iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

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

GET UPDATES FROM Jeffrey Sachs
 

Budgetary Deceit and America's Decline

Posted: 07/23/11 12:33 PM ET

As I shuttle between East Africa, where a severe drought threatens the lives of more than 10 million people, and Athens, where a financial crisis threatens Greece and all of Europe, I am shocked by the U.S. budget negotiations between Congress and President Obama.

Every part of the budget debate in the U.S. is built on a tissue of willful deceit. Consider the Republican Party's double-mantra that the deficit results from "runaway spending" and that more tax cuts are the key to economic growth. Republicans claim that the budget deficit, around 10 percent of GDP, has been caused only by a rise in outlays. This is blatantly untrue. The deficit results roughly equally from a fall of tax revenues as a share of GDP and a rise of spending as a share of GDP.

On both sides of the ledger -- spending and taxes -- part of the shift results from the weak economy ("cyclical factors") and part from long-term trends. Spending, for example, is higher in part because of unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other federal spending to help the downtrodden in a weak economy. That's the "cyclical" component. Part of the higher spending reflects long-term patterns, such as rising health care costs and an aging population, as well as America's chronic addiction to wrongheaded wars and military occupations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Taxation is lower also because of short-term factors and long-term factors. The short-term factors involve reduced federal revenues in an economy with high unemployment. The long-term factors involve repeated tax cuts for companies and high-income individuals that have systematically eroded the tax base, giving unjust and unaffordable benefits for America's millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations.

The Republicans also misrepresent the costs and benefits of closing the deficit through higher taxes on the rich. Americans wants the rich to pay more, and for good reason. Super-rich Americans have walked away with the prize in America. Our country is run by millionaires and billionaires, and for millionaires and billionaires, the rest of the country be damned. Yet the Republicans and their propaganda mouthpieces like Rupert Murdoch's media empire, claim with sheer audacity that taxing the rich would kill economic growth. This trickle-down, voodoo, supply-side economics is the fig leaf of uncontrolled greed among the right-wing rich.

The truth is that we need more federal spending to create good jobs and remain globally competitive, not as some kind of short-term "stimulus" but as a long-term investment in education, job skills, science, technology, energy security, and modern infrastructure. I travel around the world as part of my job, and I can say without doubt that America has failed to modernize the economy and is steadily losing its international competitiveness. No wonder the good jobs are disappearing and the pay is stagnant, unless of course you are a CEO who can keep grabbing stock options and profits from the shareholders (who are anyway enjoying record incomes because of stagnant wages and high profits earned overseas).

The Democrats of the White House and much of Congress have been less crude, but no less insidious, in their duplicity. Obama's campaign promise to "change Washington" looks like pure bait and switch. There has been no change, but rather more of the same: the Wall-Street-owned Democratic Party as we have come to know it. The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It's more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks. That has been the case since the modern Democratic Party was re-created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin.

Thus, at every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class. He refused to tax the banks and hedge funds properly on their outlandish profits; he refused to limit in a serious way the bankers' mega-bonuses even when the bonuses were financed by taxpayer bailouts; and he even refused to stand up against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December, though 60 percent of the electorate repeatedly and consistently demanded that the Bush tax cuts at the top should be ended. It's not hard to understand why. Obama and Democratic Party politicians rely on Wall Street and the super-rich for campaign contributions the same way that the Republicans rely on oil and coal. In America today, only the rich have political power.

Obama could have cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that has been wasted on America's disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, but here too it's been all bait and switch. Obama is either afraid to stand up to the Pentagon or is part of the same neoconservative outlook as his predecessor. The real cause hardly matters since the outcome is the same: America is more militarily engaged under Obama than even under Bush. Amazing but true.

The stimulus legislation, pushed by Obama at the start of his term on the basis of antiquated economic theories, wasted the public's money and also did something much worse. It discredited the vital role of public spending in solving real and long-term problems. Rather than thinking ahead and planning for long-term solutions, he simply spent money on short-term schemes.

Obama's embrace of "shovel-ready" infrastructure, for example, left America with an economy based on shovels while China's long-term strategy has given that country an economy based on 21st-century Maglev trains. Now that the resort to mega-deficits has run its course, Obama is on the verge of abandoning the poor and middle class, by agreeing with the plutocrats in Congress to cut spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and discretionary civilian spending, while protecting the military and the low tax rates on the rich (if not lowering those top tax rates further according to the secret machinations of the Gang of Six, now endorsed by the president!)

Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country's needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America's future not just in Obama's speeches but in fact.

America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.

 
 
 

Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs

 
 
  • Comments
  • 653
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
02:18 AM on 08/01/2011
Ezra Klein has the most interesting analysis of the deal reached. He points out that the most savage cuts or savings will come from the Defense budget, ie the Pentagon. So perhaps inadvertently the Tea Party has brought the US empire to an end. It proved as some prescient people predicted too expensive to maintain. If this is the most important result of the budget deal there is a silver lining. Sooner or later something had to give and it was guns instead of butter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ArnoldZiffle
Humans confuse me.
04:02 PM on 07/28/2011
Thank you, Jeffrey Sachs, for helping us regular folk try to understand what is going on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:24 AM on 07/28/2011
Excellent article.
08:03 AM on 07/27/2011
After all these years of Californians being able to amend their Constitution, why was a Proportional Representation Amendment in the State Legislature never considered?

There is no legal boundary to kill the two party system in California and maybe then get other States to do the same.

Californians can get an amendment to have a Unicameral legislature with proportional representation
06:01 AM on 07/27/2011
Thank the goddesses!

Someone has finally said what I have been feeling for months and months and months!

Thank you thank you thank you.

Wake up, America! We have to find a better way than what we are witnessing today!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MAX1
Climate and Peace Advocate
11:18 PM on 07/26/2011
.
Where are the People's Representatives?
.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hiqutipie
Independent... Don't talk just Kiss ...
09:17 PM on 07/26/2011
Thats Yelling from the Tree Tops Jeff...I know it gets frustrating but keep slamming that sledgehammer, Americans are listening... They'll get it at some point and stop fighting each other and start fighting the politicians...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RyanCSmith
Locke for people, Hobbes for corporations
05:18 PM on 07/26/2011
Good words Jeffrey. I'm personally jumping on board with the Green Party. They have ideas and proposals for addressing all the problems we're facing today.
12:27 AM on 07/27/2011
Sadly, I'm not sure if it even still exists - I've tried to contact folks in my state and no one responds and as far as I can tell they don't normally meet.

So, I hope it is still alive but I'm starting to wonder.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RyanCSmith
Locke for people, Hobbes for corporations
03:14 AM on 07/27/2011
It depends on where you are, as I understand the recession wiped out what little finances they had so they've gone pretty shoestring. You could try to get in touch with national and see if they can shed some light on the situation, all else fails you could try to poke around to find other Greens or people interested and do something simple. Get people together with common cause and a desire to make something happen and you'd be surprised what can come together.
12:25 PM on 07/27/2011
I am uncomfortable with the ideological rigidity of their platform.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RyanCSmith
Locke for people, Hobbes for corporations
01:23 PM on 07/27/2011
Which parts in particular? I think their 10 Principles sum up an ideology I can get behind and has a lot of good ideas for America as it is right now.

I'd also like to point out parties often soften a bit in their rigidity when they get into office (with the very obvious exception of the Tea Party). The Greens have very few in office and have achieved no real legislative successes yet.
02:27 PM on 07/29/2011
So the current two party system with extreme right wing rigidity on one side and ambiguous sycophancy that is replaced by extreme right-wing ideology on the other side after election day is working for you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PerotVentuSheehCarte
gravel kucinich paul nader
03:22 PM on 07/26/2011
Only Dr Ron strikes fear into the heart of the Machine.
03:09 PM on 07/27/2011
No one is afraid of him. He is seen as a crank by most people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
suzukimom
04:11 AM on 07/28/2011
Not really. One thing you can say about Ron Paul is that he has integrity and would always act in the best interest of the country, as he sees it, and not for self-interest. I don't know if I could agree with his perspective enough to ever vote for him, but boy do I respect him for his honesty. I will consider his views and proposals, and I can see myself potentially voting for him even though I am a life-long Democrat who worked to get Obama elected by sending money, traveling from CA to Nevada and walking on my badly arthritic knees to register voters and garner support . Ha! I carried a clipping from the Washington Post that had this great graphic that showed the differences between McCain's tax proposals and Obama's. I used it to show voters how the majority of the tax cut benefit went to the wealthy under McCain and Obama's plan was more fair because he was going to let the Bush tax cuts expire because he was on our side. But he extended them and he is not on the side of the American people as is now all to clear. Now he is using those tax cuts for the wealthy as an excuse to try to hurt children, poor, disabled, elderly and sick Americans. He lied to all of us. I might vote for Paul, but never again Obama.
01:55 PM on 07/26/2011
Here is a series of excellent interviews with economist James Crotty which gives a historical context to what we are experiencing today. Basically we are being pushed into conditions not seen since the 1920's. The means loss of the entitlement programs, diminished bargaining power for wages, extreme wealth inequalty reduced regulation and oversight etc.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=718
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:41 PM on 07/26/2011
What amazes one the most throughout the Rep/Dem duopolistic ruse

It’s really amusing. When the banks are in trouble there is no such thing as rules and law but their victims have to cross every “t” and dot every “i”...all in the name of justice, of course.
12:41 PM on 07/27/2011
I am reminded of when some called for the bankers' bonuses to be reduced. Geithner claimed we had to honor the sanctity of contracts. Tell that to people who lose their pensions. Later, Obama said we should avoid being too lenient with homeowners behind on their mortgages because it would increase the moral hazard. The fact that no banker is in prison is a moral hazard. Congress failed to pass legislation that would have allowed homeowners to resolve their mortgages in bankruptcy court. I guess we wouldn't want a bunch of federal judges cheating the poor banks.
11:50 AM on 07/26/2011
(continued from above ...)

So how do you stop them? By not allowing them to accumulate massive amounts of wealth. Of course, everyone cries socialism when you say such things, but if you use your head and basic logic you will come to understand a very simple principle: when people become ultra-wealty there is only one thing they can spend all that excess wealth on, and that is political power over the rest of us. THAT is the world we have created and allowed. Until people have the courage to strip the unelectable elite of their massive wealth, nothing will change. Nothing. In fact, it will only get worse.
11:50 AM on 07/26/2011
"In America today, only the rich have political power."

This is the key line. Of course, most people understand this, but what they don't understand is exactly how deep that reality runs. People don't really understand WHY they are so dissatisfied with their elected officials. Here's the real reason: our elected officials are not in charge of policy. Who is? The shadow government. Now, I HATE using a term like that because it sounds conspiratorial, but until a better term comes along it will have to do. So who is the shadow government? Simply put, it's a group of unelectable elites that are very wealthy and powerful. They are the heads of oil companies, technology companies, financial giants, hedge funds, agribusiness, educational instituations, even other governments and foreign corporations. THEY make the decisions. THEY make policy. THEY decide what laws get passed and what bills/laws get killed. In short, THEY are in charge, not you. Does anyone in America really think they live in a democracy? If so, you are truly kidding yourself.

To Sach's point, a third party is useless. The real problem is the corporate infestation of our government at every level, made possible by the shadow government.

(continued below ...)
11:25 AM on 07/26/2011
100% correct, imho. But where is that "third-party movement"? If disgusted liberals and progressives stay home in 2012 and reactionary forces attain more political power the country's decline will further accelerate. Not a pretty picture.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:24 AM on 07/26/2011
Indeed. Right on the money.

And, more evidence... bipartisan consensus is always possible when working toward a common goal. Like offshoring millions more jobs:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/usa-trade-deals-idUSN1E76L10020110722

See how they can compromise?

Republicans have agreed to fund a year of useless community college training for those displaced by the newest bipartisan "free" trade deal.

Such a deal.

Third party, NOW!