Image source - AmericanMethod.com
This worn out phrase, coined by the conservatives in the Reagan administration, has now taken on a whole new meaning. The original right-wing intent was to reduce taxes in order to reduce (starve) the size of government (the beast). Congressman Paul Ryan’s recent budget proposal goes beyond that. It calls for slitting the beast’s throat, drawing and quartering the animal, and then setting the corpse on fire.
We’ve reached a critical point in the growth of the modern conservative movement. They feel that they have enough elitist-paid-for politicians to destroy the social fabric of this country. The entitlement programs - most notably Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - have been a target of the moneyed elite since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The upper crust has always been “horrified” that a small fraction of their inherited (or often ill-gotten) wealth has to go to pay for part of a social safety net for America’s poor, sick and elderly. They would much rather let these people die than to have to pony up another penny of their treasures.
Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and to reduce (again) the marginal tax rate on top earners would have been laughed at only a year ago. But today, many segments of the “serious” media are calling this a legitimate well-thought-out plan.
As Ezra Klein and others have noted, it appears that the conservative tactic is to come up with something more radical than the Simpson-Bowles plan (which was once thought to be extreme), so that the ultimate “compromise” would fall back on the Fiscal Commission proposal. The problem is that, if this does take place, it will be just another step in the conservative goal to eliminate all entitlement programs.
Next year’s GOP budget proposal will go even farther than Ryan’s plan. It too will be considered extreme, and then Ryan’s plan will no longer be considered “radical.” In fact, the media will accept it as a fair compromise, and the Democrats will ultimately cave, making what is now thought of as being outlandish legislation a “serious” well-thought-out proposal.
This “moving of the goal posts” will continue through every budget planning cycle until the beast is finally dead.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alysa Salzberg
Cenk Uygur
Oryoki Bowl
Robert Greenwald
Frank Michels
Kent Pitman
Salon.com
Comments
It's always been about property. Money.
Good post. / R
Put it to you this way- you think a Wall Street investment banker would invest in a company if Ryan was the Accountant and Cantor the CEO? --- bwhahahahahahahahahaha
It does seem that Paul Ryan actually intends to see spending cut. But as the Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles commented in The Hill, he goes overboard on cutting social safety net programs, but leaves other big ticket items mostly untouched.
Hope Democrats will propose a reasonable alternative...
Q: Is the budget balanced?
If the answer is in the negative, cut more expenses. Otherwise, you may stop cutting expenses -- for the moment.
Since we can't keep going at this rate, how much and what do you want to cut? It's easy to sling mud but figuring out what to do is a different story.
since o. s. represents 'enlightened progressive' thought, we can be sure that salvation will not come from the left. fortunately, that segment of the population most at risk from financial disaster is about 100 pounds overweight. that may see them through to the revolution.
Sure, there are the radical right rich like the Koch brothers. But, then, there are rich men like Warren Buffet, who supports Obama and higher taxes on the rich.
Slashing welfare and medicare is bad policy, but support for it doesn't neatly divide along income lines.
If the media calls this proposal serious, it's because they are desperate. Not many other politicians are putting anything on the table and no one is putting the budget elephant in the crosshairs: the defense and the wars.
Nothing less than severe cuts will cure the collectivist excesses of contemporary liberalism. And what's severe about defunding Planned Parenthood, the National Endowment of the Arts, and Public Broadcasting?
Adjusting the retirement age under Social Security is not radical; it's a sensible reaction to changes in human longevity.
The hypothetical of a corporation controlled by Ryan is a dream compared to the regrettable reality of a country "headed" by a community organizer from the cesspool of American politics.
That boyish charm is what makes such men so dangerous -- surely they could mean no harm to dear ol' grandma and her measly SS check. But do not be deceived, the dark heart of such men is colder than a well-digger's ass.
But let us not place all the blame there, either, for without the worse devils of our nature -- the greed that lies at the very heart of America's "rugged individualist" myth -- ordinary Americans wouldn't fall for the empty promises that propel such villains into positions of power.
And you can add to that diseased mythology the corruption of Christianity called the Prosperity Gospel that blasphemes the very teaching of Jesus to proclaim to hell with the poor, God wants you to be rich!
As long as so many Americans maintain the faint but foolish hope that one day they might be in a position to exploit the misery of others and grow obscenely rich, things will not change for the better in our politics.
For more, see The Cowboy Way - Unmasking American Myths
.
Never let Paul Ryan's plan be forgotten. It's the perfect illustration of what the GOP is all about: Crush the welfare state to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It's sickening.
Yes, severe cuts are necessary - first in the cutback on taxes, i.e., re-instate taxes that were cut. Next in the military. Planned Parenthood, Nat. Endow. of the Art and Pub. Broadcasting are a drop in the spending bucket, and going after them is mean-spirited and not about to do any good for the deficit.
Oh, and the horror of a community organizer in the W.H. - someone who actually served on the ground.
Connecticut has the highest per capita income, Wisconsin (Ryan's state) is a little below average, Mississippi has the lowest.
I've done this in percentages, since they have different numbers of Congressmen, but Conn is 70% Democratic, Wisconsin 60% Republican and Mississippi over 80% Republican.
It's a nice fantasy to say rich fat cats are voting in the Ryans of the world, but it's plain old not true. The Republicans tend to come from the poorer states and the Democrats from the richer.
This has become particularly evident after SCOTUS's Citizens United ruling.