Should Progressives be "more" concerned about the Deficit?

[Perky]

I am not suggesting that progressive are unconcerned, but I think generally speaking it is, for many progressives, a secondary issue and it is something we do not talk a lot about around here.

Yes HCR does get us some not insignificant budget savings and Yes Tax cuts for the Rich and unjustified wars and unfunded entitlements (Medicare D) and the recession are all responsible for our current problems.


Short of turning isolationist and gutting the military ans increasing marginal tax rates (neither of which is politically palatable if we are going to be realistic), given the aging population we are facing a wall of strucutral debt that is pretty stupefying.



But the blame game is easy and the solution game is very hard and our tendency is to simply kick the can down the road and let it be some one else's responsibility and quite honestly that feeds the myth that progressives are tax and spenders while the GOP is better at budgets. Yes it is easily provable bullshit that the GOP is better at these issues, but we have not as a party changed that perception.

My question is what should progressives be doing to change both the perception and reality of budget management? Or do we really care?

[DrDan]

1. absolutely - it should be a major concern for everyone

[Lerkfish]

2. every responsible person is concerned about it: therefore progressives are more so

They only disagree on what is prioritized in the budget.

[mod mom]

3. ABSOLUTELY so END THE WAR and TAX THE RICH!

[Enrique]

4. I don't agree that we can't drastically cut defense spending

and increase marginal tax rates.

Both of those would be more "politically palatable" than what you seem to be driving at, i.e. cutting Social Security and Medicare.

[Perky]

6. No I absolutely do not think we can cut enttilements.

That is a non starter
But by the same token, the weak on defense and tax the rich mantra always gains traction with the most dependable voters. I would agree with you IF we could figure out how to get folks under 50 to the polls across the board. but we have not been successful with that ever.

[Lasher]

11. So what is left?

You've already taken everything off the table.

The top marginal tax rates will be raised. Dividend & Capital Gains tax rates will go back closer to where they should be. And the Inheritance Tax will be restored in January next year. All we have to do to accomplish that is let the GWB tax cuts sunset. Even Congressional Democrats should have enough spine to do nothing in this case. Well let me take that back. Gutless Democrats will probably let Republicans lead them around by the nose to extend the Bush tax cuts that generated most of the debt of the past decade.

Do you know we are spending twice as much on defense as we spent in 1998, based on constant FY09 dollars?


http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/022609_fy10_topline_growth_since48/

How hard could it be to educate voters about that? And how hard could it be to convince people it would be a good idea to restore military funding to its 1998 level? One thing's for sure, anything is impossible if you never try.

How about presenting the public with side-by-side choices? Do you want to reduce the deficit or would you rather keep 50,000 soldiers and God only knows how many mercenaries in Iraq for the next hundred years? Do you want to double Medicare Part B premiums so that we can continue to keep 12 - count 'em 12 - massive nuclear powered carrier groups plowing the 7 seas?



Do you want to extend the Social Security retirement age yet again, or wouldn't you rather bring home those 57,080 US soldiers we have stationed in Germany right now?

I think it's pretty clear what choices most people in the US would make. But we are not going to be presented with them. That's because Obama set up his debt reduction panel that is considering social programs and not military spending.

It's unrealistic to expect progressives to make choices to reduce the deficit when the only things left to choose are the ones rightwing extremists want us to make. No thanks, I'm not interested in being drowned in a bathtub just so neocons can max out the national credit cards yet again when they get back in power.

[Jennicut]

12. You are totally correct. But many Dems are afraid of looking weak on defense.

It is up to politicians to frame the argument better. It is also up to the American public to decide what priorities are important.

[Lasher]

13. And that's the reason for the voter turnout disparity that Perky mentions.

You know what Republicans stand for: tax cuts for rich people, deficit spending mostly on war, deregulation of corporations, and a shell game or two thrown in to keep the fundie rednecks voting for them. But if you are left wondering just what it is that Democrats stand for, then maybe you'll have something else to do on election day.

This is such a shame. Junior's act was so easy to follow but our guys are reluctant to even come on stage. We already know how this would turn out. Europeans generally took a pass on expensive war toys and military forts around the globe, in favor of their social programs. They are very glad of it, and in this respect are the envy of everyone else who has two or more brain cells to rub together.

Here, I haven't shared the National Budget Simulation Game in awhile. It's based on the 2006 budget but it can still be used to understand how our spending can and should be brought under control. And while I'm at it I might as well haul out the Social Security Game.

[n2doc]

8. +1

Funny how some things are "off the table" but others just have to be addressed. And those things that are "off the table" always benefit the rich and powerful.

How to cut the deficit
1. cut military spending by ending the wars, cutting back on foreign bases and reducing/ending the procurement of useless "high tech" ships and planes. Maintain a ready military with weapons that actually get used in modern, post cold war fighting.
2. Raise taxes on the top 10% of wage earners, and progressively higher on the top 1%. Keep a high estate tax on estates larger than 6 million.
3. Tax bonuses and other non-wage compensation at 90% until the budget is balanced.
4. eliminate subsidies that encourage the purchase of imported goods or movement to offshore industries.
5. Enact real health care reform with a public option, to reduce the spiraling rate of health care insurance.

Dreaming? Why are these less palatable than cutting SS and medicare, programs that benefit far more people than these would hit. Isn't this a democracy?

[craigmatic]

5. No not until they push their own agenda first. Only then can the government raise taxes and start

paying it off. Why should the left's agenda be held up by the mess bush and the repubs created? Even if progressives turn it into a surplus nobody will give them credit for it anyway. Taxing and spending makes more sense than spending on credit while you cut taxes.

[Perky]

7. Makes more sense...yes but it is not sustainable politically

not with how the dependable voting population is skewed

[craigmatic]

17. the problem with this country is that the voters don't know what they need long term. bush41 and

Clinton both raised taxes on the rich and there was a surplus. Obama should try it again. Sometimes good politics don't make good policy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Only if giving $350B a year in interests payments to bankers is concerning.

The most underreported budgetary number in my lifetime.

[Perky]

10. and Chinese Bankers at that.

[tranche]

14. We should be concerned with governing.

This game in which the Repubs have us constantly defending our priorities is what's killing us. If it wasn't the deficit it would be jobs, if it wasn't jobs it would be defense, if it wasn't defense it would be health care. A disciplined message built upon confidence in what we're doing would go a long way to help here.

[Phx_Dem]

15. Does a 10 lb sack of flour make a great big biscuit? lol

Yes.

[zipplewrath]

16. Simple answer is yes

It is important that the revenues collected be available for the need. Even progressives need money available for new programs or emerging needs.