The Deficit Commission co-chairmen's report came out on Wednesday. The number of pundits and editorial boards who are trying to declare their first proposal as courageous or bold or balanced is testament to how silly the ritual has become. Many commentators are reveling in the fact that both the Left and Right are screaming.
What seems sad to me is how disappointing the analysis is. The scale of defense spending in the USA, as Chalmers Johnson has repeatedly pointed out, is beyond what any other citizen base in the world shoulders as a percent of GDP and adds up to approximately the defense spending of the rest of the world combined. So a little nip and tuck here is considered significant. Why do these commissions never ask what it is that all of this defense spending does for America?
The suggested Social Security cutbacks are similarly amazing. We are fretting over some problems that occur beyond 2037!!! This collection of wise men are ones that could not see the financial crisis right before their eyes in 2007, but somehow they are clairvoyant about the train wreck of 2037. Some, including leading progressive thinkers, have suggested that this will be good for market credibility. Since when do we need to appease markets that are charging 2.5 percent for 10 year debt?
Raising the age of social security payouts seems fine until, as Paul Krugman points out, you see that life expectancy has only improved for those in the upper reaches of the income distribution.
Overall, this is predictable.
David Sirota may have said it best: "If you can admit the two real parties in Washington are not the Republicans and Democrats but the Money Party and the People Party, then you can admit that this commission is not a bipartisan commission -- it's purely partisan for the Money Party." These are money party recommendations from a Commission appointed by two money parties that survive on money to conjure votes through media expenditure in a money politics distorted framework. Commissioners are being treated as if heroic. Yet they take little real risk. Nothing surprising here. Shared sacrifice is the buzz phrase. Sorry, but in the money-takes-all American political system, this sacrifice is fair like giving the opposing team the ball on the 3 yard line and saying we have a fair game when they are nine feet from the end zone and 47 yards from mid field at the start. Sirota's People's Party is on defense.
As Eric Burdon and the Animals once sang:
We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do
We gotta get out of this place
Girl, there's a better life
For me and you
Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.
Follow Rob Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjocean
Jeff Madrick: Deficit Commission's Extreme Proposals Spell Disaster
Robert Creamer: "Deficit Hawks" Have Amnesia
Cenk Uygur: Cutting Social Security is the New TARP
The only real question is why was this statement released so soon, before it has any real meaning and while President Obama is out of the country? I'm not sure who is in charge of communications in this administration, as in controlling what gets released to the public and when, but this was a big mistake. The administration officials charged with communications really need to get it together, they seem to be in a permanent state of chaos.
Transparency is great, but timing is important too, especially for an administration that seems to have such a hard time communicating it's message to the public in a coherent fashion.
Where's The West Wing staff when you need them?
What if we extend the lower tax cuts, and raise the marginal rate for the highest brackets by a full 5%, with an exemption from those taxes for those who increase their domestic (U.S.) payroll expenditures for employees making less than some amount, by say 10%, either by new hiring or raising the pay of existing employees? We need real, demonstrated results right now, not vague investment promises. The costs should pay for themselves many times over from new hires.
If they have no employees an option could be given to contribute an amount of income to a domestic (U.S.) fund to avoid the tax (not the usual charitable deduction). For example, a fund that provides tutors for students in disadvantaged schools, or home health aides in rural areas, or free clinics - anything lowering the social services tax burden and increasing public welfare (and employment).
What affect would an idea like that have on the economy, tax revenues, and the deficit? Arguing the political possibilities is important, but only if the idea has merit. Is it worth any consideration at all?
And the appointments represent many of the absolute worst, who Barack certainly knew had a conflicts of interest that would taint the recommendations in the worst possible way.
As surely as Bush just admitted to war crimes, just as surely does this crew need to be considered for attempting crimes on the working class of this country.
Keep Wall Street's fangs out of Social Security.
Our trillion dollar military was beaten by about 12 terrorists for the cost of their plane tickets over here.
99% of us would not have had a problem with the middle east.
If the rich want wars, then they should be proud to pay in taxes.
Our government
Why don't we jerk part of that investment back? Why not cut them back and don't let them draw out of it until they are 69? If they want to retire at 62, then they should pay a penalty of 35% or 5% for each year they retire before their full retirement age.
Even if they are voted out of office, don't let them touch it without paying a big penalty. That may not seem to be fair, but we all have to sacrifice, you know.
But if you preserve the middle class cuts and let cuts for the rich expire as they were meant to, you'd have a whole different ballgame.
Of course you really need to address the elephant in the living room, and that is the giant corporation's off-shore tax havens.
Fact: ExxonMobile paid *ZERO* corporate taxes last fiscal year. Same for G.E., and that's just the two I know about for absolute certain. That is something that needs to be fixed.
If giant corporations paid their fair share of taxes, we'd be half way to a solution. Start taxing them at higher rates when they outsource jobs and give them (*reasonable*) breaks when they bring jobs back to the U.S. and we'd be well on our way to solving our economic problems.
We have been told since Roosevelt, that if you work hard and put money away for retirement it will be there for your golden years. It's taken out of every paycheck you ever made and as fast as it came into the government, those we have elected have spent it or to use a better term, squandered it so as to promote our continued empire building which is now crumbling just as Rome did.
Washington will not solve this problem until they are willing to be honest with the American people. They misused the funds we saved for our retirement and as Alan Greenspan once said. If you want to save SS, move it as far from Washington as possible. If there is anything that should be cut, SS should be last on the list.
The answer is to bring the tax rates back to the healthy levels we had pre-Bush. But NO, the rich want us to pay their taxes for them. Are we gonna lettem get away with that?
A "centrist' in D.C. is different from a "centrist" in middle America. A "centrist" in D.C. means both parties agree to do the bidding of their wealthy and corporate campaign contributors. A "centrist" in middle America means both parties do what the majority of the American people want.
Those two "centrisms" are in no way the same thing.
That the President doesn't seem to believe in ANYTHING enough to draw a line in the sand to stand for it will invite a primary challenge for which millions of voters and grass roots donors are prepared to help.
Why don't they ask if it's for America at all? Much of what they do lately seems designed to benefit multi-national Corporations. Much of it actually seems to cause damage to our nation beyond the obvious unbearable financial burden, i.e., provoking terrorism.
same as it ever was...