Who shall bear us forward?
A few weeks back, This American Life had an episode that actually asked a question that I don't think gets addressed all that often: what kind of country do we want? In typical public-radio fashion, it skewed liberal, but it's an interesting story nonetheless (the parts where Norquist explains how screwed up the pension system is for states are particularly interesting, even if the host tries to push the conversation in a rather unnecessary direction).
What interested me was how the dialog in Washington has been shaped by the Republican commitment to Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes whatsoever. It's simply not an option, even for many Democrats, to say "we are raising taxes, but here is what it will buy, and what it buys is far more than what you could buy with that money." It's no doubt that there are serious needs (that site says we need $2.2 trillion to bring infrastructure up to par, though it's now 3 years out of date). But at this time, it seems that the only way to spend on one thing is to cut somewhere else, or to borrow - an option that looks fraught with other peril, after the debt ceiling debacle.
Into this landscape comes the Ryan budget [pdf]. In 2010, Ryan's budget formed the core of the Republican party line on spending and entitlement reform, though it was unrealistic to expect it would pass in the Senate. This time, Ryan's plan stands in stark contrast to Obama's, allowing us to measure the differences. Some of them are stark changes. What's clearest is that the majority of the burden will fall on the poor. Ezra Klein (who, I'll admit, I rely on rather heavily for budget analysis - I'm taking suggestions of alternatives if you have them) points out that this is pretty much an inevitable conclusion of the commitments that Republicans have made.
The problem I have is this: I don't think we should cut deficits on the backs of those least able to bear it. On the other hand, I recognize that the best method of cutting deficits that avoids this - raising revenue on the richer segments of society - is simply not going to happen in the modern political climate, and cutting defense spending is unlikely, even if Obama regains the White House (something jeff has convinced me is, indeed, an uphill battle). So where does that leave us? Either allowing deficits to continue to pile up, or slashing entitlements, programs needed most by those least able to bear the cuts.
So my solution is long-term: change the political climate so that tax increases and defense cuts become realistic. I don't think I'll be voting for anyone who signs the no-tax pledge again, nor for someone who thinks that the military is sacrosanct (or worse, too small). To me, the root problem is that we're closing doors preemptively. We can't examine whether tax rates on the rich are too low or too high, because whatever they are, they need to be offset to be revenue-neutral to meet the pledge. At that point, we're all but admitting that the tax code is there for nothing but social engineering, a task for which (IMO) taxes are uniquely unsuited. The solution is to change the electoral culture so that taxes come back onto the table. So, thus will I vote, even if I disagree with the legislator on a host of other matters. I think I just turned myself into a litmus-test voter.
What interested me was how the dialog in Washington has been shaped by the Republican commitment to Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes whatsoever. It's simply not an option, even for many Democrats, to say "we are raising taxes, but here is what it will buy, and what it buys is far more than what you could buy with that money." It's no doubt that there are serious needs (that site says we need $2.2 trillion to bring infrastructure up to par, though it's now 3 years out of date). But at this time, it seems that the only way to spend on one thing is to cut somewhere else, or to borrow - an option that looks fraught with other peril, after the debt ceiling debacle.
Into this landscape comes the Ryan budget [pdf]. In 2010, Ryan's budget formed the core of the Republican party line on spending and entitlement reform, though it was unrealistic to expect it would pass in the Senate. This time, Ryan's plan stands in stark contrast to Obama's, allowing us to measure the differences. Some of them are stark changes. What's clearest is that the majority of the burden will fall on the poor. Ezra Klein (who, I'll admit, I rely on rather heavily for budget analysis - I'm taking suggestions of alternatives if you have them) points out that this is pretty much an inevitable conclusion of the commitments that Republicans have made.
The problem I have is this: I don't think we should cut deficits on the backs of those least able to bear it. On the other hand, I recognize that the best method of cutting deficits that avoids this - raising revenue on the richer segments of society - is simply not going to happen in the modern political climate, and cutting defense spending is unlikely, even if Obama regains the White House (something jeff has convinced me is, indeed, an uphill battle). So where does that leave us? Either allowing deficits to continue to pile up, or slashing entitlements, programs needed most by those least able to bear the cuts.
So my solution is long-term: change the political climate so that tax increases and defense cuts become realistic. I don't think I'll be voting for anyone who signs the no-tax pledge again, nor for someone who thinks that the military is sacrosanct (or worse, too small). To me, the root problem is that we're closing doors preemptively. We can't examine whether tax rates on the rich are too low or too high, because whatever they are, they need to be offset to be revenue-neutral to meet the pledge. At that point, we're all but admitting that the tax code is there for nothing but social engineering, a task for which (IMO) taxes are uniquely unsuited. The solution is to change the electoral culture so that taxes come back onto the table. So, thus will I vote, even if I disagree with the legislator on a host of other matters. I think I just turned myself into a litmus-test voter.