Bush's Class-War Budget

[BBond]

Bush's Class-War Budget

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 11, 2005

It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action. And it offers the Democrats an opportunity, if they're willing to take it.

First, the facts: the budget proposal really does take food from the mouths of babes. One of the proposed spending cuts would make it harder for working families with children to receive food stamps, terminating aid for about 300,000 people. Another would deny child care assistance to about 300,000 children, again in low-income working families.

And the budget really does shower largesse on millionaires even as it punishes the needy. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities informs us that even as the administration demands spending cuts, it will proceed with the phaseout of two little-known tax provisions - originally put in place under the first President George Bush - that limit deductions and exemptions for high-income households.

More than half of the benefits from this backdoor tax cut would go to people with incomes of more than a million dollars; 97 percent would go to people with incomes exceeding $200,000.

It so happens that the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million in annual income is about the same as the number of people who would have their food stamps cut off under the Bush proposal. But it costs a lot more to give a millionaire a break than to put food on a low-income family's table: eliminating limits on deductions and exemptions would give taxpayers with incomes over $1 million an average tax cut of more than $19,000.

It's like that all the way through. On one side, the budget calls for program cuts that are small change compared with the budget deficit, yet will harm hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans. On the other side, it calls for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and for new tax breaks for the affluent in the form of tax-sheltered accounts and more liberal rules for deductions.

The question is whether the relentless mean-spiritedness of this budget finally awakens the public to the true cost of Mr. Bush's tax policy.

Until now, the administration has been able to get away with the pretense that it can offset the revenue loss from tax cuts with benign spending restraint. That's because until now, "restraint" was an abstract concept, not tied to specific actions, making it seem as if spending cuts would hurt only a few special interest groups.

But here we are with the first demonstration of restraint in action, and look what's on the chopping block, selected for big cuts: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health insurance for children and aid to law enforcement. (Yes, Mr. Bush proposes to cut farm subsidies, which are truly wasteful. Let's see how much political capital he spends on that proposal.)

Until now, the administration has also been able to pretend that the budget deficit isn't an important issue so the role of tax cuts in causing that deficit can be ignored. But Mr. Bush has at last conceded that the deficit is indeed a major problem.

Why shouldn't the affluent, who have done so well from Mr. Bush's policies, pay part of the price of dealing with that problem?

Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.

On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)

Why, then, shouldn't a rollback of high-end tax cuts be on the table?

Democrats have surprised the Bush administration, and themselves, by effectively pushing back against Mr. Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security. It's time for them to broaden their opposition, and push back against Mr. Bush's tax policy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

YABBO/EP

 

[ntdz]

I saw who wrote it and knew it was a bunch of crap before I read it. Reading it just confirmed my suspicions

 

[raildogg]

Love the titles, by the way. Really attracting

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I saw who wrote it and knew it was a bunch of crap before I read it. Reading it just confirmed my suspicions

What part of it is "a bunch of crap"?

Do you disagree with this?>

Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.

On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)

Do you have any figures that refute these?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Love the titles, by the way. Really attracting

Thanks for showing me they worked. 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

Maybe you should start by explaining why it's morally correct for Bush to supplant economic policy and bankrupt America by emptying the U.S. Treasury into his big contributors' pockets.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

Maybe you should start by explaining why it's morally correct for Bush to supplant economic policy and bankrupt America by emptying the U.S. Treasury into his big contributors' pockets.

It's not the Treasury's money - it's the citizen's money!! You justify taking it first, and I'll justify giving it back.
Now if you're talking about deficit spending, which I agree is morally indefensible, then you've got a solid case; time to shut down entitlement spending until the budget's back in the black. But I've yet to meet the politician (especially among the Democrats, but the Republicans are proving just as "generous" with other people's money) who favors cutting much of anything.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

Maybe you should start by explaining why it's morally correct for Bush to supplant economic policy and bankrupt America by emptying the U.S. Treasury into his big contributors' pockets.

It's not the Treasury's money - it's the citizen's money!! You justify taking it first, and I'll justify giving it back.
Now if you're talking about deficit spending, which I agree is morally indefensible, then you've got a solid case; time to shut down entitlement spending until the budget's back in the black. But I've yet to meet the politician (especially among the Democrats, but the Republicans are proving just as "generous" with other people's money) who favors cutting much of anything.

Citizens of a civilized society know there are requirements to maintain that society. One of them is taxes. As for cutting programs, if that's your goal let's not discriminate. Let's cut them all and see the results. Not just programs for the poor. Programs that aid the true welfare state. The welfare state for the wealthy and for corporations.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop redistributing federal tax dollars to states. Stop allowing corporations to pay zero dollars in taxes as they take advantage of operating in a society which makes their success possible.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

Maybe you should start by explaining why it's morally correct for Bush to supplant economic policy and bankrupt America by emptying the U.S. Treasury into his big contributors' pockets.

It's not the Treasury's money - it's the citizen's money!! You justify taking it first, and I'll justify giving it back.
Now if you're talking about deficit spending, which I agree is morally indefensible, then you've got a solid case; time to shut down entitlement spending until the budget's back in the black. But I've yet to meet the politician (especially among the Democrats, but the Republicans are proving just as "generous" with other people's money) who favors cutting much of anything.

Citizens of a civilized society know there are requirements to maintain that society. One of them is taxes. As for cutting programs, if that's your goal let's not discriminate. Let's cut them all and see the results. Not just programs for the poor. Programs that aid the true welfare state. The welfare state for the wealthy and for corporations.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop redistributing federal tax dollars to states. Stop allowing corporations to pay zero dollars in taxes as they take advantage of operating in a society which makes their success possible.

Find where I've ever defended any form of corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. I never have. I'd happily accept a strict (pre-FDR) Constitutional reading of the federal gov't's power, and eliminate all that crap.

BTW, I agree that "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", as is etched on the exterior of the IRS hq building (I used to work there). However, at some point (and we can debate forever and a day where that point is) taxes become mere theft, which too many on the Left seem unwilling to acknowledge. I do not like self-appointed moral guardians who determine how much money is "too much" for other people to have. And regarding public spending, since taxes are involuntary appropriations, such appropriations should only be made in such a way as to benefit all citizens equally; i.e., national defense. Most social spending is mere charity, which while highly commendable, should only be voluntary.

 

[BBond]

I can't understand how you can lay blame on the "Left" when the past three "Right" administrations have been responsible for the largest increase in the size of government as well as the largest budget deficits in U.S. history.

While the previous "Left" administration was responsible for the largest surplus. 😕

Please explain that to me.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Don't bother the Righties with the truth, they have an agenda, they're on a mission from God. Wealth is a sign of God's favor, don'tcha know? And God has been very, very good to the financial elite under the divinely inspired leadership of GWB.

So it's not really about class warfare initiated by the wealthy, it's about God, and values, and restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office.

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

I love your premise - that of course liberal wealth transfers are fine; it's up to the Right to justify why people should be able to keep more of their money than they currently do. Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?

Maybe you should start by explaining why it's morally correct for Bush to supplant economic policy and bankrupt America by emptying the U.S. Treasury into his big contributors' pockets.

It's not the Treasury's money - it's the citizen's money!! You justify taking it first, and I'll justify giving it back.
Now if you're talking about deficit spending, which I agree is morally indefensible, then you've got a solid case; time to shut down entitlement spending until the budget's back in the black. But I've yet to meet the politician (especially among the Democrats, but the Republicans are proving just as "generous" with other people's money) who favors cutting much of anything.

Citizens of a civilized society know there are requirements to maintain that society. One of them is taxes. As for cutting programs, if that's your goal let's not discriminate. Let's cut them all and see the results. Not just programs for the poor. Programs that aid the true welfare state. The welfare state for the wealthy and for corporations.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop redistributing federal tax dollars to states. Stop allowing corporations to pay zero dollars in taxes as they take advantage of operating in a society which makes their success possible.

I agree with that. Taxes are necessary and tax hikes aren't necessarily a bad thing.

As a super power, we must make sure all our citizens are taken care of and that the poor are not left behind. Welfare is definately a must, and should even be increased.


Corporations that move their HQ's to Bermuda to avoid paying corporate federal taxes have to be punished harshly. Billions of dollars of tax revenue is lost due to this.

Speaking of greedy corporations, why is Ken Lay still a free man?

Bernie Ebbers, it appears will be behind bars pretty soon. And deservedly so.

I think most of us have forgotten that WorldCom collapsed due to an $11 billion accounting fraud. This guy was trying to cover up his company's financial trouble. Absolutely evil.

 

[SuperTool]

Ken Lay is free because he is a big GOP donor. Martha Stewart went to jail because she is a big Democrat donor. GOP is fine if you steal, as long as you give them a nice kickback, which Ken Lay was doing on a regular basis.

 

[glenn1]

Poor people deserve to struggle and suffer, that's why God made 'em poor. Who are we to deny God's Will?

That must be why the left came up with and is still defending their Great Society programs, because it's your desire to ensure that that poor live as miserably as possible. It sure must make you proud to defend the brave new world you've created for the poor with its inner city blight, drive-by-shootings, 70%+ illegitimacy rates, multi-generational welfare families, crack houses, and race riots. And all this for the bargain price of several trillon dollars of taxpayer funds spent. Quite inspirational what you've accomplished.

 

[BBond]

It wasn't Johnson's Great Society that caused the problems we're facing today in inner cities. It was the massive deficits leading to severe budget cuts during Reagan/Bush, the deep recession caused by the policies of Bush1, the record deficits caused by the irresponsible, reckless economic policies of Bush2.

And to lay the blame on the left for the crack cocaine epidemic WHICH WAS BEGUN BY REAGAN/BUSH DURING IRAN/CONTRA is the height of disinformation and arrogance.

 

[charrison]

Yesterday, bush is faulted for spending too much.

today, bush cuts the budget by 1% and he taking food from babies.

Will the liberals please pick which side of the fence they want to complain from.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Mursilis-

"Maybe you should start by justifying why it's morally correct for people to form mobs called 'government' and start confiscating other people's property?"

Actually, early european govts were a lot like that. Mobs of armed men conquered an area, then set up a protection racket to milk the locals of whatever they could extort. They collected taxes with swords...

Mybe they could justify their actions on the basis of might makes right, but they preferred the invocation of the Diety simply because it left more taxpayers alive to pay taxes, and tithes to their co-conspirators, the clergy. They did offer some actual protection against other thugs, however, particularly by regulating markets, assuring that they had a monopoly on theft. Things have changed, however, we've supplanted that with a concept called democracy

The far right uses much the same principles, invoking rights of inheritance, and guilt trips, citing "hard work" as the basis for the explosive disparity of wealth and income we're now experiencing. Hard work, intelligence and education will only carry a guy just so far, however, into the realms of a few hundred K per year. After that, it's luck and rapacity, not in any particular order of importance.

Tell me, if you will, just how much tax would be too much if you were making a few tens of millions per year? What's your personal marginal utility of money at that hypothetical level of income? Mine would be pretty low, as would most folks, considering that it would be a thousandfold increase for most of us. Would I give 50% to be so lucky? 60%? In a heartbeat. Where can I sign up for that deal?

Just a little something to consider when contemplating taxes and federal spending. At some level or another, Greed is a vice, perhaps the most destructive of all, and this president's budget proposal is a reflection of that, bigtime. The problem with our tax system is that progressivity starts too low on the scale, and then ends, rates for the very top incomes actually being regressive-

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in400h.pdf

They paid ~23% on incomes averaging over $150M each, about the same as a hardworking well educated and extremely intelligent single schmuck making 1000X less... That's before the Bush taxcuts, and after a myriad of deductions, exclusions and outright dodges...

Like I said, it's God's Will, right? Must be, because a rational society where children can still go hungry wouldn't allow it, and certainly wouldn't allow themselves to slide further into debt to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year at the same time.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison
Yesterday, bush is faulted for spending too much.

today, bush cuts the budget by 1% and he taking food from babies.

Will the liberals please pick which side of the fence they want to complain from.

Bush spent too much on what?

He cut the budgets of which programs?

His deficits have created the current economic crisis. Stop misrepresenting the facts.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: BBond
It wasn't Johnson's Great Society that caused the problems we're facing today in inner cities. It was the massive deficits leading to severe budget cuts during Reagan/Bush, the deep recession caused by the policies of Bush1, the record deficits caused by the irresponsible, reckless economic policies of Bush2.

And to lay the blame on the left for the crack cocaine epidemic WHICH WAS BEGUN BY REAGAN/BUSH DURING IRAN/CONTRA is the height of disinformation and arrogance.

Wrong. The cocaine epidemic began in the seventies. The crack cocaine epidemic did begin during the Reagan years. But remember, a lot of drug related arrests were made under the new laws brought on by the Reagan administration.

Before that, it wasn't a big deal if you were found with cocaine.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: BBond
It wasn't Johnson's Great Society that caused the problems we're facing today in inner cities. It was the massive deficits leading to severe budget cuts during Reagan/Bush, the deep recession caused by the policies of Bush1, the record deficits caused by the irresponsible, reckless economic policies of Bush2.

And to lay the blame on the left for the crack cocaine epidemic WHICH WAS BEGUN BY REAGAN/BUSH DURING IRAN/CONTRA is the height of disinformation and arrogance.

Wrong. The cocaine epidemic began in the seventies. The crack cocaine epidemic did begin during the Reagan years. But remember, a lot of drug related arrests were made under the new laws brought on by the Reagan administration.

Before that, it wasn't a big deal if you were found with cocaine.

Go back and read Glenn1's post. He specifically mentioned "crack houses".

That's what I replied to.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: charrison
Yesterday, bush is faulted for spending too much.

today, bush cuts the budget by 1% and he taking food from babies.

Will the liberals please pick which side of the fence they want to complain from.

Run along now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: charrison
Yesterday, bush is faulted for spending too much.

today, bush cuts the budget by 1% and he taking food from babies.

Will the liberals please pick which side of the fence they want to complain from.

Run along now.

truth hurts? So which side of the fence do you want complain from?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: charrison
Yesterday, bush is faulted for spending too much.

today, bush cuts the budget by 1% and he taking food from babies.

Will the liberals please pick which side of the fence they want to complain from.

Run along now.

truth hurts? So which side of the fence do you want complain from?

Bush spent too much on what?

He cut the budgets of which programs?

His deficits have created the current economic crisis. Stop misrepresenting the facts. ~BBond

And while you are reading this, here's another for you original post.