Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beware the “Middle Ground” of the Great Budget Debate
How debates are framed is critical because the “center” or “middle ground” is supposedly halfway between the two extremes.
We continue to hear that the Great Budget Debate has two sides: The President and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending, but not by privatizing Medicare. On the other side are Paul Ryan, Republicans, and the right, who want cut the deficit by privatizing Medicare and slicing programs that benefit poorer Americans, while lowering taxes on the rich.
By this logic, the center lies just between.
Baloney.
According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 78 percent of Americans oppose cutting spending on Medicare as a way to reduce the debt, and 72 percent support raising taxes on the rich – including 68 percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans.
In other words, the center of America isn’t near halfway between the two sides. It’s overwhelmingly on the side of the President and the Democrats.
I’d wager if Americans also knew two-thirds of Ryan’s budget cuts come from programs serving lower and moderate-income Americans and over 70 percent of the savings fund tax cuts for the rich – meaning it’s really just a giant transfer from the less advantaged to the super advantaged without much deficit reduction at all – far more would be against it.
And if people knew that the Ryan plan would channel hundreds of billions of their Medicare dollars into the pockets of private for-profit heath insurers, almost everyone would be against it.
The Republican plan shouldn’t be considered one side of a great debate. It shouldn’t be considered at all. Americans don’t want it.
Which is why I get worried when I hear about so-called “bipartisan” groups on Capitol Hill seeking a grand compromise, such as the Senate’s so-called “Gang of Six.”
Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, a member of that Gang, says they’re near agreement on a plan that will chart a “middle ground” between the House Republican budget and the plan outlined last week by the President.
Watch your wallets.
In my view, even the President doesn’t go nearly far enough in the direction most Americans would approve. All he wants to do, essentially, is end the Bush tax windfalls for the wealthy – which were designed to be ended in 2010 in any event – and close a few loopholes.
But why shouldn’t we go back to the tax rates we had thirty years ago, which required the rich to pay much higher shares of their incomes? One of the great scandals of our age is how concentrated income and wealth have become. The top 1 percent now gets twice the share of national income it took home thirty years ago.
If the super rich paid taxes at the same rates they did three decades ago, they’d contribute $350 billion more per year than they are now – amounting to trillions more over the next decade. That’s enough to ensure every young American is healthy and well-educated and that the nation’s infrastructure is up to world-class standards.
Nor does the President’s proposal go nearly far enough in cutting military spending, which is not only out of control but completely unrelated to our nation’s defense needs – fancy weapons systems designed for an age of conventional warfare; hundreds of billions of dollars for the Navy and Air Force, when most of the action is with the Army, Marines, and Special Forces; and billions more for programs no one can justify and few can understand.
If Americans understood how much they’re paying for defense and how little they’re getting, they’d demand a defense budget at least 25 percent smaller than it is today.
Finally, the President’s proposed budget doesn’t deal with the scandal of the nation’s schools in poor and middle-class communities – schools whose teachers are paid under $50,000 a year, whose classrooms are crammed, that can’t afford textbooks or science labs, that have abandoned after-school programs and courses like history and art. Most school budgets depend manly on local property taxes that continue to drop in lower-income communities. The federal government should come to their rescue.
To think of the “center” as roughly halfway between the President’s and Paul Ryan’s proposals is to ignore what Americans need and want. For our political representatives to find a ”middle ground” between the two would be a travesty.
24 Comments so far
Show AllObama didn't run the most expensive presdiential campaign in history (in 2008) because he is a leftist or even a centrist. Corporations funding Obama in 2008 and 2012 expect him to promote a seriously right of center agenda in return for their "campaign contributions".
Obama seems to have cultivated his Wall Street support early (or did they cultivate him as a possible candidate?). He is rather obscure as to what he did when he was unable to find a job as a community organizer after Columbia. In "Dreams of My Father" he describes it thus:
“And so, in the months leading up to graduation, I wrote to every civil rights organization I could think of, to any black elected official in the country with a progressive agenda, to neighborhood councils and tenant rights groups. When no one wrote back, I wasn’t discouraged. I decided to find more convenient work for a year, to pay off my student loans and maybe even save a little bit. I would need the money later, I told myself. Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.
Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant.”
From “Dreams of My Father”, 2004 p. 135-137 [searchable under “research assistant” at amazon if you don't have a copy.
Here, however, is a somewhat different perspective on Obama’s halcyon days as a “spy behind enemy lines,” from a site called Analyze This:
http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/
The firm Obama worked for (and reportedly paid off his Columbia loans) was Business International, a CIA front company later bought up as part of the Economist, an openly freemarket advocacy group posing as a news magazine. One account by co-workers is here:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-turn-down-a-wall-street-career
There are many others. Find out for yourself.
Nice allegory of effective action by perhaps the greatest living economist.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
And that was 1919 just after the First World War.
There needs to be something resembling a revolution but attempting a violent revolution would lead to complete defeat of any hope for any kind of people friendly future and a large loss of life mostly on the side of the good guys (that's us).
I keep hoping something posted here will point in a do-able direction. My screwy idea is that we have to get away from the whole "left center right" paradigm and head off in some new direction that doesn't even have a name yet.
How do you know I don't post other places?
"Organized effort" -- to organize means to form or join an organization, a human institution with members who have responsibilities. That's what makes them different from assemblages, or flash mobs, or unruly crowds. Organizations work against the natural pressure of entropy, which wants to disorganize things.
Human energy (not the kind Chevron claims to be producing) must be put in to keep the thing from falling apart. Organizations usually have to keep records, or as some think of it "evidence."
An organization can't just be willed or wished into place. Someone has to do the work, keep the membership lists (and keep them out of the hands of Secret Government spooks), and figure out what the next organizational phase is, and have someone or a group of someones to "lead the way." This is difficult for leftists, liberals, and progressives because we can't agree on much of anything. Which is why we are probably up the excrement river without an oar in sight.
As I watched a recent 60 Minutes about the crooked forged mortgages the banks had been pushing, I saw all those people groveling in front of bank reps, begging to have their loan "modified" so they won't end up homeless.
If there was an organization one could talk to those people into joining up with that stood some actual chance of helping them and changing things for the better, they would be prime candidates. But there they sat with guilty hopefulness, pleading their cases (before what appeared to be bank temps), all thinking it must have somehow been their fault.
"Organized" labor worked for awhile because it had a consequence -- a strike, stopping working to stop production thus cutting profits -- they could use as a bargaining chip, a threat that carried some weight. That's why the response to "labor unrest" was often violent murderous suppression.
The victims of bank fraud have no leverage, just like the rest of us. The Powers That Be can do all this stuff and all they have to worry about is how to handle the public relations "challenges." They have no fear of armed revolution because they have so many weapons and so much tech stuff that it would be easy to wipe out any attempt do do that which wasn't widespread right from its first appearance and very well . . . organized.
In today's world where every transaction leaves a trace on some computer somewhere, it would be nearly impossible to put one together big enough to be effective without being noticed. I, for one, can't even organize my Documents Folder.
Armed revolution is no solution. At least not one I will be a part of.
May I share a few well-meant reflections about where we can or might go from this near-bottom of progressive times. When you're at the bottom (where Obama left you), go for the root. Orwell called capitalist freedom "the right to exploit others for profit." Can we go back to economic basics in atomic terms and see if we can find where real power is? Profit---the West's core motive and the core reason we can't solve a single problem---is by OED definition an irrational equation. Profit is "value" that you never put into an exchange (it's what you gain beyond any/all your costs). So whence this "value"? From the word' profit's root-word: "advantage." Somehow taking more than you give in an exchange (by lying, or violence, for example), you use wealth to "advantage" or "forward" yourself---terms that are meaningless without reference to "others." So while capitalism deems nature and other people "externalities" to the profit formula, it's inevitable that in our common objective reality, more and more others will be Dis-Advantaged (as we now call most of the planet) by a profit transaction. Profit is an addict on a suicidal course: more, more, at any cost. So profit never could, can or will underwrite common justice, any more than it will destroy its own markets by providing real satisfaction of needs and wants for most people. At best it insulated societies from the hideous atrocities they were committing elsewhere through their taxes. Now we know too much, and God bless our Middle Eastern sisters and brothers for reminding us of what it is to be fiercely proud and free citizens. Until we start living and working for reasons other than profit, until we WALK OUT on it as nonviolent workers, we can expect only more machine guns. That's what it takes to force an irrational equation on the human world and make it seem to work. (Of course we can do nothing and thereby choose the other path---that of the addict, who will not stop until a catastrophe comes that cannot possibly be denied.) If you feel discouraged and afraid because of what this history shows you of profit's will to commit any crime, check out Martin Luther King's last book of essays, "The Trumpet of Conscience," and see how he was assembling plans for a peaceful takeover of Washington DC on economic grounds---just before he was murdered. Friends, I see no point of leverage anymore but to hope that Progressives go back to that shocking, dispiriting national moment and turn it now into exactly what ML King wanted after all---a serious adoption of what worked in the 1960s, our bodies halting the machine till it comes to terms. For all that it would take and all that we might suffer, we are the ones who do the work, and that's where the world's greatest power always was, still is. http://ancientlights.org , jpd37@hotmail.com
"The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty."
Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength To Love, 1963.
"The President and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending, but not by privatizing Medicare."
Reich continues to parrot Democratic talking points. Fact, Obama and the Democrats decreased taxes on the rich when the Democrats had power. I don't recall any significant movement by Obama and the Democrats in the two years of power to reduce military spending. In fact, I believe Obama's proposed budget increased military spending. Maybe they don't support privatizing Medicare, but certainly Obama and the Democrats furthered the privatization of healthcare by passing legislation to force another 50-odd million to fork out health care dollars to private insurance companies, who are unaccountable middlemen ripping off the public by taking a slice of our healthcare dollars before reaching hospitals and doctors. Reich, you may as well call Obama and the Democrats anti-war while you are at it.
I would have to agree with all your points.
Reich/Nader Progressive Democratic Party 2012!
Come on, Obama ran to the negotiating table carrying a white flag. Even before he got there he was ready to slash heating assistance for the elderly - a good faith gesture to the Republicans on his part. We all know he could have let those tax cuts expire. He didn't want to. So he saved a 2% tax cut for the middle class while preserving a 3 1/2% tax cut for the rich (including himself).
Why don't Democrats wake up and see that Republicans are very satisfied with the results of "doing business" with Obama, while Democrats slink away, disappointed - again? Every time they come to the negotiating table, the Republicans leave with more than they asked for. Wow what a guy!
Reich sez: "The President and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending ..."
***
So ... you're saying they've done a 180-degree about-face in the last five months?
What we really need to do is start moving to get rid of corporations--period. America was not founded s a capitalistic country and there is no reason to have any, anymore. It is a passe model. Time to move on to local co-ops and state investment banks. Time to shut down Wall Street and the big predator banks as well as the fed. Don't need em--never did. They are all just parasites. If they won't go quietly; we will have to remove them.
First step would be to forgive all student loan debt. Second to disband all major banks. Third out law all corporations.
Simple road to freedom. REAL FREEDOM!
There is no middle ground when your country is Outsourcing Citizenship.
In the war against the middle-class the government has been outsourcing jobs for decades. Now the government is going one step further. They are outsourcing citizenship to bring corporate citizens into their constituency, and give them the rights that go with it. This country started with an agreement between citizens and leaders. Over time we have evolved into shareholders (all shareholders are not equal) and owners. Our Constitutional rights as citizens have been stripped away while the Constitutional rights of corporations have grown. Today, a corporation has the same value as a natural citizen and made the law-of-the-land by the Supreme Court. This corporate citizen acts like a natural citizen. It looks to the government for the conditions to be productive so it can continue to grow.
Corporate citizens have become a weapon in the war against the middle-class. They can be used to take away the power of the vote form the middle-class. Corporate citizens can get congressman to listen to them and ignore the voice of the voter. This is why all polls in America show the government completely out of step with the majority of its natural citizens in every sector in society. On healthcare, education, taxes, war, environment and a host of others the people and the government are not on the same page. It’s not the government following the will of the people. Instead, it’s the government doing the bidding of its corporate citizens by writing legislation to legalize the assault on unions and teachers.
But, the needs of a citizen and the needs of a corporation are not the same. Natural citizens need and want opportunity and means to be successful and happy. They want government to provide a level playing field for all. Corporate citizens want and need control of the market to maximize profits. The natural citizen wants to live the American Dream and retire while the corporate citizen will be struggle to grow into an empire- builder. Natural citizens used to say their thanks with a handshake. The corporate citizen says thanks with a cash contribution.
The only weapon of the natural citizen is being taken away. He’s being disarmed. But, it’s not his guns he’s losing. What is being taken away is his VOTE. Given to those with citizenship, by the Constitution. The vote – the most effective weapon of the citizen to force the government to listen to him, is being given to corporations. Today their votes are meaningless. They have been made meaningless by a political system driven by money. Who can own the most government? A citizen’s vote has no political value to a congressman, he can’t put it in his war chest. In the battle between the natural citizens and the corporate citizens you only have to look at D.C. and see who represents who. There are thousands and thousands of these corporate citizens. The lobbyists and the think tanks and the media are grafting themselves onto the three branches of the government. It’s Ike’s worst nightmare.
Presidents throughout my lifetime have initiated foreign wars without the approval of the Congress. So why doesn’t Congress take back its power? Since all wars are now political the Congress would rather the White House start the war. The Congress will manage them. With war so profitable for corporate citizens why would they ever want to limit such a money making product? They wouldn’t. That’s why war is no longer a few pages every couple of hundred pages in history books. War is a part of our daily lives.
The government doesn’t have to be afraid. Votes don’t matter anymore.
Hoa binh
The fact that is seldom mentioned in any responses on Common Dreams is that OVER HALF OF THE MEMBERS OF BOTH OUR CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT ARE --- MILLIONAIRES.
Now, what do you think is the REAL basis for ALL of their decisions?????
You're right - preserving their own wealth!!!!!!! And that will never change. They're certainly not all that concerned about even the middle class, let alone the poor. We're all in this alone!
Or that insider trading is allowed for members of congress.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14/it-isn-t-insider-trading-when-congressmen-do-it-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html
Yes, exactly--Congress is mainly a millionaire's club, a wing of the ruling class. People keep saying the Democrats 'caved.' They never 'cave': they collaborate. 'Cave' implies they have genuinely progressive ideals which they are willing to take a principled stand for. Except for a handful, they do not.
"78 percent of Americans oppose cutting spending on Medicare as a way to reduce the debt, and 72 percent support raising taxes on the rich – including 68 percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans."...the center of America isn’t near halfway between the two sides. It’s overwhelmingly on the side of the President and the Democrats."
What???? Obama and the Democrats just voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama appointed a freakin' commission to cut Social Security and Medicare. It's overwhelmingly on the side of liberals, not on the side of Obama and the Democrats. Does Reich even know what Obama and the Democrats stand for these days? It certainly isn't on raising taxes and cutting the military, that's for sure. In fact, they legislated a "payroll tax holiday" to decimiate Social Security.
This is the difference between an economist like William Black and a party shill economist like Reich. Reich thinks politics are more important than the economic well-being of the people.
There is no longer a "middle" ground in America. Every debate is framed from center right to the extreme right. Obama is a complete failure at reshaping the debate. He willingly adops the right's framing and argues from their side of the ledger. Each and every time this president has had to reshape the landscape of American politics and bring some real balance into the equation, he's failed. He begins each debate with a compromise on his way to complete capitulation. So, there is no such thing as the left in power in America. The right controls the entire parameters of the debates, from the moderate right to the far right. Obama lies somewhere in the middle, which him makes him to the right of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. How's that for the demise of progressivism and liberalism in the national political debate.