Thursday, April 28, 2005

Yet More Hymanomics

Continuing with his list of suggestions for getting the nation’s financial house in order, Mark Hyman says Congress should look at the long term effects of its policies and use the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office as sources for financial fact checking.

Of course, both the CBO and the GAO are already used by legislators to provide studies of economic issues, and it’s not quite clear what, if anything, is novel about Hyman’s suggestions here.

But putting that aside, I’m just wondering: why doesn’t Hyman mention the White House in this context? Throughout his series, Hyman focuses almost solely on the legislative branch of government, ignoring the role of the executive in setting priorities.

I agree that government programs and spending shouldn’t be done without looking at the long term consequences to be paid for short term political gain. I also agree that CBO and GAO reports should be seriously considered when making financial plans. I just wish the White House felt the same way.

Despite Hyman’s fixation on Congress, it’s the Bush White House that’s most egregiously sinned against the tenets of sound fiscal policy (not that Congress has been much better . . . remind me again, though: which party is in control of both houses of Congress?). The most obvious example are the “wealth-fare” government giveaways to the richest Americans in the form of tax breaks. As bad as such misplaced charity is, the administration and its allies in Congress would love to make these tax cuts permanent. What better example could one find of politicians making short-sighted decisions for personal gain at the expense of future generations?
According to the CBO, making the Bush wealthfare tax cuts permanent
would explode the national debt. Already, the cuts have caused the tax burden to be put disproportionately on the middle-class, the demographic group whose financial wellbeing is essential to the long term health of the economy. According to a study conducted by the Urban Institute, such a shift not only places an undue burden on today’s middle class, but will cause future generations to have to pay for the today’s giveaway’s to the rich.

And the fun doesn’t stop there. As the
Washington Post has noted, throw in Bush’s privatization scheme (a.k.a. “Let’s Roll Back the New Deal and Go with the Old”) for Social Security, and the future looks even bleaker for those down the road who will be left paying the cost for Dubyanomics.

But, say the administration’s backers, the Social Security reforms the president is fighting for are necessary to save the system.

Actually, no. In fact, the president’s privatization scheme will actually
harm Social Security in the short run and will not provide a solution to the problem anytime in the foreseeable future. Add this to the already sizable national debt that the administration is ignoring, and you have the makings of major systemic problems in the nation’s economy for future generations.

The source of this diagnosis? Comptroller-General David Walker of the GAO.

Yes, Mark, you’re right: when independent agencies tell us politicians are mortgaging our future for their own gain, we should hold them accountable. Why not start at the top?

And that’s The Counterpoint.


At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hyman's rhetoric and arguments reflect his thought processes - 'pure spaghetti logic' - a term used to describe really bad computer programming that can never be followed from input to output. Wasn't this the administration that threatened one of the head actuaries at the GAO with the loss of his job if he dared to divulge the true cost of the medicare drug bill before the vote? The same administration who climbed on the firetruck and drove past the five-alarm fires of the medicare crisis, the trade deficit crisis, the budget deficit crisis, and the health insurance crisis, to mount a sixty-day, sixty-city crusade to put out the backyard grass fire of Social Security Reform, that the CBO told them was solvent through the year 2052? It is impossible for anyone to be as stupid as Hyman seems to be, so you are left with only one answer - He intentionally lies and misleads his viewers with pure GOP(Government-Ordered-Propaganda).

Thanks Ted, and keep bustin' Hyman!

Mike B. in SC


Post a Comment

<< Home

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.