News

Opinion: Deficit Reduction Requires Shared Sacrifice

Comments (2)
Thursday, June 02, 2011

At a time when this country faces a $14 trillion national debt and a huge deficit, Congress must aggressively move toward deficit reduction. However, as we do so, we must be mindful of what caused the deficit in the first place, and make certain that the solution to this crisis includes shared sacrifice—not simply slashing programs which are of enormous importance to working families, the elderly, the sick, children and the most vulnerable members of our society.

Our national debt was built up over the last 10 years because of two wars, tax breaks for the rich, the Wall Street bailout and a prescription drug program. All unpaid for! The deficit also soared as a result of declining tax revenues during a recession brought on by the greed and illegal behavior of Wall Street.

Further, the debate over deficit reduction comes at an unusual moment in American economic history. While the middle class is in rapid decline and poverty is increasing, the gap between the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider. In fact, over the last several decades almost all new income created in this country has gone to the top 1 percent, who now earn more than the bottom 50 percent. In addition, the United States now has the most unequal distribution of wealth of any major country, with the top 400 individuals owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million.

Given the reality of record-breaking corporate profits and the increasing wealth of the people on top, it should surprise no one that poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans want the deficit to be addressed through shared sacrifice. ??They believe that all sectors of our society should take a hit in order to help us with deficit reduction, not just the weak and vulnerable. Unfortunately, the Republicans have given us an extreme, one-sided budget which makes devastating cuts to programs that tens of millions of Americans depend upon, while asking nothing from the wealthy and large corporations.

The House-passed budget would end Medicare as we know it by giving senior citizens inadequate vouchers to buy health insurance from private companies. Seniors would, on average, see their out-of-pocket expenses double. It would also cut, over 10 years, $770 billion from Medicaid, vastly increasing the number of uninsured Americans, and threatening the long-term care of the elderly who live in nursing homes.?

It also would make savage cuts in education, nutrition, affordable housing, infrastructure, environmental protection and virtually every program that low- and moderate-income Americans depend upon. With all the focus on spending cuts, however, the Republican budget does nothing to reduce unnecessary military spending at a time when defense outlays have more than tripled since 1997 and now consume more than half of the discretionary budget.

And here's the kicker. The House Republican budget does not ask the wealthiest people in this country, whose tax rates are now the lowest on record, to contribute one dime more for deficit reduction. Nor does it propose to do away with any of the loopholes that enable extremely profitable corporations to pay little or no federal income taxes. Quite the contrary! The Republican budget actually provides $1 trillion more in tax breaks over the next 10 years for the very rich.

The Republican House budget is the most radical right-wing extremist budget ever passed in the modern history of our country, and the more the American people learn about it the more they are rejecting it.

The question now arises: Where are the Democrats? Where is President Obama?

Will the president remain strong in his demand that any deficit reduction agreement end Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy? Will he really fight to eliminate corporate tax loopholes? Will he end the absurd policies which allow the rich and large corporations to avoid paying tens of billions in taxes by establishing phony addresses in off-shore tax havens?

As Vermont's senator and a member of the Budget Committee, I will not support a plan to reduce the deficit that does not call for shared sacrifice. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction plan must come from increased revenue from the wealthy and large corporations.

Instead of ending Medicare as we know it and making savage cuts to community health centers and children's health care programs, we must ask the top 2 percent of income earners, who currently pay the lowest upper-income tax rate on record, to start paying their fair share of taxes. Instead of making it harder for working families to send their kids to college, we must end the foreign tax shelters that enable the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying tens of billions in U.S. taxes. Instead of making major cuts in job programs in infrastructure, public transportation and sustainable energy we must do away with a wide variety of loopholes that allow Wall Street executives, whose profits and compensation packages are soaring, to have a lower tax rate than middle-class workers.

The deficit crisis is real and must be addressed. But it cannot be solved on the backs of the weak and vulnerable. Every segment of our society, including those who have money and power, must contribute and must sacrifice.

Comments (2)
Post a Comment

Senate Democrats are way behind the times. They won’t advocate and vote on their own budget because they are afraid of the Tea Party. The New York Times complains that “a good plan by the committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, was deferred by Senate leaders, who feared that the plan’s tax increase on millionaires would make Democratic senators ripe targets for Tea Party attacks. … President Obama has not given the chamber much political cover, acting more as a high-level conciliator than a forceful advocate for increased revenues and against ideologically driven cuts.”

But the Tea Party is a spent force. They were never a big movement even when they received major boosts in the Murdoch-controlled media, with other media outlets following suit. Their role consisted in swinging independent voters in the 2010 elections with misleading propaganda. This did not mean these voters endorsed Republican policies of cutting welfare benefits to zero. They mostly made a protest vote against the Obama administration’s bailout of big banks and the super-rich with taxpayer dollars.

Now the tide has turned and the Republicans are frantically trying to negotiate the fallout from their own Ryan elder-impoverishment plan – despite having voted for it in both houses. Voters are turning away in droves from governors who are implementing Republican policy: Walker in Wisconsin, Kasich in Ohio, Scott in Florida and just about everywhere else. They are backing candidates like Kathy Hochul in NY 26 who pledge not to cut Medicare and Social Security.

According to Public Policy Polling, “Ohio voters are having some serious, serious buyer’s remorse about voting for Kasich. They now say if they could do it over again they’d vote for Ted Strickland by a 25 point margin over Kasich, 59/34. Our final poll before the election last fall, which hit the results on the head, found Kasich winning independents by 18 points. Now they say they would vote for Strickland by 16.”

But Senate Democrats are so removed from this changing mood that they are fighting the last elections – not the ones coming up. And it doesn’t help that the Obama administration is covertly squeezing Medicaid and telling the Supreme Court not to allow legal challenges to state cuts.

“ ‘I find it appalling that the solicitor general in a Democratic administration would assert in a Supreme Court brief that businesses can challenge state regulation under the supremacy clause, but that poor recipients of Medicaid cannot challenge state violations of federal law,’ said Prof. Timothy S. Jost, an expert on health law at Washington and Lee University, who is usually sympathetic to the administration.”

The Congressional Democrats have realized that campaigning against the Ryan plan is their key to electoral victory next year. However, they are viewing it purely opportunistically as a campaign tactic, and have not taken on board the growing social movement to hold the line on the social contract. When are we going to see some Democrats with the backbone of the Wisconsin 14 in the national Democratic Party and the Senate?

Posted by Caleb on 5.31.11 at 15:52

Most Democrats, including the President, don't have the backbone to challenge the ever more extreme Republican right. America needs an independent national third party filled with people like Bernie Sanders.

Posted by Joe Kaminski on 6.5.11 at 9:21
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Flight Fight
The FAA’s evolving drone policy is sure to induce outrage.
From Our Readers
Casinos Need Problem Gamblers; A Better World with Ryan
Berwick-Stricken
Don Berwick may have lost to Martha Coakley in the Democratic primary, but not without winning hearts and minds in Western Mass.
Between the Lines: Martha Coakley Remade
The Democrats’ choice for governor still needs to find her star power.
From Our Readers
Gun License Mathematics; The Gun Tribe; Torturers Go Unpunished
UCash
UMass works to turn academic research into useful products—and profit.
Between the Lines: The Birth of Ajax Montoya
Debut novelist Joe Gannon brings his memorable detective to life.
Thanks, Anonymous
A private UMass donation sends us on a fruitless quest.