G.O.P. 2011: Sacrificing tomorrow for a better today

[Super Dude]

This article is normally available only to NYT members, but I managed to grab it via Google:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Eat The Future

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 13, 2011

On Friday, House Republicans unveiled their proposal for immediate cuts in federal spending. Uncharacteristically, they failed to accompany the release with a catchy slogan. So I’d like to propose one: Eat the Future.

I’ll explain in a minute. First, let’s talk about the dilemma the G.O.P. faces.

Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other people.

That’s the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. They’re evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and — surprise — defense.

The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the federal budget.

Pew also asked people how they would like to see states close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health care, the main expenses states face? No. Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee pensions — and even there the public was evenly divided.

The moral is clear. Republicans don’t have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.

How can voters be so ill informed? In their defense, bear in mind that they have jobs, children to raise, parents to take care of. They don’t have the time or the incentive to study the federal budget, let alone state budgets (which are by and large incomprehensible). So they rely on what they hear from seemingly authoritative figures.

And what they’ve been hearing ever since Ronald Reagan is that their hard-earned dollars are going to waste, paying for vast armies of useless bureaucrats (payroll is only 5 percent of federal spending) and welfare queens driving Cadillacs. How can we expect voters to appreciate fiscal reality when politicians consistently misrepresent that reality?

Which brings me back to the Republican dilemma. The new House majority promised to deliver $100 billion in spending cuts — and its members face the prospect of Tea Party primary challenges if they fail to deliver big cuts. Yet the public opposes cuts in programs it likes — and it likes almost everything. What’s a politician to do?

The answer, once you think about it, is obvious: sacrifice the future. Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren’t immediate; basically, eat America’s seed corn. There will be a huge price to pay, eventually — but for now, you can keep the base happy.

If you didn’t understand that logic, you might be puzzled by many items in the House G.O.P. proposal. Why cut a billion dollars from a highly successful program that provides supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers, infants, and young children? Why cut $648 million from nuclear nonproliferation activities? (One terrorist nuke, assembled from stray ex-Soviet fissile material, can ruin your whole day.) Why cut $578 million from the I.R.S. enforcement budget? (Letting tax cheats run wild doesn’t exactly serve the cause of deficit reduction.)

Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can’t do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming “death panels!” in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent.

And so they had to produce something like Friday’s proposal, a plan that would save remarkably little money but would do a remarkably large amount of harm.

says: If the Republicans had to be the party of 'no' to kick the Democrats out of legislative dominance 2009-2010, the Democrats would probably fare just fine becoming the party of 'yes.'

[William Wallace]

I wonder if overspending will ever become a problem in Krugman land.

[Super Dude]

There's nothing wrong at all with increasing taxation, as long as the taxes are fairly distributed.  And I can tell you the potential harm of overspending on these programs pales in comparison with the national and global ills that will result from cutting what the G.O.P. wants cut.

[juice]

Isn't the future already screwed since the US is already trillions of dollars in debt?  There should still be something that isn't necessary to cut.

[Super Dude]

All good and well, but so make that things like oil subsidies, the military-industrial complex, and things like that, rather than cutting into the EPA, nuclear nonproliferation, and Planned Parenthood.

And to be honest I see nothing wrong with ending Bush-era tax cuts, or indeed even raising taxes.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Regardless of the ill-reasoned logic of their agenda, they have to admit that if they deliver on their promises TODAY, it'll get them reelected tomorrow. Although what happens after that is anyone's guess. My guess is they don't have any real solutions to the problems they're creating

[Quadrochosis]

I find it funny that Americans will knowingly say "No." to cuts in education and health care but at the same time say "No." to tax increases.

lol humanity

[Super Dude]

I find it funny that Americans will knowingly say "No." to cuts in education and health care but at the same time say "No." to tax increases.

lol humanity

Which is why the Tea Party is stupid.

[William Wallace]

There's nothing wrong at all with increasing taxation, as long as the taxes are fairly distributed.

Taxation can seriously inhibit economic growth, especially when governments count on it as a way to make up for budget deficits.  

And I can tell you the potential harm of overspending on these programs pales in comparison with the national and global ills that will result from cutting what the G.O.P. wants cut.

And what potential harm might that be?

And I think Krugman is partially correct. The Republicans talk a good game. But when it comes to actually cutting, they're not willing to risk losing the votes of people who would be affected.

[Super Dude]

Well cutting nuclear nonproliferation, child malnutrition programs, and the I.R.S. budget he's already covered.  The trouble with cutting Planned Parenthood range from more difficult access to contraception (and possibly the rise of illegal abortive operations as a result) and education about contraception, to issues with women's health.  The problem with cutting into the EPA budget should be so obvious I don't have to explain, but of course global warming is a liberal conspiracy anyway to redistribute all of our wealth to scientists and big green.

[William Wallace]

Well cutting nuclear nonproliferation, child malnutrition programs, and the I.R.S. budget he's already covered.  The trouble with cutting Planned Parenthood range from more difficult access to contraception (and possibly the rise of illegal abortive operations as a result) and education about contraception, to issues with women's health.  The problem with cutting into the EPA budget should be so obvious I don't have to explain, but of course global warming is a liberal conspiracy anyway to redistribute all of our wealth to scientists and big green.

The government may spend a lot of money on these issues, but it doesn't follow that we're in real trouble if that spending is cut. You're just assuming that's the case.

[Super Dude]

How does that not follow that we're in trouble?  I just enumerated the problematic consequences of those cuts.  What, in your opinion, is spared by cutting those programs instead?

[j]

Again, this is not a phenomenon that is restricted to a single party.  The nature of the system is to convince the drooling masses that you're gonna make things better immediately, and to hold the party line while you're at it.  THAT'S why the Republicans are saying to cut funding in these areas.  It has nothing to do with lack of foresight (okay, well...directly at least), it has everything to do with the Republican "checklist" of political positions and politicians adhering to it unwaveringly.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the GOP pisses me off as much as the next guy.  But the Democrats are no more able to think ahead or act responsibly, just because you may better identify with their ideology.  They're all incompetent.

-J

[bosk1]

The only thing worse than a Republican is...a Democrat. 

[William Wallace]

How does that not follow that we're in trouble?

Because you're just assuming that those problems are unsolvable without the efforts of the federal government.

[Super Dude]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Can you prove to me the equal viability and success of a state-based solution?

[Super Dude]

p.s. Good Simpson comments: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49525.html

[William Wallace]

Can you prove to me the equal viability and success of a state-based solution?

This is confusing. Can you rephrase it?

[Perpetual Change]

How does that not follow that we're in trouble?

Because you're just assuming that those problems are unsolvable without the efforts of the federal government.

And I'd agree.

That's why we're damned.

[Super Dude]

Can you prove to me the equal viability and success of a state-based solution?

This is confusing. Can you rephrase it?

I'm saying that if you take issue with the fact that I want these issues solved by the federal gov't, please prove to me somehow that they can solved more easily and successfully on the state level.  You can't probably, because it's impossible to prove something like that.  So isn't it just as foolish to say you can "disprove" the effectiveness of a federal-level solution?  (a.k.a It's basically a thing of ideology.)

[Perpetual Change]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

[Super Dude]

From where I'm looking it, it's either

1) The federal gov't, which holds a great deal of accountability to the American public

or 2) Corporations, which generally owe nothing to the American public and can even give them a loud "Fuck you" to anything they're asked to do for the greater good (in other words, at least the government considers all initiatives and puts them to a vote)

[William Wallace]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

I want to punch whoever first thought up this gem of logical fallacy.

[Super Dude]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

Well reading that again, I just realized you agreed with me.  I'm sorry I totally misread that.

@WW: I just read your sig, and I must say that although the logic is sound, it excludes the reason for such an outcome: a grossly uneven distribution of said wealth.  As I've said, nothing wrong with a large middle class.

[Perpetual Change]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

I want to punch whoever first thought up this gem of logical fallacy.

Maybe you disagree, but you adhere to the magic-wand of the markets makes everything better fallacy, so that's not saying much 

[PlaysLikeMyung]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

I want to punch whoever first thought up this gem of logical fallacy.

Maybe you disagree, but you adhere to the magic-wand of the markets makes everything better fallacy, so that's not saying much 

Apparently the Government is evil and can't do anything correctly.

[William Wallace]

For me it comes down to two things:

Power needs to be invested somewhere. Do I want it to go to:

1.) A federal, democratically elected government that is accountable to people and most likely will implode on its own eventually no matter how much power you give it or

2.) A corporation that, at the end of the day, only owes anything to its shareholders.

I'll cautiously side with the first option. For now.

I want to punch whoever first thought up this gem of logical fallacy.

Maybe you disagree, but you adhere to the magic-wand of the markets makes everything better fallacy, so that's not saying much 

Eh, whatever. I don't think markets are infallible. Your silly dichotomy, however, is something out of a Michael Moore (lol) movie.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't think markets are infallible.

I'm glad where at least over that now. Can't wait to see where further progress takes us. 

[Super Dude]

Oh I forgot one: what do you think is gonna happen to future Americans with the sharp cuts in education?  Especially in an education system that with substantial funding is in decline.

[King Postwhore]

I think government of today is like a household of today.

I bunked with my brother till I was 16.  Now every kid had his own room, TV, & game system & cell phone.  The government spends like the people of today and the cost of living is out of control.  In 6 years my oil per gallon has gone from $1.09 per gallon, as high as $4.74 ti $2.71 as of today.  Yet most people are not getting raises and or loosing jobs.  Government need to change the way it spends.......and so do we.

[Perpetual Change]

I've got a brilliant idea--

Let's leave commodities up to corporations.

Let's stop all fighting and stalking other nations we're doing everywhere.

And then let's let's leave the necessities-- water, health, education, etc-- to the government: but let's still allow corporations to provide alternatives. That way little Timmy with one parent can get his leg casted, big old Michael Moore can afford that triple bypass, and we can all be educated enough to compete with eachother.

Why hasn't anyone thought of it yet?

[Super Dude]

What are we thinking of when discussing commodities?  Are you referring to trade protections i.e. oil?  I guess I'm just confused overall.

[Perpetual Change]

What are we thinking of when discussing commodities?  Are you referring to trade protections i.e. oil?  I guess I'm just confused overall.

Not sure if I'm getting you right, but here's my response anyway.

Transportation is a necessity, and this country could damn sure use an upgrade across the board as far as public transporation goes.

As far as a personal vehicles and fuel? I suppose that depends on your situation.

[Super Dude]

So let me explain: I know this probably sounds like a stupid question, but what are we defining as commodities?

[Super Dude]

New article with a gem of a quote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/opinion/17thu1.html?_r=1&hp

Out of Control in the House

Published: February 16, 2011
 
Are there any adults in charge of the House? Watching this week’s frenzied slash-and-burn budget contest, we had to conclude the answer to that is no.

First Speaker John Boehner’s Republican leadership proposed cutting the rest of the 2011 budget by $32 billion. But that wasn’t enough for his fanatical freshmen, who demanded that it be cut by $61 billion, destroying vital government programs with gleeful abandon.

Even that wasn’t enough for leaders of the hard-line Republican Study Committee, which represents two-thirds of House Republicans. They proposed cutting another $20 billion, for a ludicrous total of $81 billion, all out of the next seven months of government operations.

Now some members want to go still further. On Tuesday, the House began debating the list of proposed cuts, and more than 500 amendments were filed, mostly from Republicans trying to cut still more out of — or end — programs they dislike. One would stop paying dues to the United Nations. Others would cut all financing for the health care reform law, or Planned Parenthood, or any foreign aid to a country that regularly disagrees with the United States at the United Nations.

If the Republicans got their way, it would wreak havoc on Americans’ lives and national security. This blood sport also has nothing to do with the programs that are driving up the long-term deficit: Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security.

When he presented his 2012 budget on Monday, President Obama avoided those difficult issues. On Tuesday, he tried to bring a little adult supervision to the budget debate by offering to begin discussing with Republican leaders ways to solve those big-ticket problems. Senate Republican leaders and the House budget chairman, Paul Ryan, have indicated a willingness to discuss entitlements. (Given the political volatility of these issues, the talks need to be behind closed doors.)

Mr. Boehner could show leadership, and bring some sense back to the House, by reminding his members that entitlements are where the big money lies. Instead, he has endorsed the race to remove $100 billion from nonsecurity discretionary spending for the rest of 2011.

Asked on Tuesday if he was concerned that the proposed cuts could lead to tens of thousands of new layoffs, he said he was not. “Over the last two years, since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs,” he said. “And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it.”

His figure of 200,000 new federal workers appears to be more than three times higher than reality. Several credible economists have said that an $81 billion cut could result in up to 800,000 layoffs throughout the American economy.

The House freshmen seemed even less concerned about the effect of their budget slashing. “A lot of us freshmen don’t have a whole lot of knowledge about how Washington, D.C., is operated,” Representative Kristi Noem, a Republican of South Dakota, told the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. “And, frankly, we don’t really care.”

In all of their posturing, Republican lawmakers have studiously avoided making clear to voters what vital government services would be slashed or disappear if they got their way — like investment in cancer research or a sharp reduction in federal meat inspections, or the number of police on the street, or agents that keep the borders secure, or the number of teachers in your kids’ schools.

Those cuts will never get past the Senate, and, on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he would veto such job-killing cuts if they arrive at his desk. That puts the House leadership on notice. Will they follow the mob and allow the government to shut down if the cuts are not enacted? Or will they take back control of the House and steer it toward reality?

says: Sounds like they've got everything under control.  @ Anyone who would contest the value of the programs they're cutting, take a quick look at what we'll be losing: food safety, border security, hell even national security.  Basic things which would be VERY bad to lose.