Republicans and the Debt/Deficit
If Obama's debt/deficit reduction plan, to be outlined this evening to the public, is what we are being told it will be -- strategic and specific cuts to the Medicare/Medicaid entitlement programs, along with tax increases for the wealthy -- and if the Republicans insist with their silly notion that tax increases are a "nonstarter" (as Boehner has said), then Obama will have painted the GOP into a corner. Obama's plan, when compared with the pain that Ryan's plan will inflict on the middle classes and the elderly, will seem like the fair compromise and will resonate as balanced and built upon shared sacrifice. How can the GOP claim to want to tackle the deficit on the backs of the poor and the elderly, and yet simply take tax increases on the wealthy off the table altogether? That's not a balanced approach to fiscal discipline, that's recklessness and rigidity rooted in class warfare ideology. And in tough times when the poor, the elderly, and the middle classes are called to sacrifice while the rich aren't is a losing strategy. Any attempt to deal with the deficit simply on the spending-reduction side is simply unserious. On this signature GOP issue, one that Republicans hope will take them to the White House again in 2012, Obama wins if his plan is serious about both cutting expenses and raising revenues in a manner that appears to be "fair and balanced."
Posts
2 comments:
It's also helpful that he explicitly noted that Social Security is not the cause of any of our debt problems. That's an extremely important point, and frankly a lot of Americans don't recognize that. I wish he had separated SS a bit more explicitly from Medicare and Medicaid and pointed out that it should be easy to fix it.
First, happy belated birthday!
Second, good to see you posting again!
Third, you said:
"How can the GOP claim to want to tackle the deficit on the backs of the poor and the elderly, and yet simply take tax increases on the wealthy off the table altogether? "
Because the wealthy already shoulder the majority of the tax burden in America. You may think they should be forced to carry a heavier burden, but it's shouldn't be difficult to see where conservatives are coming from on this issue. If the middle class and poor were paying 90% of the taxes and the rich were getting off cheap, it would be a different story. It's really the mid and low income folks who aren't paying their fair share (Bush contributed greatly to this problem), but good luck finding a politically viable answer to that issue.
Here's a compromise I'd offer (not so much because I think tax increases are necessary, but because I think they are the only carrot that will entice liberals to make deep cuts in spending): We need to reduce spending by almost 45% to balance the budget. For every 10% in spending that is cut, I'd be willing to tack on an additional 1% in (adjusted gross) income tax to my top tax bracket, provided that every tax paying American, rich or poor, does the same. These would have to include a trigger clause where the tax increases automatically go away incrementally once the budget is balanced. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on such a system.
Post a Comment