Senate cuts subsidies to poor families while preserving the American Empire
Once again, the Senate has taken up an item that pits domestic social spending against deficit reduction.
One week after Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) caved on his effort to deny continuance of unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, the Senate Republicans, along with four Democrats, have managed to eek out a victory that will punish the poor in order to establish a precedent of fiscal responsibility.
The provision, offered up by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), would have provided $1.3 billion to create about 500,000 summer jobs for young people and, more importantly, would have provided another $1.3 billion to extend enhanced subsidies to poor families with children via the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF).
The TANF program, set to expire in September of this year, was created by the Stimulus Bill to subsidize jobs for workers with families who live below the poverty level. The requested funds would have extended the program through March of 2011.
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the progressive Economic Policy Institute, compares the TANF program to the measure pending in the Senate that would provide a tax credit to employers to hire these folks.
Kerry-Murray is a far more cost effective expenditure of tax dollars than the Schumer-Hatch new hires tax credit, which cost $13 billion and will probably create fewer than 200,000 jobs – if it creates any. Job creation via the new hires tax credit is totally speculative (what are the chances that a 6.2% credit will cause even a single employer to hire a new employee the employer wouldn’t otherwise have hired?), whereas the Murray-Kerry amendment would directly create hundreds of thousands of jobs, including summer jobs for young people, at a cost of only $2.6 billion.
Via Huffington Post
Senator Judd Gregg, (R-N.H.) sees it differently. Why do we keep doing this?” said Gregg, arguing that the amendment was not paid for. “Why do we keep passing on to our children these debts?”
I see Gregg’s point. We all understand that more and more borrowing to pay for present needs on the backs of those who will inherit the debt is a serious problem.
But I also see something else.
While there is a growing tendency in the Senate to reject funding for social programs that increase the debt, there is no such appetite for debt reduction when it comes to defense expenditures. And while Washington is more than ready to acknowledge that we lack the funds to provide the social programs that have long been a hallmark of this, the richest country in the world, government continues to ignore the fact that we also lack the funds to sustain the American Empire throughout the world.
As a result, we continue to pursue our goals of spreading American influence throughout the globe on the backs of our own countrymen and women who are in drastic need of assistance.
If we are concerned about the damage the cost of our social programs will cause our children – and we should be – should we also not be concerned about how our huge defense expenditures, also paid for with borrowed money, is impacting on Americans, both present and future?
The truth is that Washington only reacts when individual politicians feel threatened. Nobody was all that focused on the national debt as the Bush Administration – and those that came before it – ran up the numbers. It really only became a frontline item of political concern in the context of the big government vs. small government debate ushered in by the Tea Party and its dislike for the Obama Administration.
The big government vs. small government argument is a completely legitimate discussion – however if it is only waged on the domestic policy side of the budget, the discussion becomes disingenuous.
While Washington may be unwilling to come to terms with the reality of our financial condition and its impact on the inevitable end of America’s role as world cop, there is evidence that the public is beginning to ‘get it.’
A little discussed New York Times poll, published last month, presents some revealing numbers. Take a look the response to these two questions:
34. In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, would you be willing or not willing for the government to decrease spending in areas such as health care or education?
Willing Not willing Some, but not others(vol.) DK/NA
30 62 5 335. In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, would you be willing or not willing to decrease military spending?
Willing Not willing Some, but not others(vol.) DK/NA
45 51 2 2
Once again, the public understands the reality of our situation better than our leaders.
The longer our elected officials refuse to acknowledge that our circumstances have changed the longer we will go on making life more difficult for Americans in pursuit of a foreign policy that is neither affordable nor of much value to the nation.
It’s time to turn up the volume on this or face the continued chipping away at important social programs in order to protect our troop levels in such world hot spots as …. Germany?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I get ticked when things like this happen. $50,000,000,000 a year to an unnamed ally where some speculate Bin Laden hides since Bush was in and for what? Meanwhile (Bush too) they cut veteran programs and benefits, now this, they act like the lower class is the root cause of the deficit, that is just not realistic but those without a voice surly take the hit.
Well, yeah, it’s a GOP political game right now. We all know that. But the Democrats are fools in their response. What they need to do is say: “Yes, you are right! That is why we are eliminating the ‘carried interest’ tax loophole for private equity/hedge fund managers. Thanks for the great idea!”
Rick, I just looked through that entire NY Times poll. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a complete one, and I found it very interesting. I found #30 especially so. In 1976, 57 percent of people thought the government was run by a few big interests. Now 78 percent think that. With only one exception, it has not been below 70 percent since 1988. And between 1976 and 1988, it was never above 61 percent. This marks a huge change and an undeniable trend.
I also found the questions about the Tea Party to be interesting. 55 percent of the respondants said they knew next to nothing about the Tea Party. Then another 8 percent who said they knew about the party, said they knew very little about their views. So about 60 percent of the nation knew hardly anything about the Tea Party. In the online political blog world, not knowing about the Tea Party would lead to expulsion from the fold.
It’s actually not all that surprising. Those of us who are ‘addicted’ to current events tend to forget that the overwhelming number of Americans just don’t pay attention. That’s a big part of our problem. My son-in-law, who is in advertising, says that their research shows that only about 1% of the population actually knows the facts regarding any particular issue.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yet they know exactly what their ex-boyfriends and girlfriends are doing, look like, and who they are now seeing, due to the wonders and countless hours of “facebook stalking.” Oy vey.
In response to another comment. See in context »But is it realy important to know about the Tea Partiers? I think too much focus is put on the personalities and the process (I’m not talking about you here — obviously you pick apart actual issues), so even a person like me who follows this stuff fairly closely is often in the dark when it comes to the actual policy. I caught Meet The Press last Sunday and David Gregory must have spent more than half his interview time with K. Sebelius discussing process. Some completely inane stuff. “Will this pass by Easter?” “If it doesn’t, will there be political fallout?” “Would it mean Obama has a failed presidency?” (Those are not exact quotes, but are representative. The transcript is pretty easy to find if you want to read it.) Embarrassing for Gregory, really.
Then, of course, I voted for Obama for all the things he said in his campaign — and then he abandoned them once in office! Maybe the people who never have heard of the Tea Party are better off…
In response to another comment. See in context »It is important to know the players, the policy and even the process. I think the only way people can form their opinions – whatever they may be – is if they know what is available and what forms the basis of their opinion. There are many people in this country who might be supportive of the Tea Party if they knew they were there and what they stand for. It’s not that this would make me happy – but it should be an option based on knowledge. It’s amazing how many people identify with conservatism and don’t understand that policies that are being pursued by the GOP are actually fundamentally anti-conservative, such as the terror trials being held in a military tribunal, Liz Cheney’s attacks on the Justice Dept. etc. People who identify as conservatives who actually understand what it means have a very different perspective. You’ll find the same issue among people who identify as liberals.
In response to another comment. See in context »As for process, while it should not be as important is it currently is, the fact remains that process is, indeed, currently important. For people to form an opinion on how they actually feel about the process that is having such a dramatic impact on legislation, they need to understand what it is all about..
Unfortunately, whether conservative, progressive, or whatever, these terms have become an ideological shortcut for identifying with one side or another without knowing why.
This approach cannot have a happy ending.
It is possible that just as governments are no longer as pure in their ideology as they were a generation ago (China a mixed capitalism to the right under government supervision, we are going to the left for economic reasons also) political ideas are now becoming hard to brand in the old way. The line that made me write this was “This approach cannot have a happy ending.” But if people wake up to all the snake oil salesmanship, politics will change, or the politicians will be changed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Whenever I read articles or writings focusing on topics like this, they always bring to mind the Native American proverb:
“We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”
When will “we” begin to practice making sound decisions, relying on true altruism in all facets of how we live, and finally recognizing that ultimately our every selfish decision, made under the guise of “this is for the betterment of our nation,” is rarely made or actually intended for that stated purpose, and therefore turns into s**t?
Until we can see clearly our intentions, we can never focus on their repercussions, which, unfortunately, are consistently leading us into dire circumstances.
Wow, I sound like the epitome of a downer.
I would like to blame the republicans for this outrage but the blame lies with democrats…they do not stand with the people, they do not articulate the moral argument or take a stand and display liberal values or even stand on their principles. This and Bunning incident were perfect opening to show the people that we stand with them and we could have easily found the money in a bloated, nearly $700 billion defense department budget. Halliburton “disappeared” enough money to pay for this program, cracking down on corporate tax cheats could pay for the program or making corporations pay the fines levied against them could pay for this program, making the oil companies pay the money on leases that they owe the government could pay for the program or canceling Blackwater’s illegal work in Iraq could pay for the program.
So instead we abandon our new crop of young workers. Our leaders are just pathetic.
I think the Dems. did stand up up on Bunning.
In response to another comment. See in context »The problem is that neither Dems nor GOP want to publically face up to the reality that we can no longer afford to be an empire. They think it is too jarring for people to hear. Maybe it is – but it’s going to happen whether people want to hear it or not.
Rick,
I would agree with you we cannot afford an empire however it is my belief that most citizens would be shocked that we actually have an empire, would be shocked to discover how many useless military bases we have and how much money is wasted on them. I have a friend in the Navy, she is stationed in Guam…she is not an officer but is given a $1000 a month housing allowance…a pittance stateside…but in Guam she is living in a luxury condo on the beach. The officers live much better and have their own golf course and club and car.
In response to another comment. See in context »That is way , way out of perspective (military housing, what they should all have shacks? No) but here, when you said that libtree09, (but the blame lies with democrats…they do not stand with the people,)I agree but would add no-one is standing with the people anymore, hell when Nixon was in everybody had money!
In response to another comment. See in context »It is not a matter of shacks v. condos, it is that there should be military housing but instead it is out sourced for $12,000 a year. The base has been there since the forties. But maybe the example is not fair. However I would love to see a top to bottom audit of the pentagon budget…hell I would love an audit of the entire budget…in show biz auditors do quite well usually taking a cut of whatever they find the studios cheated you out of. Perhaps we could offer a bonus for every dime they can save the taxpayer.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s interesting that the senate conservatives always choose to wage their little deficit battles when it’s poor people’s livelihoods on the line.
I agree with you completely on the end of empire thread. But I think that it’s worth noting that Judd Gregg’s statement is debatable on strictly its own terms as well. Without going all Krugman on you, it comes down to this: a borrowing decision is an economic decision and the economics of borrowing from our children tomorrow to pay our children today is a big win. There is probably no more effective stimulus than paying unemployed youth money that they are either going to spend (boosting the economy) or invest in education (boosting our nation’s capabilities).
That assessment seems over simplified and does not reveal all costs and benefits from an economic view.
The process should also include understanding the process of economics as well as politics.
The cost of borrowing entails three bad things. One, interest of borrowing; two, potential of a devalued dollar; and three it will have to end at some point. And I agree military spending is a big part of the interest we pay today. Pulling back on the “empire” would be a good path. But, for every dollar we move into the system through borrowing will mean a little less for everyone else as their buying power is decreased and that does not include paying back that original dollar. It must be at least a 50+% extra cost. Ultimately that 150% of the distributed dollar has to come from the private side.
Forcibly taking away money from productive citizens and giving to a non-productive person is not a “big win”. It takes away productive incentive from both parties. Productivity is what boosts the economy. What incentive will the youth have to be productive or get a job if they are continuously guaranteed free money. The best incentive is to know there is no guarantee, or at least think there is no guarantee. It’s the guarantee that caused the banks to loose perception of risk.
In response to another comment. See in context »