Starve the Beast Redux

The scary part of Starve the Beast conspiracy threatens now the stability of the economy of the whole western world. Protests about the on-going class warfare on the poor and yes even the middle class have been routine for years. Riots have broken out in Greece and will likely soon come to Spain. Its not inconceivable that we'll see similar riots in Britain and even the US.

People are tired, hungry and too many are unemployed and homeless. The 40 hour week has all but disappeared in the non-union work place in a blizzard of salaried and contract positions. It's only a matter of time before something more serious happens. The results of more serious consequences could be catastrophic.

Paul Krugman / Starve the beast: Fiscal calamity is the GOP's plan to shrink government

Starving the beasts is the Republican conspiracy to bankrupt the US government to force downsizing government as well as shrinking the middle class in the interest of lower wages until the US can compete against China and India in manufacturing. Paul claims he said it first, but no, I've been talking about it since 2004. Ronald Reagan sold it to the country during the John Anderson debate. A staffer is credited with coining the term. Grover Norquist convinced Double Think Dubya to implement the strategy big time (Wikipedia)

OK, the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do.
For readers who don't know what I'm talking about: Ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.
And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unfunded wars. In addition, the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020.
So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Barack Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission.
Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse -- in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn't have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order.
Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they're adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they're still not willing to do that.
In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: "I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, 'Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.' "
What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because "middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., GOP) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes." (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the GOP is the party of the affluent?)
At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan -- and there isn't any plan, except to regain power.
But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: In effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm#ixzz1QoCX6bub

Related articles

• Starving The Beast? (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Starving The Beast? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Paul Krugman: Origins of the Deficit (delong.typepad.com)
• Paul Krugman: Ludicrous and Cruel (economistsview.typepad.com)
• Krugman Exposes GOP Ryan's Unicorn Budget, Catches Heritage Burying Number (my.firedoglake.com)

The Truth About the Economy

Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, breaks down how the economy went from great to horrific in six simple steps.

Related articles

• Robert Reich: The Swamp of Washington and the Morass of the Economy (huffingtonpost.com)
• 'The Five Myths About the U.S. Economy' (huffingtonpost.com)
• ABC's Jon Karl Scoffs at Robert Reich's Call for More Government Stimulus (crooksandliars.com)
• Robert Reich: The Stalled Recovery, Smoke and Mirrors and the Carnage on the Street (huffingtonpost.com)
• Robert Reich: Why the President Must Come Up With Demand-Side Solutions, And Not Go Over to the Supply Side (huffingtonpost.com)

Contrary to Popular Belief: Inflation Hurts the Rich, Benefit the Debtor Middle Class, Retirees? Not So Much

Paul Krugman, as usual, has it right.

Image via Wikipedia

... who stands to gain from deflation, and lose if inflation is, say, 4 percent over a period of 10 years? Is it little old ladies living on fixed incomes, and salt of the earth workers who have scrimped and saved?
Well, no. There are, of course, some ordinary people who would lose a bit from higher inflation. But Social Security — the bedrock of retirement for most Americans — is indexed to inflation, and retirement accounts invested in stocks wouldn’t be hurt.
... Since I’ve been arguing that some inflation would help the economy recover, what we’re seeing in practice is that defending the interests of a small wealthy slice of the population takes priority over a possible recovery strategy.