This is ultimately not a debate about percentage points, but a fight for a benefit Americans have earned through a lifetime of contributions. Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, and has no place in discussions over grand bargains aimed at reducing our nation's debt.
As the Carnival in Brazil kicked off last weekend, Brazilians were ready for a party. They have reasons to celebrate. Despite a lackluster GDP performance in the last two years, unemployment rates remain at record low levels.
Putting aside the debates between the effectiveness supply-side economics and whether an increase in sales tax would disproportionately negatively impact the poor, state sales tax only plans cannot make up for the lost revenue under current laws. The reason?
So Democrats may have to come up with a new narrative. They can not flourish by promising to be the party that raises taxes and makes cuts to popular programs, even if they succeed in inheriting the Republican's former mantle as the party of fiscal responsibility.
Whenever Newt Gingrich has been asked to explain why he is supposedly more "conservative" than other Republican presidential candidates, he has replied that he "helped Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp develop supply-side economics." If that were true, I would know about it.
This month the Republicans took a stand against tax cuts because of the fiscal implications of those cuts. For the first time in recent memory, Milton Friedman and the Republican Party of my grandfather were redeemed. This was a significant point that should not be lost.
I applaud the president for making the case against regressive tax cuts as the lodestar of economic policy. We cannot afford to double down on the failed, plutocratic pipe dream that is trickle down economics.
Imagine you are a rich person who desires more money. You could boldly ask people to give you cash, but many might suspect that you don't "need" it. So what can you do? Consider the following two tales from the world of sports and politics.
President Obama's putative embrace of the false notion that businesses need more financial incentives in order to hire risks giving legitimacy to the same supply-side economic approach that has failed for the past thirty years.
Age of Greed is clumsily-written and repetitious. It does not pay sufficient attention to structural problems and global challenges to America's economy. Nor does it provide clearly delineated alternatives to the misguided policies of the past.
There is something very strange about the way both Democrats and Republicans framed the conversation about tax cuts. Both sides were framing it in terms of distinguishing among the middle class and rich. But that is simply not true.
Whatever Obama accomplished during his first two years in office his decision to normalize the sweeping changes in American governance of the George W. Bush period will likely neutralize any lasting positive effects for Democrats.