There Is No Economic Justification for Deficit Reduction
by James K. Galbraith
Statement to the Commission on Deficit Reduction
by James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, and Vice President, Americans for Democratic Action, June 30, 2010
Mr. Chairmen, members of the commission, thank you for inviting this statement.
I am a professional economist, but I have served in a political role, as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. I am offering this statement on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action, an organization co-founded in 1949 by (among others) Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr., and Ronald Reagan. Accordingly I would like to begin with a political comment.
1. Clouds over the Work of the Commission.
Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues.
First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. Nothing you say will affect financial markets. Congress long ago -- in 1975 -- reformed its procedures to hold far more sensitive and complicated meetings, notably legislative markups, in the broad light of day.
Secrecy breeds suspicion: first, that your discussions are at a level of discourse so low that you feel it would be embarrassing to disclose them. Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public. Please do so.
Second, there is a question of leadership. A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way. For this, the attitude and temperament of the leadership are critical.
I first met Senator Simpson when we were both on Capitol Hill; at Harvard he became friends with my late parents. He is admirably frank in his views. But Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission. This is very clear from the abusive response he made recently to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who was asking important questions about the substance of the commission's work, as well as calling attention to the illegitimate secrecy under which you are operating.
A general cannot speak of the President with contempt. Likewise the leader of a commission intended to sway the public cannot display contempt for the public. With due respect, Senator Simpson's conduct fails that test.
Third, most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists. With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue. In general, it is impossible to have a fair discussion of any important question when the professional participants in that discussion have been picked, in advance, to represent a single point of view.
Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions. Quite apart from the merits of Mr. Peterson's arguments, this act must be condemned. A Commission serving public purpose cannot accept funds or other help from a private party with a strong interest in the outcome of that Commission's work. Your having done so is a disgrace.
PDF download of full statement.
http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/deficitcommissionrv.pdfIn short-
The deficit commission is a brain child of the president's with a little help from billionaire right winger pete peterson, comprising of majority of right wing, free market supply siders with serious conflicts of interest working in secret deciding what needs to be done to bring the deficit under control. Social security is on the table for cuts in secret meetings with NO public input and whatever recommendations emerge, conveniently after the elections in Nov. thereby rendering the public powerless, will be voted in only an up or down vote stripping the process of any semblance of democracy.
Cat food commission is mild compared to what I hear most people call this ideological commission of a majority of anti social security neo libs and neo cons.
Congress voted the idea of a commission down.
The commission was the choice of this president, secrecy is a choice of this president and the 2 right wing, anti worker co-chairs are a choice of this presidents. All points to a rigged commission.
Don't like the term cat food commission then open the doors and let the people, the workers of this country whose money these millionaires and billionaires are playing with (stealing), see what is going on.
If Bush tried to pull this bullshit secret commission all hell would have broken loose here. Obama does it and we all must sit politely like well behaved children while the "adults" work in secret deciding what to do with our measly retirement money?
There is no reason to trust a secret commission. There is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to a secret commission and the only way to fight a secret commission is to keep yelling loud and clear that it has no legitimacy, is undemocratic and needs to be disbanded immediately.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
