SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Budget Wars Consist of One-Sided Compromises
The national calls for "shared sacrifice" during these times of austerity presuppose that giant corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil share the same amount of privilege and power as, say, your grandmother.
If the upper one percent has to pay slightly more taxes, say the GOP and some Democrats, including the president, then octogenarians have to say bon voyage to their traditional Social Security and Medicare payments.
Jul 06, 2011
The national calls for "shared sacrifice" during these times of austerity presuppose that giant corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil share the same amount of privilege and power as, say, your grandmother.
If the upper one percent has to pay slightly more taxes, say the GOP and some Democrats, including the president, then octogenarians have to say bon voyage to their traditional Social Security and Medicare payments.
It remains to be seen if the GOP is willing to meet President Obama halfway on his plans to tax the wealthy at slightly higher rates. Even if the president did get the GOP to acquiesce in this one area, the lavishly rich would still be taxed at historically low rates (no one is seriously considering going back to Eisenhower's 91 percent, or Nixon's 70 percent.)
Basically, this is all a fight to go from 35 percent to the Clinton-era 39 percent top marginal rates. A four percent increase simply doesn't carry the same punch as significantly gutting the social safety net for the poor majority. A single mother of four is going to feel the toll of dwindling food stamps way, way more than a hedge fund manager is going to feel the miniature tax creep - if it happens at all.
Yet, this narrative of "shared sacrifice" - as if all parties are equally sacrificing their means - has fully permeated the national discourse.
Nowhere is this kind of one-sided compromise more apparent than the funding chaos that just ensued in New Jersey. Using his line-item veto authority, Gov. Christie hacked away at the Democratic-controlled legislature's spending plan, slashing $900 million from the budget.
Christie nixed health care funding for low-income workers, tax credits for the working poor, and money for AIDS relief and mental-health services, yet he managed to add funds ($150 million) for some of the wealthiest towns in the state.
The governor's attack against the poor follows his recent signing of a law that limits the ability of New Jersey's public employees to collectively bargain for health care benefits, and cuts the paychecks of those workers in order to increase their contributions towards health care plans and pensions.
The state Democrats laid down during this vicious attack on the working poor in the spirit of bipartisanship, naturally. Sharing the sacrifice, and what not. Of course, then the Democrats were simply shocked - shocked! - that a Republican governor, who they had just sold out their own party in order to support, would then turn around and stab them in the back. Senate President Stephen Sweeney furiously spat that Christie was a "bully" and a "punk," and that he wanted to "punch him in his head."
But there was no need for Sweeney to feign surprise. This is the era of the one-sided compromise, where millionaires are taxed at rock bottom rates while the working poor have their pensions stolen from them.
The starkness of Christie's one-sided compromise is made all the more apparent when one considers that his education cuts could be reversed simply by implementing a millionaire's tax. Of course, that would entail calling for actual shared sacrifice, and that simply isn't acceptable.
Instead, the governor decided to briefly go to war with the state Supreme Court over education funding before the court ultimately found that he hadn't allowed the schools to provide for their students, and ordered the state to restore $500 million in funding.
In a speech on Tuesday, President Obama coupled his demand for tax increases on the wealthy with a pledge to take on spending in "entitlement programs." These two items are often paired together as if they carry equal weight.
Cutting the fat from an upper tier that is currently enjoying historically lavish wealth and gutting state pension plans are not equivalent acts. It makes sense when John Boehner crafts this comparison, but it's disconcerting when President Obama plays into the false narrative.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
Allison Kilkenny
Allison Kilkenny is an American comedy writer and performer, former journalist, and host of the political podcast Light Treason News. Kilkenny previously hosted Citizen Radio and for many years was a social critic and blogger. Her work has appeared in Common Dreams, The American Prospect, the L.A. Times, In These Times, and the award-winning grassroots NYC newspaper The Indypendent.
The national calls for "shared sacrifice" during these times of austerity presuppose that giant corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil share the same amount of privilege and power as, say, your grandmother.
If the upper one percent has to pay slightly more taxes, say the GOP and some Democrats, including the president, then octogenarians have to say bon voyage to their traditional Social Security and Medicare payments.
It remains to be seen if the GOP is willing to meet President Obama halfway on his plans to tax the wealthy at slightly higher rates. Even if the president did get the GOP to acquiesce in this one area, the lavishly rich would still be taxed at historically low rates (no one is seriously considering going back to Eisenhower's 91 percent, or Nixon's 70 percent.)
Basically, this is all a fight to go from 35 percent to the Clinton-era 39 percent top marginal rates. A four percent increase simply doesn't carry the same punch as significantly gutting the social safety net for the poor majority. A single mother of four is going to feel the toll of dwindling food stamps way, way more than a hedge fund manager is going to feel the miniature tax creep - if it happens at all.
Yet, this narrative of "shared sacrifice" - as if all parties are equally sacrificing their means - has fully permeated the national discourse.
Nowhere is this kind of one-sided compromise more apparent than the funding chaos that just ensued in New Jersey. Using his line-item veto authority, Gov. Christie hacked away at the Democratic-controlled legislature's spending plan, slashing $900 million from the budget.
Christie nixed health care funding for low-income workers, tax credits for the working poor, and money for AIDS relief and mental-health services, yet he managed to add funds ($150 million) for some of the wealthiest towns in the state.
The governor's attack against the poor follows his recent signing of a law that limits the ability of New Jersey's public employees to collectively bargain for health care benefits, and cuts the paychecks of those workers in order to increase their contributions towards health care plans and pensions.
The state Democrats laid down during this vicious attack on the working poor in the spirit of bipartisanship, naturally. Sharing the sacrifice, and what not. Of course, then the Democrats were simply shocked - shocked! - that a Republican governor, who they had just sold out their own party in order to support, would then turn around and stab them in the back. Senate President Stephen Sweeney furiously spat that Christie was a "bully" and a "punk," and that he wanted to "punch him in his head."
But there was no need for Sweeney to feign surprise. This is the era of the one-sided compromise, where millionaires are taxed at rock bottom rates while the working poor have their pensions stolen from them.
The starkness of Christie's one-sided compromise is made all the more apparent when one considers that his education cuts could be reversed simply by implementing a millionaire's tax. Of course, that would entail calling for actual shared sacrifice, and that simply isn't acceptable.
Instead, the governor decided to briefly go to war with the state Supreme Court over education funding before the court ultimately found that he hadn't allowed the schools to provide for their students, and ordered the state to restore $500 million in funding.
In a speech on Tuesday, President Obama coupled his demand for tax increases on the wealthy with a pledge to take on spending in "entitlement programs." These two items are often paired together as if they carry equal weight.
Cutting the fat from an upper tier that is currently enjoying historically lavish wealth and gutting state pension plans are not equivalent acts. It makes sense when John Boehner crafts this comparison, but it's disconcerting when President Obama plays into the false narrative.
Allison Kilkenny
Allison Kilkenny is an American comedy writer and performer, former journalist, and host of the political podcast Light Treason News. Kilkenny previously hosted Citizen Radio and for many years was a social critic and blogger. Her work has appeared in Common Dreams, The American Prospect, the L.A. Times, In These Times, and the award-winning grassroots NYC newspaper The Indypendent.
The national calls for "shared sacrifice" during these times of austerity presuppose that giant corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil share the same amount of privilege and power as, say, your grandmother.
If the upper one percent has to pay slightly more taxes, say the GOP and some Democrats, including the president, then octogenarians have to say bon voyage to their traditional Social Security and Medicare payments.
It remains to be seen if the GOP is willing to meet President Obama halfway on his plans to tax the wealthy at slightly higher rates. Even if the president did get the GOP to acquiesce in this one area, the lavishly rich would still be taxed at historically low rates (no one is seriously considering going back to Eisenhower's 91 percent, or Nixon's 70 percent.)
Basically, this is all a fight to go from 35 percent to the Clinton-era 39 percent top marginal rates. A four percent increase simply doesn't carry the same punch as significantly gutting the social safety net for the poor majority. A single mother of four is going to feel the toll of dwindling food stamps way, way more than a hedge fund manager is going to feel the miniature tax creep - if it happens at all.
Yet, this narrative of "shared sacrifice" - as if all parties are equally sacrificing their means - has fully permeated the national discourse.
Nowhere is this kind of one-sided compromise more apparent than the funding chaos that just ensued in New Jersey. Using his line-item veto authority, Gov. Christie hacked away at the Democratic-controlled legislature's spending plan, slashing $900 million from the budget.
Christie nixed health care funding for low-income workers, tax credits for the working poor, and money for AIDS relief and mental-health services, yet he managed to add funds ($150 million) for some of the wealthiest towns in the state.
The governor's attack against the poor follows his recent signing of a law that limits the ability of New Jersey's public employees to collectively bargain for health care benefits, and cuts the paychecks of those workers in order to increase their contributions towards health care plans and pensions.
The state Democrats laid down during this vicious attack on the working poor in the spirit of bipartisanship, naturally. Sharing the sacrifice, and what not. Of course, then the Democrats were simply shocked - shocked! - that a Republican governor, who they had just sold out their own party in order to support, would then turn around and stab them in the back. Senate President Stephen Sweeney furiously spat that Christie was a "bully" and a "punk," and that he wanted to "punch him in his head."
But there was no need for Sweeney to feign surprise. This is the era of the one-sided compromise, where millionaires are taxed at rock bottom rates while the working poor have their pensions stolen from them.
The starkness of Christie's one-sided compromise is made all the more apparent when one considers that his education cuts could be reversed simply by implementing a millionaire's tax. Of course, that would entail calling for actual shared sacrifice, and that simply isn't acceptable.
Instead, the governor decided to briefly go to war with the state Supreme Court over education funding before the court ultimately found that he hadn't allowed the schools to provide for their students, and ordered the state to restore $500 million in funding.
In a speech on Tuesday, President Obama coupled his demand for tax increases on the wealthy with a pledge to take on spending in "entitlement programs." These two items are often paired together as if they carry equal weight.
Cutting the fat from an upper tier that is currently enjoying historically lavish wealth and gutting state pension plans are not equivalent acts. It makes sense when John Boehner crafts this comparison, but it's disconcerting when President Obama plays into the false narrative.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.