Posted by JM Ashby
Republicans are currently engaged in a game of who-can-appear-to-be-the-biggest-deficit-hawk in front of TV cameras, but they're not really going after big ticket items. They're going after living assistance to the poor, groups liked Planed Parenthood, and funding for national institutions such as PBS and NPR. All of these targets combined really do not add up to much given the size of the entire budget.
The un-serious nature of these cuts combined with the fact that the Department of Defense will emerge relatively unscathed in any budget that ends up passing really dulls the credibility of so-called fiscal hawks in the eyes of everyone other than the beltway media. Paul Krugman explains precisely why the entire debate has become fraudulent:
The whole budget debate, then, is a sham. House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks.
What would a serious approach to our fiscal problems involve? I can summarize it in seven words: health care, health care, health care, revenue.
Notice that I said “health care,” not “entitlements.” People in Washington often talk as if there were a program called Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid, then focus on things like raising the retirement age. But that’s more anti-Willie Suttonism. Long-run projections suggest that spending on the major entitlement programs will rise sharply over the decades ahead, but the great bulk of that rise will come from the health insurance programs, not Social Security.
The giant elephant in the room not only in the national budget debate, but in state budget debates as well, is of course reduced revenue. And despite the Republican's claim to being the champions of the fiscally-responsible among us, those sentiments are completely voided by the belt-busting deficit created by giving away cash in the form of tax-cuts to people who do not need it, will not spend it, and will not invest it.Healthcare reform, on the other hand, will do more to reduce the deficit in the long-term than any other piece of legislation. Krugman continues:
What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.That’s why I say that Mr. Obama gets too little credit. He has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president. And if his opponents were serious about those deficits, they’d be backing his actions and calling for more; instead, they’ve been screaming about death panels.
They aren't serious though, so its likely that any budget that reaches the president's desk will either be instant-veto bait or completely inconsequential. I have a hunch that John of Orange will regret saying "read my lips" in addition to "so be it." I also agree with Rachel Maddow, John Boehner is very bad at his job.Government shutdown, here we come!