Dear Mr. Gregory,
Count me among the few who thought you did a serviceable job last night (possibly because I missed the first and last parts). But, your questions about Simpson-Bowles and the all-but-explicit assumption that the recommendations are reasonable and balanced and ought to be embraced by both sides seriously distorts our national debate.
Without getting into the technical difficulties of Simpson-Bowles (it’s really a soft framework that wrestles with none of the difficult questions), it is a flawed framework and completely fails to address the most pressing problems of our day: unemployment and weak aggregate demand. As one of the “serious” folk, you seem to take particular delight in acknowledging the need for “painful” cuts ($3 trillion!) to the point of fetish. But, with 8% unemployment and month-after-month public sector job loss, what’s the point of further cuts that will inevitably lead to more job loss? The economy is stalled, and you want to take more money of the hands of those most likely to spend it: recipients of government aid. It’s almost criminal that someone in your position doesn’t understand or so discounts the argument for counter-cyclical spending that you don’t make stimulus part of the conversation. Instead of asking, “Isn’t $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in new revenue reasonable and balanced?” you should be asking, “In a prolonged period of economic stagnation, wouldn’t another $1 trillion in new spending on transit, new roads, new schools, municipal aid for cops, fire fighters, and teachers be reasonable and necessary?”
Yes, at some point the economy will rebound. And, at that point, we will need to address the deficit. With any luck, “serious” folk will have moved beyond Simpson-Bowles and, instead of embracing the “pain” of a right/center-right compromise (I mean, come on, in what universe is $3 trillion in cuts v. $1 trillion in new revenue balanced?), will embrace a model that focuses on containing healthcare and defense spending and asking the most fortunate to do their patriotic duty to aid the least.
In the meantime, perhaps a little more attention to the pain that matters: persistent unemployment and stagnating wages.
How can anyone think that the cuts are unfair to working Americans? They’re both Democrats, and Democrats would never embrace a plan that creates more joblessness, homelessness, and hunger, right?
Mr. Roche, I suggest that you get with the program. S-B’s call for an eventual 22% cut in the average Social Security recipient’s benefits that is the least we can do to free up more cash for the Job Creators. It’ll certainly create jobs, jobs, jobs in the catfood industry, no?
that this obsession with reducing the deficit when the economy is still in a de-facto recession is counter-productive. As I’ve noted before, it’s as if someone has been brought in to the emergency room with life-threatening gunshot wounds, and the doctors tell him, “we can’t do anything for you until you go on a diet.”
Shame on the President for not embracing “his” commission’s findings and shame on our leaders for running away from a very balanced approach to solving our fiscal situation.
Let me quote Bill Clinton from last week on Face the Nation.
and
A part of me would love Republicans to agree to raise taxes on the 1% who already pay so much of our tax responsibility. It would be good to sit at the table and say “OK, we raised their taxes and the deficit is still Brobdingnag… now what?”
It presumes that tackling the deficit is a worthwhile goal. I disagree. I am a staunch New Dealer in times like these. I say, spend, spend, spend until our economy is back on it’s feet.