Drum on the debate over social spending

In the midst of an authoritative post about the tax burden on Americans over history, Kevin makes this key point:

Social Security and Medicare are expensive programs, and we should have a national debate about their future. The current round of tax cuts is part of that debate, but their impact is being obscured by tax cut zealots who are deliberately trying to create a crisis atmosphere in which it's "obvious" that we can't continue to fund these programs.

But we can. Repeal the Bush tax cuts and agree to a tax increase of 1% a year for the next 30 years and we can do it. If you don't think that's worth it, fine. Make your argument. But in any case, let's argue honestly and may the best argument win.

The problem is that there is no interest in a true debate with an eye towards finding the optimum course of policy. The true goal is maintenance of power. If there was any true concern for the country operating here then the GOP wouldn't have pulled a 180 on having deficits between now and the Contract with America.

Scalzi on the Bush tax cuts

John's post is so brilliant and inspired that I need to excerpt some of it for posterity.

If it's to boost the economy, why does the working guy get nothing?

Yes, yes, I know -- more money back to the people so they can boost the economy, blah blah blah. But let's not lie and say this most recent tax cut is about the people, okay? I mean, yes -- if we really want to help the working guy, let's slash his taxes by more than a measly one or two percentage points and a few hundred dollars and avoid giving the rich double that in percentages and of course multiples of that in dollars. Throwing the working guy pennies while the wealthy are rolling out wheelbarrows of cash isn't my idea of a smart thing to do. Hell, even Warren Buffett thought the details of the most recent tax cut proposals were appaling. In the story referenced there, Senator Charles Grassley says that Buffett doesn't have any appreciation for the trials of the middle class, which is (excuse the pun) rich, since Buffett was suggesting giving the middle class much more of a tax break than the budget Grassley was pushing. And anyway, when it comes to money, who should you believe: They guy who invested his way to being worth $36 billion, or the guy with the government paycheck?

The GOP as the party of fiscal insanity:

There are many things I don't like about the Republican Party, but one of the things that galls me the most is how it's demonized taxation, and how it's consistently run deficits since Reagan and yet manages somehow to position itself as the party of fiscal responsibility. Yes, there is a point of too much taxation, and at times in our past we've been there, and it was not at all a bad thing for the GOP to point that out. Good on it. Now isn't one of those times, and even if it were, the rich would not be the people I'd focus the cuts upon. The answer to everything is not "tax cuts."
...
To be entirely honest about it, I lump people who believe that Republicans are fiscally responsible in with the people who believe in astrology and that the Earth was created in six days, in that whatever other positive qualities they might have, they have a fundamental defect in their ability to process reality. Mind you, this does not mean I expect Democrats to be correspondingly fiscally sound. That's a false opposition. But honestly, people. We have a three administration track record of Republicans gulping down debt like they're dipsomaniac sorority girls at Free Margarita Night, and then calling for yet another round of tax cuts. How much more evidence do you need?

On why taxation matters:

Call me crazy, but I expect a certain level of government service. It's not dizzingly high, but it's there. I'm comfortable with funding a certain number of things I don't necessarily agree with with my tax dollars in order to get certain services others might not agree with. I'm comfortable spending money on services I don't need to use personally -- welfare, unemployment, the military -- because I think they provide for a better quality of life for my fellow citizens at large. And for all of that, I'm willing to pay a fair amount, and the emphasis here is on "fair." I don't want to pay more than is necessary, and I want to make sure what's being spent is accounted for -- I remember reading recently that Pentagon accountants don't know where a trillion dollars they were given went, and that's just no good -- but for the quality of life and government services I expect, yes, I'll pay my taxes. Happily.
...
I like the idea that some of the money I send to my government goes to keep a library open in the little town I live in. I like the idea that somewhere in my little town, a kid who'd otherwise go hungry is eating dinner bought with food stamps that I paid for. I like the idea that a sailor on an aircraft carrier goes on shore leave with money I put in his pocket. I like the idea that people are researching diseases and robots are exploring space with money I chipped in to pay for them. As I mentioned, there are lots of things our government is doing with my money I wish it wouldn't do, but that's the trade-off and overall I think the balance is worth it.

All of that stuff takes money. That money comes from me. I accept the responsibility of paying that money. More of that money comes from me than from the average taxpayer. And I say, I don't need any more tax cuts. I need a government that can pay for what I want it to do without chronically shifting the financial burden of its existence on to my kid.

taxation subsidizes wealth

John Scalzi has one of the best rants about the sheer absurdity of the Bush tax cuts that I've read - far better than my own frustrated rant.

The bottom line is that these tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible. (Financial Times, "US 'faces future of chronic deficits'", 5/29/03). John makes a compelling and passionate argument that deserves to be read in its entirety.

The common argument by the principled right (whose existence i don't doubt, though Matthew does ask the reasonable question, where the hell are they?) is that government spending is axiomatically bad, counter to the Founder's ideals, etc. But the truth is that government has been teh catalyst for growth. If you want to see a world of unbridled capitalism and small, meek government, cast your gaze to the era of Tamany Hall or Teddy Roosevelt. Not even the most iron-hearted conservative today would argue that short life expectancies, rampant public diseases, child labor, sweatshops, dirt roads, inadequate sewage systems, polluted water, debilitating old age, etc were Good Things. It's taxation that has conquered all of these terrible things, and that has freed the potential of American capitalism and American People to go on to build even greater wealth.

The Progressive Agenda may not have even had form in the Founders' Time. That was because the much more basic issue was freedom. "Live free or die" is more than just a phrase, it's the essence of what the Founders sought to achieve. That battle has been won against Britain, but what about against our own darker natures? To categorically lump all Progressive idology as "anti-Founder" is a rhetorical deus ex machina - The Gods Disapprove, according to these self-styled Prophets of American Freedom. Who gave them any more right than myself to divine what the purpose of freedom is? To live like dogs under the thumb of a ruling superclass?

Denying that government taxation funds a great empowerment of the common citizen is to wish a return back to Tamany Hall and the Robber Barons and aristocratic classes. Could the great American entrepeneurial successes of the 20th Century - Microsoft, Fed Ex, AOL, Qualcomm - have occurred in such a climate? No, because without government improving the quality of life for the average citizen, those great visionaries would never have had the resources, education, or simple good health to pursue their vision.

Taxation - and government spending - is the lifeblood of our society. Every billionaire in this country owes a huge part of their success to the atmosphere of entrepeneurship which this country is built on. That atmosphere does not exist except to the priveleged few in a world where government is prevented from acting on behalf of the common man.

This is the central truth of why America is so successful and powerful. Because every man woman and child has the true ability to achieve their dreams. And it happened because of taxation. And it is threatened by these tax cust that are now law. What sacrifice have we made from the pool of our children's potential?

Government services are the Commons, and the tax cuts are the Tragedy.

pleasing lies vs unpleasant truths

via Billmon:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. -- George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. -- Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -- Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. -- George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. -- Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. -- George Bush , February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. -- Colin Powell, March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. -- George Bush, March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. -- Ari Fleisher, March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. -- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. -- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. -- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. -- Neocon scholar Robert Kagan, April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. -- Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. -- George Bush, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. -- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. -- George Bush, May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. -- Colin Powell, May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. -- Donald Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. -- George W. Bush, May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. -- Condoleeza Rice, May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. -- Maj. Gen. David Petraeus (Commander 101st Airborne), May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. -- Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. -- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer. -- Donald Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. -- Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

A year ago, Steven Den Beste asked, "Do you prefer pleasing falsehoods or unpleasant truths?" ... I find the question rather ironic.

political martyrs

Joshua Marshall has posted one of the most important posts he has ever written on his TPM blog. It nicely sumarizes and puts into context the emerging self-interested critiques of Blumenthal's new book, The Clinton Wars. He nicely parries Michael Isikoff's clumsy attempt at portraying Blumenthal as acgting out of self-interest, for example - speaking from the perspective of a Washington insider who knows the backstory.

But the meat of his point is that the reason Blumenthal's book has attracted so much negative attention by the media is NOT because of GOP or partisan resistance or even the Mighty Wurlitzer:

Blumenthal's book is a harsh and incisive critique of Washington's insider culture and its prestige press corps which is -- as a group, if not individually -- corrupt, rudderless and often insipid.
...
The essential question about the 1990s is whether the scandals were principally a matter of Clintonian wrongdoing or his critics' concerted opposition and resistance to his presidency using every, and often the lowest possible, means available. Mix in of course a lot of what Richard Hofstadter called 'the paranoid style.' Blumenthal picked choice #2. And, to my mind, he's been vindicated on that choice again and again.

Setting aside the truly egregious examples like Sue Schmidt of the Washington Post, most journalists who covered this case either had no sense of the larger context of what was happening, or didn't care. Often it was both, but more often the former. They were following a cookie-cutter script in which the prosecutors are the good guys and they eventually unearth a president's vile misdeeds and bring him down in a mawkish morality play. To them, the whole melange of alleged scandals had no larger political context. It was just the Clintons being accused of this or that -- the only larger meaning being how the First Couple supposedly represented various sorts of psychological and sociological maladies. The fact that few if any of the 'charges' ever held up under scrutiny didn't matter all that much since the whole drama spawned by the antic accusations and defenses could be written off, as it were, as a charge against the psychological and sociological maladies ledger.

This has much less to do with media bias than with the conversion of our media into a vehicle for entertainment rather than journalism. I've blogged about the failure of the Fourth Estate before and I started this blog and the mailing list as my own personal attempts to counter that trend for my own benefit.

On the matter of Clinton - he disappointed me. I believed he was innocent of the Lewinsky thing until that night in August 1998 when he finally admitted to it. I heard his admission on theradio as I was driving on I-90, having just left my job in Boston and headed to Houston for grad school. I never will forgive Clinton for his conduct but I am able to separate his personal faults from his record as President, and I still feel he was among the best Presidents that this country ever had. And he still has that visionary intellectual understanding of the role that America plays in human history and how our society is evolving - his recent comments at the University of Arkansas were compelling and a rigorous, and as always a catalyst for debate and honest appraisal about the choices our society makes and just how critical a role the media and the punditocracy play in shaping those choices.

Hehe, the prodigal political rockstar. BTW, the 22nd Amendment doesn't say anything about serving as Veep.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

snicker

Trapped on the other side of the country aboard Air Force One, the President has lost his cool: "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I'll be at home! Waiting for the bastard!"

His Secret Service chief seems taken aback. "But Mr. President . . ."

The President brusquely interrupts him. "Try Commander-in-Chief. Whose present command is: Take the President home!"

Was this George W. Bush's moment of resolve on Sept. 11, 2001? Well, not exactly. Actually, the scene took place this month, on a Toronto sound stage.

The histrionics, filmed for a two-hour television movie to be broadcast this September, are as close as you can get to an official White House account of its activities at the outset of the war on terrorism.

snort

A copy of the script obtained by The Globe and Mail reveals a prime-time drama starring a nearly infallible, heroic president with little or no dissension in his ranks and a penchant for delivering articulate, stirring, off-the-cuff addresses to colleagues.

I can't wait for The Onion to notice this one.

Bizarro Blogsphere

Glenn Reynolds has ditched Moveable Type and moved to Blogger.com. OK, it's actually because Hosting Matters had a fire in their NOC, but there's a kind of irony operating here, especially given the recent mass exodus. I bet those Blogger archive errors don't seem nearly as annoying to those of us still on Blogspot, now!