Why Progressives Shouldn’t Fall For the Deficit Reduction Trap
by James K. GalbraithLink to article
This is an excerpt from Alternet.org. Click on link to read entire article.
The fetish of long-term deficit reduction is politically poisonous — and economically pointless. In reality, we need big budget deficits. We need them now — and down the road.
Shockingly, President Obama has announced his support for a commission whose purpose is to ramrod Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress. Thinly disguised as a program for “deficit reduction,” the proposed commission will meet its first test today, when the Senate may vote to authorize it as part of a bill to raise the national debt ceiling. A large progressive coalition is already on record against it. But the progressives’ case is flawed; it’s not tough enough. Here’s why.
According to a press release issued by the Campaign for America’s Future on January 20, describing the progressive coalition:
Speakers stressed the need for a long-term deficit reduction strategy…. Joan Entmacher of National Women’s Law Center noted that responsible ways to cut the deficit were available now if austerity activists weren’t only interested in attacking Social Security and Medicare…. Hillary Shelton of the NAACP said the responsibility for debt reduction should remain with democratically elected representatives from each congressional district…
Now, when our civil rights leaders speak of deficits, no one supposes they do so from deep conviction. It’s a political move. They are intoning phrases calculated to lend a tone of respectability to a larger and more important cause. That cause — in this case protecting Social Security and Medicare from predators on Wall Street — is a good one. But good political purposes don’t guarantee good economics. And, let me argue, if the economics are based, as they are here, on a false premise, then you can’t make the politics work in your favor. …”
Tags: deficit reduction, raise national debt ceiling, Social Security and Medicare cuts
January 27th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Cutting military spending (which I never see discussed) would go far further in reducing the deficit than any cutting of domestic programs like social security and medicare. Just alone getting out of Iraq would save trillions.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Now, Obama is set to announce a ‘discretionary spending freeze’ (leaving the military spending intact) when we need another (non-military) stimulus to create jobs. This freeze is exactly what the Republican Party wants. Didn’t Obama learn anything from the Mass. Senate election? Giving in to the Republicans and right wing Dems like the odious Lieberman, cutting deals w/ nasty corporations and blowing off once inspired supporters (progressives, labor, youth, minorities and the poor) who worked hard for the Dems in 2008 simply demobilizes and discourages them form later activism and participation.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
WE MUST CUT DEFENSE SPENDING – Post Haste!
Using our Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force to go after a rag tag bunch of Islamic Thugs makes absolutely no damned good sense whatsoever! I’m not saying that we let Al Qaeda & Osama Bin Laden go, but I am saying lets use force with surgical precision, let’s broadly use diplomacy to engender ‘good will’ in the Islamic world. Finally, some of the current and proposed defense programs and weapon systems that are being developed have nothing but Cold War applications! The Cold War is OVER – we can’t spend on military boondoggles!