House of Eratosthenes

In light of the recent budget debate and the unveiling of Obama’s long-term deficit plan .. the liberal wealth envy crowd has come out in full force to make sure that their ideas be heard. What are their ideas? Well there is really only one idea and that is: Increase taxes. Why? For the purposes of redistributing the wealth.

A narrative has emerged on the left side that President Wonderful must not have the chops for negotiating because the Republicans took Him to the cleaners. This in the wake of the much-publicized eleventh-hour “keep the government running” agreement last week to “slash” $38.5 billion. Saturday Night Live had a monologue parody in which Obama talks up what a wonderful negotiation process it was since everyone went away from it unhappy. There’s a lot of truth in that. A lot of Republicans are unhappy because the target amount was 100 billion, and of course 38.5 is not 100. Well, the democrats are unhappy too.

Here’s my question: Why, exactly? I mean, you take out all the “don’t cut my pet project” people, and out of the ones that are left — there are still quite a few, from what I see — there remains unhappiness. That’s where I am curious. What’s the problem?

And no, don’t go digging into the budget line items trying to find a problem. You’re already pissed that any cutting took place at all. I would like to know what the beef is.

Because spending simply cannot stay where it is…it is out of the question for it to go up…sure anything is possible over the short term, but my point is the situation is unsustainable. If we have people involved in this process who are always going to be pissed when there’s any cutting at all, nevermind where it is, then this whole “negotiation” ritual is a rather empty one isn’t it? That is, unless a real leader emerges who has the stones to tell one side — preferably, the spend-more crowd — “nope, not gonna work that way, and if you wanna get mad then you just go ahead and get as mad as you want.”

And I think these “don’t cut anything,” advocates of generally higher spending, are out there. I think they have overlap with the inner circle of key players. I think an important part of liberalism right now, is to say “Yes. More spending. Higher taxes. We want taxes to go up, and spending to go up — and we don’t care what the spending is — until such a time as it is utterly futile to try to provide for your own interests through your own efforts in this country.” In fact, I expect to come under the quite righteous and accurate critique that this is just pointing out the obvious…

Well, if that’s your position you’ve a right to it. You even have the right to try to seek some influence — and, unfortunately, to achieve that influence if you can.

But I think if such a movement exists, it should be fully exposed. Seeing as how its continued existence is fundamentally incompatible with the country’s.

Too much to ask maybe?

The GOP erred badly by not just addressing the cost of government but the scope. They should have had Ron Paul craft their proposal and then any concessions they made would seem like they were at least trying.

Starting from 100B against however many trillions is starting way too close to where your opponent wants to be.

They should be pimping the 10th Amendment over and over too but they won’t. Things change very quickly in politics and can change dramatically but I really don’t see anyone entering the GOP field that is willing to be the polar opposite to Obama.
- Duffy | 04/13/2011 @ 08:33
The problem is, in politics you never make an enemy you don’t have to make. So to get any kind of movement going on Ron Paul’s philosophy is going to be like building a castle out of dry sand. The libertarian small-government model runs into this problem rather frequently, I notice. Doesn’t mean it’s the wrong way to go, or that it can’t get done over time. But I’m afraid it does mean some compromise is in order.

I like your comment about scope versus cost. Another showdown is sure to happen later this year. I wonder what the prospects are of saying, “in looking for things to trim, we will start with what programs have wandered furthest afield from the Constitution” and work toward the desired $100B, $200B, whatever? Would that make too many enemies to get off the ground?

I’m looking for the pet-project people, the ones who say “cut whatever you want just don’t cut mine,” to be forced into the game of don’t-need-to-outrun-the-bear-I-just-need-to-outrun-my-buddy. It seems to me this must be part of their natural character. Any hope for success there?
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2011 @ 09:12
I think the only way to get traction on that type of idea is to expose how ridiculous some of these pet projects are… and the only way to do that is to publicize them in non-media channels. Remember the “bridge to nowhere?” The media was all over that one — and rightfully so — but only because it nailed a vulnerable Republican in a crucial election year. There are about ten thousand “bridges to nowhere” cluttering up West Virginia, all of them named after Robert Byrd and most of them connecting things like the Robert Byrd Sewage Lifter to the Robert Byrd Memorial Thru-Hole.

A few simple facts could go a long way if properly publicized. For instance, even lots of “green’ organizations now acknowledge that ethanol actually causes more pollution than it “saves”… but nobody here in the Midwest is ever gonna vote against it, even though it’d save us billions in useless subsidies every year. Heck, we could even do a little Barack-style demagoguery on ’em — why are working-class Midwesterners suffering at the gas pump to line the pockets of Monsanto fat cats? Etc. Shame ’em, is what I’m getting at.
- Severian | 04/13/2011 @ 10:26
Play their game, eh? Well, I’m for it in general but not to the point of being dishonest. Not saying the Monsanto fat cat thing is dishonest. But they don’t seem to care about honesty at all. I do.

The Robert Byrd Through-Hole? Must be where the sewage originates.

Anyway, how about this. Cut the federal budget 5% every year for the next 10 years. Don’t start with the programs, start with “we’ve got 5% less money to spend this year than we had last year, and no more. Now. Where will we spend this money we’ve been allocated?

No cutting program A and re-funding it next year. No mandating states take over the programs and fund them.

After 9 years Federal spending should be cut down to 61.4% of today’s. So that tenth year I’ll be generous and say they only have to cut 1.4% leaving us at a pretty even 60% of “today’s” spending.

Oh, and you HAVE to keep paying on the debt. Significantly. Matter of fact, let’s just say this. In addition to the amount budgeted to pay down the debt, the money you “saved” goes toward the debt, too. Just for good measure.

At that point we’re in a position to rationally discuss where to go from there. We’d have, what, a 2.3 trillion dollar spending cap at that point as opposed to this year’s 3.83 T.

Notice I didn’t say to get rid of Social Security. But any such money you collect stays in a real fund, and you phase younger people into private retirement accounts until the last social security beneficiary dies.

That puts federal spending about 16% of today’s GDP. From that point on, tie the Federal Budget to GDP. And don’t forget to save for a rainy day.

See, I don’t want old ladies to die and puppies to drown.
- philmon | 04/13/2011 @ 19:42
Obama was elected in a nomination series where he won the caucuses and Hillary won the open primaries. She had electoral magnetism he had personal charm.
- phillips1938 | 04/14/2011 @ 14:27

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

More Spending, Higher Taxes!Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

More Spending, Higher Taxes!
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011