From It Affects You
There’s a new AP poll measuring Americans’ attitudes towards issues relating to Katrina – mostly it highlights the usual areas.
But viewing the topline results (PDF), I found a very interesting question not featured in the AP’s own story on their survey:
If you had to choose, which one of the following options do you think is the best way for the government to pay for the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina:
Cut spending on Iraq: 42%
Delay or cancel additional tax cuts: 29%
Add to the federal debt and gradually pay it back: 14%
Cut spending for other domestic programs like education, welfare, transportation, and health care: 11%
Not sure: 4%
As I’m sure you noticed, these priorities are exactly opposite from what the president and the Republican controlled congress plan to do. Conservative leaders, in fact, could not possibly wait to begin envisioning the ways they would try to cut domestic spending while quickly promising not to raise taxes. No doubt some were pleased Katrina offered them a way to propose what they could not have otherwise.
While they avoid eliminating parts of Bush’s tax cuts, the deficit will surely soar to greater heights than it has during the first part of Bush’s watch. That, of course, will require additional cuts in domestic spending down the road greater than what they are proposing now. Oh how they must be looking forward to that day.
This is not what Americans want. But the Republican Noise Machine will kick into high gear, throwing some pseudo economics out there to justify faulty economic policy and convince us that what is in our worst interests is really in our best interests. I can easily hear Bush and other Conservatives talking about how “tough times require sacrifice” as they ask a single mom to go without health insurance for her child, all the while they cling to their tax cuts for the wealthy like a baby clings to a security blanket.
The scary thing is they have pulled off such sleight of hand politics before. Conservatives might just succeed in delivering to Americans what they neither want nor need, particularly if we let them. The Conservative position is weakened, they have been exposed, and people in large numbers no longer trust George Bush. Going up against poll numbers like this in the best of circumstances should be a steep uphill battle. There’s no reason we should even let them get out of the gates. Fighting Dems, mount up.
From It Affects You
You want a peek at the extent of the programs Republicans want to cut? Here’s the link to download the PDF of the Republican plan: Operation Offset It should be called Operation Ripoff. Here’s a teensy list of what they want to target:
Medicare
Medicaid
Retirement of Federal Employees
National Endowment for the Arts
Foreign Aid
Global Aids
Peace Corps
NASA Moon/Mars Initiative
Amtrack
Energy Conservation Grants
National Parks Funding
Minority Business Development
Forest Service
Water Quality
Indian Affairs School
Center for Disease Control Funding
Science Foundation Science and Math Program
Dept of Education Funding
This is just a partial list… and lots of these are not just funding reductions, it’s funding elimination.
Now compare that list with the following progressive ideas for saving money:
A progressive approach to trimming the budget could result in greater savings over a shorter period of time.
For example, rolling back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans would save $327 billion over five years.
Cracking down on offshore tax shelters would save $65 billion over the same time period.
Simply allowing Medicare recipients to purchase drugs through the mail would save $43 billion over five years.
Repealing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry contained in the recent energy bill would save $8.5 billion.
Shelving costly and unnecessary weapons systems would save $200 billion.
Getting rid of counterproductive agricultural export subsidies would save $30 billion over the first five years along.
Giving up half of the 6,371 special earmarked projects of the 2005 transportation bill would save an additional $12 billion.
A progressive approach to trimming the budget could cut $688 billion in federal spending over just five years.
The Progress Report
I forgot this:
Total 5 year savings under Republican “Operation Offset”=$369 billion
So the progressive plan would save almost twice as much money. It also should be pointed out that many of the Republican cuts, such as cuts in funding for Medicaid Administrative costs, would no doubt result in higher State taxes or an increase of “fees” and “co-pays” for services, which is the same damn thing. The Republicans want to cut basic services and programs and raise taxes for the poor and middle class in a back door sort of way.