Downhill With the G.O.P.
By Paul Krugman
NY Times Op-Ed: September 2010
Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help
motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only
downhill.
I've always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received
hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these
days one of America's two great political parties routinely makes equally
nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party's main concern
seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even
chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.
Banana republic, here we come.
On Thursday, House Republicans released their "Pledge to America,"
supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is,
"Deficits are a terrible thing. Let's make them much bigger." The document
repeatedly condemns federal debt - 16 times, by my count. But the main
substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which
independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the
next decade - about $700 billion more than the Obama administration's tax
proposals.
True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can
see, there's only one specific cut proposed - canceling the rest of the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would
save $16 billion. That's less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of
those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not
specified - "except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and
our troops." In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense
budget are off-limits.
So what's left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has
done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020,
while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b)
protecting all the programs Republicans say they won't cut, is to completely
abolish the rest of the federal government: "No more national parks, no more
Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more
N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for
our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child
nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security.
Oh, and no more Congress."
The "pledge," then, is nonsense. But isn't that true of all political
platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many
independent analysts believe that the Obama administration's long-run budget
projections are somewhat too optimistic - but, if so, it's a matter of
technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat,
as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can
sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still
balance the budget.
And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald
Reagan's claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was
wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his
proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts
in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic)
projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren't
even pretending that their numbers add up.
So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties
isn't even trying to make sense?
The answer isn't a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual
godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his
support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as
he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, "so political effectiveness
was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government." In short,
say whatever it takes to gain power. That's a philosophy that now, more than
ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.
And what happens once the movement achieves the power it seeks? The answer,
presumably, is that it turns to its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly
involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security.
Realistically, though, Republicans aren't going to have the power to enact
their true agenda any time soon - if ever. Remember, the Bush
administration's
attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in
Congress - and it actually increased Medicare spending.
So the clear and present danger isn't that the G.O.P. will be able to
achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just
enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal
problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here
we come.
***
From: Cindy Henderson
If you are an educator whose union has endorsed either gubernatorial
candidate, please consider signing this letter. If you know anyone in such a
position, please forward this email. Thanks!
John Osmand, ISO
c: 401-301-4545
facebook
socialist
Neither one deserves our votes
A group of California teachers explain why both the Democratic and
Republican candidates for governor are ready to attack their union--and
working-class families:
September 20, 2010
EDUCATORS IN California face a rotten choice between a rampaging Republican
and a dithering Democrat. Neither major candidate has real answers to solve
the crisis rocking working families in the state.
Meg Whitman's slash-and-burn austerity program is clear enough to everyone.
Jerry Brown, on the other hand, has easily won the endorsements of the
California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association.
This support is undeserved.
Brown said in a recent interview on KCRA, "We're going to have to make some
cuts that nobody really looks forward to." He accepts the logic of balancing
the crisis on the backs of state workers, students, the poor and the
disabled. There is not a shred of evidence that he will raise taxes on the
rich, close corporate tax loopholes or campaign to overturn Proposition 13.
In another interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Brown pledged to cut
pensions for public employees. He also referred to low-income families as
"criminals" and suggested that environmental laws are bad for economic
growth.
On education reform, Brown personally championed two charter schools as
mayor of Oakland and failed to restructure that city's notoriously
pro-corporate tax system to actually fund its schools.
In his political career, Brown has been the lead architect of California's
prison-industrial complex. As attorney general, he has overseen a system
that destroys the lives of young men of color as quickly as it saps state
resources. (To be fair, his Web site touts his record of opposing wasteful
prison spending...such as blocking the funding of direly needed new medical
facilities for inmates.)
To add insult to injury, Jerry Brown's losing principles are surpassed only
by his losing campaign.
Giving our money and time to the "less evil" politician and hoping for the
best is a questionable strategy in good times. But right now we're being
hammered by an economic recession and anti-teacher federal policy worse than
the Bush years.
In 2005, a coalition of nurses, firefighters and teachers defeated Arnold
Schwarzenegger's anti-union ballot initiatives by grassroots organizing and
constant public demonstrations. This is a rough blueprint for standing up
for ourselves, no matter who gets elected in November.
It is time to rescind our unions' endorsements of Jerry Brown.
Let's redirect our resources to rebuilding the organizing power inside
California Federation of Teachers and California Teachers Association, the
power that is the lifeblood of unionism. Let's get serious about undoing
Prop. 13. Let's give an honest hearing to Green Party and Peace & Freedom
candidates. Let's spend our money kick-starting a national drive to fire
Arne Duncan and to put a halt to Race to the Top.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Anshell Song, San Diego Education Association*
Dana Blanchard, Le Conte Elementary School, Berkeley Federation of Teachers*
John Gallagher, Forest Park Elementary, Fremont Unified District Teachers
Association*
John Green, Castro Valley High School, Castro Valley Teachers Association*
Deborah Goldsmith, City College of San Francisco, SF Community College
District Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2121*
Adrienne Johnstone, San Francisco Community School, United Educators of San
Francisco, CFT/AFT Local 61, CTA/NEA*
Sarah Knopp, Youth Opportunities Unlimited Alternative High School, United
Teachers Los Angeles, CFT*
Andy Libson, Mission High School, United Educators of San Francisco, CFT/AFT
Local 61, CTA/NEA*
Jessie Muldoon, Oakland High School, Oakland Education Association*
Gillian Russom, Roosevelt High School, United Teachers Los Angeles, CFT*
Ben Visnick, Oakland High School, Oakland Education Association*
Jean Whittlesey, Berkeley High School, Berkeley Federation of Teachers*
Marc Wutschke, Belmont Community Adult School, United Teachers Los Angeles,
CTA*
*For identification purposes only
What you can do
If you are a California educator and would like to add your name to the open
letter, e-mail your name, work site and local affiliation to John Green at
redjohngreen@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment