Waving the Bloody Deficit

It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear how upfront and honest Republican leadership has been about their economic policy. That isn't to say that they weren't always very obviously the party of 'no taxes, small government, free enterprise,' but that refrain hides a much larger statement. There is another side to that coin that only now are Republicans truly owning. They do this with the expectation of massive victories in the House and Senate in the November midterms, which makes it all the more surprising. There is no real need to expose their hole cards, as the far-right base already understands the caveat to lowering taxes for the rich. But before trying to figure out exactly at whom this end-run is aimed, let's hear it first from one horse's mouth:

And there it is! As I have previously put it, the position advocated by Kyl (and Gregg and Boehner and many, many others) is 'reduce the deficit at all costs, unless those costs impact the rich, then fuck the deficit.' The pretense of protecting the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (read 'poor'), which were minimal at best, is negated by the fact that Kyl and his crew fought tooth and nail AGAINST the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. To say that tax cuts shouldn't require funding is also bunk. according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

This chart shows how various economic policies will impact the deficit over the next ten years. That big orange swath growing as time passes is... you guessed it. The Bush tax cuts! (okay, and wars) By contrast, there is a deficit bubble in 2010 that flattens out to a thin strip of pale blue. That is recovery measures and stimulus enacted by the current administration.

Supply side economics is a massive fail. Read Paul Krugman's brief post on the sheer lack of evidence that "supply side roolz!" History proves that intervention on the demand side is what spurs true growth, as opposed to a significant drop followed by nominal growth. That is, put money into the hands of consumers. The consumers will spend the money and business will grow based on consumer demand. That is why every dollar spent on unemployment benefits returns $1.63, while every dollar in tax cuts returns $1.02. Obviously reducing taxes can and does make a difference, but the recipient of those tax breaks makes a big difference.

The deficit hawks want the last say in government intervention in this slumping economy. But these deficit hawks have forgotten exactly how a deficit is achieved in the first place: Step 1, a government collects revenue in the form of taxes. Step 2, that governments spends more than the tax revenue collected. Want to cut spending? Sure, great, have at it. But how can you say that decreasing the government's tax revenue does not affect the deficit, when you are unwilling to offset those tax breaks? Republicans have planted their stakes in opposition to spending, even while a majority of the country supports spending measures, such as extending unemployment benefits, that actually stimulate the economy.

The net effect, which is as likely the cause, is the far right positioning of the Republican party, out of the mainstream let alone Main Street. They are aiming their propaganda at what they consider to be the middle, the undecided, and they've decided that said voters are core conservatives. It is a mistake, I hope the voters of this country prove wrong in November.' Conservative/Liberal,' isn't an ideological name tag most of us wear on a day to day basis. It's bad policy to be against government intervention, when it is clearly required. Intervention on behalf of the people (not the corporations) is the primary role of government. To vow repeal of healthcare reform, financial reform(both of which act as deficit reducers) and to extend tax cuts to the rich that will have the opposite effect of reducing the deficit turns that responsibility upside down. I really hope voters remember this and spare themselves a lot of heartache in the fall.