MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
David Lynch and Damian Paletta, WaPo this AM.
There are times when our federal government needs to be able to run deficits. Elevating balanced budgets to an overriding priority regardless of circumstances, as the Pete Peterson crowd has seemed to, is foolhardy.
What this development reflects, however, is a non-circumstantial refusal to find revenue to pay for what the current government intends to fund. As such, it is highly lamentable. It reflects an erosion of what should be a basic norm of our government to raise revenue to pay for what the government funds, to be sure usually honored in the breach, but a factor in budget policy and politics nonetheless.
The late Senator Moynihan was eloquent and showed political courage in insisting that sometimes what a government needs to do is just raise more revenue and find ways to do it no matter how much those who have to pay it don't like it, full stop. Given its exceptionally undisciplined, seat of the pants approach to "governing" (if that is what the current spectacle is), it comes as no major surprise from this Administration and GOP-controlled Congress.
Comments
...and part 2 of the GOP aspiration..."White House budget proposes increase to defense spending, and cuts to safety net, but federal deficit would remain", Damian Paletta, today's WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-agony-of-the-moderate-left/2...
Federal deficit must remain to provide the rationale for further proposed safety net cuts to come. This has been a long time in the making.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 02/12/2018 - 12:02pm
I don't buy it that it is a thought out unified plan long in the making ? These are conflicting party messages right in your article:
There's these two pieces at Politico I read;
The only certainty in Trump's budget: Oceans of red ink
Even if the president were to get the spending cuts and economic growth he wants, deficits would explode to $7.1 trillion over the next decade.
By David Rogers, Feb. 12
and
'Never been a more discouraging time' for Washington's deficit hawks
02/12/2018 07:36 PM EST
then there's this, also @ Politico
Lawmakers promise bipartisan ‘no’ to Trump plan for cutting diplomacy and aid money
By Nahal Toosi
at The Hill
His get tough with the drug companies blather has proved to be just blather
Trump fires first salvo on drug prices
By Peter Sullivan - 02/12/18 08:32 PM EST
and this utter nonsense that's not going to happen this way, factoring in Obamacare repeal:
Overnight Health Care: Trump budget seeks savings through ObamaCare repeal | Trump would cut health department funds by 21 percent | Proposed changes to anti-drug office spark pushback
BY RACHEL ROUBEIN AND JESSIE HELLMANN - 02/12/18 07:45 PM EST
Yes, Trump has presented a budget that is trying to slash all kinds of domestic social programs. But everyone in Congress knows that those are a drop in the bucket and it is just typical GOP modus operandi for propaganda effect, including sop things like stopping giving NPR any money because it aggravates conservative constituents.
Looks like chaos to me. They are split several ways and then there's Trump: what it looks like he is trying to do: BLAME THEM for the deficit by producing a phony budget that purports to have all the needed savings in it.
by artappraiser on Tue, 02/13/2018 - 12:20am
Also, back to your first WaPo link
in addition, it's very interesting that there's less passion among voters about balancing the budget
by artappraiser on Tue, 02/13/2018 - 12:54am
Alice in Wonderland territory - "deficit means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less". Give it to the guy experienced in bankruptcy. The "businessman". Wonders never cease.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 02/13/2018 - 1:04am
And here's all I think that needs to be posted on the infrastructure scam:
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), another member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, criticized the proposal for moving money around.
“It’s not new money. It is the repurposing of existing programs,” Garamendi told The Hill. “They’ve moved the money from existing programs to their new programs and say they got $200 billion over 10 years. No they don’t. It’s the same $200 billion that would be spent on ongoing programs.”
from Trump infrastructure plan gets cold reception @ TheHil.com- 02/12/18 07:22 PM EST
by artappraiser on Tue, 02/13/2018 - 1:51am
Look at what they do, meaning in particular how they vote, not what they say. I guess you don't perceive a clear direction to GOP budget and economic policies in recent decades. I do.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 02/13/2018 - 9:56am
Finally, someone answering the question this enquiring mind wanted to know, my underlining:
Who Produced Trump's Budget? Not Trump
The plan sent to Congress is from the OMB director. The president will have little interest in fighting for it.
Op-ed by Jonathan Bernstein @ Bloomberg.com, Feb. 12
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/14/2018 - 1:19am
Intelligence official warns Trump administration on national debt
By Josh Gerstein @ Politico.com, 02/13
by artappraiser on Wed, 02/14/2018 - 1:28am