The Republican party in the House of Representatives, goaded on by its largely Tea Party freshman class, made clear two weeks ago that nothing short of a 100 billion dollar cut in the CURRENT federal budget would satisfy it.
A couple of blogs ago, I asked the question, where did that figure come from? What careful, meticulous, deeply researched economic analysis led the GOP to conclude that 100 billion dollars was the magic number that would lead to . . . what? A stronger economy? Less unemployment? Better health care? More reliable infrastructure? Better education results? More energy independence? Or simply a sated base.
Of course, I didn’t expect my blog to elicit an answer from conservative land, but I do find it curious that, far as I can tell, I’m the only one who has asked that question, and, maybe more to the point, the only one who seems to be concerned that there is no evidence such a study ever occurred.
Anyone with one eye and half sense should be able to figure out that cutting 100 billion dollars out of a budget that is already one-third spent can’t be done without simply eliminating, immediately, programs already in place. We aren’t talking here about what is or is not going to be in the fiscal 2012 budget. We’re talking about what’s currently in the fiscal 2011 budget. Actually, since we don’t have a fiscal 2011 budget yet—thank you spineless Democrats—we’re really talking about what was in the fiscal 2010 budget that has been carried over to this year.
But that’s really sort of a moot point. The Republicans want to take a 100 billion dollar bite out of an existing budget—and want to do it without providing any rationale for what makes 100 billion the right number. Is it, for example, the minimum amount that must be cut to make this year’s interest payment on the exiting debt? Is it the minimum amount that must be cut to make a targeted deficit reduction number for this year—say 3%. If so, is there a reason why 3% is the optimal number? Or 5%? Or whatever percent is selected?
What if the ideal number were actually, say, 50 billion? I'm not saying it is, but what if? Is it possible we are about to eliminate twice as many federal programs as were actually necessary? That would certainly seem a shame.
On the other hand, what if the ideal number were, say, 200 billion? That would mean the Republicans are really about to blow it because they're only going to cut half as many programs as they should. Damn! Wouldn't that be a kick in the butt?
My point is, the Republicans are demanding the elimination, or near elimination, of literally hundreds of federal programs in order to meet a deficit reduction figure they appear to have pulled out of thin air. I’m willing to concede that, long-term, a federal debt approaching 100% of GDP is a problem, but if your approach to solving that problem is to carpet bomb existing programs that provide the people working in them with paychecks and the means to support their families, and provide the people served by those programs with, in many cases, the means simply to get by, shouldn’t your most obvious responsibility be to show the country why the figure you have selected is the right one?
I’ve racked my brain trying to figure out why the GOP hasn’t done this, and the only reason I can come up with is that it can’t justify that figure because this is a policy that has no goal other than allowing its initiators to say they cut 100 billion dollars.
One would hope of course that on any fiscal policy advanced by a major party, the party would be anxious to tell us how implementing that policy is going to make the country stronger, its future brighter. But, in this case, that doesn’t seem to be the goal.
To the contrary, this seems to be a policy the most likely result of which will be short term misery for the thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, it will throw out of work, not to mention an immediate stagnation in the overall economy that will actually push long term recovery further into long term.
I have, over the past 12 months or so, been more than a little disappointed with Barack Obama and with the Democratic party generally. It’s one thing for the Republican party to be cowed by the 10% of this country (according to the most recent ratings figures) that watches Fox noise; that after all is the second most important element of its base (corporate and wealthy America being the most important). It’s quite another for those same fringes to co-opt the Democratic party as well, but that is clearly what has happened.
That said, however, that Obama and the Democrats do at least appear to be listening to the overwhelming majority of economists who have lately been shouting from every rooftop they can mount that while the budget deficit is A problem, it is not THE problem of our time. While they nearly all agree that budget deficits are not a good thing, they also agree the most prudent approach right now is to focus on constraining, not eliminating, deficit growth, while at the same time providing the immediate short term investment needed to make long-term economic growth happen.
And while it’s certainly possible to quibble, even express disgust, over some elements of the budget Obama has proposed, it does reflect what economic logic and good sense says must be SPENT to keep the economy growing—which, in the long term, is not only the best way to reduce deficits but the ONLY way to do so—while at the same time making cuts where they make economic (as opposed to political) sense, and, most important, raising revenue where that can be done without slowing economic growth.
What prompted this blog was a piece in the New York Time detailing four foreclosure-adjustment programs that are targeted for elimination by the bill passed by the Republican House. Taken all together, the cost of these four programs (Home Affordable Modification Program, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Emergency Homeowners Loan Prorgram and F.H.A Short Refinance Programs) is less than 5 billion dollars—truly a drop in the deficit reduction bucket. Eliminating them however would result, by conservative estimates, in more than 100,000 additional foreclosures in the next 6 months.
That’s just an abstract number on this page, but in the lives of the people currently living in those homes, it’s a very ugly reality. And 100,000 additional foreclosures means perhaps a half million people without a roof over their heads who, with a minimal amount of help, could have continued making mortgage payments and continued living indoors.
What is perverse here is that, while all those programs could probably work better or at least more efficiently, the fact is they are all working. None of them are programs where tax-payer money is simply being flushed down a dark hole. What purpose is served by eliminating them? Absolutely none, save the fact that doing so brought the Republicans 5 billion dollars closer to their magic number.
Everyone who follows politics knows that The Nation is perhaps the country’s most unapologetically liberal magazine. That said, its most recent issue contains an article about what is widely being called a “liberal Tea Party” movement in England. The movement has a number of grievances over the new British government;s draconian budget slashing, but its major focus is on exposing and doing economic damage to large British corporations that have used tax havens and various accounting dodges to pay in some cases zero tax on multibillion dollar bottom lines. (sound familiar?)
Their basic position is that if England’s wealthiest individuals and businesses were paying the taxes they rightfully owe, the country’s budget deficit would be much, much lower and far fewer cuts would be needed to eliminate it. (You can read the article by going to thenation.com and linking to the Feb. 21, 2011 issue—it’s written by Johan Hari) Since Democrats in Washington and most of the media seem unwilling to demand an answer to the question I’ve raised here, perhaps we should all start thinking about learning from our British cousins and start making it harder for the Republicans to set a fictional magic number as a way to justify eliminating the few protections middle and lower class Americans still have, protections the Republican party has had targeted for at least 40 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment