One Aggravated Rant to Another

I was glacing through the headlines on CNBC today and I saw this headline: "Selective Amnesia on Deficit Spending." I have enjoyed a couple of the articles written by the author, Julie Roginsky, in the past and so I decided to read it. Unlike her other articles, which always have a little bit of an attack on Republicans in office, I found this article to just be one big rant against...well, I am not even sure. She does target Republicans, Bush, anti-healthcare reformers, and I think anyone who is against what the President is doing. I usually enjoy reading articles from those with opposing opinions, but only if they hold logical arguments.

So, here are some of the points of the article and my comments regarding those points.

"The reasons for the current shortfall are relatively straightforward. Over the eight year prior to Obama's inauguration, the United States amassed the largest budget deficits in modern history. Two wars, tax cuts which were never paid for and the largest economic crisis in almost a century all contributed to a $1.3 trillion deficit by the end of 2008. The deep recession, plunging tax receipts and measures undertaken to spur the recovery have led to even greater deficit projections since the Obama inauguration. Many of the same people decrying the current budget deficit are the same people who not only cheerled the annihilation of the Clinton budget surplus but also cared not at all about how to pay for two wars while providing budget busting tax cuts. House GOP Leader John boehner, who has apparently come down with a severe case of amnesia when it comes to fiscal responsibility, criticized the majority for spending money with 'reckless abandon', despite being one of the largest enablers of deficit spending during the Bush years."

Talk about selective amnesia. It's fantastic how easy it is to condone all of the spending and deficit growth for this current recession and condemn the efforts by the previous administration to get us out of the previous recession. Yes, there was a recession back in 2001 for those that forgot. As far as those tax cuts are concerned, how many of those opposed to all things Bush enjoyed those savings? Well if you didn't like that tax savings, guess what, you got the change you were looking for. In order to pay for the current recession (which if we are going to place blame then let's do it fairly and blame it on pretty much everyone who was overleveraged and in debt, not forgetting all those on both sides of the aisle who encouraged and allowed it, they couldn't afford: States, Companies, Individuals and those that packaged that debt and sold it), and get the deficit down to "acceptable" levels tax hikes are going to happen, which Roginsky does mention a bit later. Those tax hikes, by the way, are not just going to happen to the uber wealthy. They will be passed on to pretty much everyone. I am not saying that the spending that was inacted under the guise of getting us out of this recession is all bad, and I am not saying that the spending to get out of the previously forgotten recession was all good. I am just saying let's remember all the facts and take into account how everyone has benefited or not benefited.

"Boehner's party, which tried to privatize Social Security as recently as four years ago, has also become staunchly defensive of the status quo when it cmes to what it claims is protection of senior entitlements. But as any honest analysis of the long-term federal budget will show, the growth in health care entitlement spending - and Medicare specifically - is the largest budget buster there is. The same deficit hawks who oppose serious health care reform are simply just contributing to the deficits they claim are such a huge problem."

Wow, I am not even sure where to begin this thing is so full of odd statements and outright avoidance of the real issue. I guess we can take it one sentence at a time. First, privatizing Social Security was one option to help keep some form of income going to seniors. Just like there is a problem with Medicare now, Social Security can't last in its current form. It is another entitlement program that will have to eventually be reformed. Privatising it was an option being discussed which has support from people on both sides though was primarily a Republican proposal. Similar to how a public health care option is being discussed now. It is one option being discussed. Fortunately many economists have come out denouncing the idea as one that will not solve the real problem. What's this whole bit about honest analysis? Who is saying that health care costs are not the largest part of the budget deficit? I thought the whole argument form "Boehner's party" was that any reform should not increase the budget. Wasn't that also the President's request? Didn't he say on a few occasions that he would not sign a Bill that was shown to increase the deficit? What on earth is even the point of this sentence? In the final sentence is Roginsky saying that the current proposals are the only serious ones? And if so, isn't this sentence...well...I am not even sure what it is. She is accusing the "Boehner party" of opposing the "serious reform" (which has been shown to increase the deficit) because they didn't want the deficit to increase. Well, ok. I can't speak for others who are registered Republicans, but I am personally for reform. I want there to be change, not more of the same ideas and I really take issue with the media portraying every Republican as ignorantly opposed to reform.

I am now going to skip her next three paragraphs, not because it think they are well written or don't have plenty of comments, but because I really don't want this to be such a long post. I recommend you read her article if you are dying to see what she says in those sentences. So, on to her concluding paragraph.

"At some point in the not too distant future, some president will have to look Americans in the eye and tell them that massive tax increases are needed and benefits must be drastically cut or eradicated because politicians in 2009 failed to enact reform that would have gotten our fiscal house in order. At that point, the naysayers of today, if they are ideologically consistent, with be forced to vote for politically suicidal policies in order to get our deficit under control. More likely, most of them will continue playing politics, embrace the selective amnesia that Leader Boehner and his cohorts have come to exemplify so well, and cliam that unsustainable budget deficits are really not so unsusstainable after all."

Well ok, we'll break this one down one sentence at a time too. Couldn't agree more with the first sentence, but not solely for the reason stated at the end of the sentence. Eventually reform will have to be enacted. Honestly I can't stand the politicking that has gone on from both sides on this issue. Instead of having a debate regarding all possible solutions (There are so many ideas out there on how to fix this problem that come from people who represent all backgrounds), we are spending time accusing each other of hating our kids and old people. Roginsky epitomizes those on the left who say that if Republicans would just offer a solution too then they would debate it and then when they are given suggestions they reject every last one of them because they don't stick to what they want. Some of those on the Right are striclty sticking to opposing all things on the Left or Obama. I 100% agree that we need to quite the politicking. As for that last sentence, I totally don't understand the anger in this last sentence. We've already talked about the "selective amnesia" that seems to be going around amongst everyone in the media and politics. And again, who is saying that the current deficit is sustainable? Who is saying that no reform is necessary?

I really dislike these kinds of articles. It is exactly what a majority of the arguments on the White House's website under the reality check section do. They avoid the real issue by strictly attacking those that outright oppose all reform, then they conveniently avoid talking about the significant differences between what the President requested reform do and what the legislature has proposed. They insenuate that all reform ideas are good ones and anyone opposed to any of those ideas is opposed to all reform. That couldn't be further from the truth and it annoys me that accusations are flying about who is just playing politics when those very accusations are the lowest form of politicking in my mind.