More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson

Posted: July 13, 2010 02:30 PM

Wait, Who Said We Want Less Government Protecting And Empowering Us?

What's Your Reaction:

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Cut spending? Wait - where did that terrible idea come from? Government is We, the People and its job is to protect and empower us. Why in the world would we want to cut back on that?

WSJ today, The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth, "Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come."

Wait a minute. Back up. Where did this come from? Who, anywhere, any time agreed to cut government? Why do We, the People allow these anti-government zealots to pre-frame the budget deficit as a problem of government doing too much for us? Which government function is the "too much" part? Reigning in runaway corporations? Consumer protection? Worker safety inspections? Food safety inspections? Maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure? Educating people? The courts? Keeping the water and air clean? There is a long list of things our government does for us. Why would we want less of that?

Imagine if Democrats voted to just put $500 billion a year in rockets and shot the rockets at the moon, and spent the next 30 years demanding that conservatives do their part and raise taxes to pay for that. Do you think the top 1% would just say, "Oh, okay, let's do that." Of course they wouldn't.

But under anti-government conservatives all of these things that our government does to protect and empower us were cut to the bone or just ended, resulting in mine disasters, bank meltdowns, predatory corporations scamming all of us, and the BP oil spill. We, the people got poorer and less secure while the rich got really, really richer.

Why would anyone in their right mind think that was a good idea?

Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, resulting in the greatest concentration of wealth ever. The entire economy turned into an everything-to-the-top vacuum cleaner scheme, filled with scams shaking down and fleecing We, the People of everything we have and delivering it to a few wealthy corporation-owners. And then we get this bamboozlement that "the deficit" is out of control, so we have to cut back on anything that remains of government working for We, the People? I don't think so.

Think about the level of bamboozlement that is going on here. Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, and then spend the next 30 years saying, "OK, now you have to do your part and cut the things government does for the people." The whole thing was a scheme to deliver power to a few at the top. In Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Drowning In Debt you can see the step-by-step outline of the plan, in their own words. The deficit plan was right there for everyone to see:


  • Step 1: Cut taxes to "cut the allowance" of government so that it can't function on the side of We, the People. Intentionally force the government into greater and greater debt.
  • Step 2: Use the debt as a reason to cut the things government does for We, the People. When the resulting deficits pile up scare people that the government is "going bankrupt" so they'll let you sell off the people's assets and "privatize" the functions of government. Of course, insist that putting taxes back where they were will "harm the economy."
  • Step 3: Blame liberals for the disastrous effects of spending cutbacks.

So when did We, the People agree to this one-way bargain, cut taxes for the rich and cut what government does for us? We didn't, and we should stop acting like we did.

Every single one of us knows that the deficits are the result of tax cuts for the rich and huge military spending increases. If we want to fix the deficit problem we know exactly what to do.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

 

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
wmnorton
Moderate where moderate used to be
03:34 PM on 07/14/2010
The only way to change the corporate strangle hold on our democracy if for there to be a constitutional amentment that whould say sonething like:
"No one may collect more to obtain an office than the office pays. Congress may provide additional funds. No one may contribute to a candidate for office who can not vote for that candidate."
If the founding fathers had thought that we would get to where it takes $4 million on each side for congressional races this would have been one of the original "bill of rights."
09:02 PM on 07/13/2010
"its job is to protect and empower us"
WHAT???. WE empower the government. The power of the government did not spring ex nihilo, We the People gave some carefully limited power to it. So, if it "empowers" us, that means that it has usurped all the power from us and doles out snippets of it under the guise of helping us. "All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. all delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation." T. Paine. Just because we haven't been paying attention since Johnson doesn't mean we can't wake up and demand that the government stick to the limits of the Constitution.
04:52 PM on 07/13/2010
The biggest mistake made by Carter was not Iran (though that might have sunk him anyway), it was to permit unlimited indexing of everything as his policy for blunting the effect of the destructive spiral of increasing inflation. I know that he inherited much of it, and I always felt that his heart was in the right place but it was a massive mistake nonetheless because (1) big money became threatened enough over this to finally complete a merger of the Reagan backers with the Bush faction, and (2) while people were largely insulated in reality there was still the psychological effect of seeing the price of nearly everything increase on almost a daily basis. If Carter had understood that and started on a different course as soon as he was sworn in in 1977, he might of at least had some sort of a chance in 1980.

And, yes, the candidates from big money lied by omission with regards to what they intended to do to wring inflation out of our economy. I mean, a campaign pledge of "I will help you out by sending the unemployment rate skyrocketing" (which of course, was done) would likely have been far less effective than the whole "Morning in America", and Moral Majority fighting back lines of slogans.

But, anyway, your question was "So when did We, the People agree to this one-way bargain"? That would have been in November, 1980. And we have yet to reverse that monumentally bad decision.
photo
wmnorton
Moderate where moderate used to be
03:45 PM on 07/14/2010
Carter lost because Reagan/Bush made a deal with the Iranians to hold our diplomats until after the presidential elections. They ageed thar if the Iranians held the hostages until after the elction they would sell them military hardware after they came to power. That is what Reagan/Bush did even though it was against the law.
When they got the money they had to create a slush fund since they could not report the sales.They then used the money to fund their favorite Contras, (and perhaps others we never heard about), even though they were in rebelion against a democratically elected goverment
04:40 PM on 07/13/2010
Less Government is what Right-wingers cry about whenever they are out of power.

When in power, they leave that argument aside and use the power of the government FOR THEM and say that anyone questioning them are Anti-America, Traitors, etc....

It is laughable but they have shown it time and time again

How could anyone even bring up the subject of Obama using too much power? Bush set levels of power that we had NEVER seen before
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
legalclubs
01:50 PM on 07/13/2010
Why was my previous comment deleted moderator? You can't say that Congress should reimpose the estate tax effective to the beginning of the year or else lose out on collecting estate taxes from the superrich like Steinbrenner and thereby the government would have an extra $30 billion or so for "we the people". I can't believe that such a non-controversial statement gets banned when all the crazy comments you see in other articles flies through.
photo
SilverWolfSigil
Social realist
12:56 PM on 07/13/2010
The gini index is a measure of the disparity between rich and poor. The United States is closer to many poor African and South American states than that of the rest of the western world.

United States 45.0
Japan 38.1
New Zealand 36.2
United Kingdom 34.0
Canada 32.1
Netherlands 30.9
Germany 27.0
Norway 25.0
Sweden 23.0

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
03:57 PM on 07/13/2010
And I'm starting to think this disparity is something which many in our country think is *proof* of our country's superiority. The vast disparity we encourage and cultivate, is the natural order, between the deserving and the undeserving! The higher the better!

The other countries with those lower indexes are are all backwards, "eevil soshulists," forcing their unfortunate citizens to live out miserable lives of deprivation, enslavement and oppression, you know.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eggsackley
Organic gardener & growers marketer.
01:12 AM on 07/16/2010
I wonder how the gini index for the US would have looked before Reagan? My guess is the mid thirties.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Takebackourmoney
12:53 PM on 07/13/2010
We the people should demand that congress take a 50% paycut and hear what they have to say.
photo
SilverWolfSigil
Social realist
12:59 PM on 07/13/2010
They won't care. Their real paycheques won't be affected.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dave Johnson
01:15 PM on 07/13/2010
If Congress has to take a pay cut only very wealthy people can be in Congress.
04:31 PM on 07/13/2010
Why? You could live on 100 g's/year and fantastic benefits couldn't you? And I know that you'd do a better job than 90% of the folks there.

I'm just saying.
photo
wmnorton
Moderate where moderate used to be
03:19 PM on 07/14/2010
And the difference between what we have now and what we would have under the new order is what?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thebassguy
12:39 PM on 07/13/2010
right on and well said, Dave! Look at the Yurpeen people, who use their tax money and 'governement' to buy things they need and protect them from things they don't, and they're thrilled about it.
The government collects LOTS of money and prints LOTS of money, so when the Rightwingers say governement is broke, they're absolutely full of shite. I think taxes are high enough, but so much is spent on things to help rich corporations avoid paying taxes. I have no problem paying my fair share, but i want the We The People (gubmint) to help us with what we need, like quaility food and healthcare, and decent affordable housing options and education.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barney123
12:20 PM on 07/13/2010
NO more tax cuts for the Rich.
photo
wmnorton
Moderate where moderate used to be
03:47 PM on 07/14/2010
And it is time for the Rich to start paying their fair share. I'm tired of paying for wealthy welfare.