Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Vision and the Budget
In the 1970s, that budget was more than 4% of GDP, too little to meet America's needs even then, but at least within the ballpark. Then came Reagan and the goal to "starve the beast," meaning to cripple the government by cutting tax revenues so that spending would have to decline as well.
The non-defense discretionary budget fell to under 4% and continued to slide. By 2008, in the final year of the Bush Presidency, it had declined to 3.7% of GDP, and was no longer able to fund programs in science, technology, energy, climate change, education, job training, and infrastructure needed to keep America modern and competitive......
By now, the non-defense discretionary budget of Obama is less than under Bush, measured relative to the size of the economy. It now stands at around 3.4% of GDP.....
Now here's the rub. President Obama seems intent now on a fiscal deal within the next few weeks that will make all of this permanent. All of the great vision and dreams will come to nothing if there is no budget to support them. And yet what is the White House championing?
I kid you not: the White House is touting a budget based on a baseline in which the non-defense discretionary budget will fall sharply in the coming years, to just 2.4% of GDP by 2022. That would be the lowest level in decades. It would make impossible the realization of the vision in yesterday's great speech.
And the truth is even worse. The 2.4% that would be left for all of the uplifting investments in his inaugural address also includes national security spending such as homeland security. If you strip out the national security spending from the 2.4% of GDP, we'd have just 1.7% of GDP available for all federal discretionary programs not related to national security and defense.
We need more revenues. Period. And not just small and symbolic revenues, but robust new revenues to fund expanded federal programs in education, infrastructure, science, technology, and the environment. A reasonable estimate is that the Federal Government would need at least 2% of GDP per year more in revenues compared with the current situation. These could be found in a variety of ways: taxes on high net worth, a financial transactions tax, an end of corporate loopholes, a tax on carbon emissions, and so forth.
So here's my recommendation. Let's pay careful attention to what the President proposes in actual budget spending and revenues in the next few weeks. Let's keep our eye on the discretionary part of the budget - the part that will fulfill his vision or leave it as merely nice words - and then let us judge. Are we a country prepared to invest in our future -- or only to speak eloquently about it as the environmental crises multiply and the economy continues to stagnate?
The non-defense discretionary budget fell to under 4% and continued to slide. By 2008, in the final year of the Bush Presidency, it had declined to 3.7% of GDP, and was no longer able to fund programs in science, technology, energy, climate change, education, job training, and infrastructure needed to keep America modern and competitive......
By now, the non-defense discretionary budget of Obama is less than under Bush, measured relative to the size of the economy. It now stands at around 3.4% of GDP.....
Now here's the rub. President Obama seems intent now on a fiscal deal within the next few weeks that will make all of this permanent. All of the great vision and dreams will come to nothing if there is no budget to support them. And yet what is the White House championing?
I kid you not: the White House is touting a budget based on a baseline in which the non-defense discretionary budget will fall sharply in the coming years, to just 2.4% of GDP by 2022. That would be the lowest level in decades. It would make impossible the realization of the vision in yesterday's great speech.
And the truth is even worse. The 2.4% that would be left for all of the uplifting investments in his inaugural address also includes national security spending such as homeland security. If you strip out the national security spending from the 2.4% of GDP, we'd have just 1.7% of GDP available for all federal discretionary programs not related to national security and defense.
We need more revenues. Period. And not just small and symbolic revenues, but robust new revenues to fund expanded federal programs in education, infrastructure, science, technology, and the environment. A reasonable estimate is that the Federal Government would need at least 2% of GDP per year more in revenues compared with the current situation. These could be found in a variety of ways: taxes on high net worth, a financial transactions tax, an end of corporate loopholes, a tax on carbon emissions, and so forth.
So here's my recommendation. Let's pay careful attention to what the President proposes in actual budget spending and revenues in the next few weeks. Let's keep our eye on the discretionary part of the budget - the part that will fulfill his vision or leave it as merely nice words - and then let us judge. Are we a country prepared to invest in our future -- or only to speak eloquently about it as the environmental crises multiply and the economy continues to stagnate?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-vision-and-the-budget_b_2525991.html
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” - Dr. King
What's the plan?