Go Home

As Chris Hayes points out in this column for The Nation, the sudden urgency over deficit reduction has no basis in reality, much like our experience with another national frenzy:

The hysteria has reached such a pitch that Republican senators (joined by Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson) have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits because it was not offset by spending cuts. Keep in mind, the cost of the extension for people unlucky enough to be caught in the jaws of the worst recession in thirty years is $35 billion. The bill would increase the debt by less than 0.3 percent.

This all seems eerily familiar. The conversation—if it can be called that—about deficits recalls the national conversation about war in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. From one day to the next, what was once accepted by the establishment as tolerable—Saddam Hussein—became intolerable, a crisis of such pressing urgency that "serious people" were required to present their ideas about how to deal with it. Once the burden of proof shifted from those who favored war to those who opposed it, the argument was lost.

We are poised on the same tipping point with regard to the debt. Amid official unemployment of 9.5 percent and a global contraction, we shouldn't even be talking about deficits in the short run. Yet these days, entrance into the club of the "serious" requires not a plan for reducing unemployment but a plan to do battle with the invisible and as yet unmaterialized international bond traders preparing an attack on the dollar.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the selling of the Iraq War was its false pretext. It never really was about weapons of mass destruction, as Paul Wolfowitz admitted. WMDs were just "what everyone could agree on." So it is with deficits. Conservatives and their neoliberal allies don't really care about deficits; they care about austerity—about gutting the welfare state and redistributing wealth upward. That's the objective. Deficits are just what they can all agree on, the WMDs of this manufactured crisis. Senator John Kyl of Arizona, speaking on Fox, has come out and admitted as much. All new spending increases must be offset, he said, but "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." So there you have it.

Remember that the Iraq War might have been prevented had more Congressional Democrats stood up to oppose it. Instead, many of those who privately knew the entire enterprise was a colossal disaster in the making buckled to right-wing pressure and pundit hawks and voted for it. That mistake is being repeated. Despite White House economists' full realization of the need for stimulus in the face of astronomically high unemployment, the New York Times has reported that the political minds inside the White House, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, have decided that the public has no appetite for increased spending. "It's my job to report what the public mood is," Axelrod explained. He then showed up on ABC's This Week to wave the white flag, saying that the president would continue to press to extend unemployment benefits; conspicuously omitted was any mention of aid to state governments, which had originally been included in the president's June letter to Congress asking for a new stimulus package.

There is hope, however: the public is nowhere near as obsessed with the deficit as are those in Washington. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans support "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy," with 38 percent opposed. A Hart Research Associates poll published in June showed that two-thirds of Americans favor continuing unemployment benefits. There is also very little public appetite for "entitlement reform," a k a cutting Social Security.

The lesson of the Iraq War is that over the long haul, good politics and good policy can't be separated. If the White House is tempted to support bad policy in the short term because it seems less risky politically, it should give John Kerry a call and ask him how that worked out for him with Iraq.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


27 Comments
Pete Seattle's picture

always a problem when a Dem is in the White House... never to be mentioned in polite society when a Repuke is spending us into the poor house and giving tax cuts to the wealthy!

now, where would that deficit be now without those two wars of choice and aggression?
oh yeah, over a trillion dollars less!

And at $7 Billion per month, cancelling the War In Afghanistan
for just five months would provide the #35 Billion needed here
at home to extend unemployment benefits.

End the foreign wars!
End the drug wars!
End the US military bases in Europe, Japan & South Korea!
Bring the troops home!

Spend the money saved on American's health, education & infrastructure.


Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!

Pete2069's picture

As long as Emanuel , the pro war candidates which he has recruited/funded/supported are in office or control of the democrat party we are there for eternity.

Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides.
Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul.

"F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel stated , scolding the group, according to several participants.
Emanuel always protects his Pro War & Corporate democrats while attacking the progressive or left..

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.htm
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress

http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/200...
2006...
Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.


None

Congress writes the budget, not the President.

Bill Lumbergh's picture

why does someone always have to make this point?

No shit. Let's try not to dumb-down the discussion.

biff's picture

That 8 billion dollars that vanished off the skids in Iraq that time- would probably come in pretty handy to the ranks of the unemployed right now.

sixandseveneights's picture

getting no bid government contracts was the priority.

sixandseveneights's picture

"Deficits don't matter" - Dead Eye Dick Cheney

Until a Demmycrat gets in the White House.

Fish's picture

and start investing in this country.


Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.

sixandseveneights's picture
90%

we'd still have enough to destroy the planet 10 times over.......which we're doing now anyway.

Bill Lumbergh's picture

...that would freak-out the authoritarian wingnuts and the chickenhawks!!!
They're already terrified of the new Russian T-50 fighter they saw on Faux Noos. It's better than our F-22!!! And cheaper!!! The skies will be flooded with them!!!
These dumb bastards are still falling for the same missile/bomber/tank/fighter "gap" bullshit from the Cold war.

NoBuddy's picture

They're coming after the Social Security trust fund. They want to cancel the IOUs and effectively make it a retroactive flat income tax, to subsidize the tax cuts to the classes and types of income that don't pay into FICA.

Instead, we should be asking why it is that the warning that Ike made about the military industrial complex was never heeded, with the U.S. now spending more than the rest of the world combined. I think that's before the cost of the wars.

We need to ask ourselves, could we shoulder a larger tax burden if our health costs were brought into line with other western nations, who pay 11% of GDP rather than the 17% of GDP we pay.

We need to ask ourselves, at what point are costly wars declared to be quagmires? That needs to be asked of all 3 wars, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on drugs.

They don't want a thoughtful discussion of the deficits. They want to rip off the trust fund of Social Security.

I think the concern with the deficits is, not all of the debt is being placed. If I'm understanding the issue correctly, the Federal Reserve is engaged in quantitative easing (printing money), and indirectly buying up a portion of the deficits. So the Fed becomes the holder of the deficit. Roosevelt's exit plan to his quantitative easing was to devalue the dollar. That's where the analogy of the current recession and the depression falls apart a bit. We hear that we should spend like Roosevelt, but I'm not so sure the repercussions are the same if we finance it like Roosevelt.

But, that said, it is class warfare. I say, if we have to cut the deficits, the first thing to go is the Bush tax cuts, since they created the deficits in the first place. I think the testimony at the time was that the cuts wouldn't reinstate the deficits, so apparantly, these cuts were enacted under a false assumption.

Bacano's picture

just to let you know... you start getting the benefits by 65, when the average black and latino only makes it to 54... so now rip that S### off or at least give people the choice to opt out of it, because after all, the poor end up paying more for ss and never even get to touch any of that money and also end the wars and the war on drugs.

NoBuddy's picture

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/b...

Table 105, has white and black data. All stats prior to age of entering the work force has to be discarded, so infant mortality is not pertinent. I would also note that now that health care while hopefully be available to all, that the disparities between white and black be further reduced. In any event, didn't find life expectancy of 54.

Kreskin's picture

You get those numbers out of Mad magazine ?

Milquetoast's picture

the "trust fund of Social Security" (that you think exists), is actually a bunch of collateralized debt obligations and crdit default swaps!

(there are no gold bars in the S.S. fund)


audit-prosecute-incarcerate

NoBuddy's picture

Treasury notes and securities. I don't think SS is allowed to purchase private notes or securities.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n2
"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds. "

So fill me in. If they're holding swaps/cdo's, who's the issuer?

NoBuddy's picture

... I don't think they'll come out and explicitly cancel the SS treasury holdings, build a bonfire, and dump the securities into it. That would be perhaps a little too dramatic. It might rile 1 or 2 folks.

What they'll do is to try to adjust Social Security levels so that these securities never have to be cashed in. In other words, the benefit levels that assumed the repayment of these securities will be replaced with benefit levels that don't assume the repayment of these securities.

That's what we would call a "constructive" as opposed to an "actual" cancellation of these securities.

NoBuddy's picture

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/o...

“ Having transferred trillions of public treasure for the sake of Wall Street's health, Obama now picks up where George Bush left off on Social Security. Obama's deficit commission is pre-programmed to assault the last vestiges of the social safety net. ...

... Obama will pretend that circumstances and Republicans are forcing him to call for austerity. But that's a lie; he came in singing the GOP's song, and is behaving precisely as one would expect from a center-right administration. Obama is in his ideal element, constantly saying "yes" to the Party of "no." ”

Bill Lumbergh's picture

I just don't buy this "Obama is doing the GOP's bidding" nonsense.
I still think that ultimately Obama is going to put himself in league with those who will oppose SS changes, and force the conservatards (well represented on the cat food commission) to admit that the public has no stomach for SS and Medicare cuts, and wants taxes raised on the rich first and foremost, with maybe some defense cuts for good measure.
And when the party of NO! refuses to cooperate, it will make it perfectly clear to the public where the GOPers really stand on debt.

derekthered's picture

the dehumanizing effects of the established system subvert 99.9% of the population, like ivory soap; and that's what politicians are, pitchmen. the coin with which our elected oficials are paid is both real and virtual, while they become larger than life, we become smaller; and the health care is pretty good too, for them.

when business was elevated to personhood in 1886,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Coun...

the die was cast, and it could only wind up as it has, as certainly as a mathematical progression.

of course there are people who want to get over on others, and living under a system that proclaims it a positive virtue, what else is to be expected?

Hechicera's picture
rmb's picture

Republican deficit clowns have no problem extending tax cuts for their wealthy brethren. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will balloon to 87 per cent of gross domestic product by 2020 and 185 per cent by 2035 if the Bush tax cuts are extended. Trickle down economics is a sham. Vote.


This is not my father's America

Kreskin's picture

Their concern for the deficit is a complete joke , if it isn't a gift for the top 5 % or for the Corporations and Wall street , the Reich wing / Repugs are against it , period .

researcher's picture

the demos still dont get it

the demo politicans are bought and paid for by the same corp fascism as the repubs.

at least the repubs dont lie about it they admit to being corp fascists.

all this is greed

greed has its home in ignorance

ignorance of what: must learn that cannot be told

that is the journey

weslen1's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
weslen1's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Comments are closed on this entry