LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 25, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

Colbert Slams PBS for Appeasing Koch Brothers

'Left, Right & Center': Obama Ends the War on Terror

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * New York City’s Summers May Heat Up

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

The Wrong Problem ‘Solved’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 4, 2011

By Eugene Robinson

The debt-ceiling fight generated enough hyperventilation and heartburn to replace a coal-fired power plant. The resulting product? It’s starting to look kind of puny and irrelevant.

The political outcome was awful. But leaving politics aside for a moment, I’m confident that budget cuts totaling less than $1 trillion over 10 years will not meaningfully alter life as we know it. And since the legislation produces absolutely no new revenue, the impact on the national debt is minimal.

About $1.5 trillion in additional cuts would be imposed if the “super committee,” a bipartisan congressional panel charged with reshaping our future through entitlement and tax reform, should reach an impasse. Hey, when has that ever happened? Still, with the exception of Pentagon spending, sacred cows are pretty much exempt from the automatic cuts. The impact on the debt would barely rise to underwhelming.

We’ve just spent months of bitter struggle to accomplish remarkably little. Meanwhile, most of the world’s advanced economies, including ours, are mired in an economic “recovery” that is proceeding so slowly it feels as if we’re moving backward.

Earth to Washington: Unemployment is stuck around 9 percent. Businesses aren’t hiring because consumer demand, normally the great engine of the U.S. economy, is feeble. Americans are saving rather than spending because their most valuable assets—their homes—have not begun to regain the value they lost when the housing bubble went splat. Housing prices can’t begin to recover until the glut of foreclosures is digested by what’s left of the real estate market. Those foreclosed homes can’t be bought by the unemployed.

Advertisement

Our elected officials could and should be talking about ways to break this vicious cycle before it drags us back into recession. Instead, they have focused on debt reduction—a laudable goal that is being pursued in the wrong way at the wrong moment.

Yes, we do have to reduce the debt. But the time to do that is when the economy is strong enough to withstand the blows of an austerity program. Healthy economic growth would shrink the debt problem over time, even without draconian belt-tightening. Producing this kind of growth should be the nation’s top priority.

All the brinkmanship over a possible default did essentially nothing to discourage investors from buying Treasury bills; interest rates remain low, and many economists now say there would be no impact even if the ratings agencies were to downgrade the United States as an investment. This is because no one—except, perhaps, some tea party types and Rand Paul—believed it was possible that our government would actually fail to pay its obligations. Also, because there’s no other safe harbor in which all that money can be stashed.

Our debt “crisis” is a piffle compared to what’s happening in Europe, where dire concern about possible default has spread to Spain and Italy. Unlike Greece, these economic giants might be too big to bail out. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin keeps demanding a replacement for the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency. At the moment, I wouldn’t place much of a bet on the euro.

In Washington, our leaders seem to have barely noticed this turmoil in one of the world’s most important economic zones. They were busy in a philosophical debate over the difference between eliminating a “tax expenditure” and raising a tax. Hint: To the taxpayer, there’s not really a difference at all.

Congress and the president should have been extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax holiday—two measures that would help keep the economy moving forward, however slowly. And they should at least try to do more than crane their necks at the ongoing disaster in real estate.

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner spent weeks trying—and failing—to come up with a package of budget cuts and revenue “enhancements” that would reduce the national debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. Want to see me do what Obama and Boehner couldn’t?

There.

I did nothing, and now I’m waiting for the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of next year. If we just let all income tax rates revert to what they were during the era that should be called the Clinton Prosperity, a debt problem that now may seem overwhelming suddenly looks quite manageable. A little growth, a little tinkering with entitlements, and we’re set for another quarter-century or so.

Problem solved. Now, let’s do something that might actually benefit the country.

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2011, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, August 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

As long as house buyers look at their houses as just that - houses instead of homes - there will be valuation troubles.  They have changed from the attitude of establishing one’s “castle” to one’s giant ATM. 

Example:  If I bought a car (they are horribly expensive too) and found out 6 months later it was only worth half the list price I was paying, I would probably not walk away from the loan - this happens all the time in the auto market.  Historically if a person buys a house, however, they intend to live in it for at least a few years; rule of thumb used to be at least 6 years.  The house is one’s HOME - not just an investment mechanism or leverage to buy other things.  It’s something that can be handed down to heirs etc. after the owners have expired or moved to retirement digs.

But the bankers and Wall Street have trained us like seals to view our homes merely as our financial engine.  And they bundled up mortgages like matchsticks, even without the proper documents.
The rest is our national debacle - hoodwinked and given the sidewalk shuffle by bottom-line bean counters who never did care about “the old homestead”.

As long as a person has a job and can meet expenses including the mortgage payment, that home provides a lot more than just a window to a reverse mortgage or line of credit - it’s a place to live and raise little Americans into big taxpayers - fellow citizens.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, August 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

@Alan—you say “An opposition Democratic candidate must be identified NOW!”

ok, so who you got?

Report this

By VillageElder, August 7, 2011 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

The debt and deficit crisis entirely a self imposed high colonic.  It was brought to us by people who have little if any idea of economics or the problems and complexities of governance.  This new ignorati glory in making pseudo-common-sense pronouncements of simple minded slogans.  They are influenced by Ayn Rand’s fiction, which they of believe is sound economic and life theory.  They are fundamentalists, literalists and uninformed.  They are the Teapublicans who with the Republicans pledged to Grover Norquist to never raise taxes.

These are the people who not understanding the gravity of their threats to destroy our economy have brought us to the down grade of of debt instruments.  The demonstrated lack of ability to govern our nation has a negative impact on the world’s economy.

Report this

By mike, August 7, 2011 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m confident that budget cuts totaling less than $1 trillion over 10 years will not
meaningfully alter life as we know it.

You meant to say life as YOU know it.

Report this

By ocjim, August 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Even to label the deficit as the wrong problem is giving some credibility to the misfit Republicans. I say misfit because they do not belong in our national or even humanistic argument. They only belong in an ideological argument that is misanthropic and self-serving at the same time. If we really identified their malevolence, maybe millions of people would realize that a vote for any of them is a vote for the devil.

Report this
Tesla's avatar

By Tesla, August 7, 2011 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

The problem is the financial capitalist model for
the economy that we have all bought into. Property
rights “uber alles” always ends with the wealthiest
becoming the only group with ANY wealth (the rich
get richer, the poor just get f**ked.

Capitalism by its very nature IS a Ponzi/Pyramid
scheme. It requires ever expanding markets and ever
expanding production while keeping a willing (or
unwilling) slave class to produce the excess
wealth.

Democracy and Capitalism are mutually exclusive in
the long term. Welcome to the Corporatocracy!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, August 7, 2011 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

Lafayette: The President is a Public Person.  He is exempted from being able to claim defamation of character, libel or slander.  People can make up and publish anything they want about him no matter how absurd (like the contention that he is not American but Kenyan).  It’s all legal because he’s a Public Figure.  Otherwise, EVERYONE at Fox News would either be civilly libel or criminally so.  However, the Law DOES protect that speech, and, as much as I hate Fox’s lies, the damage to the nation for changing that would be much worse.

In the early 1920’s, the President of Germany, Friedrich Ebert, sued extreme right-wingers for defamation, which was allowed under German law.  He might have legally been allowed to do it, but it was a terrible political mistake, that ate up time, energy and harmed his reputation, making him look petty.  The lesson should be clear.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, August 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

pd: So they bought and paid for someone who would continue their policies of gutting this country.

Defamatory accusation without the slightest shred of evidence. A shame there is no law against libel on the internet.

Some people think “freedom of speech” includes the right to public defamation. It shouldn’t be.

Report this

By Alan, August 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The problem with our political reality is not in
our political movie stars, but in ourselves.
An opposition Democratic candidate must be
identified NOW! NOW! NOW!

Report this

By Marian Griffith, August 6, 2011 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@Lafayette
—In fact, something did happen. Those nice people who brought us the Triple-A rated Toxic Waste mess also downgraded US debt - from AAA to AA+. Which means, ostensibly, that you will be paying more for your credit.

Nice people, huh? When is the AG going to investigate them for professional negligence? In ten years?

I just downgraded S&P from Nerd to Dork.—-

Dorks can be cute. It would not be ladylike of me to call these companies by their proper descriptions though…
And I imagine it must gall for the USA to be treated just the same as those European countries that only a few months ago American ‘leaders’ were critising and/or poking fun of. Not feeling quite so superior now anymore, do we?

@prisnersdillemma
There is no grand conspiracy, no secret cabal of the super rich that meets once every quarter to decide on the course of the world.
There is only a political system that was corruptible and has been .. corrupted. Politicians need tons of money for their election campaigns. The super rich and the multinationals have tons of money so they can buy political influence with it.
Being rich is not a requirement to rule (i.e. it is not a plutocracy) it is merely the easiest way to gain political influence far in excess to the weight of your vote.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, August 6, 2011 at 5:58 am Link to this comment

It should be clear now to all concerned that our no. One problem is not the debt, not
some B.S., news story about jobs and the economy. Not the Tea Party.

The number one problem is President Obama.

The plutocracy new that a conservative would never be elected after Bush. So they
bought and paid for someone who would continue their policies of gutting this country.
They picked someone who could use liberal ideologies, liberal symbols, and who would
represent a victory for liberal symbolism. But who would use that symbolism and
ideology to betray progressives, further the plutocracy and it’s goals.

Just S Bush used conservative ideology to dupe conservatives out of their votes,
Obama did the same.

Until Obama is removed from office, Bush’s third term will continue.  The goal is to
destroy the safety net, destroy social security, Medicare, OSHA. To turn America into a
vast sweatshop, and plunder the public resources for the greed of a few.

But as happens to all psychopaths, something has gone wrong with their planning, their
delusions, have no basis in reality, leading to disaster.

That disaster is here now, the destruction of the American economy.

President Obama is the O.J. Simpson of American politics, the perfect bait for
progressives, the perfect tool of the plutocracy.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, August 6, 2011 at 4:59 am Link to this comment

NOTHING HAPPENED

tw: And, where was our President? Hanging out. Dithering. And eventually signing whatever the Republicans wanted.

He signed onto nothing. He agreed to a bipartisan committee. How much do you give men if it turns out that that committee gets nothing done? (Believe me, the Dems are going to have their Sweet Revenge in that committee.)

And the agreement extends beyond November of next year, so Obama need only worry if we, the sheeple (aka Us Dorks) vote more of the Crazies into the HofR. Are you up to that after all this hullabaloo?

So what happened is that nothing happened. The charade was entirely manufactured by the Crazies in the HofR, who are fixated on Obama’s One Term Presidency.

Besides, even Sarah Palin says it was a “victory”. Now, how could Sarah be wrong, be wrong, be wrong. (She’s such an astute political observer. ;^)

POST SCRIPTUM

In fact, something did happen. Those nice people who brought us the Triple-A rated Toxic Waste mess also downgraded US debt - from AAA to AA+. Which means, ostensibly, that you will be paying more for your credit.

Nice people, huh? When is the AG going to investigate them for professional negligence? In ten years?

I just downgraded S&P from Nerd to Dork.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, August 6, 2011 at 4:47 am Link to this comment

GREAT WHINERS

ER: Meanwhile, most of the world’s advanced economies, including ours, are mired in an economic “recovery” that is proceeding so slowly it feels as if we’re moving backward.

Competent observation, but even this malaise is over-worked. The hurt is NOTHING comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Of course, we’ve become Great Whiners since ...

Besides, permit me to bore you with the facts of the matter. That is, there are “economic indicators” that can be interpreted as positive-looking. One of them is US housing.

Look here at this info-graphic of a 5-year downtrend in new building permits (housing starts). And this from the same source, The Economist this week:

Prices have dipped below fair value, according to The Economist’s price-to-rents ratio. Homes are now affordable. The rate of household formation, suppressed for years as people have put off renting or buying their own homes, will bounce back: few sane people want to live with their parents until they’re 40.

A big bounce is unlikely: credit for mortgages is hard to get and consumer confidence fragile. But rental markets are tightening and builders are already talking about inflection points. Not long ago “there was no light at the end of the tunnel,” says Vince Foley of Barclays Capital. “Now there’s light, it’s just that the tunnel is very long.”

So, patience, America. For the moment, as Matthew (26:41 )says: ... the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

And so is finding a decent mortgage lender ...

Report this

By Marian Griffith, August 6, 2011 at 2:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@the Worm (and others)
Obama’s initial mistake was that he was trying to reach bipartisan deals and realised too late that the Republican party had made it their (unacknowledged) policy to oppose anything that Obama did so they could make him look ineffectual for the next elections.

Normally when trying to negotiate you give up some points that are important to you, and so does the other. In this case though one party at the negotiating table was not interested in making a deal, only in delaying the talks and trying to find things they could twist in retelling to make the president look weak.

By the time Obama had realised what was going on the Republicans had latched on to the Tea party as the public voice of dissent, too many Democrat representatives had gotten cold feet (if not were already in full retreat) and he had to fight for deals against both parties. All the earlier concessions turned out to be meaningless.

Now the Republicans after the midterm elections act as if they have the majority of popular and actual votes and the Democrats are letting them get away with it. And Obama, like most presidents has to pick his battles very carefully. I am guessing that in this case he judged (rightly or wrongly) that the Republicans -would- blow up the economy just to spite him spurred on by the Tea party that would blow up the entire concept of governance out of sheer misguided fanatism. So he went into damage control mode and got the idea across to the voters that the Republicans were the ones refusing to deal and by that risking the future of everybody in the country.

Now I admit this is speculation on my part as I am not privy to the discussions between Obama and his closest advisors, but it seems to me to be more consistent with the character of the man as I have seen, and far more likely than the wild conspiracy theories being espouced by the majority of the posters on this forum.

Obama is not a secret Republican. There is no secret cabal of bankers who rule the world behind the scenes (by that small amount the trias politica is still functioning in the USA). And the sad reality is that Republicans and conservative activists have managed to shift the political discussion so far to the right that somebody like Eisenhower, who in his time was considered rather conservative would today be located at the extreme left of the Democrat party, well to the liberal side of most Democrat representatives in fact.
In this political climate there are no good options, only the bad options of trying to buy time and worse options of letting things get worse. Obama spent all his political capital on trying to get something good done for the largest amount of people: the tens of millions without health care insurance. In hindsight he should have aimed at other targets, as the country was not ready for even a small display of social cohesion. And in hindsight he should have focussed on getting the economy going again, but it was believed by all that this would happen naturally as it had done every crisis before.

Hindsight is always easy. But tell me this: what should the president do the coming year knowing that whatever he proposes the Republican party opposes and if it diverts one dollar of the money flow going to the rich and the corporations they will stir up the tea party and threaten to withold campaign donations? Oh, and you have to decide now and if it turns out to be not exactly what everybody expects you will be crucified for it in 6 months time… no pressure ...

Report this

By the worm, August 5, 2011 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

Of the ‘debt crisis’, Eugene Robinson says “Problem solved. Now, let’s do
something that might actually benefit the country.”

For me, I cant figure out what happened. Mr Robinson says Boehner, McConnell,
Reid and Obama “spent months of bitter struggle to accomplish remarkably
little”. Others say it was a ‘manufactured crisis’, ‘unnecessary’, etc. While
Republicans crow that they got 90 - 95% of ‘everything they wanted’. Through
reading, I dont know what actually happened, except the old reliable ‘markets’
seem to think it was bad.

And, where was our President? Hanging out. Dithering. And eventually signing
whatever the Republicans wanted.

Where was our President on other major issues facing the nation? Here’s a
summary:

1.  Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich with McConnell.

2.  Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich with Boehner.

3.  Making the CEO of a company that paid no federal taxes, received federal
bailouts and in invests heavily in ‘job creation’ efforts in foreign countries but
not here the head of his ‘Jobs Council’.

4.  Accelerating the Bush ‘bailouts’ to banks and other financial institutions and
then insisted on a ‘hands off’ policy when the CEOs and top-level employees
received “bonuses” paid with taxpayer money.

5. Promising “change” and then keeping Bush key appointees to continue to
advise you on military and financial affairs.

6.  Extending the Bush ‘war on terror’ wasting thousands American and Afghan
lives and billions of US dollars?

7.  Setting aside all efforts to reform immigration.

8.  Facilitating the passage of a Republican Governor’s health insurance subsidy
in lieu of single payer universal coverage.

9.  Would you have halted meaningful reform of the financial system, leaving
in-place (and even larger) the six largest ‘banks’?

10.  Administering a failed ‘program’ to help middle class families holding
‘underwater mortgages’.

And, now, again failing to repeal Bush tax cuts with Grover Norquist and the
Tea Party and dismissing six plus decades of Democratic policy to defend the
status quo for corporations and the wealthy.

Who signed on with Obama? Pelosi and Reid. Bi-partisan, as they say.

I dont like it when the ‘Wall Street’ is sighted as the final arbiter of the rightness
or wrongness of political decisions, but in this case I’d have to agree with the
‘markets’, at least to the extent that the ‘deal’ is a disaster for the middle class,
the consumer and therefore to a large degree a step backwards in our
‘recovery’.

As for the other 10 issues and actions above, I’d say they tell us that if we
nominate Obama as the Democratic candidate for President in 2012, we’re in
for more Right Wing politics and Tea Party wins.

Report this
Billy Pilgrim's avatar

By Billy Pilgrim, August 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

Our main problem is our pols are bought and paid for
by big money. It’s a rigged game with average
American as the sucker. Our education system is
horrible. We need to invest trillions in alternative
energy and infrastructure. We need to compete in the
modern era with the emerging countries. We piss
trillions on war and defense while we internally
destroy ourselves. There’s too much bs out there in
the corporate owned media, hence, the people are ill
informed. Health care costs are killing us. Single
payer should have been enacted, not the mess that was
passed. I have plenty of ideas. I’m not a corporation
that can give money to politicians and have them do
what I want.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, August 5, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Robinson is like the doctor who is terrific at making diagnoses, but is best kept far away from the operating room.

Yep, it’s about jobs and unemployment, alright.  Has been all along.  But doing nothing (thus raising taxes to Clinton era levels for all) will only force us sooner into the double-dip recession we may get anyway.

We need to stop taxing labor.  Fund social security and medicare under a consumption model instead.

Report this

By straubie123, August 5, 2011 at 8:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

no, we are not living in the clinton era for sure.  you make alot of bold statements regarding the depth of our problems but never explain yourself.  for example what are your percieved thoughts on our troubles?  Where do you see them versus the hacks in Washington?  Any ideas on solving them?  i would be interested in hearing them

Report this

By TDoff, August 5, 2011 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

Geez, wouldn’t it be weird, if now that the US went through it’s ridiculous traumas/tantrums in raising the debt ceiling, no one would lend us any money because of the stupidity/incompetence we revealed attempting to raise it?

Weird, but fitting.

Report this
Billy Pilgrim's avatar

By Billy Pilgrim, August 5, 2011 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

Mr. Robinson is living in a fantasy world. Raising
taxes to the Clinton era will not work because we are
no longer living in the Clinton era. Our debt is 3
times that of the Clinton era. The military budget is 3
times that of the Clinton era. The Clinton era ended
with the dot com bubble bursting just like the bush era
ended with the mortgage bubble blowing up, Our problems
are much deeper than what Mr. Robinson suggests. Much
deeper than anything the political hacks in Washington
can overcome. We are now a proto-fascist oligarchy.
Don’t cry for me, America.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, August 5, 2011 at 12:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Raising taxes has to be done in the USA. It is the only way to stop the disparity where money flows to the top an order of magnitude (or rather several of them) faster than it trickles down out of that ocean of money.
People are holding on to their money because they feel that things will get worse before they can get better and that for every dollar they spend a significant part of it is going to get stuck in the pockets of somebody who already has far more than he can spend.

When the UK was in a similar position of high unemployment, foreclosures and economic slump (they also had high interest rates, something which the USA is currently not suffering from though that may change at any moment) eventually the banks were forced to lease back houses instead of foreclosing. I am not seeing any evidence that American banks are that enlightened already and instead that they are still trying to squeeze every last penny out of people who already lost everything.

Regarding the situation in Europe. It probably is indeed beyond the means of the rest of the European countries to bail out Italy, Spain and Portugal. Countries who by all rights should not even be in trouble (or at least not more so than the USA). This crisis, too, is fabricated by the financial markets hoping to make a quick multi billion dollar profit and stick the european citizens with the bill.
The euro zone needs to restructure itself because it is currently unbalanced, but the Germans are not going to sacrifice their economic prosperity and stability on the altar of wall street profits.
Should it come to that choice they would rather blow up the euro (which in itself would make the bankers giddy and would unleash a feeding frenzy as they tear the european economies apart like they did before the Euro) or they would take a leaf from the book China wrote and isolate the Euro from the world economy. Most of the European trade is internal anyway so it would not be that much of a hardship and by then USA bonds are either worthless or sold anyway.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.