Raw Deal by Robert Reich

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/12-2


House Republican budget chair Paul Ryan and Senate Democratic budget chair Patty Murray. (File)

About the only good thing that can be said about the budget deal just patched together by House Republican budget chair Paul Ryan and Senate Democratic budget chair Patty Murray is that the right-wing Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity oppose it.

But that doesn’t mean it’s a good deal for the country. In fact, it’s a bad deal, for at least three reasons:

First, it fails extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million jobless who will lose them in a few weeks. These people and their families are still caught in the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

Almost three Americans are jobless for every job that’s available – a ratio worse than it was at the bottom of the last downturn.

[badtoworse]

1. That is the nature of a negotiated deal - you don't get everything you want.

The big problem I see with the Far Right and the Progressive Left is that neither side will offer up an inch on their demands or agree to anything the other side wants. That is the recipe for an indefinite standoff. With this deal, both sides can say they got something and also gave on some points.

The fact that neither the Progressives nor the Tea Partiers are happy suggests to me that the deal may be a reasonable compromise

[el_bryanto]

3. It doesn't actually preclude Republicans holding us hostage on the debt in March

I am not sure we can do much better, but it's easy to envision a scenario where they get a lot of what they want right now, then use the threat of a default to force further concessions in March.

Bryant

[badtoworse]

6. Maybe we should make a bona-fide effort to break the addiction to debt

I'm not a big fan of massive government borrowing.

[el_bryanto]

7. Well - I don't necessarily disagree, but don't think that's a problem for today

The problem is that our economy is kind of stagnant and too many people are unemployed or under-employed. Worrying about the debt in our current situation is akin to worrying about a leaky faucet in a house that's on fire. Yes we need to get to that, but let's deal with the current issue first.

Bryant

[badtoworse]

8. The problem is that for as long as I can remember,...

there's always been a reason why we can't deal with the debt issue now. For that reason, no effort is made to even start.

[el_bryanto]

9. How far back can you remember? Clinton's budgets dealt with it in a serious way

We were running a surplus if memory serves.

Bryant

[badtoworse]

10. Not exactly. Clinton was relatively good, but the debt still went up

On January 31, 1993 the total debt was $4.167 trillion and on January 31, 2001, it was $5.716 trillion - about a 37% increase. By comparison, Under Bush, it nearly doubled to over $10.6 trillion and so far, under Obama, it's increased to $17.2 trillion for a 62% increase.

I got the numbers from treasurydirect.gov

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm

[salib]

12. Yes, we were running a surplus.

Annually.

Badtoworse simply picked a time period and looked at the debt, not the budget.

Clinton made real progress on this and Bush immediately screwed it up.

Now, if we only had returned to our progressive income tax policy before Reagan, we would be generally running some debt, some deficits, some surpluses. But, we would have a incredibly more just society (in so many ways).

[hfojvt]

18. the surplus was only in the last two years

and then projected into the future.

The 'surplus' also still included FICA taxes. Meaning that the Government even in Clinton's last year was spending at least half of the money that was supposed to go into the Social Security Trust fund.

[badtoworse]

19. That the national debt went up under Clinton is a historical fact.

The fact that he had some surplus years does not change that. It only makes him look better than either Bush or Obama.

[salib]

11. What addiction to debt?

It is a con game (and a shell game): https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0.

Stop parroting right-wing talking points.

[jeff47]

22. Perhaps you should actually show it's a problem before you try to fix it.

And no, big numbers do not make it a problem.

[salib]

13. BS.

Sorry, enough of this. There is NO EQUIVALENCE in the two sides presented here.

"Far Right" vs. "Progressive Left". No.

This talking point is so skewed to the right that it could easily topple over.

[badtoworse]

21. So the Tea Partiers are happy about this deal?

[geckosfeet]

14. Elections (should) have consequences.

[badtoworse]

20. The 2012 election did have consequences - the GOP kept the House

That means they have a seat at the table and we can't dictate to them. It means we have to negotiate and in a negotiation, you almost never get everything you want.

[ananda]

2. A bad deal is a bad deal for everyone..

.. except the upper percenters and the corporations and Wall street.

[pipoman]

5. And those are exactly Reich's puppet masters..

[closeupready]

17. Yup, and always have been. He's probably a nice person,

but little he says is of any interest to me whatsoever.

[pipoman]

4. perhaps if mr. Reich

Had actually stood for labor instead of big business when he had a chance we wouldn't have to keep extending unemployment. Reich is a traitor to the labor he pretends to care about now...He is a weasel.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Point to ponder ...

can ANY negotiated budget deal, in a divided government environment, accomplish ANY of the things Reich presents as criticisms of the deal?

The one thing that the deal DID accomplish was that it "ensured" (as much as a budget "deal" can) that the government will not be shut-down or be held hostage in a debt fight. Maybe, that was the best we could hope for and, possibly, the point of the exercise.

Perhaps, with that assurance, sitting Democrats can help themselves, as a party (and the American people), by introducing (in a very public way) legislation for the stuff we want, such as U/C extensions, re-instatement of SNAP, the turning off of the sequester paid for by taxing the wealthy, expansion of medicare, etc.

This would give 2014 Democratic candidates something concrete to campaign on, while highlighting Democratic/republican differences.

[GoneFishin]

16. Many who complain about debt addiction think it is just fine to overpay for obsolete cold war

era military equipment, and continuing to inflate an already blubber laden military budget.

[woo me with science]

23. Another predatory con job by the Business Party of the US,

both Democratic and Republican factions.