It’s been nearly 35 years since we’ve had a “tax and spend” political party. During the 1970s, the Democrats gave up fighting the Republicans about the “tax and spend” label, and the Carter Administration tried to escape from that charge by making very serious attempts to balance the budget. During the 1980s, more and more Democrats emphasized their concern for reducing deficits and balancing budgets as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Reagan Administration’s unprecedented peacetime deficits. This didn’t work for them during Reagan’s time, but they finally were able to use the balanced budget old-time religion game to get George Bush to violate his no new taxes pledge, which both contributed to the Bush recession and, as a further consequence, was a big reason why Bill Clinton was elected.
|By: letsgetitdone Wednesday December 9, 2009 12:04 pm|
The ideas that Government deficits create a debt burden for future generations, take away non-governmental sector saving, and that socials security is broken are all “deadly innocent frauds,” supporting the idea that deficits must be avoided, even if we have to suffer through extreme economic downturns to avoid them. These frauds, like the idea that Government spending is operationally limited by the need to tax and borrow, all serve to reinforce the idea that Government can’t do anything about a bad economy without doing more harm than good. The contrapuntal ideas that Government can create money, and is not operationally limited by the need to tax and borrow, there is no debt burden on future generations that limits production or consumption, deficits don’t subtract from, but add to non-governmental savings, and Government checks including Social Security checks don’t bounce, all reinforce the idea that Government deficit spending is not to be avoided, but, on the contrary is something we can and need to do to avoid the economic and human waste of unnecessary economic recessions and depressions.
|By: letsgetitdone Wednesday October 14, 2009 10:49 pm|
So, I agree with ralphbon. I, too, don’t want to hear another word about deficit neutrality in health insurance reform. I want the problem of the private insurance industry and its predatory behavior solved. I want health care expenditures quickly cut to 11 or 12% of GDP from the current 17.5%, and I don’t care about any budget deficit, or the continued existence of the health insurance industry, or what Empress Snowe, or President Collins, or Benedict Arnold Lieberman, or Rahm, or BHO think, or any other BS the politicians think they can throw my way. All I have to say to them is: solve the health insurance problem and get rid of these outcomes, and these outlandish health care expenditures, or face my undying wrath and enmity.
Finally, make no mistake, I know that Harry Reid has the authority to write a health insurance reform bill that will substitute Bernie Sanders’ S 703 enhanced Medicare for All bill, for the very poor bills produced by the Senate HELP committee, and the Senate Finance Committee, and bring that bill to the floor. I also know that if that bill is filibustered, the Democrats can implement “the nuclear option,” pass S 703, and eliminate the filibuster in the bargain, if only they want to. So, if that doesn’t happen, the Senate Democrats and Harry Reid will bear the responsibility for failing to pass S 703. Again, they can pass an enhanced Medicare for All, single-payer bill if they choose. Let’s make them do it! Forget about the Public Option! Why should we settle for second best?