The spectacle of Democrats and Republicans arguing about who is to "blame" for the "failure" of the "super committee" is certainly tempting for many partisans. But any progressive who participates in the spectacle risks attacking their own interests to the degree that they promote the implicit assumption that the public interest would have been better served if the super committee had reached a deal.
We shouldn't be arguing about who is to "blame" for this development. We should be arguing about who should be awarded credit for this best-plausible-outcome.
We should, to borrow a phrase from Monty Python, be dancing on the super committee's grave, singing Hallelujah.
Who should get the Academy Award? The AFL-CIO? The Strengthen Social Security Campaign? The Tea Party? All of the above?
Indeed, it was a de facto coalition between the AFL-CIO and its friends and the Tea Party and its friends which again defeated the cruel plan of the extreme center to trade Social Security cuts and raising the Medicare retirement age for a relatively meaningless increase on the tax rates paid by rich people.
Why meaningless? Because tax rates raised today can easily be lowered in the future. Cutting Social Security benefits by changing the cost-of-living formula and raising the Medicare retirement age are forever.
From the point of view of the national aspirations of the indigenous people of the United States, what was the right price to charge for Manhattan Island? Surely the answer is: there was no right price. Cash is ephemeral. Control of territory could be forever.
Similarly, there is no amount of increasing taxes on rich people that can compensate low-income workers for cutting their Social Security benefits and taking away their access to Medicare.
It would be one thing if you could put the increased tax revenues from the rich people in a special fund that could only be used to benefit low-income workers. Even then, it wouldn't make sense, but at least in theory, there's a point at which you could equalize.
But of course, you can't do that. More than half of the increased revenues would go to feed the Pentagon monster, protecting the largest centrally planned economy on earth from cuts to its bloat that are long overdue. And moreover, that bloat isn't just a waste of taxpayer money. To the extent that the bloat supports the far-flung imperial ambitions of the neocon wing of the foreign policy elite, that bloat actually threatens the physical well-being of Americans, because the bigger the military is, the more neocon wars we will have. Furthermore, since military spending is the least efficient form of government spending from the point of view of job creation, if we have to cut somewhere during a period of high unemployment, then the military is the best place to cut.
Indeed, the "horrible consequence," which was supposedly the big incentive for the super committee to reach a deal was that if they didn't, it would trigger half a trillion dollars in cuts in projected Pentagon spending over ten years -- about a 15% cut. That would take Pentagon spending back to 2007 levels -- hardly a shutdown of the military-industrial complex. More like an overdue haircut.
Now that the trigger is supposed to take place, expect even more whining and special pleading from those who get fat off Pentagon contracts at taxpayer expense.
However, these people have now been beaten twice in the last year: once when the Budget Control Act passed, and once when the super committee failed to reach agreement. The "revealed preference" of Congress so far is this: there is no majority coalition in Congress which prefers cutting Social Security benefits, raising the Medicare retirement age and increasing taxes on rich people to cutting the projected Pentagon budget by 15% over 10 years.
That's a fact to be celebrated -- and defended -- not mourned.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Van Jones: Super Committee Fails, but American People Win
Chris Weigant: The Pentagon's First Bake Sale
Rob Taub: USA: Fiscal Reform or Failure?
Don't bet on the defence budget getting a significant cut in the end. We haven't really cut the military in 20 years. And any cuts are bound to come out of benefit to vets or current soldiers as opposed to pricy hardware.
Look up the numbers yourself. Since 1980, the average annual increase in the structural deficit has been about $335 Billion. The average annual military budget has been about $344 Billion. It's more than a coincidence. We've never paid for our wars and war toys. That's gonna have to change.
what an awesome observation
As far as the military goes the cuts will not be what we want however.
what we really need is a severe--and I mean severe--cutting of the overseas bases . We have way too many in today's world where we can get transport planes to anywhere quickly. the 1,000 overseas bases we have all pour money into those foreign economies, all have commanders and provide a ladder to top brass status, and all generate more expensive high earner retirements.
the military loves these opportunities and career people will defend the need for a command in every village because it means they have more chances at the brass ring. It's like a corporation with a lot of division offices all with vice presidents at the head. the last thing they want to do is cut divisions and plum jobs--and they are the ones in control.
the military budget could be much much leaner if they'd do away with most of these...even if you just brought some bases stateside it'd still be an advantage because all those salaries would go into local American economies
Payroll taxes in effect subsidize a small minority of wealthy elderly while barely supporting the majority of the elderly. Cuts in benefits will return many a the state of destitution that LBJ addressed as an ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM (Medicare). Consequently, part of the future Medicare funding needs must come from the elderly who have resources, as a means-adjusted program that bases premiums on income and NET WORTH. Medicare--an extraordinarily popular and successful government program--should be funded with permiums and general revenues. The HI tax should go. Taxing the rich will do nicely to help get us where we need to go.
I've read a fair number of your comments over time...and this one is typical.
More or less on topic, detailed, and well-informed.
Agree or disagree (I've done both...though usually the former) ...I've never seen any reason for someone to give your thoughts "short shrift"...as it were.
With that as backround...it seems fair you should see this comment of mine (from another thread)....since it was an exchange you were involved in that inspired it....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/TommyMcCarthy/post_2672_b_1108247_119963299.html
Regards
TM
TR
Add to that real tax reform with less loopholes - A flat tax would be a good start.
Or keep on printing trillions praying that the Chinese will keep on financing us....OR keep on printing money out of thin air...And kill the value of our dollars.
This country is still living in Lala land thinking that we can keep on printing forever...and ever..and ever..and ever..
Forgive my strict constitutionalist view (the kind that thinks reasonable means reasonable, and tkaes Shall as a directive, and not a suggestion).. but the Senate does not have the power to cede it's duties. A Senator is a Senator with every right to offer any amendment on any bill, even if it's his first day on the job. Laws do not change rules, and rules are how the Senate works.
To change the rule that every Senator has the opportunity to speak takes takes 2/3rds of the Senates approval.... no law can change that. The Super committee was an unconstitutional "law" that tried to circumvent the Senate rules.
Anyone that voted for it should be impeached.