Dubya wants to pay for reconstructing New Orleans (and by extension, everywhere along the Gulf Coast damaged by Hurricane Katrina) by cutting spending to other federal programs. He has rejected outright raising taxes, and he does not want to increase the federal deficit beyond its already (thanks largely to him) astronomical levels.
The majority of Americans apparently agrees with him. Two polls discussed on NPR this morning reveal that the public also believes cutting other federal spending is the way to go . . . though when given the choice of which federal spending to cut, most Americans say cut spending on the war in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think Dubya will go for that one.
The problem is that many in Congress, including Republicans, think there's no more fat to delete from the federal budget.
You know what's coming, don't you?
Wait for it . . .
Ah, it will be the end of the dreaded social programs, a/k/a entitlements, which is what Dubya's goal has been all along.
So we are going back to the Gilded Age in more ways than one. The stable middle class will disappear, and we're going to wind up with a permanent underclass--and eventually, I fear, a shooting war, right here in River City. And that's Trouble with a capital T and that rimes with P and that stands for Phooey.
I will not make the claim that Dubya is responsible for the hurricane itself, though his head-in-the-sand approach to clear evidence of global warming hasn't helped. He sure knows how to take advantage of an opportunity when he gets one, though, doesn't he?
This is mostly old news to those of us who have been paying attention. My current outrage is at the pollsters, who seem entirely incapable of asking questions to get the answers that really reflect what the public thinks and not just reflecting what the pollsters want to establish.
If pollsters would either (1) ask open-ended questions, instead of making people choose among too-limited options, and/or (2) give complete options if they must use multiple-choice questions, I think the pollsters would find out that almost no one wants to cut assistance to the elderly and disabled or to the truly poor and destitute, and that no one wants to wipe out all the safety nets currently in place in federal law, like effective and enforced clean air and water standards, safe working conditions and livable union wages, automobile safety and fuel efficiency standards, and the like. Yet these are the very things that Dubya already is attacking in his quest to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
But if someone just says, "Do you want the government to pay for this by cutting other spending or raising taxes," of course people are going to choose cutting spending. No one wants to pay more than they now pay, even though in many cases what they now pay is simply not enough.
People forget that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thank Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for that astute observation. Cut taxes enough, and civilization will eventually disappear in a hail of gunfire.
People also forget that we formed the United States in the first place to create "a more perfect Union." OK, so originally that meant that we adopted the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough . . . but stop and think about that for a minute. Why should we go back to a type of Articles of Confederation system in fact though not in name?
The short answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. It would mean the end of the United States, again in fact if not in name. But that's what is going to happen if Dubya gets his way on how to pay for Reconstruction, Part Deux.
When are people going to realize that the past was no idyllic Golden Age? Not for Joe Schmoe, anyway, even if it was for the Morgans and the Vanderbilts and their ilk.
Consider, however: even if it were for Joe Schmoe, there is never any going back. I liken this to being a college student vs. being a job-holding adult who then loses his/her job. College students, most of whom have never had significant money, have no problem with living on a minimal budget. But once they've had a job and have had a serious, steady income, cutting that income makes their lives much harder. It is always harder to give something up than never to have had something to begin with.
Thus, if Dubya doesn't get his way about further cuts to federal spending, we're just going to run even bigger deficits than we do now. Unless the populace gets religion, that is, and realizes that it's well past the time to pay the piper. An old Fram oil filters advertising campaign had it right: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Later is always more expensive, be it in time or money lost, options lost, mutual goodwill lost, or (most frighteningly) social cohesion obliterated.
Are you quaking in your boots yet? You should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment