It seems that there are some people who are decrying the Obama administration's spending on healthcare reform and on the economic stimulus package. I hear such things as " we are sacrificing our children's future because of all of this debt--
I saw the other day a clip of Katie Couric asking Obama "why should our country be spending all of this money"?"
My guess is that people who describe themselves as conservatives, pulling out from the conservative tool bag concerns about government spending and the US national debt, are being selective in their focus.
What about the 2000 and 2001 Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our society? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't that result in about a trillion dollars not going into our national treasury? What about the cost in money, not to mention lives and US diplomatic capital, of the war in Iraq ?
If we are that concerned about the US national debt, why not raise taxes on the wealthiest people in our nation? If our government, following the "will of the people,' were to do that, the very wealthy would still be very well off materially.
No matter how high taxes on the very wealthy could conceivably get in this country, my guess is that their standard of living will still be pretty good. But consider by contrast, the less well enough among us. Some of us right now are choosing between paying the heating bill and buying medicine or food, for example.
Well, to be open-minded, what about the idea that if we tax the very wealthy a lot, then that will hurt our nation's economy because, after all, so the argument goes, it is the very wealthy people who keep our economy running by spurring innovation and creating jobs.
To what extent does that philosophy jibe with the economic reality around us ? This is not a rhetorical question.
ã ‚¬ ‚¬
But this is not just a matter of me point out the hypocrisy and selective memory of some of the people who describe themselves as conservatives. Some progressives may currently say that the Clinton presidency was, in it's own way, conservative in its support of NAFTA and other policies.
But that's after the fact. My guess is that a significant portion of the people describing themselves as liberals or progressives in the 1990s seemed to have had little if any problem with Clinton's economic policies.
Tell me if you disagree but, globalization, which Clinton championed, has contributed to the problem of the US national debt. US companies have set up their factories in nations where they can pay people a lot less money and where environmental standards are relatively lax.
That extra money goes to a select few within the structure of those US based corporations, many of which, in turn, find ways to avoid paying taxes. This happens at the expense of many of the non-wealthy people in the United States and at the expense of US national interest.
Manufacturing jobs are lost, and with that, the manufacturing capacity of the United States has been significantly diminished. Further, the diminution of the ability of the US to actually make things somehow contributes to our nation's national debt.
So, what's the solution?
(1) Raise taxes on the very wealthy in the United States. Cutting investments into public services is not the answer. The approach of low taxes on the very wealthy combined w/ cuts in social programs and cuts in other public investments likely leads to more crime and more social strife, which in turn may lead to having less political freedom because of an emphasis on law and order.
An ongoing idea is that greed is being 'sold' to US Americans as patriotism, even though greed is undermining our national interest in terms of loss of US manufacturing, and loss of tax revenue.
(2) Rebuild US manufacturing sector. How can we do this? Would undoing parts of NAFTA be a part of the solution? To what extent would "investing in a clean, renewable energy economy' be a part of the solution?
Any other ideas?
