Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Dancing on the Super Committee's Grave, Singing Hallelujah

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 11/24/11

Become a Fan
  (4 fans)
- Advertisement -

The spectacle of Democrats and Republicans arguing about who is to "blame" for the "failure" of the "Supercommittee" is certainly tempting for many partisans. But any progressive who participates in the spectacle risks attacking their own interests to the degree that they promote the implicit assumption that the public interest would have been better served if the Super Committee had reached a deal.

We shouldn't be arguing about who is to "blame" for this development. We should be arguing about who should be awarded credit for this best-plausible-outcome.

We should, to borrow a phrase from Monty Python, be dancing on the Super Committee's grave, singing Hallelujah.

Who should get the Academy Award? The AFL-CIO? The Strengthen Social Security Campaign? The Tea Party? All of the above?

Indeed, it was a de facto coalition between the AFL-CIO and its friends and the Tea Party and its friends which again defeated the cruel plan of the extreme center to trade Social Security cuts and raising the Medicare retirement age for a relatively meaningless increase on the tax rates paid by rich people.

Why meaningless? Because tax rates raised today can easily be lowered in the future. Cutting Social Security benefits by changing the cost-of-living formula and raising the Medicare retirement age are forever.

- Advertisement -

From the point of view of the national aspirations of the indigenous people of the United States, what was the right price to charge for Manhattan Island? Surely the answer is: there was no right price. Cash is ephemeral. Control of territory could be forever.

Similarly, there is no amount of increasing taxes on rich people that can compensate low-income workers for cutting their Social Security benefits and taking away their access to Medicare.

It would be one thing if you could put the increased tax revenues from the rich people in a special fund that could only be used to benefit low-income workers. Even then, it wouldn't make sense, but at least in theory, there's a point at which you could equalize.

But of course, you can't do that. More than half of the increased revenues would go to feed the Pentagon monster, protecting the largest centrally planned economy on earth from cuts to its bloat that are long overdue. And moreover, that bloat isn't just a waste of taxpayer money. To the extent that the bloat supports the far-flung imperial ambitions of the neocon wing of the foreign policy elite, that bloat actually threatens the physical well-being of Americans, because the bigger the military is, the more neocon wars we will have. Furthermore, since military spending is the least efficient form of government spending from the point of view of job creation, if we have to cut somewhere during a period of high unemployment, then the military is the best place to cut.

Indeed, the "horrible consequence" which was supposedly the big incentive for the Supercommittee to reach a deal was that if they didn't, it would trigger half a trillion dollars in cuts in projected Pentagon spending over 10 years -- about a 15% cut. That would take Pentagon spending back to 2007 levels -- hardly a shutdown of the military-industrial complex. More like an overdue haircut.

Now that the trigger is supposed to take place, expect even more whining and special pleading from those who get fat off Pentagon contracts at taxpayer expense.

However, these people have now been beaten twice in the last year: once when the Budget Control Act passed, and once when the Supercommittee failed to reach agreement. The "revealed preference" of Congress so far is this: there is no majority coalition in Congress which prefers cutting Social Security benefits, raising the Medicare retirement age and increasing taxes on rich people to cutting the projected Pentagon budget by 15% over 10 years.

That's a fact to be celebrated -- and defended -- not mourned.

Cross-posted from Just Foreign Policy

 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Does AIPAC want war?

An Anti-War Candidate Announces for President

Kucinich to Introduce Gaza Ceasefire Resolution - Who Will Co-sponsor?

Reset: Stephen Kinzer's Vision of a New U.S. Relationship with Turkey and Iran

Amnesty vs. AIPAC: Senate to Consider AIPAC Resolution Endorsing War in Gaza

The New York Times misleading public on Iran

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I love your words ..."there is no majority coaliti... by Theresa Paulfranz on Friday, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:31:51 AM
Wasn't the deal that if the Super-Committee failed... by Ian MacLeod on Sunday, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:18:24 AM
" Last June, Vice President Biden agreed to $500 b... by Ian MacLeod on Sunday, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:26:20 AM
"Last June, Vice President Biden agreed to $500 bi... by Ian MacLeod on Sunday, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:29:29 AM