Haven't seen much discussion on the impending government shutdown or the Republican budget plan for future fiscal years.
I'm not particularly happy about the shutdown, but I have to ultimately lay blame for it at the Republican side's feet. The Republican base is more enthusiastic about a shutdown (many WANT to see it happen). Also there has been discussion that the only thing preventing a deal are things like the planned parenthood and EPA 'riders' that accomplish Republican non-budget agenda items. So the crux of it comes down to the party not passing a budget because they specifically want to use the budget as a vehicle for policy manipulation. While this is a valid political tactic, it does leave the results of failure in their hands. I also tend to disagree with the idea that somehow cutting more from the budget will make our economy improve, as 'confidence' will not magically make the economy take off and people losing their jobs due to cut spending DEFINITELY won't.
The concern with this year's deficit in general is perplexing to me. This fiscal year's deficit will have little impact on the economy (and uh the higher it is the better it is for jobs and such). The deficit issue is a long-term problem that is ultimately grounded in healthcare and entitlements and so on. Such focus on cutting half a year's budget is purely political and symbolic (although the effects of such cuts ARE real and noticeable).
The long-term Republican plan for the deficit is... Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid (oh and tax cuts because the conservative theory of tax cuts = more revenue will never die no matter how long it is bashed for). But Medicare will only be kaput for those below the age of 55, who instead will be given government subsidies to buy private health insurance from approved private health insurance providers. Everyone above the age of 55 will see Medicare continue until the day they die. The subsidies of course will be vastly inferior to Medicare... the government wouldn't be saving a lot of money if it did. This strikes me as a pretty obnoxious "appease the older voters" approach. So much for shared sacrifice.
Wait a second... "who instead be given government subsidies to buy private health insurance from approved private health insurance providers"
Haven't we... heard this before? It sounds awfully familiar. OH YEAH! OBAMACARE. You know, the thing the Right side of this country has been vilifying for the past year as the worst thing since Adolf motherfucking Hitler? And their "Path to Prosperity" is to more or less mimic satan's own plan for our healthcare for people above the age of 65. I'm not even sure what to say. The cognitive dissonance required to pull this off is nothing short of stupendous.
The "Path to Prosperity" would probably save the government a lot of money (think trillions, actually reducing our deficit very significantly). But only after 2020 or so when Medicare is finally ended. Before that the tax cuts would make the deficit LARGER than if things continued on as they are.
Other things are cut too, like Pell Grants and so on and so forth. And no talk of cutting the military budget of course, as per usual. If the deficit is an existential threat shouldn't this be on the table too?
(in case you can't read between the lines here, the Republican plan for reducing the deficit would place the responsibility HEAVILY upon younger and poorer constituencies. Less education, less healthcare, and so on. And it would *cut taxes* for folks that would suffer the least. I'm really not sure whether to laugh or cry)
No counter-offer from the democratic party yet. Of course if the Republicans take the deficit too seriously (or rather, use it as an excuse to push a conservative agenda) then the democrats don't take it seriously enough. We'll see how this all plays out in NEXT year's budget showdown. Joy.
