Focused Read in 3 minutes
⬇
(04.02.18 12:50 PM ET)
When they return from
recess, Congressional Republicans will reportedly vote on
a balanced-budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution—a
law requiring that annual spending not exceed annual tax revenue.
A
BBA requires two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate,
not to mention ratification by three-fourths of the states, so it’s
highly unlikely to be legislated. But even though it is unlikely to
pass, it represents a huge and present threat to those of us who
recognize the need for an amply funded government. Here’s
why.
Republican fiscal strategy
has three goals:
1) cut taxes, especially for their wealthy donor
base;
2) keep up the charade that they’re fiscally responsible; and
above all,
3) significantly cut the social insurance programs that
comprise the lion’s share of the government’s mandatory
spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP (food
stamps).
(Emphasis is mine.)
They’ve achieved goal
No. 1, though they’re predictably talking about going back to that
well. Doing so raises the stakes for goal No. 2, which is where the
BBA comes in. As for No. 3, both actions—tax cuts and the pursuit
of the BBA—are key parts of attaining that goal, as I’ll explain.
(Or, it's all connected ⬅ brief summary is mine.)
But first, let us count
the ways in which the BBA is a terrible idea.
One of the most
important attributes of federal fiscal policy, especially in periods
of economic weakness, is the ability for the federal government to
spend more than it takes in.
Consider the way unemployment insurance
or nutritional support ramps up when the economy ramps down. Such...fiscal policy would be disallowed under a BBA.
The ability to run larger
deficits in weak economies is an especially valuable fiscal tool when
you consider that states must balance their budgets.
In the depths of
the Great Recession, when I was working for the Obama administration
and tracking the impact of our anti-recessionary measures, I vividly
recall how states were forced to cut spending and lay off workers,
which exacerbated the downturn.
State fiscal relief—resources that
quickly flowed to the states from the feds—turned out to be among
the most potent policies we implemented.
Simply put, during a
recession, the ship of state is taking on water and the only guy with
a bucket is Uncle Sam. A BBA would take away this bucket too.
But it gets even worse.
Under a BBA, as budget analyst Richard Kogan points out in a must
read recent analysis, Social Security and Medicare benefits
could not be paid out of their trust funds unless the government
accounts are in surplus, a rare occurrence...because outlays
in a given year, from whatever source, cannot exceed tax receipts.
Nor, as Kogan stresses, could the government offset a financial
collapse or the loss of bank deposits or guaranteed private pensions,
even though both are insured by government agencies with reserves on
hand.
The amendment does build
in a waiver process, for, potentially, these types of developments.
But waiving the BBA calls for a supermajority in both chambers, and I
do not for a moment trust Congress to act quickly, if at all, when
deficit spending is needed to avoid unnecessary economic pain. ...
You might be asking: How
can the same group that just recently voted for trillions of dollars
in a deficit-financed tax cut now call for a BBA?
(Emphasis is mine.)
Easy. They’re not real
deficit hawks.
They’re deficit chicken hawks.
The BBA is largely a
show vote, much like the dozens they took on repealing Obamacare.
It’s a signal to constituents that they truly do long to cease
their fiscal recklessness, but simply can’t because those
profligate BBA opponents refuse to provide them with the only thing
that will stop their endless deficit spending:
the fiscal handcuffs
of a BBA.
But it’s not just for
show. Consider...They
haven’t even been able to cut their primary targets...Medicaid or SNAP.
So, instead of directly legislating such cuts,
they’re trying to come around the back, by starving the government
of revenues while touting the virtues of balanced budgets.
It’s a simple recipe:
aggressively reduce taxes—especially for the wealthy—while
ensuring that tax increases can never be entertained, thus resulting
in rising deficits.
Then, rend your garments in despair and shout
about the need for balanced budgets (while ignoring that your phony
growth predictions once again failed to materialize).
And since
you’ve taken new revenues off the table, there’s only one way to
get there:
Shrink the government.
(Emphasis is mine.)
How’s that working out?
Actually, not so well. For this year and next year, the tax law adds
over $400 billion to the deficit, about two percent of GDP. But the
spending deal passed last month adds over another percentage point
(about $250 billion).
In other words, the plot
to cut spending isn’t working. And that’s where the BBA comes in.
The Republican Party’s message—"we can’t stop spending
without it!”—is true.
In fact, it’s worse: “who’s up for
tax cuts, round two?!”
And this, I fear, is where
we’re stuck for the foreseeable fiscal future.
... It is extremely likely
that we’ll head into the next downturn with higher deficits and
debt than in any recession since the 1940s (when WWII inflated the
national debt). ... "
You
can read more here
Focused Thought in 30 seconds
Focused Action in 30 seconds
You can share the Center's TIMELY Tweet here
( If you'd like to comment directly on:
"Don't let the Trump Administration cut food for people who have lost their jobs" you can go straight to the comments section here )
( Courtesy of Feeding America )
Focused Point of Interest
in 3 minutes
⬇
The GOP is desperately seeking to build a wall around its power, fearing its imminent erosion as a host of forces—demographic, cultural, and political—come barreling its way.
The Republican Party is building a wall. Not the one Donald Trump promised his supporters Mexico would pay for...
The GOP is desperately seeking to build a wall around its power, fearing its imminent erosion as a host of forces—demographic, cultural, and political—come barreling its way.
Last week’s historic March for Our Lives was a watershed moment. For more than four hours on a Saturday afternoon, the nation’s gaze was fixed on a group of teenaged heroes and heroines, led by the iconic girl from Parkland, Florida ...
... And as they have fearlessly swept aside the tired American stasis on gun reform they have brought with them an army of fellow young activists from around the country ...
(Emphasis is mine.)
By taking the power of their suffering, and frankly of their young, affluent, articulate whiteness, and metastasizing it to youth of color from urban centers and to the oldest of the Sandy Hook kids, some now in high school and three of whom spoke at the rally, and to Black Lives Matter (who amazingly, are now their elders), the Parkland kids are doing what white college students in the 1960s did for SNCC when they answered Bob Moses’ call and forced the media and the world to refocus its attention on civil rights by getting on those buses to face firebombing and murder with black students and local activists;
and what white ministers did when they answered Dr. King and John Lewis’ call to face the dogs and batons of white sheriffs alongside black marchers on the Edmund Pettus bridge.
In so doing, these young activists are shaking the foundations of America’s gun culture, sending the right wing into a full-fledged panic, and bringing the NRA to its knees.
... To try and stem the accelerating tide toward gun reform, the NRA and its media apparatchiks have deployed gutter tactics, smearing the Parkland teens, trying to bully them and lying about them, and when that doesn’t work, whining that they are somehow “not allowed” to criticize them. It’s an admission of weakness that the kids can see, and that is prompting them to drive the stake in deeper.
Republicans are also desperate to stem another tide that was visible in the patina of last Saturday’s march. The multiracial future isn’t coming, it’s here.
... In response, some Republicans are throwing out democracy itself in an all-out bid to cling to power.
... Other Republicans, led by the president of the United States, are seeking the South African solution to their coming super-minority status.
... All over America, you can almost feel the sense of panic. The Republican Party...is fighting to maintain control of a country that will soon be majority non-white, that is already majority urban, and that is increasingly secular.
Rather than seek an accommodation with the future, they are laying the groundwork for minority rule.
(Emphasis is mine.)
... They’re hoarding wealth.
The Republican tax cut rammed through by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell blatantly seized a trillion dollars from the treasury and handed it over to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations. The resulting deficits are being used as the excuse to push for a balanced budget amendment that would decimate spending on the working class and on the poor, who many in the GOP base perceive as almost solely black, brown and immigrant.
... With Trump in office, Republican religious leaders are living openly as power and wealth-grabbing Pharisees...
... And the right’s greatest villains, from...serial pedophile Roy Moore to criminal ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio to coal magnate Don Blankenship, who went to prison for overseeing the deaths of his own miners...are boldly seeking direct rule over their credulous victims through election to the United States Senate.
... Against the increasingly authoritarian and morally shallow backdrop of Trumpism, the Republican Party is scrambling to find ways to stifle the democratic process before November, spewing at its cultural opponents and rushing to erect an American feudalism that locks in the plutocratic status quo...building a wall...a wall that could wind up closing them in.
In case you missed this don't miss March 30th article. You can read it in full here
.
.
.
→ Direct sources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
The Democratic Party Website
Also
C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))
→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists
in alphabetical order...
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
→ Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
( 📎 Interesting to note: Wallace, a former Republican (or an inactive Republican I believe she calls herself) is new to the job but for right now she has clearly put country over party and her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO... )
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
📎 Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area. And, unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees winning in general elections.
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
Eleanor Roosevelt with female reporters
at her first White House press conference
on March 6, 1933.
“ … At first Eleanor Roosevelt adhered to her own...political topics. She told about her daily schedules, discussed the prints on the White House Walls, and shared low-cost menus for Depression-era households. But reporters pressed the First Lady for more news on public policy, and the press conference sessions soon broadened their scope. As early as April 1933 Eleanor Roosevelt provided a political scoop; she announced that beer would be served in the White House once Prohibition ended. By the end of 1933, according to UP reporter Ruby Black, the First Lady had defended low cost housing, the subsistence homestead program, equal pay for equal work, old age pensions, and the minimum wage. “Tea Pouring Items Give Way to Big News,” Black declared. “No newspaperwoman could have asked for better luck,” reporter Bess Furman recalled. The First Lady, she wrote, “conducts classes on scores of subjects, always seeing beyond her immediate hearers to ‘the women of the country.’” … “ ( You can read more here )
( #its2018now )
*
Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
Vote411 here
*
Thank you for Focusing!
g., aka Focused Democrat
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment