There are three routes on the table: 1) The Paul Ryan plan as embraced by Mitt Romney except for his Debate #1 revisions of additional 20% tax cuts offset by closing loopholes and deductions which every non ideological think tank said would be inadequate to plug the revenue loss.2) the Simpson-Bowles Commission Recommendations to make two dollars of cuts to one dollar of increased revenue, 3) and the Grand Bargain proposed by Pres. Obama, with even more cuts in ratio to tax increases. Obama's plan is based on a more detailed, revised version of Simpson Bowles. However, it was immediately rejected by the Tea Party controlled House of Representatives because it violated their member's pledge to Grover Norquist never to raise one penny of taxes.
The GOP's belief is that one solves the deficit problem in two ways: cut everything in the budget and lower taxes on the upper income brackets so that the wealthy invest and the largess trickles down to the middle class and the poor. To achieve a balanced budget would require a 30% cut in government expenditures, either across the board or taking a meat cleaver to specific programs. That approach is called austerity.
Neither Obama nor the GOP have been purists either way because even the 2009 stimulus contained tax cuts and large cuts to government expenditures are also part of the President's Grand Bargain. Mitt Romney has proposed increasing the Pentagon budget by $2 trillion over 10 years, reducing taxes 20% across the board, keeping the Bush tax rates for the wealthy. Just increasing Pentagon expenditures alone would result as financier Steve Rattner calculated in the need to cut everything else 40%.
The lesson to learn from Europe is not that debt is bad; it is the wrong way to solve the debt problem.
Nicholaus Kristoff, writing in the New York Times today made the point that Europe tried the austerity approach while Pres. Obama tried low taxes and government stimulus programs. While neither were robust, the stimulus approach has had better results. "The International Monetary Fund this month downgraded its estimates for global economic growth, with only one major bright spot in the West. That would be the United States, expected to grow a bit more than 2 percent this year and next.
In contrast, Europe’s economy is expected to shrink this year and have negligible growth next year. The I.M.F. projects that Germany will grow less than 1 percent this year and next, while Britain’s economy is contracting this year."
A couple of months ago , my husband and I spent our vacation in Europe. . I had only spotty access to the internet and the international version of CNN and England’s Sky News as my English language contact with the world. I expected it would be just a relaxing, leisurely getaway . It was, but it was also a learning experience .
The lesson to learn from Europe is not that debt is bad; it is the wrong way to solve the debt problem.
Nicholaus Kristoff, writing in the New York Times today made the point that Europe tried the austerity approach while Pres. Obama tried low taxes and government stimulus programs. While neither were robust, the stimulus approach has had better results. "The International Monetary Fund this month downgraded its estimates for global economic growth, with only one major bright spot in the West. That would be the United States, expected to grow a bit more than 2 percent this year and next.
In contrast, Europe’s economy is expected to shrink this year and have negligible growth next year. The I.M.F. projects that Germany will grow less than 1 percent this year and next, while Britain’s economy is contracting this year."
A couple of months ago , my husband and I spent our vacation in Europe. . I had only spotty access to the internet and the international version of CNN and England’s Sky News as my English language contact with the world. I expected it would be just a relaxing, leisurely getaway . It was, but it was also a learning experience .
Coverage of English
domestic news was dominated by
the the shake up of the Conservative Government of Prime Minister David
Cameron, as he sought to change course.
When he assumed office two years ago, his answer to the world financial
crisis was to slash many government funded services with an
unabashed program of austerity. . The
result in the UK was a double dip recession and
continued high unemployment
numbers , a contrast with continued, but slow US growth and decrease in unemployment from a high of over 12% to just over 8%. . Compared to Europe’s stagnant growth, the US
has done much better.. We may think of
Obama’s recovery as either tepid or a
failure, but we have come through the
economic crash of 2008 in better shape than Europe.
Cameron’s change of
course could be taken as a tacit admission that austerity had failed..
Cameron’s direction now differs from the US brand of conservatism of small government, reduced taxes paid for by
cuts in social programs . In fact, what Cameron
proposes is to increase
government investment in infrastructure and
education in order to help business
create jobs. Cameron was attempting to
stimulate the economy with more active government participation. Sound familiar? It should. It resembles the
Obama approach in his jobs plan rejected by the GOP dominated House.
To say that the 2012
presidential election is not about choice assumes that any other approach would be
better than Obama’s.. While we may be unhappy with the Obama recovery . just
firing him does not mean replacing him
with GOP trickle down austerity is
better. It is possible it could
be worse.. . We need to be aware the GOP approach has a track record of failures to recover from a
financial sector meltdown, such as we
experienced in the 2008 Crash, similar
to the UK’s recent experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment