David Sirota: (Not) getting serious about the deficit

[OhioChick]

February 12, 2010, 5:30AM
David Sirota

Last month, President Barack Obama proposed to freeze government spending on everything other than defense, veterans' benefits, homeland security, Medicare and Social Security. The New York Times reported that administration officials depicted the initiative as proof of the president's "seriousness about cutting the budget deficit."

Such spin may fly in Orwell's Oceania or Washington, D.C., but if you happen to live in the real world, basic arithmetic tells a far more accurate tale about what is "serious" and what is not.

The non-defense discretionary spending that Obama aims to reduce now totals $477 billion a year -- or just 14percent of the federal budget. Freezing this outlay would save $25 billion a year, or about 2 percent of the annual $1.4 trillion deficit.

Had this plan been part of a government-wide belt-tightening effort, the White House might have been able to call itself "serious about cutting the budget deficit" anywhere other than in a fantasy land. But the announcement came as Politico.com reported the administration was telling defense contractors of its commitment to "steady growth in the Pentagon's budgets" --budgets so distended by wars and outdated weapons systems that they now top $700 billion a year.

The good news is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she does "not think the entire defense budget should be exempted" from deficit-cutting initiatives, and rightly so. Short of eliminating every department in the non-defense discretionary budget (Education, Health and Human Services, Labor, to name just a few), she knows there's not enough money in that budget category to dent the deficit. She understands, in other words, that getting "serious" about deficit reduction means beginning the frank conversation about Pentagon bloat that the White House refuses to initiate.

That, of course, gets to the bad news about what Obama's budget freeze proposal is actually "serious" about reducing -- not deficits, but honest discussion.


More: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/02/not_getting_serious_about_the.html

[Cant trust em]

1. I'm happy about looking towards saving some money, even if it isn't "serious"

It just depends on what is getting frozen or cut. I know that there are some programs that could use a budget trim. The defense department should be one of those though.

[ihavenobias]

2. # 5. n/t

[Moostache]

3. Screw ANY freezing that does not START with military spending.

Want to save money? End ALL involvement in Iraq.
Want to save MORE money? Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Yesterday.

I am so sick and tired of milquetoast so-called 'plans' and budget hawks who want to gut social programs and spending, but are perfectly OK with hemorrhaging money on bombs, tanks and bullets to kill people in other nations so that our corporations can loot the remaining natural resources found there.

You want a balanced budget? This is NOT a hard issue. Tax rates return to the levels of Ronald Reagan's first term. Defense spending on new weapons systems is slashed by 50%, bringing us all the way down to....#1 spender in the world by a factor of 5 instead of 10! Base closings start overseas and eliminate 75% of the current bases, including 100% removal of combat personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan before December 31, 2010. In addition, corporations that make money in the US will pay taxes at the rates of individuals, since they are 'people', they will pay the highest income bracket rates. If they do not like that, then tough shit! Declare themselves non-personal entities and forgo all rights and privileges granted to persons and we can negotiate a fair corporate tax rate based on the taxes paid in all G8 countries as an average starting point.

Will ANY of that happen? Ha! I am more likely to win the lottery in consecutive weeks than see ANY of that enacted in my lifetime. And yet, there it is - a ready-made 'solution' to the budget crisis. One that does not further dissolve the social safety net or social contract of this nation. One that simply tells those who have much that they are beneficiaries of a system that must be paid for in order to be preserved beyond the next 5 years. The second that our government decides to throw more of its least fortunate citizens under the rich man's bus, is the exact second that non-violent, non-cooperation with the system is validated. Take away still more from those who have so little? What have we become in America that our DEMOCRATIC president thinks its not only OK but politically expedient?????

It is also a fundamental recognition that the right-wing, so-called 'free' market ideologues are just as bat-shit crazy as Palin and Bachmann. We have TRIED their way - for the better part of a generation now - and the results are all around us. Enough is enough. When your 'plan' calls for creating additional hardships for the bottom 99% of the country just to preserve the wealth stolen by the top 1%, then it is truly pathetic.

[Stevepol]

4. Amen