Why No GOP Budget Proposal Can Be Taken Seriously

March 21st, 2012

Ezra Klein lays it out flat and explains why they are all so mercenary:

"The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.

The Republican plans we've seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn't affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.

The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren't available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice."

That's it, in a nutshell.

"Taxes are too high" in spite of being at a 60 year low.

"Defense spending is too low" in spite of being at its highest level since World War II and consuming nearly 54 cents of every weapons dollar spent globally per year.

Gutting Medicare and Social Security won't provide rapid savings so the poorest Americans will just have to pay for pretty much everything.

Lastly, the deficit has to be slashed immediately by implementing all of the above... which will guarantee higher deficits.

That we are in a position where we have to address these proposals with any seriousness whatsoever boggles.

The War On The Poor, cont...

Dec 9th, 2011

Earlier this week, the NYTimes noted another way the government might just stick it to the most vulnerable next year:

"The draft version of the Section 8 Savings Act released earlier this year by the majority staff of the House Financial Services Committeeincludes several excellent proposals that would cut administrative costs for public housing authorities, allowing them to more efficiently manage the programs that subsidize rents for more than three million of the country’s poorest families. But one damaging provision that crept into the draft would undo all of that good.

The provision would allow housing programs to raise rents on nearly 700,000 of the households that receive federal rent assistance, most by a minimum of $300 a year, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. This would be a severe and unjustifiable burden for these extremely poor families, the majority of whom subsist on less than $3,000 per year. The report argues that higher rents would force some poor families to divert resources from basic needs like food, clothing and medicine. Others would be unable to cover the new costs forcing them to double up with relatives, move into shelters or into the streets."

Add this to the increasingly likely expiration of current payroll tax rates and a probable failure to extend UI benefits and what we have is the makings of something much worse than a mere double dip recession.

The Continuing Re-Definition of "Speech"

Nov 13th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker

As an American smoker who has also spent time in Europe and in Canada, the concept of dramatically more discouraging messaging on cigarette packages is not alien to me. In fact, it makes a great deal of sense. The labeling that was supposed to begin accompanying American tobacco products, in much the same way that these other countries have demanded, is now in limbo due to the amazing logic of one American judge.