Here’s more evidence that millions are being hurt by the cuts in government spending pushed by Mr Gessing and his Republican paymasters:
 
The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/
 
That’s roughly 1.5 Million people who have been thrown out of work directly by the government cuts – and doesn’t even begin to explore the other damage the cuts are doing: the damage to our infrastructure from firing the people who maintain it; the damage to future productivity by firing the people who would be building the things we’ll need in the future; the loss of the human capital from the long term unemployment of government workers; the loss of institutional knowledge that goes away with the unemployed workers; etc.

This not just nice proposed legislation.  This a result of the “catfood” commission.  All we ever hear about is Simpson-Bowles but, these proposals were brought forth in that commission as well.  Nothing was passed through the National Commission of Fiscal Responsibility and Reform but, the mainstream media has declared that Simpson-Bowles was the only resulting plan produced by the commission.  There was a progressive plan produced also.  Obama and the media act like progressive plans do not exist and is constantly trying to implement Simpson-Bowles.
I will not vote for the president because I am a Liberal. 

Janice Arnold-Jones reports an expenditure of $80 to the Rio Grande Foundation on 12/1/2011 for “MeeTing Expense”. I really don’t know what this is for. Normally I’d expect it meant that they took someone out to lunch, but then I’d expect an amount like $53.68, not a round $80.
 
I just love those FEC reports.If you want to love them too, go here:
 
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00499012
 
To see the expenditure I’m seeing, click on the link for Year End Report ( http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_12970234713+0 ) and scroll down to page 50, line A.

False and deceptive columns by Mr Gessing seem to be a regular feature (?!) of this blog. A year ago Carter Bundy did a rather nice take down of such a column: http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2011/03/fact-checking-the-rio-grande-foundation-sloppy-and-deceptive/
 
Mr Gessig is the president of the Rio Grande Foundation, and it’s apparently tied to one of the Koch Brothers  and funded by conservative organizations. (1).
 
Although itn claims that “The Rio Grande Foundation does not endorse or oppose either directly or indirectly any candidate for public office” it seems that the Treasurer, Victor Bruno, has gone to work for Janice Arnold-Jones’ congressional campaign. He has graciously said he will “recuse myself from decisions of the Board of Directors until further notice” (2). It’s not clear, however, whether he’s being paid to be treasurer, whether he’s still working as treasurer, or whether he’s being paid to sit on the board despite not participating in its decision, or whether he’s guaranteed to get his job back after the campaign. His letter suggests to me that he’s expecting to get his job back, but that’s not clear. In another coincidence, Janice Arnold-Jones is taking the positions supported by the Rio Grande Foundation.
 
‘nother topic: nice proposed legislation, qofdisks. Shame that it’s been sent to die in committee by the congressional majority (which just coincidentally happens to be republican).  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hr2914:  Raul Grijalva has introduced another nice bill that’s gone to die in committee: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03638:
 
Note: Grijalva has endorsed Eric Griego, who I hope will be defeating Janice Arnold-Jones in November, despite her getting the obvious support of the Kochs and the Republican billionaire foundation support system through the efforts of the Rio Grande Foundation and its President, Mr. Gessing.
 
(1) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_Foundation
 
(2) http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_bruno_letter.pdf

Obama changed his advisers after he was elected.  Hence, the problem.
Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy and how to fix it.

 ”if people who are concerned about the increasing concentration of wealth and power in this country are not mobilized, are not visible, then nothing progressive is going to happen.”" 
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/8/former_labor_sec_robert_reich_on

Jan Schakowsky Announces New Budget Plan With Focus On Jobs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/jan-schakowsky-jobs-to-restore-american-dream-act_n_923899.html

Under her plan, the following policies would be implemented:

The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.

The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act. Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands including the restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.

The Student Jobs Corps would create 250,000 more part-time work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.

The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 new teachers, 40,000 new police officers and 12,000 new firefighters.

The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.

The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.

The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.

In addition, the bill would give priority to the longterm unemployed — the so-called “99ers” who have exhausted both their state and federal unemployment benefits. Federally extended unemployment benefits are set to expire this year, even though nearly 14 million Americans remain out of work and it takes the average worker nine months to find a new job.
“The worst deficit this country faces isn’t the budget deficit,” Schakowsky said. “It’s the jobs deficit. We need to get our people and our economy moving again.”

http://www.ourfuture.org/report/citizenscommission 

Government Investment Still Works
“Today’s deficit debate often fails to recognize a critical fact: The Obama stimulus of 2009 helped stop the recession—and reduced the level of future deficits. The lesson learned in 1937 is still true today: Government intervention works. And it should not be ended prematurely.”

The depression we’re in is essentially gratuitous: we don’t need to be suffering so much pain and destroying so many lives.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/24/how-end-depression/
 
Mr Gessing’s theories are hurting a lot of people, according to yet another professional economist’s calculations:
 
One of the biggest policy mistakes that has been made during this recession is allowing government employment to fall by this magnitude. Stabilization policy calls for the opposite, a temporary increase in employment to provide employment for people who cannot find private sector jobs, and at the very least we should have kept government employment stable
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/05/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-71-percent.html

It’s about economics, Stever, it’s not about me being a jerk.
 
You’re using what Daniel Kahneman calls a heuristic. That’s where you avoid a hard question that’d require thought, and instead answer an easy question which you don’t have to think about.
 
The hard question: Who is right? Mr Gessig says that we need to cut government spending. spending. Schneider says that if we cut spending then we will reduce our incomes and make ourselves poorer, because aggregate spending equals aggregate income.
 
The easy question: Is Schneider a jerk?
 
The implicit logic goes like this: if Schneider is a jerk, then obviously we need to reduce government spending. Schneider is a jerk. Ergo, we must cut the government budget.
 
Notice the complete lack of logic? So far you’ve criticized my attitude, you’ve said I’m immature, and pointed to a variety of other personal characteristics of mine which you deprecate. You have never, not once, actually said anything about economic theory or economic facts. The only way we can intelligently answer economic questions is by looking at economic theory and facts. As long as you – and Mr Gessig and so many many Republicans – adamantly refuse to actually look at economic facts and theories, we’re doomed.
 
‘nother subject: what are you talking about, erikhawkes? Your links either don’t work or lead simply to another copy of your same comment. I don’t know what you are saying.
 
‘nother topic: as long as we’re talking about Mr Gessig’s failure to deal with facts, let’s look at this statement:
 
if the federal government simply confiscated all of the wealth of anyone in the country who earns $250,000 or more annually, we’d have about enough to bridge the [ $1.3 Trillion] deficit for one year.
 
Compare:
 
The total worth of the members of the Forbes400 list of the richest Americans rose to an estimated $1.37 trillion in 2010
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-09-22-forbes-list-richest-americans_N.htm
 
I haven’t been able to find figures for the total wealth of people who earn over $250,000 a year, but it’s got to be far, far more than the total wealth of just the top 400 wealthiest people.
 
In other words, Mr. Gessig is either lying again, or he’s just being sloppy and careless with his facts. Neither lying nore sloppiness with facts will help us understand the economy.

https://sites.google.com/site/erikhawkes/Home/-202-trillion-dollars-of-debt
$202 Trillion dollars of debt
The following quote is from Congressman Steve Pearce at 1 minute 34 seconds into the March 27, 2011 episode of Eye on New Mexico.
Eye on New Mexico – Mar. 27, 2011 
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2037083.shtml?cat=513
(27:36)
(26:02-25:35)
Congressman Pearce: Our banker is China and they have said twice in the last year: “It’s no good. We’re not going to buy anymore of your Treasury bills. We are afraid you can’t pay.” You remember when the Premier came to the White House about three weeks ago? He expressed concerns about our currency. These are our banker clearing his throat saying this is not working too well. Now then this green sludge that has run over down here, that is debt that we don’t even declare debt anymore. $202-Trillion for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
(25:35)
Did you catch that figure? Not 14 or 15 Trillion. Not 40 or 50 Trillion. Not even 100 Trillion. $202 Trillion dollars of debt.
Steve Pearce is the U.S. Representative for New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pearce

Yes, Mr. Shneider, how dare you use facts and reality to respond to sanctimonious assumptions that something someone just made up is automatically correct.
 
It should be noted that Mr. Gessing’s columns usually involve building entire sandcastles on false premises; after all, this is the man who once wrote an entire column in which he confused the contents of the Constitution with those of the Articles of Confederation.

Michael, I assume you are smart and undoubtably you think you are but your attitude, is what’s wrong, not my math. 

I’m trying to teach people basic macroeconomics, Stever. Things like the circular flow of money, the relationship between aggregate demand and aggregate income, the relationship between consumption and GDP – the basics. I believe that an educated, informed electorate will make better decesions. You know, right and wrong – or correct and incorrect, at least.
 
So what responsibility are you taking other than pointing out what others are not doing?
 
There’s really no reason to believe that compromise is always good. There’s no reason to believe that the best path lies between two alternatives. Truth doesn’t necessarily lie halfway between positions. Sometimes one answer is right, and one answer is wrong.
 
I’ve done my best to show the facts and the reasoning to support the conclusion that Mr Gessing is wrong, and that certain economists (Delong, Thoma, Krugman et alii) are right. If you want to continue to believe that if one person says that 2+2=4, and another says that 2+2=5, that we should compromise and be bipartisan and agree that 2+2=4 1/2, well, good luck. You’re wrong.

Stever, this is why your bipartisanship is a game fit only for liars and fools.

Wow Michael, name calling is truly a sign of maturity.   You don’t want compromise, and you are not very smart if you think I’m not very smart.  Not sure what universe you live in, Santa Fe makes sense as a start, but most people don’t operate in a zero sum world. 

I suspect *your* bipartisanship is when everyone acknowledges your brilliance and agrees with you.  Given how well you treat people looking to the middle, its no wonder you are reluctant to go there.  You are playing a game that’s been around a long and better played.

So what responsibility are you taking other than pointing out what others are not doing? 

That video is a lie. It makes three crucial assumptions, none of which are true.
 
First, it assumes that revenue is fixed. That’s not true. Revenue will change for two reasons: first, because when we get out of the recession we will have more people working and making money, so we will collect more revenue automatically. Second, because we can raise taxes, and raising taxes will increase revenue.
 
Second, it assumes that the “mandatory programs” won’t change. That’s not true. That includes things that have ballooned precisely because we’re in a recession: Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, and other programs have all seen increased costs because of the recession. Those will automatically decline when we get out of the recession.
 
Third, it assumes that we need to worry about balancing the budget each year, and considers each year to be a thing apart and alone. That’s not true. Economies have boom and bust cycles, and it’s important to balance the budget over the long term – but only a real fool will try to balance the budget in bust years. The smart government, like the smart family or the smart company, looks at the long term, borrowing when it needs to pay for things that will repay the borrowing over the long term.
 
Stever, this is why your bipartisanship is a game fit only for liars and fools. The Republicans have been lying about economic theory for better than three decades, and as that video shows, they continue to lie. You can’t have bipartisan agreement with people who lie, and who continue to believe things that were disproven decades ago
 
I realize the blame game makes for good campaign material…
 
What you call “the blame game” is what most people call “taking responsibility for your actions”.
 
I note also that Mr Gessing has chosen to ignore any and all inconvenient facts, and chooses to say nothing except to agree with someone who agrees with him. That’s a fine way to conduct a debate: ignore criticisms, repeat your false argument. You can’t have bipartisanship with people who choose not to listen. I think I need to step away from the internet.
 

Larry G., your video is spot-on. The fixes discussed are largely the same as the ones I propose. I’m not being ideological, I’m being realistic. So-called “entitlements” must be fixed. If the Bush tax cuts must go away, so be it, but it is worth noting that Obama also “cut” the payroll tax that funds the very same tax funding Social Security and Medicare. 

Taxes are not the problem, nor are they the solution. The answer is to spend less! 

Here is a much clearer way to see what Gessing is talking about minus his idealogical based fixes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be
 

Hardly a bipartisan analysis.  Thus we see a problem.  Republicans are the problem, even for 2009 Obama.  Nothing about spending excesses in both parties, earmarks, vote buying programs, etc.  I realize the blame game makes for good campaign material but sadly this seems all we can do.  Leadership might help.

No, we actually came up with pretty much the same numbers. Following your link, and then following from there to the report on the CBO report, you get the statement:
 
The Democratic proposal would add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the next decade, while the GOP plan [to keep all the Bush tax cuts] would cost $3.7 trillion, according to data compiled by The Washington Post.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/115293-cbo-report-gives-both-sides-ammo-in-debate-over-bush-tax-cuts
 
I’m ignoring all the talk in your link about what Howard Dean said, or meant, in 2010. It doesn’t seem relevant.
 
President Obama has exercised a lot of power but somehow that idiot Boehner can make him do stuff.
 
Yes, it’s a strategy called Filibuster Everything. That’s what the Republicans have been doing. Unprecedented use of the filibuster to prevent the majority from enacting much of anything. You may remember that the stimulus, which should have been well above $1.2 Trillion for direct spending as urged by Christina Romer, was blocked by the Republicans who only allowed about $400 Billion (or so) in spending and $400 Billion (or so) in tax cuts – and tax cuts are far, far less effective stimulus.
 
The president seems keen to extend them for the under $200K crowd regardless, at some point you can’t keep blaming Bush.  He and the Republicans get and deserve a fair amount but by now its just sounding like pure politics, not folks looking for sound fiscal solutions.  On both sides.  Can we agree to that?
 
Yes, keeping the tax cuts for people making less than $200k is good economic policy. Those are the people who haven’t done so well in the last few decades, who are income constrained, and who would spend that money to help get us out of this recession. That’s good economic policy.
 
I’ll agree that Obama has made a number of really stupid economic decisions – but none so stupid as the Republicans, and the columnist who wrote the original column above, have proposed. Remember, Bush was presiding over a boom after about 2003, so we should have been running a big surplus, not a deficit, at that time. That’s good economics – surplus during booms, deficit during busts. Instead, Bush ran a deficit during the boom. 
 
I can, and will, keep blaming Bush for deciding to have a tax cut instead of running a surplus and paying off the debt, and I can and will blame Bush for running a deficit during the boom. It’s that deficit that does so much to make the stimulus we need now so very difficult.
 
I can, and will, blame Reagan for doing the same thing. You may not remember, but I do. Reagan got elected on a promise to redu7ce the deficit and get the economy going again. The economy did pick up, but instead of reducing the deficit he made it skyrocket. GW Bush was elected on a promise of reducing the size of government and getting the economy goin. Instead the government grew tremendously, the economy went into the toilet, and he ended his term with record breaking deficits. It’s time to recognize that Republican economic policies are really bad for the country.
 
For another bit on why austerity now is really really stupid, read these:
http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/turning-tide-on-austerity.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dbb65da8-9062-11e1-8adc-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz1tTcNiRF8
 
And while I’m here, I’d like to mention this statement from the original column:
 
then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called, “The biggest threat we have to our national security” – our debt.
 
Former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? An Admiral? Giving his opinion about economics???
Surely there was someone – perhaps an out of work plumber, or a celebrity chef, who knows more than an Admiral about economics. Really, aren’t we scraping the bottom of the wrong barrel when we ask Admirals about economics?
 
 

Well thanks, you came up with different numbers than I did (off the intertubes)

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/howard-dean-overstates-cost-of-tax-cuts/

So we can play this game all night but Obama could have ended them and/or done something with Simpson-Bowles.  President Obama has exercised a lot of power but somehow that idiot Boehner can make him do stuff.        The president seems keen to extend them for the under $200K crowd regardless, at some point you can’t keep blaming Bush.  He and the Republicans get and deserve a fair amount but by now its just sounding like pure politics, not folks looking for sound fiscal solutions.  On both sides.  Can we agree to that?

 
Let’s see If one allocates the interest cost proportionally, the Bush tax cuts were responsible for increasing the debt by $3.2 trillion — 27 percent of the fiscal decline since 2001. Isn’t that amazing but the rich needs their money! If you are concerned about the deficit, you get rid of the Bush tax cuts ASAP! Kill the economic Dodo bird!

The Bush tax cuts will add somewhere around $3.3 Trillion to $5.4 Trillion to the national debt over the next decade or so, Stever.  You, too, could look these things up on the intertubes if you really wanted to know what you were talking about.
 
In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
 
Extending the Bush tax cuts from 2013 through 2022 would cost $5.4 trillion.  
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/06/another_decade_of_bush_tax_cuts_will_cost_more_than_twice_as_much_as_the_first_decade.php
 
By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
(as I read the chart, the tax cuts alone add around $300 Billion per year, but increase over time)

It’s not true that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan has been the only serious one in Washington in an attempt to deal with the federal budget crisis. The Bowles – Simpson plan was brought forward under President Obama’s Deficit Commission, but it was ignored by both the president and lawmakers. And this March the House rejected a bipartisan plan somewhat patterned after Bowles-Simpson but Ryan spoke out against it.
 
This suggests what Rep. Ryan wants is for the budget plan to be solely his, being described as both staff and leader of his proposal, and having a heavy, hands-on control of the whole process.
 
Mr. Gessing points out that New Mexico’s dependency on the federal government with all the DOE and defense spending here could be severely impacted if proposed federal budgets get drastically cut. But he doesn’t define what “prevention” means and how it could ease the impact of federal budget cuts to New Mexico should they occur. Does that mean a more diverse economy with a larger tax base and years to get there?
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52529_Page2.html

If in fact the ”Bush tax cuts have been the largest single contributor to the exploding budget deficit”, I’m wondering how much those cuts were.  I remember when President Obama extended them it was estimated at $60 Billion a year.

The Bush Tax Cuts were only enacted because bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected for the 10-year period of 2002 through 2011 indicated budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion dollars. President Bush and Congress felt excess taxes should be given back to the taxpayers. That is the bottom line. Now the Bush Tax Cuts are archaic and should be as dead as the Dodo bird. There is no surplus only a deficit.
The  Bush tax cuts have been the largest single contributor to the exploding budget deficit. Let’s do away with the Dodo bird before it causes further harm to our delicate economy.

It’s funny how you specifically list Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, yet you don’t mention the cost of the more than 11 year war in Afghanistan, and the very needless and unfounded “Weapons of Mass Destruction” war in Iraq.  Where do those costs factor into your analysis Mr. Gessing?  Or is it politically incorrect for a “non-partisan” conservative group like yours to offend the Republican and/or Tea Party by lumping their flawed policies into our federal debt issue?  I agree with you that math isn’t partisan, however the math you choose to do is very much partisan!  Don’t just single out Senior Citizens and our low income families in this country, look at EVERYTHING that has caused the debt in this country to sky rocket since President Clinton left office with an actual surplus in 1999.  

Let’s think about that.  The problem is we are not spending enough, Bush Tax Cuts and Bush’s Wars?   So that’s the best you can come up with for 2012, run against Bush and promise to spend more.  How creative

Here is Pulitzer Prize-winning Marc Fiore on the so-call Grand Economic Wizard Paul Ryan – funny but a sad reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpyMPzDRQw
 

I am sure Mr. Gessing can  crunch numbers. It will reveal that Paul Ryan’s draconian  budget is hogwash. You take out Mr. Ryan’s  implausibles and non-specified items. What do  you have – a bigger deficit. It amounts to selfishly taking from the poor, aged the sick and the middle class and redistributing  to the rich.
Congressman Ryan has a love affair with  Ayn Rand,the  libertarian novelist. He believes in her ideal  that selfishness is “virtue”.  As Ryan said: “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” Ryan also stated that the safety net programs are “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency”.
New Mexicans need to repudiate this economic trash!

wow, new comments while I was running off at the keyboard.
 
Through tax hikes and tax cuts over the last 70 years, revenues have been rather consistent at about 18% of GDP.
 
Not true. If you actually look at the chart to which you link, you’ll see that during GW Bush’s presidency the revenues dropped by a bunch – from about 20% to about 25%, or a drop of a quarter.
 
This must included social programs like Social Security and Medicare which are growing the fastest. 
 
Not totally true. Social Security is actually in pretty good shape – we’ve got at least another decade until the trust fund runs dry, and even then we’ll be able to pay 75% of benefits
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jknihmklzkG-LeSR6VN1gKEzMwgw?docId=5b6e8181dc374865bb012d1ec2983017
 
Medicare, like all aspects of our health care system, is a problem. That’s why we needed to do more cost containment in ObamaCare – but at least ObamaCare does actually take some steps to reduce costs. I only wish the Republicans hadn’t filibustered the ideas that would have done more to contain costs, such as a single payer system.

The truth is that you are lying again. Taxes can solve the problem, if they are coupled with rational economic policy. We need to reduce unemployment through borrowing and spending, and raise taxes to pay for the things that a decent civilized country needs.
 
We are not spending enough; therefore we are not earning enough, because spending is (roughly) equal to earning. It is a circular flow. When I go spend money on a meal in a restaurant it’s spending to me, but it’s income to the restaurant and income to the server when I spend for a tip. Everyone’s spending is someone else’s income. When spending falls, total income falls.
 
Total spending, and thus also total income, is made up of consumer spending plus business spending plus government spending (roughly). Consumer spending plummeted when people realized that they didn’t have all the wealth in home equity they thought. They felt poor, and decided to save money, and stopped buying things. Government spending has also plummeted because state and local tax revenues have plummeted, and states and localities have to balance their budgets, so they cut back on spending. Federal spending has gone up a bit because the increase in poor people out of work means an increase in Medicaid, SNAP, and unemployment compensation, but overall government spending is down (1).
 
Because consumer spending and government spending has fallen, businesses aren’t selling as much, so business income has fallen, so they’ve fired people. When people are fired, they cut back on spending, and so everything gets worse – and Republican economic policy of reducing government spending even further simply makes our problems worse.
 
Our biggest problem is the stalled economy. If we weren’t in a recession, the deficit would be much, much smaller (2).
 
Our next biggest problem is the Bush tax cuts, which reduced government revenues (and if there’s anyone who hasn’t figured out that the  story of trickle down economics and how tax cuts pay for themselves because of the Laffer curve, how that story is a pure lie, please pay some attention to the evidence)
 
Our third biggest problem is the trillions we’ve wasted invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and other excessive military spending.
 
So the statement “The reality is that spending must be the focal point of any serious discussion … ” is a flat out lie. The reality is that revenue, taxes, and how to stimulate the economy and reeduce unemployment are the things we need to discuss.
 
The claim that “…Rep. Paul Ryan is among the only serious voices…” is also a lie. I’ve gone on too long, so let me send you to this piece: http://nymag.com/news/features/paul-ryan-2012-5/index2.html    I’ve linked to page three of that article, but you can read the whole thing.
 
Republican economics policies since the election of Ronald Reagan have driven us into this mess. Economies tend to run booms and busts, so the smart thing to do is borrow during busts and save during booms. Yet the Republicans have run up spending and deficits during the booms, leaving us broke during the busts. Isn’t it time we stopped buying into nonsense that’s been steadily wrong for 30 years?
 
 
(1) see the charts at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/four-fiscal-charts/
(2) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
also the first chart at the link in 1 above

Math is not partisan and dealing with our nation’s inability to pay for the programs that our elected officials have created is also not a partisan issue. Could taxes go up? Sure. Through tax hikes and tax cuts over the last 70 years, revenues have been rather consistent at about 18% of GDP. Besides, there simply isn’t enough money to pay for our deficits and debts. 

All areas of the budget must be on the table for cuts. This must included social programs like Social Security and Medicare which are growing the fastest.  

We worship the rich. It’s our national religion. Their money is sacrosanct. When you worship the golden calf, it requires human sacrifice. So we will balance the budget on the backs of the working class and the poor. The rich have been on a tax holiday since Ronald Reagan. The result has been near zero growth in income for the working people while the top 1% have seen their wealth quadrupled. This is not only a recipe for financial ruin, for the religious of you out there, it is a prescription for damnation. All the lies aside, if George W. Bush would have left the Clinton surplus alone and stayed out of his stupid wars, our nation debt would be pretty much retired by now. That’s the power of a few points of extra tax when the vast preponderance of wealth lies with the top 10%. Tax the rich. They caused this mess. Roll back taxes to the pre-Reagan level. Rebuild our infrastructure. Roll back destructive trade policies till we actually have balanced trade with all partners. Fair trade. Make sure tariffs are levied on companies that offshore American jobs and for damn certain stop giving them tax breaks to do so. Break up the freaking monopolies and stop subsidizing the behemoths to the detriment of small businesses. Every defense item and critical infrastructure purchase should be required by law to be 100% American made. And for heaven’s sake, Corporations are not people. What blasphemy. Here’s a fact no one talks about. Corporations are not even American. We’ve been running massive trade deficits since Reagan and all those foreign dollars have got to go somewhere… They buy American stock. You’ve got Red Chinese and Russian and Saudi Arabian and drug dealers laundering all their phat loot by buying shares in American companies. In many places, controlling interests. So when you allow corporate interest to spend money on political speech, you are allowing foreign interests to be able to grab control of our 16 trillion dollar economy for a mere ten billion dollar investment. We are already becoming a colony of the Chinese and Saudi Arabian princes for their exploitation pleasure! Protect what’s American. Invest in American people. Or you’re… a traitor.

I distinctly remember Dr. J responding to a comment I once posted about the Rio Grande Foundation, where he said they do not identify themselves as “non-partisan” the way that organizations like Voices for children and others do.  Please notice the following:

Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization

The solution requires thinking at a higher level than that which created the problem ~ Einstein said something like that. Start thinking RECs.

Bob Dylan – Working Man Blues #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYDeUInIus0&feature=youtu.be