TIMOTHY NOAH NOVEMBER 22, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Wise Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution advises not to fret about the super committee's demise, and warns that half or more of any future deficit reduction deal must consist of taxes. Why? Because in the absence of a tax increase that big
"the spending cuts required to stabilize the ratio of debt to national income will eventually be so large that it will be impossible to sustain Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the premium subsidies of the Affordable Care Act. In the debate on raising the debt ceiling, Democrats agreed to a deficit-reduction program consisting exclusively of spending cuts. If that approach becomes entrenched, preserving major social insurance and social welfare legislation of the 20th century will become mathematically impossible."
Super committee Republicans never came close to offering a deal that wouldn't require wholesale dismantlement of the welfare state.
7 comments
Well said. We couldn't afford the Bush tax-cuts when they were proposed, we certainly couldn't afford them AND two wars, and we STILL can't afford them now that we've been deficit spending for ten years. Taxes MUST be raised. I even heard "letting the Bush tax-cuts expire" described by a Republican as "the largest tax increase in history". Well, maybe, but only because the most irresponsible President in history implemented them in the first place. Besides, we now have the largest budget deficit in history. Do you want to pay down the deficit, or don't you?
- AllanL5
November 22, 2011 at 1:16pm
There was never a real chance that the Republicans on the super committee were going to agree to a viable deficit reduction plan that included significant tax increases. That is just not where the party is at now and it won't be until the Norquistian grip on the party is broken.
- liberalref
November 22, 2011 at 1:19pm
" . . Republicans never came close to offering a deal that wouldn't require wholesale dismantlement of the welfare state. " Indeed. Are you surprised? A large percentage of today's Republican officeholders loathe the welfare state to the bottom of their tiny shriveled souls, and are doing their best to dismantle it and substitute Randian Social Darwinism.
- K_Wilson
November 22, 2011 at 1:21pm
Well, there is that. Ever since Reagan and Supply-Side Economics, the Republican Party has been trying through tax cutting and deficit spending to bankrupt America, so they could then turn around and kill Social Security and Medicare by saying we couldn't afford them. Another phrase for this is "Starve the Beast". When they've gotten America further down the bankruptcy road than ever before, why would they stop now?
- AllanL5
November 22, 2011 at 2:07pm
When in doubt (as if there is any doubt on this subject), turn to Henry Aaron. The current generation of the conservative movement has taken the worst aspects of Reagan's approach and has elevated it to secular gospel. Tell them that Reagan raised taxes or bolstered Social Security and they go googly-eyed and call you a liar. Reagan, for all of his warts, was a pragmatist at heart and although I never voted for the guy (and yes, I am old enough to have made that choice), he at least never pledged to drive the country into an abyss.
- Lundell
November 23, 2011 at 12:46pm
k_wilson took the words right out of my keyboard. Dismantling the welfare state is the point. As conservatives on these boards are wont to acknowledge, our poor and destitute have it so much better than people in third world countries; apparently, they feel this is no longer an acceptable outcome for America.
- GSpinks
November 23, 2011 at 3:04pm
I think the progressive view of taxation is that it is necessary to fund the government and the conservative view is that it is unnecessary.
- Nusholtz
November 23, 2011 at 10:14pm