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

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

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

It Was Inevitable...An Entirely Predictable (Entirely Dishonest) Zionist Attack

Exactly as if it had been read by a hasbara bot, my Academe piece, " Not All Is Well That Ends Well ," which championed academic freedom, was swiftly greeted by a smear of "hypocrisy" on the misinformed and erroneous grounds that my support for the Palestinian BDS movement is inconsistent with support for academic freedom. Here is the attack , from--I am told--a "very famous" legal scholar, Steven Lubet  of Northwestern Law School. And here is my response , graciously published on the same website that published Lubet's attack piece. It is worth noting that Professor Lubet previously published a hit job in The Chicago Tribune against  Steven Salaita . We might think of someone like Lubet as the pseudo-intellectual arm of and cover for the Canary Mission.  And as I wrote to him in an email, the smears he and others of his ilk make against BDS and its advocates are responsible, in turn, for fostering the sort of democracy-crushing laws discussed in this...
1 comment
Read more