More

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

GET UPDATES FROM Richard Brodsky
 

Austerity, Debt and the Middle Class: What Europe Can Teach Us

Posted: 11/09/11 11:26 AM ET

The first casualty of war is truth, they say. The first casualty of debt is the poor and middle classes, and that is a truth that's just becoming visible. The current European crisis is forcing us to look at our unspoken and unexamined assumptions, and it's not pretty. The uniform response to unrepayable debt, in Greece and Italy, is a reduction in the government activities that created and support the middle class. There is no real alternative being pursued, and no grand debate forcing a society to choose and define itself. There's one idea and one idea only: Austerity, and a reduction in public expenditures, pensions, programs.

Put aside your feelings about "austerity" for a moment, put aside the intuitive sense that it isn't fair and isn't necessary, and let's examine the argument.

These European nations, and the U.S., have spent money well beyond what they bring in. It is an unchecked, permanent debt spiral, with no prospect of repayment without a convulsive set of changes. The lenders, mostly large banks, will shortly stop lending out of fear they won't be repaid. These governments will then default and economies will stall or collapse. Rather than let that happen, the wealthier economies are willing to pour money into the failing economies, but only if they adopt austerity measures, reduce government spending and reduce government participation in the economy. Pensions are slashed, programs dismantled, retirement ages raised, public assets sold off and the objective quality of life of most citizens is reduced.

If one wishes to reject "austerity" or... what? There's hardly a leaf stirring in that forest. And logically there's only one place to go. Assume that we agree that an economy cannot permanently spend more than it brings in, which seems a fair assumption. If life-changing cuts in spending are unacceptable, all that's left is raising revenues. Tax increases. In some societies that's theoretically easy. In Greece massive public tax evasion has crippled the ability of government and society to function. If people would just pay what they now owe, problem solved. But in Ireland, or Portugal or Italy it's not so easy. There, and in the U.S., only an increase in taxes will provide an alternative to massive public sector reductions.

There's a real argument to be had here, and genuine dangers in either austerity or tax increases. But the world is frozen in a political climate that has made tax increases illegitimate and impossible, so impossible that they are not really discussed and on the table. Is any political system actually grappling with questions like, "What is the proper amount of money government can take out of the private sector? Will tax increases stall or kill economic growth? Which taxpayers should shoulder a greater tax burden? What are the real-life consequences of massive reductions in public activity?" I don't see those questions debated anywhere, certainly not in Europe. Some left-wing politicians and unions protest against austerity, but are shrugged off as special interests protecting their privileges, while the "grown ups" stream down the austerity road like lemmings.

Like each of us, I have my own answers. But there's no way any of us can assert that we've found the right answer. I'm miles away from insisting that I've got that answer. I just want a real debate, a real opportunity to choose one model or the other. And the failure to engage in that debate will produce not just an economic debacle, and a change in the relationship between people, and between people and society, it endangers the idea that democracies can solve difficult choices and that elections are the place where we make these decisions. (A referendum of the people in Greece to decide on austerity?? Horrors!!)

Permanent income and social inequality, permanent economic stagnation, low birth rates, declining quality of daily life, this isn't the inevitable death spiral of a once ascendant culture. These are the explicit policies chosen by leaders of that same culture.

The only glimmer on the horizon is, by the way, Occupy Wall Street. It is a bit unfocused, at least on a political or economic agenda, and it certainly needs to choose a path more quickly than it wants. But its strength is in its initial premise: The world is being operated in the interest of the top 1% of society, and that's not right, it's not effective, it's not fair. That resonates, that can be picked up by political leadership and translated into policy, like Franklin Roosevelt did. I'm not being nostalgic. I'm being realistic about where we stand today, as citizens of a global economy. We're closer to the edge than we think.

 

Follow Richard Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/richardbrodsky

The first casualty of war is truth, they say. The first casualty of debt is the poor and middle classes, and that is a truth that's just becoming visible. The current European crisis is forcing us to...
The first casualty of war is truth, they say. The first casualty of debt is the poor and middle classes, and that is a truth that's just becoming visible. The current European crisis is forcing us to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:39 PM on 11/10/2011
Government by the corporation, for the corporation. People be damned.

So much for transparency and ethical conduct.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:20 AM on 11/11/2011
Cheer up, the first step toward a better, fairer world is to engage in the battle of ideas. Things can get better for the 99%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
08:58 AM on 11/10/2011
Any discussion of austerity which does not include the primary reason for our government entitlements is doomed to failure. When Roosevelt instituted the New Deal it was because people were actually starving and dying needlessly. Today we have a skewed entitlement system which allows a comfortable retirement for most well before they have lost their working edge combined with a health care delivery system which still allows people to die needlessly.

We have a population edging nearer to uniform obesity daily which is exacerbating the health care problem. We are spending billions to incarcerate people whose only crime is getting high on illegal rather than legal substances. We have the shortest school year in the developed world while allowing any child who wishes to drop out at sixteen with no skills.

For decades the government has funded dysfunctional and conflicting outcomes. America is on the road to the absolute necessity for austerity unless we start applying common sense to the use of taxpayers' money.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
10:55 AM on 11/11/2011
It's not an entirely wrong-headed take and there's a lot to think about here. However, I'm not sure the goal of government safetynet programs is to stop people from starving to death. Social Security for instance was explicitly created to allow people to live in dignity and comfort. If your comment is intended to promote a sensible review of programs in the context of a search for economic and social fairness it's quite helpful. If it's offered as a reason to embrace the kind of austerity that now is the popular right-wing nostrum, I remain skeptical. But it provokes thinking, one way or another.

Richard Brodsky
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Southern Rational
12:35 PM on 11/11/2011
What I intended was to point out that whether you are conservative or liberal, government programs are not operating efficiently.

Brief example:

It is pretty well acknowledged by all political ideologies that well educated people, no matter their income bracket, tend to be healthier, live longer and make better lifestyle choices. Since entitlements are what are eating up our budget, it only makes sense to focus on education as a major driver of a solution to our deficit.

So why is Washington fixating on either cutting entitlements or raising taxes? If average voters don't understand why you need to do either and where the savings will go of course they aren't going to agree with the opposing party.

If we set a goal of educating every single child in America so that none dropped out and all graduated from high school, technical school or a university job-ready and gave it the same importance as the race to the moon we would turn around our economy in a decade.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Buzzm1
07:07 AM on 11/10/2011
Rescind the Bush tax cuts http://bit.ly/n9tWGR
for the top 10% http://bit.ly/fa3K6T approx. 1/7th of all Americans,
or rescind the Bush Tax Cuts for all of us.

Set aside SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, worries,
so we, the people, can DEAL WITH THE REAL ISSUES.
http://bit.ly/uVqmHB

Public Campaign Financing
http://bit.ly/uwtWuR

Term limits - limit two 2-year House terms, limit one 4 year Senate term
Progression - only after serving 2 House terms, eligible for one Senate term

transparency in all actions
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:00 AM on 11/11/2011
Be careful about term limits for legislative bodies. The American system requires a strong and active legislative presence to check the power of the executive. One unintended consequence of term limits is to unbalance our system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Buzzm1
06:57 AM on 11/10/2011
Revenues Spending Deficit Debt GDP %ages FY1996-FY2011
http://bit.ly/jnfQMr
photo
drbob601
Soylent Green is People
04:22 AM on 11/10/2011
Whenever I hear the words "austerity measures" these days, I just substitute the words "Iron Heel."
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:00 AM on 11/11/2011
Even is that kind of connection is to be made, we're going to have to argue this out. There are folks everywhere who are contemplating these issues and want them explained and debated.
02:09 AM on 11/10/2011
"I'm being realistic about where we stand today, as citizens of a global economy. We're closer to the edge than we think." -----article quote

I agree.

The oligarchs do not get it.
By impoverishing too many in the lower classes, they are bringing about social and political unrest.

This is NOT the 1930's where lower class people more or less accepted their fate.
All they had were oligarch owned newspapers, movies, and radio.
It was easy then to control the people.

News now travels around the world in the blink of an eye....with plenty of commentary.
The ordinary people are NOT so easy to control, especially when they have had their fill.

Either the oligarchs and politicians do something for the lower and middle classes and share....or the whole comfortable country they are used to is going to explode.
There is only so much ordinary working Americans are going to take BEFORE they do something about it.

The oligarchs and politicians should want to take care of the lower classes just for their OWN self preservation.
{shrugs}
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:05 AM on 11/11/2011
The real difference I sense is the technological change you mention. Folks were not passive in the Depression but the means of communication were very limited. The genius of OWS is its' network of ideas and people sharing values and ideas that won't permit 1% of the people to determine the lives of the 99%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katyland
11:46 PM on 11/09/2011
Oh, yes we are closer to that edge, than we realize. The answers are very hard to find, even harder to live with. I will not say OWS, is the glimmer of hope, we seek. While it has good points its direction,is wrong, As a nation,in a global economy,we have to face our demons, Higher taxes and austerity, are a reality,in the not so distant future, These are truths we must face, as we also must face and accept that politians and this adminstration, need to face the same cuts we face., why do we continue to ignor that our politians ,become wealther year by year, they take advantage of tax loopholes, and deductions, as all rich do,, while enjoying the wonderful perks offered at tax payer exspense that they voted in for them selfes, they continue to recieve full benfits and salaries while they legislate to benefit them selfes and their friends, The unfotunate truth is politians are the fat cats also, they are the 1%, , and they regulate and legislate to their benefit, while the people continue to face hardship.
02:17 AM on 11/10/2011
We need spending cuts INCLUDING in the military budget (and an end to constant warfare) at the same time we need tax increases, especially on the rich and corporations who in reality pay a lower percentage of taxes than ordinary working Americans.

Of course, the Repugs want to sell you a hill of beans....how the rich pay so much and the military budget can not be cut by one penny.....yada, yada, yada.....

If we keep up with the trickle down theory of economics and spending on wars....then do not be surprised if the American economy self-destructs with a worse economic meltdown than in 2008.

The eurozone is falling apart.....one country at a time....though it is being propped up for now.
How long can that last with the lower classes suffering while the upper classes do not?
At the same time austerity (rather than creating more jobs so people can pay taxes and buy things) is making things worse?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
katyland
09:31 PM on 11/10/2011
Yea lets cut the military , that makes it easier for Iran , when the world ends wars , then we can talk yada,yada,, until then the military is our safety, While the repugs ,sell beans,, the liberals continue to brain wash people into believing the goverment will save them by literally stealing from those who earn to give to those who don't, trickle down only works if people do,The eurozone is in free fall because intitlements grew faster than taxes,, Creating jobs out of thin air, will not work, jobs are created by inovation ,inovation is slow, austerity is exactly what America faces, their are not enough taxes from the rich to cover these debts ,and while obama spend billions to create 200 jobs, in companies that go bank rupt , the problem continues, there is no easy fix in this, the sooner people get that the sooner we all can start the long climb out of this crater.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:07 AM on 11/11/2011
Some are, some aren't. In the United States at least until recently, elected officials have been a fair cross-section of the population. That's changed, and wealth has become a qualifying attribute for those who seek office.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
07:54 PM on 11/09/2011
Great piece Richard. It is almost comical to sit and listen to television reporters, who mostly belong to the 1%, lambaste the current government deficits as unsustainable. They drone on about the need for austerity but like the labor unions protecting their nests, the pundits are no different. Tax increases, quelle horreur. The real problem lies in the differences in priorities between the people and the government. The US government is engaged in changing the world at any cost, including burning down the house we live in. The sad fact is there is plenty of cash in the banks to finance any number of investments in the economy but it has been side-lined. Meanwhile this ridiculous notion that entitlements are bad and seniors must go on a diet because they had the temerity to live longer is nonsense.

There are two types of government spending just like in any household. There is spending for operating costs and there is spending for investment. We need to reduce our operating expenses and transfer more money to investment. We cut some government jobs and create new offsetting jobs through investment. It is blindingly obvious and relatively simple. The place to cut with the least impact on the economy is defense spending. Cuts in defense spending will hurt the Iraqi and Afghan economies far more than the US economy.

The one thing government can do is take risk where private investors won't.
02:19 AM on 11/10/2011
We need MORE jobs in general, and MORE good paying jobs in particular.

People with good jobs pay more taxes and buy things and stimulate the economy.
*****They are also happier and less likely to complain or riot.

By impoverishing more and more Americans, the politicians and oligarchs are doing the opposite of what could work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
04:16 AM on 11/10/2011
Once upon a time the government could do this. It's only since President Reagan started cutting taxes that the government seems unable to fulfill its economic role. Time to break with convention, cut defense raise taxes on millionaires and corporations and start rebuilding America.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:11 AM on 11/11/2011
Thanks. It's tough even getting the debate started. And to an extent there's been a paucity of practical ideas from progressives. I suspect that things like excessive compensation will turn into conventional political issues, and then become vehicles for debate about wider issues.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
12:10 PM on 11/11/2011
Most progressives are frankly at a loss and bleat on about how they feel abandoned and we just need to give President Obama one more chance. I've gone beyond that point, we need to do more than that, we need to tell the Emperor, he has no clothes. When Democrats push Ronald Reagan economic policies, it's time to say enough. Here's a news flash for Republcians, there is no free-market, therefore free-market solutions are doomed to failure. That and about 100 other reasons is why I choose to run in the American Elects primary, if no one else will primary President Obama, then I will.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
04:20 PM on 11/09/2011
Greece got in trouble, simply put, because the Greek political class, once seeing that their joining of the EU drastically lowered their cost of borrowing, decided that having their citizenry retiring at the age of 50, with upwards of 70% of their salary, was the wise thing to do.

Greece, from what we've now found out, was never in a position to financially handle such a debt load, and that was made even clearer through their efforts to hide the true amount of debt that they were carrying.

The only thing that Europe can teach us, as far as I'm concerned, is that the government needs to find a way effectively manage the cost of the promises that were made to our citizenry and do everything, within their power, to ensure the soundness of our budget.

Reforming the entitlement programs, going forward, is something that needs to be done. Social Security and Medicare need to be fixed, to deal with the current reality. Medicare Part D needs to be scrapped entirely, with the cost of providing discounts for prescription drug coverage, if it is determined that that is something that needs to be done, represented in Medicare, proper.

The entitlements are only part of the issue, but failing to deal with these issues will leave us in Greece's very situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
08:03 PM on 11/09/2011
How is retirement at 50 and 70% of salary anything close to 67 and 50% of salary? Are entitlements the problem or the way we collect taxes for entitlements the problem? With much of our consumer goods coming from overseas, these goods escape employment taxes entirely increasing the burden on American companies and their workers. Instead of paying for seniors with employment taxes on working people, a number that is shrinking as a percentage of population, we should pay for it with a tax on consumption. Herman Cain has the right idea, a national sales tax, not a VAT, but it should only be for Medicare. If we had a tax of 10%, we could pay for Medicare and offer it to every American. Revenues would increase as the economy increased and everyone would pay. If we made it 15%, we could cover the entire annual cost of social security. Instead of looking for ways to impoverish seniors, we should be looking at creative ways to fix the system. When we cut programs, we cut GDP, creating the need for more cuts on tops of cuts. It is a vicious circle with no winners. Cuts will leave us in Greece's situation, uncontrolled defense spending will leave us in Greece's situation, and failure to raise taxes reversing the last 30 years of tax cuts will leave us in Greece's situation.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
07:49 PM on 11/14/2011
My point was that the Greek government, and likely the citizenry, made a significant investment into a retirement structure that made absolutely no sense.

Greece built up a federal pension system, with no true plan to ever manage paying for it, and it's now blown up in their faces, with the entire fate of the EU, the only economic collective that rivals the US economy, hanging in the balance.

If your heart is set of building out a massive pension program that has, to be modest, trick finances, at least have the decency to present a plausible way of paying for it, if not just managing the costs of it.

Every person who jumps into any conversation about fiscal budgets with the idea that the entitlement programs, in a meaningful way, ought not be part of the fix, as far as I'm concerned, is being outright foolish.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
07:50 PM on 11/14/2011
To answer your question, I say both: the entitlement programs are a problem that can be easily fixed, and the way we collect taxes for entitlements are problem, one you've yet to put forward an actually plausible solution to.

Do you ever actually read your own writing, claiming to be a "presidential candidate" while also calling for a national sales tax in the range of 10%-15%? Now, your proposal may sound just goofy, when being considered in states with no sales taxes, but in California, my home state, the sales tax is already at ~9.7%, once you count the state/county/local/bond taxes that apply.

Without a hint of sarcasm, from what I can tell, you are pushing for a, entirely hypothetical, ~20%-25% total tax burden, on anything that a person bought with the intent to 'use'. Absolutely ludicrous.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:11 AM on 11/11/2011
There's no doubt that the affordability of these programs is a legitimate concern. But the point I'm trying to make is that it's only half of the issue. These deficits come not just because of high expenditures but in the wake of massive, usually upper income tax cuts. Logic alone dictates that we debate both sides.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
08:02 PM on 11/14/2011
And that's a fair point to make; my only qualm with that point is that, in the midst of making that case, some of the very folks who are advocating that we debate both sides, and I'm not entirely sure where you stand, turn around and refuse consider anything not only calling for 'upper income tax increases'.

I've proposed this simple part of the fix on countless posts, and I've yet to see a single person, coming from what i assume is your perspective, discredit this idea with any substance, so I'll give you a shot:

-Raise the income cap on payroll taxes, from wherever it is to $250,000, adjust the payout formula accordingly.

-If you receive SS benefits, you are restricted to supplementing the benefit with a part-time job (20 hours per week/ 110 hours per year), but your benefits are non-taxable. Going over the allotment results in penalties being drawn from forthcoming checks.

-If you decide to not draw SS benefits, or are means-tested out of receiving full benefits, you will receive a tax credit, worth 44% (for the 44th President, :]) of what your benefit would've been, with all income/earnings taxed at whatever rate is current, with no work restrictions.

What would be wrong with such a proposal?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebtNavigation
Attorney and Author
03:52 PM on 11/09/2011
The American public is only beginning to revolt. The real revolt will be evident when Americans do what the Mexicans did, and begin nonviolently resisting the dispossession of defaulted homeowners and the closure of indebted businesses. There are ways to do that, and Mexicans showed us how it's done.

In Mexico in the mid-'90s Wall Street engineered a currency coup that tripled the debt owed by small businesses and family farms and also allowed for them to be massively ratejacked on top of it. Mexicans consequent­­ly formed the "el Barzon" movement and pushed back Wall Street and deposed their ruling party of 60+ years. In this country YouTube phenom Ann Minch declared the debtors' revolt and began going after them, with others joining in.

If you've been pushed under, you can read every other page of my book for free: http://www­­.scribd.c­o­m/doc/25­44­3175/De­bt-­Hope-D­own-­and-D­irty-­Surv­ival-S­tra­tegies-­Ev­aluation­-­Version-C­­omplete
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:13 AM on 11/11/2011
The pathways of public dissatisfaction will be many, and foreclosures have always provoked strong reactions. But dissatisfaction will need to generate ideas about making things better as well.
03:44 PM on 11/09/2011
Austerity doesn't even make sense because it increases the downward economic spiral if people have less and less to put back into the economy.
Break up the banks. The moneychangers have become overlords over the 99%.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:14 AM on 11/11/2011
That's the heart of the unchallenged assumption about recovery: There is nothing inevitable about policies that impoverish the middle class in the name of economic recovery. And that's the debate we need to have everywhere.
12:25 PM on 11/09/2011
Really, the right wing radicals are trying to message the entire world into believing that we don't have a long history of successful partnership between the public and private sectors.

Its the big lie that if they say over and over again that revenues can't be a solution, it must be true.

Forget that history shows that America went through a great wave of prosperity from the end of World War II until the 1970s and taxes were well over the levels they are now and all levels of the economic ladder had shared growth and the country was stronger for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
08:07 PM on 11/09/2011
That wasn't real, it is fiction promoted by Liberals. Richard Nixon didn't initiate the EPA or the clean air and water act. Think how much more prosperous America could have been had we not paid any taxes. The relationship between tax cuts and increased government deficits is just a fantasy. That's like saying government deficits cause global warming. It has the same hockey stick shape. No, government is always bad and the free market is always good, that is why our economy is doing so much better now. If you could just eliminate all government regulations we could go back to living in a wonderful Dickensian world.
10:32 AM on 11/10/2011
Tax cuts do not create growth in an economy. Fact.

You are following a failed philosophy of socio-economic projection that is better described as "survival of the fittest".

Survival of the fittests only really works well for those who already HAVE. Let's see who already has shall we ?................uhmmm.........

OLD FAT BALD WHITE MEN who own EVERYTHING and make up the vast majority of the 1%.

You think you're part and partial to their plans. You're not. You're not in the club. You're not invited, not even to walk through the back door and take out their trash. You are a peon, a peasant. Your voice your vote your opinion mean nothing to them. You are a slave yet to be to them. And yet because of your false sense of connection you merrily support your would be masters out of ignorance and self punishment.

You are in a small shrinking group of misinformed misguided racist groups who use economics to try and force a social order. It wont work. It's never worked. And you should reevaluate your relationship with your perceived club. The love you'll find one way.

Deregulation and the lack of enforcement of existing laws has helped bring us to near economic collapse.

We The People ! Viva La Liberte !!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:17 AM on 11/11/2011
Think about what our tax rates were at times of maximum economic opportunity and growth, using the Eisenhower, or Kennedy or Reagen or Clinton years. All higher than todays. and in some cases, much higher. There is nothing logically inevitable about the current tax rates or lower tax rates.
11:56 AM on 11/09/2011
I can't help but reach the conclusion that the middle and lower classes are being taxed to oblivion for the pure reason that we're used to suffering. Indeed, how could we miss something we never have?

However, assuming the top 1% are diligently saving a proportion of the substantial amounts of money they ... ahem ... earn, surely they would be in a better position to handle a sudden increase in their outgoings.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
SonicUltimate
01:02 PM on 11/09/2011
The middle and lower classes aren't being "taxed to oblivion".  They simply aren't seeing the wage/job increases that were essential to the last 30 years of economic policy to sustain itself (i.e. the trickle down was more like a drip).  Not only could the top 1% shoulder sudden increases in their outgoings, they should never have been holding such substantial amounts in the first place.  The social contract was that they were going to willingly reinvest that money.  Now that they have demonstrated otherwise, it has become necessary to make reinvestment mandatory, and without their discretion.

They didn't respond to the carrot, so it is high time they get the stick.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Richard Brodsky
11:19 AM on 11/11/2011
There's nothing inevitable about any of this. But it won't be enough to understand and reject austerity. We need a model of shared sacrifice, shared growth and shared prosperity that hasn't yet been articulated at least in political terms.