Who shall bear us forward?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A few weeks back, This American Life had an episode that actually asked a question that I don't think gets addressed all that often: what kind of country do we want? In typical public-radio fashion, it skewed liberal, but it's an interesting story nonetheless (the parts where Norquist explains how screwed up the pension system is for states are particularly interesting, even if the host tries to push the conversation in a rather unnecessary direction).

What interested me was how the dialog in Washington has been shaped by the Republican commitment to Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes whatsoever. It's simply not an option, even for many Democrats, to say "we are raising taxes, but here is what it will buy, and what it buys is far more than what you could buy with that money." It's no doubt that there are serious needs (that site says we need $2.2 trillion to bring infrastructure up to par, though it's now 3 years out of date). But at this time, it seems that the only way to spend on one thing is to cut somewhere else, or to borrow - an option that looks fraught with other peril, after the debt ceiling debacle.

Into this landscape comes the Ryan budget [pdf]. In 2010, Ryan's budget formed the core of the Republican party line on spending and entitlement reform, though it was unrealistic to expect it would pass in the Senate. This time, Ryan's plan stands in stark contrast to Obama's, allowing us to measure the differences. Some of them are stark changes. What's clearest is that the majority of the burden will fall on the poor. Ezra Klein (who, I'll admit, I rely on rather heavily for budget analysis - I'm taking suggestions of alternatives if you have them) points out that this is pretty much an inevitable conclusion of the commitments that Republicans have made.

The problem I have is this: I don't think we should cut deficits on the backs of those least able to bear it. On the other hand, I recognize that the best method of cutting deficits that avoids this - raising revenue on the richer segments of society - is simply not going to happen in the modern political climate, and cutting defense spending is unlikely, even if Obama regains the White House (something jeff has convinced me is, indeed, an uphill battle). So where does that leave us? Either allowing deficits to continue to pile up, or slashing entitlements, programs needed most by those least able to bear the cuts.

So my solution is long-term: change the political climate so that tax increases and defense cuts become realistic. I don't think I'll be voting for anyone who signs the no-tax pledge again, nor for someone who thinks that the military is sacrosanct (or worse, too small). To me, the root problem is that we're closing doors preemptively. We can't examine whether tax rates on the rich are too low or too high, because whatever they are, they need to be offset to be revenue-neutral to meet the pledge. At that point, we're all but admitting that the tax code is there for nothing but social engineering, a task for which (IMO) taxes are uniquely unsuited. The solution is to change the electoral culture so that taxes come back onto the table. So, thus will I vote, even if I disagree with the legislator on a host of other matters. I think I just turned myself into a litmus-test voter.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Here's the issue with Norquist - he's created a situation that is workably untenable in the long run, but is realistic in the short. He understands full well that taxes are higher right now than they need to be because spending is higher right now than it needs to be, and he knows that a significant number of conservatives agree with it, and he's gotten the Republican Party on board with one unifying theme in the big tent.

Now, let's say Noerquist and the Republicans get their way - big cuts to the government on a whole, but we still have a structural deficit? Norquist's pledge goes by the wayside. We already know that the Republican commitment to this is fungible (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_print.html), and Obama missed a masterstroke in not taking advantage of it last year, so it's unrealistic to think that there isn't wiggle room when appropriate. This is not about cuts on "the backs of those least able to bear it" or about a bloated military, but a government doing too much too often. Stop that, and you'll find that the Norquist pledge stops holding so much sway.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So what and where do you cut, then, to stop government doing "too much too often"? That is one point from the TAL story that I found interesting - Norquist refused to commit to saying "X program needs to be cut by Y%," preferring to talk about reforms that would take pensions from, well, pensions and turn them into 401(k)s and the like. Obamacare is, what, $1.5 trillion over 10 years? Besides that being cuts on those least able to bear it (Ryan's budget totally cuts out subsidies to allow the poor to buy insurance), that's a drop in the bucket of total ten-year deficits. What else do you cut?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So what and where do you cut, then, to stop government doing "too much too often"?

Well, the issue in the government spending, unfortunately, is social spending. It takes up the lion's share of what we do. Unfortunately:

Besides that being cuts on those least able to bear it

This is always going to be the argument from the left. The government overgives, and then say "well, we can't take it back now. This was the argument against welfare reform, and, you'll recall, the doomsday prophecies for the poor never came to fruition.

Imagine if Obama proposed Ryan's deficit plan. Yeah, it takes 40 years to pay off the national debt, but it's the best of both worlds - reforms spending to keep the safety net an actual safety net, keeps Medicare by turning it into a functional, somewhat-means-tested senior assistance program, and starts looking at ways of modernizing the government and streamlining programs like Social Security as opposed to thinking the high point of government activity was sometime in the 1930s or 1960s. The 1990s weren't so terrible, after all...

What else do you cut?

I look at it this way. I believe the FY08 request was for $2.9 trillion in spending. Were we in squalor in 2007? Were the poor being screwed heavily in 2008? Outside of the recession, what changed? Would we be so bad off to simply say "we're going back to FY08 spending levels? We even have extra savings from the war - distribute those yearly savings to the infrastructure or to the safety net or what have you in the short term, and keep spending growth below revenues on a yearly basis, and we start making real progress. I don't think that's an absurd compromise between the "we need to spend and tax more" and the "we need to severely cut the size and scope" groups.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

This is always going to be the argument from the left. The government overgives, and then say "well, we can't take it back now. This was the argument against welfare reform, and, you'll recall, the doomsday prophecies for the poor never came to fruition.

This presumes that we're overgiving, of course. Having spent the last six months working directly with the very poor, I can't say that's the case.

Would we be so bad off to simply say "we're going back to FY08 spending levels?

Probably. Remember that population has grown, real value of money has dropped due to inflation, and in particular, people relying on entitlements is starting to grow very rapidly as boomers retire. Not only that, we're now in a slump, where spending should rise anyway (a point I know you'll disagree with). Higher unemployment, lower overall wages... the fact is that we're worse off now than we were in '08, and something should fill the gap.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're making fair points here, and this is really more an ideological back and forth, so I guess the question is when do you think we're actually doing too much? Where is that line if we haven't already flown past it?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think we're doing too much if we're doing something that could be done better by the private system. The private system has failed with a lot of things - health care provision, cost containment, and care for the poor. That is where government should step in.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And is there a chance that the government work in those areas is amplifying, rather than repairing, those problems?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. How do you prove that without tearing down everything and starting from hunter-gatherer, though?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Maybe farm it out to the states so that we have 50 different labs to see what works and what doesn't.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So what and where do you cut, then, to stop government doing "too much too often"?

Refer to Ron Paul's budget plan for a starting point.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Obamacare is, what, $1.5 trillion over 10 years?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/cms-actuaries-obamacare-increases-costs

[dwer.livejournal.com]

This is not about cuts on "the backs of those least able to bear it" or about a bloated military, but a government doing too much too often.

No, it's not.

Hey, cool. I just jeff'd you.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Requires facts not in evidence.

See what I did there? d:-P

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yes, what you said does require facts not in evidence.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually yes it is. There somehow is always an excuse to waste money on GOP pork spending like bridges to nowhere, but spending money where it actually counts and would help is unthinkable. As always it's not the spending, but who's spending it on what.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I disagree on the details. The only thing that gets accomplished by the GOP anymore is barnstorming social issue activism, which is really the only thing the GOP wants or needs to live. So if you outlawed abortion, the tax stuff would go away in a heart-beat. If you outlawed gay marriage, nobody would give a shit about government spending. These are all just placeholders for the real agenda.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're confusing media distortion with Republican interest. If you think the GOP picked up so many seats in November 2010 because of gay marriage and abortion, you've misread the electorate and the Tea Party.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No Jeff, I'm perfectly capable of seeing media distortion or not media distortion. You're not a magical pony who can tell other people what they see or don't see, immune yourself the nefarious media distortion.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you are capable, you're showing a significant blind spot here, then.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No I'm not. My vision is just fine.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you say so.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I wish I was a magical pony.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

If only you had my superior intellect, you would see that I am correct.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's funny how all these Republican intentions get distorted by the media and then when they do the things that the media was telling us they would do it's just a coincidence.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, the old Republican fixation on people tarred with scandals that were quite arguably treasonous. The problem with Norquist is he should have been tried for treason, not treated as some intellectual wellspring by the Republican Party, but that would mean accountability and responsibility on the part of a party that screams conspiracy theory at every available opportunity.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

None of it actually serious yanno. People can float all the perfect pie-in-the-sky plans they want in order to garner votes. That's why these things never actually get brought up in Congress when it matters. It's all just a bunch of hand-waving campaigning and tom-foolery. Entire swaths of conservatism have simply stopped being principled conservatives, and entirely anti-liberal, who "vote Newt to piss off a liberal". None of this has anything to do with governance. It's just identity politics and pissing off the other side because dang-nabbit, ooooh I hates dem libruls!

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I don't know that this is true. Look at the Republican reaction to the across-the-board cuts contained in the debt ceiling deal. The whole goal, right now, is to extend the Bush tax cuts and undo the military cuts. They really do act, in large part, in accordance with their stated goals.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yes, they actually act to maintain the status-quo, no matter how many feverish budget dreams they offer in irrelevent news conferences.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Jon Stewart had Norquist on his show last week. I was unable to sit through the whole interview. The guy makes me sick.

People who stand up for military spending need to account for military contract fraud and abuse. It has been said that contractors squandered what little "good will" capital the US had in Iraq with their cowboy attitude.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

How much waste occurred as a result of contract fraud/abuse?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That is very difficult to measure. Some of the descriptions of contract fraud in Iraq are pretty severe. Loss of "good will" capital costs more in lives and money than possibly be fathomed. One of the costliest cases of contract fraud is the one with Chalabi's organization. They perpetrated extensive intelligence fraud with threat inflation. The entire cost of the war could be chalked up to that one contract.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

They perpetrated extensive intelligence fraud with threat inflation

dang, is that true? that is so bad

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The comedy of errors surrounding Chalabi shows up in just about every memoir from the Bush administration.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

This was an interesting show. I just listened to it last night.

It was funny how the guy at the end didn't want to pay the $200 tax for general services, but gladly paid the $300 neighborhood light fee. That made me wonder - how transparent is our government in how tax dollars are spent? I honestly don't know, I've never looked into it. I'm talking about some document that would give the money received, and break it down into how the money was spent, special projects it funded, etc.

I think it's a dumb statement that's easy to agree with to simply say "government should be smaller" without say how to get there. If Norquist has the power he claims to have, I wish he would focus more on educating people about what reforms should be made, instead of just repeating the "lower taxes" mantra.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

yeah - i always thought on how neat it'd be to have a pie-chart available online per county. such pie-chart (or any type grid) would show what percentage of the total taxes collected went to thea) cost of lobor associated with government workers, b) local schools, c) parks/recreation d) roads maintenance, e) other structural city planning tasks f) etc.

it's 2012, technology is everyyyywhere so why not?

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Knowing the government, they'd probably say, "In these tough economic times, we simply don't have the money to put that information online."

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

ha, they could get university students to build the site and maintain it h e l l o it would not be an internship but rather the student would get credits for his/her work

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

a good write overall :)

explains how screwed up the pension system

you know, i've always wondered how it is that government jobs maintain pension plans whilst the majority of private and not-for-profit corporations/business cannot, will not, and have not continued to offer anything similar to a pension plan ????

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I think what's happening now is that governments are starting to not be able to afford pension plans, and that's why there's the debate. Governments promised them long ago, and now that they're coming due, there isn't the tax base to do what was promised. Corporations/businesses probably realized long ago that they wouldn't be able to afford pensions. (Well, that money probably went to CEO pay and benefits, at least partly.)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

More than just that, they've been consistently under-funded. Most states have known that their pension-fund growth rates were totally unrealistic (I recall one of the towns that declared bankruptcy recently was modeling their pension fund on a presumed 13% annual growth rate). Absolutely insane, willful ignorance of the true state of the pension system has lead us to this juncture. Pensions could've been in a lot better shape (not necessarily 100% OK, but better) if states and municipalities had been less short-sighted and funded them properly.