Krugman: Red Ink Realities

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

Even conservatives are starting to admit that George Bush isn't serious when he claims to be doing something about the exploding budget deficit. At best — to borrow the already classic language of the State of the Union address — his administration is engaged in deficit reduction-related program activities.

But these admissions have been accompanied by an urban legend about what went wrong. According to cleverly misleading reports from the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded sources, the deficit is growing because Mr. Bush isn't sufficiently conservative: he's allowing runaway growth in domestic spending. This myth is intended to divert attention from the real culprit: sharply reduced tax collections, mainly from corporations and the wealthy.

Is domestic spending really exploding? Think about it: farm subsidies aside, which domestic programs have received lavish budget increases over the last three years? Education? Don't be silly: No Child Left Behind is rapidly turning into a sick joke.

In fact, many government agencies are severely underfinanced. For example, last month the head of the National Park Service's police admitted to reporters that her force faced serious budget and staff shortages, and was promptly suspended.

[Dudley_DUright]

1. deficit reduction-related program activities

Touché Paul. Another perfect phrase.

[spooky3]

2. Krugman has given the Dems an excellent issue.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. The heart of this piece is very important in that respect

To summarize Krugman's case: Spending has risen on defense and homeland security and for recession-related expenses such as unemployment benefits. Otherwise, the federal government is cash-starved. The reason for this is plunging revenues due to Bush's tax cuts (Krugman: "Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950"). Yet these tax cuts don't reach most Americans:

Of course, most people don't feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they're right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II.

If that isn't a issue for the Democrats, what is?

[MisterC2003]

4. The Pubbies will cry "class warfare"

As they always do when any criticism of economic inequality occurs.

My response: Yeah, you guys alway scream class warfare whenever anyone advocates that the middle class get up from the barrel and get their pants back on.