No more tax and spend; now just spend and spend
After running up a $427 billion budget deficit, President Bush asked the Republican-controlled Congress today to help him bring "real spending discipline" to Washington. With the GOP's track record, why am I not optimistic?The bipartisan deficit reduction organization, the Concord Coalition, calls the President's budget "very unrealistic." According to the New York Times, continued spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not factored into the 2006 budget. Those costs are now running $5 billion a month and are likely to remain at that level. The budget also assumes that all other discretionary spending will remain frozen for the next five years, which seems incredibly unlikely. Bush is vowing to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his term. It's worth noting that last year he promised it would be shrunk to $268 billion in 2006. This year, the promise is $390 billion for 2006. Why, oh why, did we not give him a Republican Congress to work with? Whoops, that's right, we did. To quote Howard Dean, you can't trust Republicans with your money.
Now you've run up a massive debt thanks to tax cuts on corporate profits and a broken promise not to pursue nation-building, it's time for step two: what the Times' Paul Krugman calls "starving the beast"-- using the deficit as an excuse to cut social spending. And not just spending on the 150 programs singled out by Bush today. We're talking about the granddaddy of them all. The lifeblood of our granddaddys-- Social Security.
"Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," says Stephen Moore of the right-wing group Club For Growth, "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state." This is the real agenda behind Bush's "ownership society."
Opening up Social Security to privatization- in addition to being the largest cash grab in Wall Street history- will result in large benefit cuts and a collapse of the safety net. (The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the guaranteed benefits left to the average worker born in 1990 will be only 8 percent of that worker's prior earnings, compared with 35 percent today.) Next will come the dismantling of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and all the while, a significant number of Democratic lawmakers will continue to apply a get-along, moderate approach to their role as opposition.
Bush is running roughshod over average Americans, and it's time for Democrats to co-opt his agenda in a way they haven't tried in the first four years-- stand up for the poor and the less fortunate, consistent with Biblical principles. Call the President out on his "moral" vision for America. Stand up to a bully who's slashing spending on housing, transportation, education, and health care. You've been given a chance to prove you have a distinctly different vision for the country. Do it for FDR. Do it for Jesus.
posted by CM @ 8:55 PM
6 Comments:
Chris, you have some great points, but why the hostility towards SS privatization? As I understand it, people like you and I would be given a choice to invest around 4% of our SS deduction a year as we saw fit. It wouldn't have to be on Wall Street. It could be put in T-bills for instance and a portion of it would then end up funding government spending and giving us a return on the money taken out of our check each month at the same time.
Personally, I hate everything about the social security system. I want to opt out of it bad. It’s a great example of the government treating us like idiots. The government takes money out of my pocket and my employer's pocket every month and spends it. Evidently I am too impulsive and stupid to save money for my own retirement. Therefore the government needs to hold this money for me until I retire and then I get it back piecemeal. That is if I live long enough, otherwise the government will just pocket my money. I wouldn't disrespect a two year old like that, but the government sees fit to do this to us every day. Thanks FDR. End of rant…. TA
Rants are always welcome, TA, and I admire your optimism. But the U.S. economy has fallen off the highwire before. That time, a safety net wasn't in place. The potential harm, as I see it, is if you believe these numbers that you're cutting the guarantee from 35 percent to 8 percent. Certainly for some there's the potential for tremendous growth in investment, but our government was designed to provide the best opportunity for AS MANY people as possible. Not everyone has our access to quality education and the basics of finance.
I think you can rest assured that your government does not think you're an idiot, TA. We would have never had the courage to initiate these programs if they hadn't been brought about by desperate times. But with the benefit of 75 years, we can see their enormous success. The middle-class in America wouldn't exist without the free education offered in the GI Bill, or the other health, employment, and retirement benefits of the New Deal. It's been proven the best way to invest in the American people, though I fear we'll have to endure another one to remind ourselves.
If you cut these guarantees, you wind up paying on the other end with a decaying tax base and lots of new prisons.
We're constantly told that privatization will help the economy to grow, but over the last two decades, we've seen just the opposite. We're paying billions to bail out our failing airlines, and health care costs careen out of control. Statistics released just this week show that almost all bankruptcies involve medical debt. Of course our seniors are especially vulnerable in this area.
I DO admire your willingness to call out FDR. Bush keeps standing in front of his picture while he dismantles his legacy.
If you invest properly you can weather another Great Depression. Treasury notes/bills/bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, not companies like Enron. I wouldn't recommend putting a large portion of SS funds in the stock market, but consider this fact from a Wall Street Journal article from January 17, 2005 listed at http://www.learnedhand.com/malkiel.htm "For all 25- and 35-year investment periods from 1926 to 2004, investors have always earned positive rates of return." This includes the great depression.
The government sends me statements saying that I will receive a large portion of my SS contributions back as benefits when I am eligible to retire if I live long enough. If that's so, then why should the government be able to hold this money for me like I am a baby? Answer: SS is just another tax used to fund pork under the guise of a "benefit" to Americans looking to hand their lives over to the government.
I believe that you use a lack of access to quality education to argue against my thoughts against SS. I submit that everyone in the U.S., citizen or not, has access to "quality education and the basics of finance." Public schools, public libraries, public radio, public television, college grants, and student loans are available to everyone. But let's face it; most of what we have ever learned has been self-taught. If the government can force people to participate in a pyramid scheme called Social Security, why can't they force people to take advantage of all that this great land of opportunity has to offer, e.g. public education. I guess that would make the citizenry less dependent upon the government and less susceptible to having their votes bought with the funds from our FICA deductions.
The airlines should not be used as an argument against privatization. The business models of most of the airlines simply do not work, especially "post 9/11." I say let these bad businesses fail. If the government is bailing out these businesses, has the industry really even been privatized? I say no, and do you really think things would be better in the airline industry if the government were still tightly controlling it? I don't think it would, and I bet that the moneymaking airlines, JetBlue and Southwest, would never have come into existence without "privatization".
Just some friendly arguments. Enjoying your blog – keep up the good work. TA
What's with this reasonable debate, guys? You two are poor excuses for Americans. I'm very impressed with this exchange of ideas. You've each made great points for each side of the issue and it's caused me to think deeply about these issues...but come one guys, are you trying to get cancelled? You need to stop listening to each other or your ratings are going to go into the crapper.
Chris, I don't think you should be running down President Bush's social security strategy. Since you have a public forum (this blog), the administration might offer to pay you to endorse the program.
You wouldn't believe what I'm getting from FOX Searchlight Studios to advertise "Sideways."
Post a Comment
<< Home