SO LET'S RETURN TO THE Times budget puzzle this series began with.
In the previous post, I outlined three strategies for dealing with the deficit and the recession simultaneously:
- Stop investing in big wealth, and start investing in the nation as a whole.
- Stop over-investing in military might.
- Make sure there's enough cash flow at the bottom of the economy to keep it moving.
Just to be clear: this is not an anti-rich person approach.
The problem is not people, rich or poor, but too much wealth and income being sucked out of the system at the top, and too little wealth and income going to the working people where it can help them to work more productively, support their families better, earn money for the wealthy, and do the spending which keeps the economy going.
And, of course, all of that is good for business in general, and for rich people in the long run.
How do these strategies play out, in terms of the choices on the Times budget puzzle?
Let's take a look at them, one at a time:
- I refused to cut foreign aid in half. (Savings: $0)
Foreign aid is not only a moral issue, and in line with who we are as a country, but it's also a way to build bridges to other nations.
The better relationships we have with other nations, the less we need to use our military—which is a much more costly proposal, and leaves us less safe. - I didn't eliminated earmarks. (Savings: $0)
Earmarks have been over-criticized, both in terms of their effect on the budget and their appropriateness.
Basically, they are a way to get money back to the state level, often where it can produce jobs.
They can be used for good or used corruptly, but don't represent enough money for us to worry about here. - I eliminated farm subsidies. (Savings: $14 Billion)
They distort the free market and mostly go to big agri-business, making it easier for the big guys to drive out the small farmers.
(A better approach might be to cut them back, while making sure the subsidies go to the little guys who are losing their farms, but we're working with choices the Times puzzle gave us.) - I refused to cut the pay of civilian federal workers. (Savings: $0)
Very few of them are in the top 2%.
Conservatives have been playing one middle class group off against another for too long—we should stop falling for it.
The problem isn't that the particular government worker makes more that a worker in the private sector—even if that were true, which is questionable when you look at it closely.
The problem is that everyone else isn't making enough.
Federal workers are mostly middle class or poor, and their money is needed in the economy.
So let's not cut off our noses to spite our face. - I refused to reduce the federal workforce by 10%. (Savings: $0)
Same reasoning.
It's penalizing the little guys so we can give tax cuts and subsidies to the big guys.
It's cutting money and jobs to the middle class and the poor, when we're in the middle of a recession, and need both the jobs and the spending they'll create.
In the next installment:
Some More Examples...
