trying to pass new legislation that would prevent cuts to the military from taking place. Congress can't get anything done. Congress can't even hold itself accountable. This is a true embarrassment.
No one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, wants to make America less safe. Testimony from the Pentagon brass claims that $500 billion in cuts would hollow out the military. It's probably true, and no one wants that. Could the military allocate money more efficiently and spend less? Absolutley, but no one wants the country to be any less safe. And that is exactly the reason it would be a real travesty for Congress to undermine whatever shred of credibility they have left and negate the provisions of the law that would cut military spending. There is another, better way to avoid military cuts - make a deal!
What message does it send about the American government that our politicians can't take the steps to improve our America and then can't even hold themselves to a self-imposed ultimatum? Is this really the best we can do for our country?
Speaker Boehner, a political rollercoaster, came out against changing the law. Like everyone, he wants to avoid cuts to the military. Like me, he thinks the best way to do that is through a deal on the deficit rather than by giving America yet another glaring example of how ludicrous our politicians (and his party in particular) have been for the last few years.
America deserves better than the circus happening in Washington, DC. While one party is more to blame than the other, the current debacle is being driven by by Democrats and Republicans. The only display of bipartisanship in months is the attempt to wiggle out of the minimal commitments that Congress wasn't able to reach.
If this is the best we can do then perhaps we don't deserve solutions. I wonder if the Kardashians are annoyed that Congress is stealing their dramatic thunder. If anything can surpass the vapidness of E TV it is surely the national embarrassment occuring in our nation's capitol.
Friday, November 4, 2011
To Job or Not to Job
That's not actually the question, or at least it shouldn't be. At the very least, if it is the question, the answer is obvious right? Not so fast.
Which would you rather have?
A) Bridges, roads, school buildings, airports and other infrastructure at the cost of a 0.7% tax increase on those making over a million annually (this comes to an average of $13,457 per millionaire)
B) No bridges, roads, school buildings, airports or other infrastructure...period
Though this seems subjective, there is a right answer: choice A. Despite how obvious this is, you won't be surprised to know that some people are picking choice B...you also won't be surprised by who those people are.
The purported party of the economy seems to be doing everything in its power NOT to help the economy. Though some Republicans championed a bipartisan infrastructure bill in March, not a single one was willing to vote to put Americans back to work while simultaneously creating and repairing infrastructure that would have encouraged even more job creation. It was a slam dunk and not a single Republican was willing to vote for it. Not one. Instead, Senate Minority Doofus Mitch McConnell went so far as to accuse Democrats of creating a bill they knew would fail. In fairness to Mitch he's right. It doesn't matter what Democrats put on the table - they've already basically offered the farm - all they get is NO from the opposition. Democrats should know by now that any attempt to create meaningful, bipartisan policy is a futile endeavor. Mitch McConnell has acknowledged this before when he pledged to make the healthcare debate "Obama's Waterloo" and when he stated that his only major goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. The plight of millions of Americans and the state of our economy is, quite literally, not on the man's radar. He just does not care.
Many objective observers have been saying it for a while, but the Republican party isn't interested in governing, isn't interested in legislating, has never heard of the word compromise, and quite frankly, does not care about improving America. They care about winning back control of Congress and the White House and if millions of Americans must remain jobless for them to achieve that goal then so be it.
In a fair and just world this strategy will backfire. Independent voters will see Republican intransigence for what it is; they will watch as their countrymen suffer so that a handful of no-tax extremists can get their way - it should be pointed out that the policies these people espouse created the mess we are in - and they will reward Republicans by voting for Obama and Democrats next year.
But this is not a fair and just world so I don't know what will happen. I can only hope that objective people will realize that the only major Republican policy proposal of the last three years was the one to eliminate Medicare and replace it with Paul Ryan No-Care. The situation has gotten so bad that Republicans have even been abandoning their good ideas when and if those ideas get support from Democrats.
The current state of American politics is an embarrassment and though there is plenty of blame to go around, there is only one party that is actively trying to improve our country. The other party is lining up to audition for the remake of Grumpy Old Men; they have selected choice B on the quiz above and they don't care about what that means for their countrymen.
Which would you rather have?
A) Bridges, roads, school buildings, airports and other infrastructure at the cost of a 0.7% tax increase on those making over a million annually (this comes to an average of $13,457 per millionaire)
B) No bridges, roads, school buildings, airports or other infrastructure...period
Though this seems subjective, there is a right answer: choice A. Despite how obvious this is, you won't be surprised to know that some people are picking choice B...you also won't be surprised by who those people are.
The purported party of the economy seems to be doing everything in its power NOT to help the economy. Though some Republicans championed a bipartisan infrastructure bill in March, not a single one was willing to vote to put Americans back to work while simultaneously creating and repairing infrastructure that would have encouraged even more job creation. It was a slam dunk and not a single Republican was willing to vote for it. Not one. Instead, Senate Minority Doofus Mitch McConnell went so far as to accuse Democrats of creating a bill they knew would fail. In fairness to Mitch he's right. It doesn't matter what Democrats put on the table - they've already basically offered the farm - all they get is NO from the opposition. Democrats should know by now that any attempt to create meaningful, bipartisan policy is a futile endeavor. Mitch McConnell has acknowledged this before when he pledged to make the healthcare debate "Obama's Waterloo" and when he stated that his only major goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. The plight of millions of Americans and the state of our economy is, quite literally, not on the man's radar. He just does not care.
Many objective observers have been saying it for a while, but the Republican party isn't interested in governing, isn't interested in legislating, has never heard of the word compromise, and quite frankly, does not care about improving America. They care about winning back control of Congress and the White House and if millions of Americans must remain jobless for them to achieve that goal then so be it.
In a fair and just world this strategy will backfire. Independent voters will see Republican intransigence for what it is; they will watch as their countrymen suffer so that a handful of no-tax extremists can get their way - it should be pointed out that the policies these people espouse created the mess we are in - and they will reward Republicans by voting for Obama and Democrats next year.
But this is not a fair and just world so I don't know what will happen. I can only hope that objective people will realize that the only major Republican policy proposal of the last three years was the one to eliminate Medicare and replace it with Paul Ryan No-Care. The situation has gotten so bad that Republicans have even been abandoning their good ideas when and if those ideas get support from Democrats.
The current state of American politics is an embarrassment and though there is plenty of blame to go around, there is only one party that is actively trying to improve our country. The other party is lining up to audition for the remake of Grumpy Old Men; they have selected choice B on the quiz above and they don't care about what that means for their countrymen.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Buying Bombs or Building Bridges?
Last week I read an interesting piece by historian James Livingston about the misconception that private investment has anything to do with economic growth. Professor Livingston's argument - consumer and government spending are the drivers of economic growth - didn't surprise me. I'm no economist but I could have told you that spending creates demand and demand creates growth, and I've argued in past posts that by rebuilding America's middle class we could rebuild our economy. However I was surprised that Professor Livingston argued that private investment has nothing to do with driving growth. I'd even go so far as to disagree, but I'm not a professor with 35 years worth of experience studying capitalism.
Whether I disagree with Professor Livingston on the issue of private investment or not, he is certainly right about consumer and government spending, as most Americans and one of our two political parties seem to realize. But this brings me to another - you guessed it - point of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the role of government.
Ask a conservative about government spending and you're likely to be told that if we spend another dime the world will end. That's only slightly hyperbolic. But if there is one kind of spending Republicans are okay with, it's defense spending. Medicare? Psshhh, F-22s? Yeah! Now, though this is another manifestation of Republican hypocrisy, it is a useful one. Military spending would probably help create jobs; WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression after all. Even Paul Krugman, while also lamenting Republican hypocrisy, acknowledges that government spending on the military will spur job creation.
This leads me to two points:
1) If government spending on the military is good, shouldn't we also encourage government spending on infrastructure? Sure, building F-22s creates jobs and I'm not adverse to F-22s, but I'd rather have roads, bridges and digital infrastructure, not to mention schools and better public transportation.
2) If Republicans really believe military spending creates jobs then it would be advisable for them to work with Democrats to find an agreement on a deficit reduction deal before the November 23rd deadline to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit. If no deal is reached by then, automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion kick in, and about a third of those cuts would be military spending.
Rumor has it that Democrats recently proposed a longterm deal that would trim the deficit by $3.2 trillion, $3,200,000,000,000!!!! Look at all those zeroes! When Democrats proposed the deal they included nearly a billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending, most of which is spent on programs championed by Democrats. Also included were $1.3 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans, predictably, balked. Democrats were willing to make sacrifices, Republicans were not. Same ole song and dance.
But this circus is ultimately going to be the downfall of the ringmasters. Republican intransigence is going to lead to automatic spending cuts that will cause job losses in the private sector, and while Democrats were willing to make substantial cuts to important programs, Republicans turned up their noses at the very mention of the word tax.
All of this could be avoided if Republicans would acknowledge some basic economic facts, among them those pointed out by James Livingston. If we could only get half of our politicians to realize that building bridges, just like buying bombs, was good for job growth then maybe we could make some progress. As things stand now, we're more likely to see more damaging cuts in a few weeks when the deadline for cuts passes without a budget deal. Then we'll be without bombs or bridges or jobs. And once again, all Americans will be on the losing end of Republican obstruction.
Whether I disagree with Professor Livingston on the issue of private investment or not, he is certainly right about consumer and government spending, as most Americans and one of our two political parties seem to realize. But this brings me to another - you guessed it - point of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the role of government.
Ask a conservative about government spending and you're likely to be told that if we spend another dime the world will end. That's only slightly hyperbolic. But if there is one kind of spending Republicans are okay with, it's defense spending. Medicare? Psshhh, F-22s? Yeah! Now, though this is another manifestation of Republican hypocrisy, it is a useful one. Military spending would probably help create jobs; WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression after all. Even Paul Krugman, while also lamenting Republican hypocrisy, acknowledges that government spending on the military will spur job creation.
This leads me to two points:
1) If government spending on the military is good, shouldn't we also encourage government spending on infrastructure? Sure, building F-22s creates jobs and I'm not adverse to F-22s, but I'd rather have roads, bridges and digital infrastructure, not to mention schools and better public transportation.
2) If Republicans really believe military spending creates jobs then it would be advisable for them to work with Democrats to find an agreement on a deficit reduction deal before the November 23rd deadline to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit. If no deal is reached by then, automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion kick in, and about a third of those cuts would be military spending.
Rumor has it that Democrats recently proposed a longterm deal that would trim the deficit by $3.2 trillion, $3,200,000,000,000!!!! Look at all those zeroes! When Democrats proposed the deal they included nearly a billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending, most of which is spent on programs championed by Democrats. Also included were $1.3 trillion in new tax revenues. Republicans, predictably, balked. Democrats were willing to make sacrifices, Republicans were not. Same ole song and dance.
But this circus is ultimately going to be the downfall of the ringmasters. Republican intransigence is going to lead to automatic spending cuts that will cause job losses in the private sector, and while Democrats were willing to make substantial cuts to important programs, Republicans turned up their noses at the very mention of the word tax.
All of this could be avoided if Republicans would acknowledge some basic economic facts, among them those pointed out by James Livingston. If we could only get half of our politicians to realize that building bridges, just like buying bombs, was good for job growth then maybe we could make some progress. As things stand now, we're more likely to see more damaging cuts in a few weeks when the deadline for cuts passes without a budget deal. Then we'll be without bombs or bridges or jobs. And once again, all Americans will be on the losing end of Republican obstruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)