The corporate media love bipartisanship. So the news that a “bipartisan” budget failed a vote in the House was something to be mourned.
Under the headline “Budget Plan’s Defeat Shows Hurdles to Compromise,” New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman (4/2/12) explains that this budget proposal modeled on the media-beloved Bowles/Simpson plan failed because “Washington’s conservative and liberal influence machines swung into action.” By that he seems to mean think tanks that were critical of the plan.
He adds:
The Bowles/Simpson deficit plan—named after the former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles and former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, the Republican who was chairman of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission—is regarded by the Washington cognoscenti as the compromise both sides will have to eventually accept before the end of the year.
Now what on Earth does that mean? The “cognoscenti”—the people with special knowledge—apparently would exclude an array of progressive economists and budget experts, who must know a lot less about these things than a former Republican senator (Simpson) and a Clinton Democrat with a lot of experience in Wall Street banking and finance.
So what’s not to love about Bowles/Simpson? As Extra! (1/11) pointed out:
Though emblematic of the “political center” for the Times, the duo’s proposal is actually remarkably regressive, cutting Social Security benefits for a median-income retiree by 22 percent (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11/16/10) while lowering effective tax rates for the wealthy below what they paid during the Clinton years. Economists like Krugman (New York Times, 11/12/10), Baker (New Republic, 11/11/10), James Galbraith (AlterNet, 9/10/10), Robert Kuttner (Huffington Post, 11/14/10), Robert Reich (Salon, 11/12/10) and Henry Aaron (Fiscal Times, 11/12/10) weighed in against the plan, describing it as slanted toward harsh spending cuts and unresponsive to the real problems of the economy.
For the record, the quote that followed the assertion in the Times about how all the smart people in Washington recognize the wisdom of the Bowles/Simpson approach comes from…Erskine Bowles! No other members of the “cognoscenti” weigh in.
Not enough room on the luxury liner Ship of State for everybody; some must be thrown overboard so as to protect the mutual admiration society of the political insiders.
It would be too disturbing an assault to the sensibilities of the power elite to have the overboard outcasts interfering with the vista of beautiful sunsets available to the privileged from the deck of the Ship of State. Being forced to view such futile struggles for life will just not be acceptable, nor will it be an aid to digestion.
The Multinational State must look to history for the means found by other states to eliminate such esthetically inconvenient improprieties in other nations.
Perhaps, from their social Darwinist perspective, the efficient and humanitarian course of action would be to put an end, a finality of sorts, to the misery of the many by holding their heads under water for a few minutes after they are thrown overboard.
Austerity, after all, worked such miracles in Germany after the Great War, didn’t it?
The piece neglects to point out that the “Bowles-Simpson report” is simply the report of the co-chairs. The original report failed to win the votes if the majority of the commission which then issued no official report.
so glad i am not one of the smart people!
I think it simply pointing out that the Times let someone who wrote the piece, go unchallenged, with no debate from the other side, and this is what is being fed the public.
Gee, I wonder if I write a book, will I be able to have to published and then be allowed to critique it; I would be fair and make sure everyone saw how much of a Genius I am by subtly pointing that out in the News Article, probably backed by the same people who are promoting that idea in the first place. Eliminate the poor, run off with the money, then try to buy some more poor to eliminate.
What smart people will do in your view, i think there are many things that smart people do, which i feel were not listed here.
Those are, I expect, the same smart people who assured us ten years ago that Saddam Hussein had mushroom-cloud-producing machines
It pretends revenues can be held at 21% of GDP.Do to the aging population and other considerations, one has to wonder about its feasibility.What bothers me is that every time you think things will be streamlined and simplified we come out with complex…. overly complex new rules.I am still studying , and reading more knowledgeable reactions to it.I do love the word cognoscenti(well informed people).Always remember Bush and Obama both have/had their pockets full of such.People who never really are accountable to the electorate.All those experts yet the crash came.We continue to spend money we don’t have.Money we borrow print and steal.Yet somehow all those experts don’t understand what any family pulling their belts ever tighter does.You can’t spend what you DONT HAVE!!!
Wow,” smart people,” if you need a “dynamic duo” then Batman and Robin would work just as well, and probably even better.
Those two would actually notice that there is one segment of American government that has never submitted a budget to the GAO. In fact, this group spends with no accountability, and yet, keeps gettting more and more money, except for the injured soldiers. Those budget people seem to want to excise health care for the soldiers.
If the Pentagon, and all of those ever-morphing bigger military groups, actually had a budget, then we, as a nation, wouldn’t have a deficit!
Really, military, “You can’t spend what WE don’t have.”
Thanks for bringing up that little mentioned fact, Larry.
Gloriana so wrong.The military budget ,even with these two wars would over traditional costs of maintaining this size force even in peacetime not effect our fiscal problems.We are looking at about a 13% rise over all.And remember maintaining that military is one of governments few jobs charged under the constitution.Should we shrink our military drastically to pay for as yet undreamed of social programs for Obama?Dangerous game as China re arms.The military of course spends with accountability.The arms services committees(Senate and Congressional)….The Defense secretary…The joint Chiefs…The house ways and means,and of course the president among others control the purse strings.
the pentagon has a yearly budget that takes up 56% of the federal government’s discretionary [non-mandatory] spending and takes up between 25% and 30% of total spending.
our total military spending is somewhere between $550 billion and $1.2 trillion depending on the method used to determine the number.
between 2001 and 2010 the stated budget increased by 81%
the pentagon also isn’t remotely able to get their bookkeeping into shape for any kind of audit.
Woodward if you are saying we spend a lot on our military Id have to say you are right.If you are saying we spend too much …..that is a totally subjugative ,hard to quantify,and a far too complex to ever dream of discussing here.The Pentagon has a budget, and it is tied into discretionary spending .Although that part went up because thats where emergency funding comes from- the total over all budget only climbed 13%.But we are getting into the oldest story in the world.Couldn’t the money have been better spent here?Will we receive positive outcomes for our actions?For our losses and expenditures?Isn’t war always a loosing game?Today North Korea launched a long range rocket.Iran is working hand and fist with them.Is it worth it to defend freedom whatever the cost?Are we over extended?Have we wrecked our economy to pay for war?These are not salient questions.They are questions that men ask who lock their hands about their knees and rock back and forth moaning.The retreat defeat and surrender crowd.This is America..We have freed 100s of millions of people.Look at a map of the world and its political systems 20 years ago and compare it to today.The world is still marching toward freedom.America is the cause of that march.I hear people talk about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.I hear no one saying they want Saddam and Osama back.Is that cost quantifiable to you?Freedom is not free.It comes at a great cost.But it lays the ground work for friendship.Name me Democracies that have gone to war with each other?
Rehamat….why dont you just act the NAZI and say it.The Jews run wall Street.The Jews run Washington.Unavoidable answer….get rid of the jews.Unless you believe that wall street is the envy of the world for the amount of funds are handled there evert day.Flowing into world ,markets.And Washington still looked to as the worlds keystone.Maybe we need a lot more Jews.Look-We don’t play that game here.We don’t look at peoples bloodlines to see what genetic mix is influencing aspects of our country.That is racism.You can take it and go pound sand.We are all one people.Diverse yet one people.A melting pot.This kind of talk is unacceptable.There are those that may look at the Arab input in this country and compare it to the jewish contribution.It may be found wanting.Do we really want to play these divisive games?I still wonder how many Jewish friends you have.Zero and never did/never will ,are not great answers
Good article. It makes me sick how conventional wisdom in tiny DC and NYC bubbles gets repeated over and over again. Of course the only option is to destroy the middle class by literally raiding their coffers and robbing them, while allowing rich people to pay even less in taxes. Duh. How sick are these people. How did we get to a place where our politicians not only stopped working for us, but actively works to crush the majority of people in this country? We must stop letting the very rich by our politicians and we must find a way to circumvent the awful establishment and spread the actual truth. All we have to do is lift the social security cap from 108,000 making it a normal tax rather than a regressive one. SS fixed. All we have to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire, budget almost fixed. Make defense spending reasonable and we’d have a completely balanced budget.