Begala writes: "In a column on the budget, to maintain credibility with Beltway elites, I am supposed to claim the impasse is both parties' fault. It isn't."
Begala writes: 'The conventional wisdom is that Republicans won't support any more tax increases and Democrats won't support any more spending cuts. That's half right.' (photo: TPM Muckraker)
The Great Sequester Lie
25 February 13
n a column on the budget, to maintain credibility with Beltway elites, I am supposed to claim the impasse is both parties' fault. It isn't. The conventional wisdom is that Republicans won't support any more tax increases and Democrats won't support any more spending cuts. That's half right.
House Democrats have proposed some sensible spending cuts: like doing away with the billions we spend subsidizing oil companies. With gas nearing $4 a gallon, does anyone really want to send taxpayers' money to the welfare queens of ExxonMobil? House Dems would also enact the Buffett rule (I prefer "Romney rule"), ending the obscenity in the tax code that lets hedge-fund managers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
Not to be outdone, Senate Democrats have proposed $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases: again, reducing oil subsidies (though not as much as the House Dems), ending the deduction businesses take for moving jobs overseas and trimming the defense budget and farm subsidies.
Finally, the White House boasts of having eliminated 77 government programs, including 16 at the Department of Education, 10 at Health and Human Services, and 4 at Labor. The president's budget calls for $30 billion in cuts to farm programs and $25 billion in savings from the post office.
The Republicans, for their part, did allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on income over $450,000, but they seem to have dug in their heels on the Romney rule and oil subsidies. They are blaming President Obama's "failed leadership" for the sequester and arguing that it was the White House that first proposed the gun-to-the-head approach. As the kids say, whatevs. The Democrats have come to the table with spending cuts. Will the Republicans join them and support some tax increases? Um, no. "Just last month," House Speaker John Boehner said, "The president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he's already back for more." True. But there is still some very low-hanging fruit on the revenue side. Republicans ought to at least embrace the Romney rule-if for no other reason than to punish Mitt for running such a lame campaign.
Meanwhile, some congressional Republicans are taking a break from complaining about government spending to complain about the lack of government spending. As Politico has reported, Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker is worried about cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins is fretting over potential job losses at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and John McCain has continued his longstanding opposition to a sequester, bringing it home by telling his fellow Arizonans, "They make the Apache helicopter in Mesa, Arizona. If they cut back, it would have to be affected there."
I would take it further. The new Tea Party senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, says, "I think we have to be prepared to go so far as to shut the government down if we don't get some serious policies to stop the out-of-control spending to tackle the debt." OK, let's start by shutting down federal spending in Texas. Federal funds account for 32 percent of the Lone Star State's budget. Oh, and how about Fort Hood? At 340 square miles, it is the biggest Army base in the free world and the largest single employer in Texas. All that federal spending must be sapping the souls of my fellow Texans. So let's move Fort Hood to, oh, say, Nevada. Sen. Harry Reid actually believes in federal investments, and the Nevada desert might provide good terrain for Fort Hood's tanks.
This could be fun. Oklahoma so hates Obama's big spending that every single county in the state voted for Mitt Romney. Oklahoma has twice the percentage of federal employees than the U.S. average, and Okies get $1.35 back from Washington for each dollar they pay in taxes. So close the massive FAA center in Oklahoma City. Move it to Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, where they love big government.
Two years ago I made a similar argument about Kentucky, calling on Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul to put the Bluegrass State in detox for its addiction to local pork. No such luck. But perhaps the principle can apply to the sequester: enforce it only in states whose elected representatives won't support the taxes needed to fund the spending they want.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
What, again, was "realistic" about a Simpson/Bowles report-based budget; the piles of dead senior bodies that would have to be extracted, at some unaccounted-for expense, from their homes where they would have starved or frozen to death? Or the fact that those espousing it (except the hedge fund managers)wouldn 't even survive it long enough to retire?
Then there's the even MORE corporatist current one they've been hired by those CEO's to hawk..
And, the long term one is more demagoguery than demographics, as it also ignores the long term recovery- which is at least as predictable. The high price of cat food, however, does NOT need to be predicted. It's here.
I agree with you that the sequester is *nothing* but Political Theater based upon NOTHING in Fact-based reality.
No enterprise runs without income. For Governments "income" is another name for "taxes". The rich must share.
This country is not even CLOSE to being "broke", this "Sequester" is just the first step to introducing full-out European-style austerity without provoking Greek / Spanish style riots. This is BOOM TIMES for the Int'l Banksters !
That's why your allusion to "short-term pain" gives me cause for pause. ... For one thing, most media are reporting this fiasco as an $85 billion cut, as if that was the end of it.
Very few sources are admitting that it's actually $85 billion THIS year and THEN over $100 Billion per annum for *EACH* of the next *NINE* years.
So, you know, $85 Bill here, $900 Bill there, and pretty soon your talking about REAL money, as the old saw says.
But, as you can see, in the same way that you can put a toad into a pan on the stove filled with cold water, and then slowly heat the water, the toad will "adjust" until it boils to death. If you were to drop the toad straight INTO hot water it would leap out in a flash.
In this scenario, the U.S. Taxpayers are the Toad.
The banksters are in charge of applying the heat
at the stove.
Good luck.
Brilliant. Great compromise. Thanks for cutting through the B.S.
That's about the depth of my understanding of the situation as an economic nincompoop. "Sequestration" which I understand to be a legal term referring to the act of valuable property being taken into custody by an agent of the court and locked away for safekeeping, usually to prevent the property from being disposed of or abused before a dispute over its ownership can be resolved.
Well, if this dog-and-pony show, especially by "Boner" his mud-stained, do-nothing Congress isn't abuse and over-statement of a situation, I don't know what is.
But what do I know?
I don't see the evidence, in either party of the House.
Then the Repuglicans in Congress who want to destroy government by and for the people could deal with the people in their states who lose by their sequestered attitude.
The other point is that the Republicans are much, much better at managing the media, marketing, framing the debate, and managing their message. They know how to market their policies effectively to the general electorate, who, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here, aren't that very informed about the issues. The GOP is much better at getting their message reduced to a short, but to the point, soundbite that people can easily remember.
Finally the conservative movement has "experts" who can appear on these shows under short notice. The left doesn't have that and their "experts" often get tripped up because they don't know how to talk in plain English.
Bottom line: The right is able to get away with a lot because they have learned to manage the media. Democrats continue to fall behind.
Simply our government at work for our good.
But the party of Hate doesn't like that.
They are addicted to pork, and just don't like the pork the Ds hand out to the Ds' favorite corporations.
BAH HUMBUG!
They can't stop. They have joined the Dems.
The only solution is for us all to work for government. No taxes, good pay. We need money, we can borrow. BAH HUMBUG!
All I really want from these Republicans is a story that I can believe that will demonstrate how decimating a major component of our economy will provide recovery. Just 1 story.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots
He, too, is addicted to big lard, uh, pork. No matter where it is greasy.
Mr. Begala seems to have forgotten to tell us where the money comes from. Hint: (It's not free, has to be earned.)
Maybe he doesn't know. It's possible.
You are fully correct on THAT one ! The Pentagon "cuts" are NOT real. But the other cuts ARE real. The Pentagon "cuts" were supposed to be the "Carrot" that would ease the pain and the justifiable outrage over the social CUTS, which, I say again, ARE real.
We are being "soft walked" into European-Style Austerity Economies that simply make the Banksters ECSTATIC.
$85 Billion THIS year .... $100 Billion per year for each of the Nine Years to come. And that's just the Bankster's opening volley.
RSS feed for comments to this post