No Truth in the Land of U.S. Politics

As we have discussed often here the Iraq war is very much like Vietnam in one important respect, it can't be won and neither party will tell you that. Just the other day we talked about how neither candidate will tell us the truth about global warming or oil. In the Washinton Post today, David Broder explains how neither Bush or Kerry will talk about the fact that fiscal ruin is on the horizon.

It's not true that people in Washington can't agree about anything. Across the policy spectrum, there's a clear recognition that the present path of budget-making is unsustainable -- in fact, ruinous.

The Concord Coalition, whose leadership includes prominent Republicans, says that with realistic assumptions but no change in policy, the federal debt will swell by a staggering $5 trillion in the next 10 years. The liberal Economic Policy Institute says that a "budget train wreck" lies ahead. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that it looks as if "substantial reductions in the projected growth of spending or a sizable increase in taxes -- or both -- will probably be necessary" to avoid fiscal disaster.
The agreement extends everywhere except where it is most important -- to the rivals for the White House and to the members of Congress.

President Bush and his opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, blithely assert that they will cut the budget deficit (a record $413 billion in the current year) in half within four or five years, but they are purposely vague on how they will do it.

What can congress do?

Tax cuts they can do. With bipartisan majorities, they passed a $143 billion bonanza for corporations of every sort, shortly after extending what the lawmakers were pleased to call a "middle-class" tax cut of $146 billion. You might be surprised to learn, as I was, where that "middle class" tax relief actually goes.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, households in the middle 20 percent of the income scale -- the "middle class" -- receive only 9 percent of the benefits. Their average saving will be $162. Those in households with incomes from $200,000 to $500,00 will be $2,390 better off.

So the alleged justification for the massive tax cuts was to stimulate the economy but only 9% of it went to the people who would actually spend it. Of course the the 91% went to people who would freely contribute to the campaign chests of Bush and other Republicans.

Failing the moral test:

It is important to remember that these latest tax cuts are all being financed with borrowed money -- money that at some point will have to be paid back. That was the point made by Pete Peterson, the former Nixon administration secretary of commerce, in a terrific piece that business reporter Paul Solman did for PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" the other night.

Noting that today's deficits will burden future generations, Peterson said, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. And as I think about the concept that we're slipping our own kids and grandkids a check for our free lunch, I say we're failing the moral test."