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

Ashraf Ghani is an Anthropologist

Ashraf Ghani—the now deposed president of Afghanistan—holds a PhD in anthropology (Columbia '83).  In addition, prior to moving to the World Bank in 1991, he was a professor of anthropology at Johns Hopkins.   There is evidence—from his academic publications in the 1980s and from what folks who “knew-him-when” say—that Ghani once thought and taught valuable anthropology grounded in both the lived experience of ordinary persons and democratic social theory.  And here it ’ s worth recalling that the Hopkins department of his time was rightly recognized as distinctly on the left and opposed to US neo-imperialism, having been founded and led by Sidney Mintz .  I myself found no such evidence of a democratic and anthropological consciousness the  one time I interacted with him, which was during his years at the World Bank.  The occasion was an annual meeting of the Society for Cultural Anthropology; Ghani was the keynote speaker, and I was serving, at the t...
Post a Comment
Read more

SECULAR STUDIES IN THE NY TIMES AND HERE AT PITZER

Back on May 7th, the headline in the NY Times read: "Pitzer College in California Adds Major in Secularism." The problem is that this headline was simply false.  No major was proposed; and none was approved. The NY Times article also reported the founding of a "department of secular studies" at Pitzer College (along with the major).  The truth or falsity of this second claim is more complex than the claim about the major--but this claim too is largely misleading.   To start, Pitzer prides itself on not having any "departments."  The closest analog to "departments" at Pitzer are odd beasts known as "Field Groups," and these "Field Groups" come in two kinds at the College.  The kind that is most like a department at other colleges are known as "Type A" field groups; there are also "Type B" field groups (which I will explain in a moment).  And the grain of truth in the NY Times story was that Pitzer Colle...
9 comments
Read more