Forge ahead.
Fiscal cliff averted, sort of. Glad we got through that manufactured crisis. Now ... on to the next one. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when politicians set up straw men to knock over. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is certainly one. Deficits only seem to matter when there's a Democrat in the White House; otherwise, they are practically unmentionable. When we went from surplus to $400 billion deficits during the reign of W. Bush - who famously started two wars with one hand while cutting taxes with the other - the G.O.P. was silent on the debt. Come January 21, 2009, it was a crisis again. Saints preserve us.
Mind you, the deficit did balloon to more than a trillion dollars at the end of 2008, when the economy took a nosedive, the financial system began to collapse, and more than 700,000 workers were being dropped every month (i.e. Bush's economic policies finally kicking in big time). The two things are not unrelated. Our current deficits are principally the result of the economic downturn and the fact that not enough people have been put back to work, back to paying taxes, back to a place where they don't need unemployment insurance and food stamps, etc. But, as is convenient for nominal conservatives when they are in the opposition, this short-term debt is conflated with the long-term debt associated with our fractured health care system.
Their answer? Cut, cut, cut. Cut budgets and cut taxes. Of course, it makes absolutely no sense and has been proven not to work as a means of reducing the deficit time and time again. On the face of it, budget cuts are more than offset by tax cuts. Congress just passed a permanent tax cut for people making under $400,000 a year. So folks making between $250K and $400 or $450K get to pocket more of their ample incomes. The resulting cost to the treasury is passed on to schmucks like me, who basically earn in the neighborhood of the national median income ($50K). We must relinquish our payroll tax holiday up front and a good deal more down the road when they get to the budget cutting part of the equation.
In short, the Republicans are following Grover Norquist's brief about making Democrats "rule like Republicans". While the fabulously wealthy continue rolling in their cash, we can eat austerity.
luv u,
jp
Mind you, the deficit did balloon to more than a trillion dollars at the end of 2008, when the economy took a nosedive, the financial system began to collapse, and more than 700,000 workers were being dropped every month (i.e. Bush's economic policies finally kicking in big time). The two things are not unrelated. Our current deficits are principally the result of the economic downturn and the fact that not enough people have been put back to work, back to paying taxes, back to a place where they don't need unemployment insurance and food stamps, etc. But, as is convenient for nominal conservatives when they are in the opposition, this short-term debt is conflated with the long-term debt associated with our fractured health care system. Their answer? Cut, cut, cut. Cut budgets and cut taxes. Of course, it makes absolutely no sense and has been proven not to work as a means of reducing the deficit time and time again. On the face of it, budget cuts are more than offset by tax cuts. Congress just passed a permanent tax cut for people making under $400,000 a year. So folks making between $250K and $400 or $450K get to pocket more of their ample incomes. The resulting cost to the treasury is passed on to schmucks like me, who basically earn in the neighborhood of the national median income ($50K). We must relinquish our payroll tax holiday up front and a good deal more down the road when they get to the budget cutting part of the equation.
In short, the Republicans are following Grover Norquist's brief about making Democrats "rule like Republicans". While the fabulously wealthy continue rolling in their cash, we can eat austerity.
luv u,
jp
Comments