Showing posts with label fiscal policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiscal policy. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Republican path to fiscal responsibility


Republicans talk up fiscal responsibility -- which is to say, in their view, balanced budgets (spending no more than you take in) -- but of course what they really want to do is to slash taxes for the wealthy while handing off the responsibility for paying for those cuts to future generations. Oh sure, they talk about slashing spending, but, honestly, what are they going to cut? The National Endowment for the Arts? Public broadcasting? Please. Those amount to almost nothing compared to the rest of the federal budget. So how about major entitlement programs? Well, those are generally very popular, so no. What about all that pork? Well, politicians need as much pork as they can get their grubby hands on so they can pile up the votes back home, so, again, no. Then surely the military? Right. You expect Republicans to slash military spending? They'd much rather privatize Social Security, but, of course, they know the American people won't stand for that.

So it's really all a big, massive deception, this talk of fiscal responsibility and small government. (Some, to their credit, are at least talking about putting military spending cuts on the table. But they will soon be punished for their deviant ways.) You just can't achieve any such responsibility without ensuring sufficient revenue, and that means not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, not slashing any other tax you can find, and looking for reasonable cuts in spending.

But you won't hear Republicans calling for anything of the kind. Instead, they'll avoid talking specifics, avoid the details altogether, while continuing to insist that they can and will balance the books. And if they talk at all about what they'll cut, they'll mention either small programs unpopular on the right (like the NEA), insignificant programs that barely register, or perhaps even programs that no longer exist.

Yes, that's right, programs that no longer exist.

As Think Progress reports, one Republican, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, has called for the elimination of "the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund [TANF], a successful program that has created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers."

Problem is, the fund expired on September 30. And, what's more, it was popular even with Mississippi Gov. Haley "Boss Hogg" Barbour, "who said it provided 'much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities.'" Not that that's stopping Republicans:

[A]dvocates, as well as the Obama administration, have asked that Congress fund the program for an additional year for $2.5 billion. Price multiplied that over ten years to come up with his ludicrous pronouncement that he would save $25 billion by cutting the program.

Republicans would also save approximately $35.7 gazillion by cutting the joint NASA/NSA/NOAA program to send Matthew McConaughey and a ragtag group of grizzled explorers on a fact-finding mission to Uranus, but, of course, such a program doesn't exist. Or has it expired?

No matter -- it's not like reality plays into the cynical imaginings of the GOP's fiscal fanatics.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

16 more days

By Libby Spencer

I watch this and I think, wow, he looks so young. But as I listen I want to believe he can pull it off. The baby face nothwithstanding, it feels like the grownups are in charge again.



The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan". How refreshing to have programs that deserve their name instead of some kind of Orwellian doublespeak for "screw you suckers."

Repairing the infrastructure. Better energy policy. Modernizing public schools instead of privatizing them into oblivion. Improving the medical system. Spreading tax relief around to everybody. It's good policy. I don't see how anyone could complain but somehow I'm sure there will be some who will. Namely talk show Republicans.*

(* Yes, Mark coined that phrase.)

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Craziest Republican of the Day: (McCain policy advisor) Douglas Holtz-Eakin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For claiming that Obama would be like Bush, in that his budget "is dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything." -- that, like Bush, Obama is fiscally irresponsible, and that an Obama presidency would be, fiscally speaking, just like the Bush presidency.

Hilarious, eh?

Think Progress guest bloggers James Kvaal and Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress respond:

Obama also has expensive proposals, such as his health care coverage plan and middle-class tax cuts. But he is clear where the money is coming from: higher taxes on high-income families, ending the war in Iraq, selling the right to emit greenhouse gases, and cutting subsidies to oil and gas companies, health insurers, drug companies, and the student loan industry.

That's why the Wall Street Journal concluded that Barack Obama's budget "adds up, probably." But McCain's plan, it concluded, "would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts."

McCain, of course, will stress his differences from one of the worst and most unpopular presidents of all time, but it is clear that in the most important respects he is either like Bush or worse than Bush. Take foreign policy, for example, where, as Slate's Fred Kaplan recently pointed out, he is much more of a neocon than Bush ever was.

And, in terms of fiscal policy, it is McCain (who has admitted that he doesn't understand economics), not Obama (who certainly understands that fiscal responsibility requires budgetary trade-offs), who would carry on the disastrous traditions of the Bush presidency.