SHE SAID: Cutting
spending now to reduce future deficits is like telling an overweight patient having a
heart attack to get on the treadmill
And…we’re off to the races, folks.
Our first posts for this new blog will tell you a lot about
who we are and where we’re coming from. As an economist, Rob’s got a lot
more financial background than I do, and you can see from his first meaty post,
he’s going to give our so-far nonexistent readers a stern dose of dour
statistics and dire predictions. Which very well may be true, I’ll admit. I’m
not qualified to say.
Or perhaps, I’m not educated enough in the vocabulary he
uses to refute his argument in kind. But that wouldn’t be much fun for our
readers, anyway.
As a journalist, my job is to ask questions. Lots of
questions. And to look at information from a variety of angles, many of which
are not as tidy as just doing the math. It’s messy, in fact, mightily messy.
My role in our discussions, as I see it, will often be to
try to put Rob’s statistics and projections into human form, and to talk about
how the economic and political decisions we make—and those we avoid making—play
out for regular working stiffs like me, self employed folks, struggling homeowners, unemployed folks and
those trapped in poverty. And, I’ll try to put the discussion of economic
“truths” revealed by numbers into the context of our current political
standoff. What should be done is rarely what can be done, and that’s just the
reality of Washington.
First, though, a couple of general comments about Rob’s
post—which contains enough issues to sustain this blog until summer if we
unpack the suitcase and examine each item in context.
The deficit: yep,
I’d be a fool to say it wasn’t an issue of concern. For readers, who like me, don’t
frequent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) website, you can find a little more
context the in the most recent
report
from Jan 2012. (Don’t be frightened, it’s a fairly digestible.)
My issue with the
deficit argument is that historically, the federal government has run up large
deficits in times of war and economic hardship. We’ve just had a prolonged dose
of both. There are several reasons why this time, this deficit, may be
different—or not—but let’s examine them, not just say the sky is falling.
I also think there are times when it’s the fed’s job to
prime and support the economy—a “feed the cold” strategy. I don’t think our
economy is health enough yet to start putting the screws to it. Cut, yes, but
not yet.
It’s also one thing to say we should cut or cap discretionary spending, it’s another to
say how we should cut or cap discretionary
spending. The devil is always in the details. Who will feel the pain—and there
will be pain. If we could gain significant savings by cutting “waste, fraud and
abuse” the last four presidents would have already done so.
Tax reform: If
only. Yes, we need tax reform and we need greater tax fairness. Politically,
both are, unfortunately, unlikely at this time.
And on a more general note, I’m hoping that as we hash this
out, we can start looking at more out-of-the-box solutions. I’d like to see a
broader discussion, one that isn’t dampened by what’s possible now, but
emboldened by what may be possible in the future.
Here are a few examples:
- ·
What impact will it have on boosting green energy
development if we, as the President called for recently, stop subsidizing the
oil industry to the tune of $4 billion per year?
- ·
What would it mean if every home, business,
industry and government office in the U.S. could be heated and cooled in a way
that’s cheaper, greener, and more sustainable? And wouldn’t achieving that be
worth a substantial investment of federal dollars?
- ·
What would it mean for us to stop spending on
outdated and outmoded military technology, retool the industries that make it
and re-channel those dollar into making make our country the center of
high-tech innovation and manufacturing?
- ·
What would it mean for health care spending if
put people’s interests ahead of insurance companies’, if we really do commit to
paying for preventative care from cradle to grave, and increase transparency
for consumers so we can comparison shop for health care by price and quality?
Right now, neither is really possible.
There’s plenty more to say, and I’m sure we’ll both have
more to write in the weeks and months ahead. I hope you will too.
Write, comment, question, but be civil about it. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Let the debate begin!
Trout
No comments:
Post a Comment