Skip to main content

At one time the buzz-word of "zero-based budgeting" was sexy in the DC village.  

Why isn't "90%-based budgeting" a reasonable description of the spending side of the misleadingly nicknamed "fiscal cliff"? Whatever "meat ax" cuts are excessive, why can't they be reversed by new legislation to increase related spending? Certainly the Pentagon has plenty of money to shift around and meet whatever needs arise in cut areas during the first few months of the year.

What is so frightening to Democrats about passing supplemental spending bills through the Senate that restore funds to both the Pentagon and social spending?  Are House Republicans going to block these bills in the face of pressure from the military-industrial complex and other big business and big investors?

Why won't this pressure and related debate help expose the hypocrisy of the campaigners to cut future social spending? How much longer will the Austerians be able to keep a straight face when try to pretend that their screaming about the fiscal cliff does not contradict the logic of their demand for cuts in government spending -- at a time when private demand is recovering only slowly from the financial crisis (and when Europe is proving and the IMF is acknowledging that you cannot cut your way out of a balance-sheet recession)?

Is there any chance that this transparent hypocrisy will remind people that all Republicans and many other Austerians cheered or acquiesced in W.'s lightening fast reversal of Bill Clinton's surplus only a few years ago?  On deficit politics, are the Democrats ready to stop playing Charlie Brown to the Republicans' Lucy?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  While I don't agree entirely with Warren Mosler, (0+ / 0-)

    one of the main proponents of Modern Money because he's still looking at currency as a legitimate economic management tool, while I think it ought to be used as a tool to measure and lubricate, but not justify policy decisions.  In other words, we have to get out of the habit of letting how much money is supposedly available decide whether a public or private project ought to be undertaken. We should not use measuring tools to define policy, just as we shouldn't let the quantity of cloth decide whether or not we get dressed.

    Anyway, what we need to address is that the Congress, which is tasked with managing the currency has, instead, decided to use currency to manage the economy to advantage themselves and their cronies and disadvantage the new bete noire, the electorate which presumes to govern, rather than be ruled. If the 99% have been disadvantaged, it wasn't by happenstance. Although pretending to have given over the management of money to the Federal Reserve, the Congress has made it possible for their henchmen on Wall Street to constrict and sequester what they themselves could not directly deny their constituents.
    Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Congress, in particular, was accustomed to giving orders and handing out real assets (land, water, forests, minerals) to their cronies in exchange for what are now called "job creators," keeping the voting population, which was severely restricted until 1971, in line. Universal suffrage put this old order in jeopardy and they've been working overtime, using the law and money, to secure their powers.
    The Constitutional reference to the people governing was mere aspiration as long as only a small percentage could vote.
    In 2008 the electorate voted wrong and had to be punished. Apparently, people become inured to punishment and now they've voted wrong again.
    It's my sense that we should not wait for the Congress to decide what it will do next to deprive the electorate.  Instead, we should insist that they relinquish their hold on our money and stop accommodating the hoarders on Wall Street and the industrial complex. If they don't respond, then the Federal Reserve has to be tasked with pouring out more money until they get the message that money is for spending, not earning dividends for doing nothing.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 06:55:15 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site