Image via Wikipedia

President Obama sent his budget proposal for 2012 to Congress yesterday, and before the ink was even dry, Republicans were swarming like piranha. According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), “It would be better doing nothing than if we were to actually pass this budget.” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that the budget was based on “gimmicks,” and claimed that passing it would “be a national tragedy.”

White House estimates put the savings of the proposed budget at $1.1 trillion over 10 years, with two-thirds of the savings coming from spending cuts. Republicans have unanimously rejected that total, with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) labeling it a “timid response to a grave challenge.” Shelby added that the proposal “ignores the will of the American people,” which is more than a little odd coming from somebody who supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and openly shared his lunatic idea to fix Social Security by increasing the retirement “age every several years” — both positions being opposed by the majority of Americans.

But it’s easy to understand why Republicans are so vehemently opposed to the President’s budget proposal. While it does make substantial cuts, actually eliminating or reducing the funding for 200 federal programs, the spending reductions total only $33 billion for 2012, which is far less than the Republican’s draconian proposal to cut $60 billion in 2011. But more importantly, the White House budget also ends the Bush tax cuts for the rich, increases taxation on multinational corporations, eliminates $46 billion in subsidies for oil, gas and coal interests, and cuts $78 billion from the right’s most sacrosanct bucket — the Pentagon.

There is a choice to be made regarding the future of our nation, and the American people need to wake up and pay attention. Our national debt is currently over $14 trillion. The interest alone on that debt amounts to around $250 billion per year. The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter if we cut the deficit by $30 billion or $60 billion, or even the $100 billion promised by Republicans, or more — we will still be diving deeper into debt.

Take your pick, the President’s budget or whatever counter is offered by the Republicans — it doesn’t really matter, the spending cuts you’ll find will be largely symbolic. Arguing the merit of either proposal based on the depth of cuts is pure political theater. Either option will be kicking the can down the road. The substantive difference, the criteria upon which the proposals should be judged, lies in their differing methodologies.

Republicans contend that our economic problems are all the result of excessive spending, and their budget proposals reflect that belief. Democrats counter that the issue is more complex and propose a solution that addresses both revenue and expenditure. The result is that, while both parties talk about the sacrifice that will be needed going forward, only the Democratic position strives to ensure that it’s shared.

The fact of the matter is that adherence to the Republican method for addressing the debt will place ALL of the sacrifice on those who can least afford it. Their solitary focus on spending cuts combined with their unwillingness to address a bloated defense budget leaves no alternative. Those fortunate enough to remain wealthy in post-Recession America will not suffer from the proposed federal spending cuts. They only share in the sacrifice by paying higher taxes. And with military spending off the table, cuts to the remainder of the discretionary budget will only harm the poor, impede upward mobility and further weaken the middle class.

President Obama’s budget proposal may not go far enough, but at least it presents a method for shared sacrifice that can be expanded. It combines cuts to social programs with a slight trimming of defense and adds a bit of revenue through modest tax increases. The Republican alternative is more an effort best represented by an M.C. Escher impossible reality. The bottom line being that the budget simply cannot be balanced solely within the proposed Republican framework.

The situation may be complicated, but the math really isn’t. With a $14 trillion hole, only about $440 billion in discretionary spending outside of defense, and annual interest payments of $250 billion, the Republican plan set forth by Rep. Ryan doesn’t balance the budget until the 2060s and piles on $62 trillion in debt during the process. Republican fiscal responsibility is a fairy tale, sort of a contemporary version of the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.

But as insane as this GOP plan may appear, like an iceberg, there’s more to it than what we see on the surface. As House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) promised, the Republican budget will be “a serious document that will reflect the type of path we feel we should be taking to address the fiscal situation, including addressing entitlement reforms.” In GOP parlance, that means more pain for everyone but the wealthy, pain that will include a full frontal assault on our nation’s social safety nets.

The writing is on the wall. Because the Republicans refuse the responsible path of both increasing revenue and putting ALL spending on the table, they must attack the entitlements. This is possibly the GOP’s most egregious tactic and without doubt one of their favorite arenas for yarn spinning (a euphemism for telling bald-faced lies). Republicans would have everyone believe that Social Security is seriously broken, and that it’s partially to blame for the deficit — sadly, it doesn’t matter to them that both assertions have no basis in reality.

Republican spin on Social Security is nothing but more fable peddling. As evidenced in economist Dean Baker’s letter to Sen. Richard Shelby, sent after the Senator told a nice whopper about the program, even “if nothing is ever done, then Social Security would pay full benefits through the year 2037.” It would also be able to pay around 80% of benefits well into the second half of the century. With small tweaks, the program will remain vibrant for its entire 75-year horizon and beyond. But this narrative doesn’t fit the GOP model for fueling Wall St. profits through privatization, so the truth must be set aside and a tale must be spun.

Part of that Republican tale is the myth of a broken system, but even more disingenuous is their contention that we must fix Social Security in order to address the deficit. This is pure, unadulterated hogwash — grade-A falsehood — a freaking lie! The fact of the matter is that Social Security is not included in the deficit. It is both funded and expensed outside of the budget; it is an off-budget program, and it has a surplus balance of some $2.5 trillion. The truth of the matter is that Social Security hasn’t negatively impacted the deficit — it’s actually helped to mask its true magnitude.

Medicare is another story. Being included “on-budget,” shortfalls in Medicare funding do impact the budget, and program solvency will require much more than tweaking. But even in the case of Medicare, the Republican position is fraught with dishonesty. The problem with both Medicare and Medicaid is not inherent in the government programs but rather a function of the rising cost of healthcare. With Medicare the problem is exacerbated by the increasing number of elderly Americans, but unless we’re okay with just denying them medical services, we still need to seek a real solution.

Of course, a real solution for skyrocketing healthcare costs runs headlong into the Republican priority of maximizing corporate profits. So, never mind that nationally our spending on healthcare is approaching one-fifth of our GDP; forget about the fact that we spend more than double the OECD average yet achieve far worse health outcomes — and whatever you do, please ignore the man behind the curtain — the one atop any of the 10 largest medical insurers who saw their profits leap by 250% during the past decade. This is all SOP for the GOP. Their response to this upside-down scenario is not to reduce costs but to limit access with Medicare vouchers. Hurray for the red, white and blue!

Americans need to pull their heads out of the sand, open their eyes and come to grips with the fact that we’re being plundered by our nation’s economic elite. The Democrats are definitely complicit, but the Republicans are the soothsaying demons of the illicit extraction. Regardless the issue, they have but one position: protect the monied interests. Healthcare costs are soaring, so limit access. The defense budget expands 250%, from $333 billion under Clinton to $847 billion in 2010, and it’s off the table. Federal revenues drop from 21% of GDP in 2000 to 15% in 2010, and the answer is to cut taxes.

The Republican position is always simple because it is single-minded. It doesn’t have to consider the complexities of the economy, the nuances of trade policy, the impact of spending cuts, the most effective means to stimulate job growth, or the ethical implications of any of the above. No, the Republican Party’s laser-like focus on fending for the wealthy makes all decisions easy.

If they were truly concerned about cutting spending, they’d put their knife to defense: the largest and most wasteful of discretionary programs. If they really cared about healthcare costs, they strive to create competition with solutions like a public option. If they were truly concerned about jobs, they’d drop the nonsense about job-killing taxes and admit that tax cuts don’t create jobs. If they gave a flying flip about the average American, they’d drop the charade about having “a spending problem” and tell the truth about taxation.

That truth would include sharing the fact that in spite of a record $1.66 trillion in profits for 2010, revenue from corporate taxes was a meager $191 billion — a rate of around 11%. In full honesty, the GOP would also have to fess up about how overtaxed we aren’t. They’d have to admit that federal taxes are at historic lows. In fact, as a share of our nation’s economy, they’re at their lowest level since 1950. And if they really sought to inform instead of manipulate, they’d make sure that everyone understood that we have the third lowest total tax burden of all OECD nations, higher than only Mexico and Chile.

But honesty is far from being the GOP’s strong suit, and the wellbeing of average Americans is low on their list of priorities. So, we can all expect more distortion of facts, more narrowly focused policies, and more pain for the American people. But cheer up, there is a bright side: so long as you’re in the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans, you can rest assured that the GOP has your back. Of course, if you belong to the other 98%, watch out — because your back makes a real nice target for their budget knife.

Article first published as Why Don’t the Facts Seem to Matter Anymore? on Technorati.

How do Americans make up their minds on political issues? Some, I’m sure, simply echo the positions of trusted friends. There are people who are persuaded by specific arguments that just seem to personally resonate and still others who simply adhere to strict party lines. Such practices are understandable in the fast paced world of 21^st Century America. But understandable or not, one has to wonder if a more deliberate approach might be warranted.

Take for instance the current debate over the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Most polls previously showed that the majority of voters support extending the cuts for only the middle class. But the margins were remarkably thin and continue to shrink.

The most recent Gallup poll shows only 44% of participants in favor of extensions depending upon income level and tallied 40% in support of cuts regardless of income. An Associated Press poll of 1,000 people, taken just before Thanksgiving, showed a slightly larger margin, with 50% in favor of cuts for income up to $250,000 and only 34% favoring cuts for all income.

Division of this sort is typical on political issues, but what’s interesting about these results is that, while only 2% of Americans would benefit directly from cuts on income above $250,000, a third or more of those polled consistently support those very cuts. This is an atypical disparity that surely must have some explanation.

One possible motivation could be that people are concerned about jobs. According to that same AP poll, 82% of participants cited unemployment as an “extremely” or “very” important issue. Perhaps these people believe that extending tax cuts to the wealthy will result in job creation. After all, anyone who’s listened to the media has heard this argument. It’s a favorite of congressional Republicans, who regularly cast any tax increase as “job killing.”

But the fallacy of such a premise is immediately evident in even the briefest moment of serious contemplation. The fact is that employers simply don’t hire based on their personal income tax treatment. The formula for staffing is strictly limited to the number of employees required to produce the product or provide the services necessary to meet demand while maintaining a profit — period. Profits must be made before taxes even come into play. The fundamental rule is that, if demand goes up, businesses must hire more people, and if demand wanes, there will be layoffs.

I’m afraid that while the don’t-tax-the-job-creators line seems to have some legitimacy on the surface, nobody who’s actually studied the issue believes it. Economists are all forced to agree with Cornell University’s Robert Frank, who sums up the present situation with “Businesses aren’t investing because they can already produce more than people want to buy.” Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) produced a report on the matter and concluded that, of the top 12 suggestions for spurring job creation, income tax cuts was the least effective option.

So, maybe jobs aren’t the primary concern. Could it be that people are moved to support tax cuts, even for millionaires and billionaires, out of a general concern over the economy? The economy was the highest priority issue amongst those voting in the AP poll. A full 90% of participants ranked it at one of the two highest levels of importance.

There has certainly been enough rhetoric flying around about the detrimental effects of raising taxes on anyone to give ample cause for alarm. Republicans are unified on the topic. The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, voiced this conservative wisdom in an interview last August, “You cannot get the economy going again by raising taxes on those people who we expect to create jobs in America.” It sure sounds good, but once again there’s no evidence and only rare opinion to support the conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that the American economy is driven by consumer spending. To put that in perspective, around 70% of our GDP is generated thusly. So, it’s actually lack of demand that’s the key issue with the American economy today. Too many people are either without jobs and unable to spend or holding onto what money they have because they’re worried about the future. Businesses are flush with cash but aren’t investing for the same reason. They’re not refraining from hiring because they may have to pay more in taxes. They’re not hiring because there’s insufficient demand.

Tax cuts for the top 2% will stimulate the economy, but the sad truth is that pretty much any other practical option would be more effective. Numerous studies have been completed, and virtually all agree that general tax cuts are the least effective form of stimulus, and those applied to the very rich are the worst of the worst. The CBO study mentioned above again rates tax cuts at the bottom of the heap with regard to impact on the GDP, with a best case of returning $0.40 for every dollar invested. Compare that to $1.90 for increasing unemployment aid, and you might glimpse the insanity of the conservative argument.

Although concern over the deficit is also high on everyone’s list, it’s difficult to see how anyone can argue that extending tax cuts that would trim $700 billion from federal revenue could help the deficit. So, if it’s not jobs, and it’s not the economy, what is the explanation for as much as 38% of Americans supporting tax policy from which they will not personally benefit?

There is one other possibility. It could just be that good old American sense of fair play. When asked how they felt the spending cuts and tax increases needed to address the deficit should be applied, the majority (54%) of participants in the AP poll thought they should “Be spread out so that all Americans share evenly in the costs.” A truly admirable position to take.

But then, just what is it that constitutes an even share? It’s hard to believe that there’s any such equity in extending tax cuts that already provided 52.5% of the benefit to the top 5% of taxpayers. The stark truth is that you cannot achieve an “even share” by extending that which is, by design, extremely uneven.

The facts about the Bush tax cuts are dramatic. They were touted to create jobs and stimulate the economy, yet they did neither. With regard to the economy, the Bush era netted the slowest average annual growth since World War II, averaging only 2.39% per year. And that doesn’t even take into account the economic crash of 2008. The next worst period was 1971 to 1980 at 3.21%. On the job front, the results were even worse, with the Bush era producing the slowest rate of average job growth of any cycle since 1945.

In the final analysis, the Bush tax cuts served but one purpose — to accelerate the concentration of wealth in America. Things have now become so lopsided that the top 1% of Americans now have more financial wealth than the bottom 95%. When the portion of wealth held in home equity is discounted, the top 1% holds 48.4 percent of the wealth compared to 20 percent retained by the bottom 95% — and that gap is growing at an alarming rate.

By 2001, the share of financial wealth had already grown to a 39.7% – 32.5% split, but ramped sharply upward under the policies of George W. Bush. The fact is that the wealth of the very rich is being extracted by squeezing the overwhelming majority of Americans to the point of collapse. The situation is so bad today that 23.5% of overall income belongs to that top 1%.

According to Bloomberg, during the period that followed the first of the Bush cuts, up until the financial meltdown, the average annual income of the top 1% grew from $1.08 million to $1.87 million, an increase of 73%. Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bush economic cycle was the first since tracking of the data began in 1967 to produce a decline in median household income — focusing specifically on working-age household data, real incomes dropped by a whopping $2,176.

This is a sad and unethical story, and it’s not representative of the America that most Americans have grown up to love and respect. Our nation was founded on the principles of equality, of shared prosperity and shared burden — principles to which the policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich that have dominated the political landscape for the past 30 years are diametrically opposed.

There’s no guesswork here; we already know the outcome of the Bush policies. If the tax cuts are allowed to be extended intact, we will maintain the present trajectory. Poverty will continue to climb; the rich will get much richer, and any balance achieved will be on the backs of the middle class. Make no mistake about it; this is unfair, unethical, immoral, and completely un-American.

Welcome to the real-life tragedy of the commons in America, where the very wealthy have chosen to bleed the country dry, because regardless of the eventual outcome — they will already have their riches. It’s a game of squeeze-all-that-you-can while the squeezing is still possible; it is in essence the great national Ponzi scheme.

America’s economic elite have no interest in reforming the system to achieve sustainability. Our nation, its people and natural resources are nothing more than fodder for the mill of exploitation. And as with any Ponzi scheme, the sustainment of the system matters only to those who have not yet reaped their reward from the extraction.

The American people are the proverbial frogs in the kettle: they continue to support their own demise because they fail to recognize that the heat is still being turned up. If the American middle class is going survive, we will need a 21^st Century awakening. And that awakening must begin with people rejecting the self-serving sound bites of those with their hands on the thermostat.

In the end, the inescapable truth is that, whether the American people choose to recognize the facts or not — the facts do matter. We are presently in a race to the bottom for the vast majority of Americans — and that’s a fact. We can continue this march into oblivion or we can stop the hemorrhaging and restore some semblance of shared prosperity — and that too is a fact. The choice lies with the American people, and the future of our nation depends upon which way they choose — and that’s the most important fact of all.

To the displeasure of House Republicans, Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the House back into session yesterday. Interrupting their August Recess, Pelosi brought them back to vote on the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, which was passed earlier by the House and by the Senate last Thursday. The legislation designed to provide relief to cash-strapped states was approved by a vote of 247-161, almost entirely along party lines.

Voting with Democrats were two Republicans, Rep. Anh Cao (R-LA) and Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), and joining the Republican opposition were the Blue Dog Southern Democrat coalition, Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL), Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS). There were 25 representatives who didn’t return from recess, amongst them were 7 Democrats, including Bay Area Congresswoman, Jackie Speier.

The legislation will send $26.1 billion in relief to the states, of which California is expected to receive $3.1 billion. The bill includes $10 billion in education funding, that according to Department of Education estimates, will save 161,000 teacher jobs nationwide and 16,500 in the Golden State. Also included in the bill is $16.1 billion to go to Medicaid. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the funding “will save 158,000 jobs, including police officers, firefighters, and health care workers.” The Institute also stresses that over half of these jobs will be in the private sector.

This is without doubt a positive development, right? Well, it should be unless your objective is something other than strengthening the recovery. The jobs that will be saved all belong to people who are likely to spend the money, causing a stimulating effect as the funds are returned into the economy. And saving the jobs prevents additional people from further burdening the economy through unemployment or demand for other social services. So, why are Republicans so set against the bill?

Beyond the annoyance expressed by California Republican, David Dreier, “This special emergency session…is in fact Washington, DC, at its absolute worst,” there are two “substantive” issues raised by Republicans. One, brought to the podium by House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) is the characterization of the bill as a “bailout.” Of course to put this in perspective, you have to understand that he’s not referring to Wall Street banks, or oil companies or auto makers — John Boehner is talking about the 50 states that form our nation.

Voicing his concern over the expenditure, Boehner asks, “Are we going to bail out states next year and the year after that too?” This deep distress from the same man who supports permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, at a cost of $678 billion, and then moves around like he’s on Dancing with Stars when asked how the cuts would be offset. It’s not about the deficit for Boehner and the Republicans — it never has been. It’s all about who foots the bill.

The Republicans have fought against this Jobs Bill, even though it’s completely paid for and was actually found, by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), to save $1.4 billion over 10 years. So, if the issue isn’t really deficits, what is it?

As sad as the commentary may be, the reason lies in the other “substantive” objective voiced by Republicans. They have some serious issues with how the bill is financed. Where Democrats see the $9.8 billion offset from closing loopholes that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas as a positive, Republicans, like John Boehner, call it a “job-killing tax hike.” Of course, to Boehner, anything that reduces corporate profits is a negative, and anything that goes to what he calls “special interests” — teachers, police, firefighters — is just not affordable.

Also caught in the efforts to pay for the bill is an $11.9 billion cut to food stamps, which fortunately won’t go into effect until 2014. The plan is to just allow the increases provided under the ARRA to expire on schedule. It may be a lot to ask for, but with a little Republican help in place of obstruction, the funding could be restored by the time it’s needed or perhaps a real recovery could occur thereby obviating the need. At any rate, it seems a fair political trade-off in order to get the support to pass the bill.

The only real negative surrounding this bill is the fact that the help it provides is unsustainable. This legislation will not create many new jobs, nor will it address any inefficiency inherent in state and local government or their education systems. But these issues are structural and beyond the scope of stop-gap aid legislation. The bill does, however, provide temporary relief to help ease the burden on states and provide additional time to establish more long term solutions.

If there’s actually any real interest amongst Republicans to create good paying jobs for Americans, then they will drop their single-minded focus on preventing economic recovery — even if it weakens their chance in the November election. Should that be the case, they can start when they return in September, by dropping their two-month long filibuster against the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act and allowing it to provide money and incentives to those businesses they claim to support.

With the economy in tatters, citizens and politicians alike are becoming increasingly concerned about federal deficits and the resulting debt. As recent as last week, apprehension over the deficit was cited by Republicans as the reason to deny the extension of unemployment benefits. Regardless of the fact that real unemployment still sets at 16.5%, and although the denial of the extension would severely impact those affected, the subsistence income for 2.5 million Americans was simply unaffordable. But Republican principles are complex, and where certain federal programs, like assistance for the unemployed or stimulus to create jobs must be sacrificed in deference to the deficit, other expenditures are the exception.

In a clear showing of priorities, Congress sent a message to the American public yesterday when the House approved a $60 billion war-funding bill. The bill was considered under a suspension of the rules, so it required a two-thirds vote. But even though the $10 billion in state aid to help prevent teacher layoffs was stripped, 148 Democrats joined the 160 Republicans voting in favor, and the opposition fell 30 votes short.

This latest event is sure to leave voters who are actually paying attention to wonder just how important the deficit really is. After all, the deficit is the excess of spending over revenue, yet in spite of the loss in federal revenue, Republicans unanimously support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2%. And now we know that, when it comes to war spending, disregard for the deficit is evidently a rare bipartisan position. This all begs the question of what the criteria actually are for identifying the significance to be placed on the deficit.

Opinions abound when it comes to explaining the discrepancies apparent in the precedence of issues. Republicans contend that the tax cuts will actually pay for themselves. Of course, they do so in conflict with the near unanimous opinion of economists. They also posit that, so long as the cuts are given to the wealthy, they will create jobs — this too flying in the face of expert opinion and all empirical evidence.

But where the Democrats appear to be more versed and committed to common sense when it comes to tax cuts, the majority somehow seems to find funding of the wars to be compelling. This may present a bit of a dichotomy to many anti-war Democrats, but even many representatives who oppose the war find it difficult to vote against appropriations, feeling that, regardless of a person’s position on the wars, we must support the troops.

This position is understandable, even seemingly admirable, but is it really valid?

The Department of Defense budget for 2010 is $685 billion. Add to this the portions of defense spending carried under other departments: nuclear weapons, under the Department of Energy, counter terrorism, under the FBI, International Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, parts of NASA, and interest on the debt incurred from past wars — and overall defense spending is somewhere around $1 trillion per year. Of this number, the total cost for military personnel is $154 billion.

A closer look at the actual situation in Afghanistan reveals that only $19 billion of the appropriation was slated for “operations,” the bucket that covers the actual costs to deploy military personnel. Recent Pentagon estimates set that price tag at $875,000 per troop. And while military salaries have seen appreciable raises in recent years, it’s obvious that this money is not going to pay the salaries of deployed American military.

In actuality, the costs are just a part of the federal government’s funding of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). A significant portion of the war funds will obviously be used to pay for support services contractors, the costs for which exceeded investments in equipment for the first time in 2007. In fact, where contractors numbered 1 for each 100 personnel on the battlefield during Desert Storm in 1991, they routinely now account for 50% or more and recently accounted for as much as 39% of the cost.

The fact is that the MIC is about big money, and as such has significant power in Washington. Escalated under President Obama, the MIC now consumes approximately 52% of federal tax revenues. There is obviously no bigger industry draw on the federal budget. And defense contractors get what they want from our Congress.

Military spending is actually a bit of a third-rail in American politics. It provides thousands of jobs and billions in profits for defense contractors, and as a result gains support from workers and corporate profiteers alike. But make no mistake about it, while the deficit is being used to squash investment in infrastructure, energy, education and other job creating programs, it being ignored as we continue to increase spending on defense.

The top seven defense contractors are certainly not hurting for the recession. L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., a contractor providing airborne and network communications recently reported an 11% increase in profits for the first quarter. Northrop Grumman, the nation’s third largest defense contractor, reported their profits up by 21%. General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin all are all experiencing similar gains.

So, this much we know: the deficit is a grave concern when spending is in support of those most adversely affected by the recession, but it’s merely an inconvenience when it comes to funding the military industrial complex or providing tax relief for the wealthy. It’s sad to state, but given the anecdotal evidence, an impartial observer might conclude that the degree of concern for the deficit depends less on any real fiscal sensibility and more on who the deficit spending will actually benefit.