Stiglitz Argues for Stronger Governments

Truthout has an interesting piece up questioning why the narrative around strong governments has shifted so dramatically in the Conservative favor. Joseph Stiglitz offers some incredible insight.

"So why was there so much economic growth after World War II? Stiglitz says one reason is 'the legacy of the Roosevelts, the legacy that government made a difference.' In making the case for government he also points out that 'government has played an important catalytic role in a whole variety of other areas. If you think about our modern economy, you think about Internet, you think about biotech, you think about telecommunications and all of these things rest on government-funded basic research.' "

Continue reading here.

Where Your Tax Dollars Go

The National Priorities Project last week released an easy-to-read guide to where exactly the government spends our tax dollars. In light of the vitriol of austerity now, now, now in order to fix our debt problem, this seems an apropos piece of data to examine when talking about, if anything, should be cut from the federal budget in order to balance the budget and bring down our national debt. When it comes to those most ardently pursuing austerity measures, they want to cut the programs and institutions least costly. In effect, it's not so much about balancing the budget and reducing our debt, it's just about cutting programs for the vulnerable in order to further subsidize corporations and the wealthy.

You can read the whole article here.

House GOP Release Their Budget

The House GOP released their budget today. In other words, if you're healthy and if you're rich, nothing will change except you'll likely get more rich. If you're not these things, pay up, because you're the reason this country is broke. Read more about the article here.

Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman says, "It's up to people to demand from their government a better budget, a better plan, and a choice between two futures. The question is: which future will you choose?"

Let's choose the one that does not balance the excesses of the rich and well-off, those corruptors of government who complain taxes are too high yet have millions and millions to spend on elections, lobbying, and laws, on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens this country has, the citizens whose livelihoods are diminished because of unfettered greed in corporate America.

Shifting of the Debate

Here's a great piece from The Huffington Post about the excess of government subsidies afforded to the rich in the country. Republican Senator Tom Coburn released a thorough, detailed list of many of the outlandish taxpayer-funded mechanisms that are afforded to millionaires in this country, everything from federal subsidies for preservation of their ranches and estates, to business entertainment deductions, to nearly $75 million in unemployment benefits. Coburn argues that "not everyone is in need of government handouts." I'd have to agree with him.

I'll be the first to say that when government is run efficiently, it can be the greatest ally to a society that the people have ever seen. But for too long government has not had the interests of its greatest number of constituents in mind, but rather has turned law to benefit more greatly a dwindling minority of the population: the rich. And it's really not hard to see why that might be. The most recent data shows that Congress is made up of about 46% of millionaires. And these elected officials are working tirelessly, it seems, to write law that benefits them, even if it might not be so great for the people who put them into office. In America as a whole, only 1% of the population is making over $1 million a year. So, wouldn't it be better to focus our policy-making on those people to balance the budget? That seems to be what Senator Coburn is looking to do. "The government's social safety net, which has long existed to help those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than some middle class families."

Government should never "pamper" people, as Coburn continues. It is there to act as a crutch, just like when a football player breaks his leg and is in need of a support staff to keep him off the leg so he can heal properly. That is what the social safety was put in place for. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance: these are some of the most successful and popular government programs in history. But when you're a millionaire, why are you in need of these programs? Isn't the whole purpose of becoming a millionaire so that you can support yourself and your family without the need of government aid? Did Senator Coburn just totally debunk one of his parties most storied, staunch arguments to government interfering in people's lives? Kind of seems like he did here.