Skip to main content

The Un-Noted, or The Policy Option Progressives Should Put on the Table in the Debt Ceiling Debacle

David Leonard, in today's NY Times, has a deceptively straight-forward piece about the debate over the debt ceiling, in which he states that the US cannot (i) maintain its social welfare programs, (ii) continue to have the world's biggest military, and (iii) also have distinctly low rates of taxation.  Something among those three, he tells us, has to give.


What's important about Leonard's essay is that he recognizes that there is a trade-off among these three elements--military spending, social welfare spending, and taxation--and not just the latter two.


By contrast, the negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders in recent weeks, and the public debate as well, have proceeded as if the trade-off is only between social welfare spending and taxation--with there being almost no mention of military spending.


Thus, even as Democrats in Congress have protested against any cuts in social security and medicaire as part of a deficit reduction plan, they have failed to put cuts in military-spending on the table.  They have failed, in short, to argue that we can and should reduce the deficit by shrinking the United States's over-sized military.  That--along with a more progressive tax system--is what progressives should be championing as the path forward.


That substantial cuts to the military budget have not even been on the table in these negotiations reminds us again how sacrosanct U.S. militarism has become--and how frightened Democrats are of ever appearing insufficiently hawkish. 
Labels:

Comments

  1. WRDJuly 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM

    Defense isn't driving our projected deficits...health spending is:

    http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/new-federal-budget-charts-with-latest-cbo-data/

    Cutting defense will produce savings but will not solve the problem. (Note: Defense is included in the "other non-interest" category)

    Not that defense should be immune to cuts. Implying defense cuts solve the problem, however, is misleading.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Response to the Pitzer Administration's "Statement on Ukraine"

On Tuesday, March 15, Pitzer's president and vice-president for academic affairs co-signed a statement of support for, and solidarity with, Ukrainians .  That statement ended with this comment: " We stand with Ukrainians who are demonstrating tremendous bravery, resilience, unity, and courage as they defend their homeland."   What's tragic and disturbing is that this valuable statement against state oppression when Ukrainians are the victims entirely contradicts the administration's opposition to taking a stand against state oppression when Palestinians are the victims.   The recent "Statement on Ukraine" evidences jarring dissonence when read next to  this statement of March 14, 2019 , when the same Pitzer president issued an unprecedented veto of shared governance, in order to block the Pitzer community's taking a stand against Israeli state apartheid and ethnic cleansing.   What follows is my public response to the administration's recent ...
5 comments
Read more

follow up on "The Debt Ceiling Deal and Progressives"

The composition of the bipartisan Debt Ceiling Panel bodes ill for there being serious cuts in the U.S. military budget as part of any "second phase" deal to reduce the U.S. deficit.  Put simply, the states with large military contractors are fully, if not overly, represented on the Panel.   Of particular note on the Democratic side is Senator Patty Murray of Washington.   Progressive commentators have generally responded favorably to her appointment (and conservative voices have singled it out for criticism), but Boeing is a major employer in Washington (with some 30,000 workers in the state) and its PAC is a major source of campaign funds for Murray.  Almost certainly, for example, the cuts in military spending that would be triggered if the panel reaches no compromise would hit, and perhaps eliminate, the 35 billion dollar contract awarded to Boeing this past February ...
2 comments
Read more

Occupy Wall Street & "We are the 99%"

One of the few things that seems certain about "Occupy Wall Street" and related protests is that these are the most positive and hopeful political events in the United States at this time.  Beyond that, I find myself curious and uncertain. I do believe, however, that those of us who embrace these protests should be thinking and talking about how to make them better--or more precisely, how it might be possible to build on them to foster a robust social justice movement in our time.  Such a social justice movement would work to build a society--indeed, a world--in which the pursuit of profts and pursuit of economic growth (as measured in GDP or other monetary terms) are subordinated to insuring universal access to high quality health care, high quality education, and food security. In terms of thinking and talking about how to build on the Occupy protests with this g...
7 comments
Read more