Skip to main content

The Only Thing I'll Say About the Debt Commission For Now

Everybody's already had a chance to beat their breasts about the big headline-making cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The only thing I'd add is that the cuts actually have a chance A) to undermine the economy and B) shift big costs to state governments that, for now at least, aren't really well-equipped to bear them.

On the second front, it's worth looking at the proposed $100 billion in cuts to defense spending. That's a nice, big, round number, and one I initially found encouraging. But what to cut? Well, $1.1 billion of those savings would be from getting the Department of Defense out of the business of schooling the children of our soldiers, sailors and marines and dumping those kids on local school districts where those families are based. It doesn't eliminate the cost of that education of course, but it does dump it on state taxpayers. This is a small budget item in the scheme of things, but it does hint at something pernicious about the proposed cuts.

Back to the first front: It's time we had a frank national discussion about backdoor Keynesianism, whereby our government has propped up the economy for decades by buying and maintaining equipment for a military that is twice as expensive as the rest of the world's forces combined. (It is, frankly, the way that Republicans have been able to use government for economic ends while shouting about free markets.) A substantial portion of the proposed defense cuts come from reduced contracting and procurement costs. That's going to mean less work for companies like Boeing; that in turn will mean fewer jobs in places like Seattle and Wichita; and that in turn will weaken those communities through a variety of second-order effects.

This is a pain that is probably inevitable: The U.S. really can't afford to do twice as much, defensively, as everybody else in perpetuity. But a right-sized military will mean some pain, at least in the short-term, for private-sector workers whose jobs support and supply the defense establishment. We need to be honest about that.


KhabaLox said…
Hear, hear. (Or is it "Here, here." Or some other combination of those homophones?)

Any idea how much of the other "cuts" are not true cuts but transfers from Federal to Local?
Joel said…
I don't, though I'd imagine there are a few. It bears crawling through the document with a closer analytical eye I applied the first time around.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…