The Tea Party and Republicans are moving forward on their agenda for a smaller government. But what does this mean to us, as Americans? Their theory goes, with a smaller government, less taxes will be needed to be collected. Since Americans have an aversion to taxes, the general public tend to go along with this theory.
But this isn’t as much of a theory in so much as it is rhetoric. The federal government has obligations, established over fifty years ago, in order to help provide for those who can’t provide for themselves. Whether we are discussing the retirees, the disabled, or the unemployed, the Tea Party and Republicans tout personal responsibility.
It is one thing to talk about reducing the federal government’s budget or obligations by reducing it to simple numbers. But they haven’t been holding honest discussions. The federal deficit is not a new issue, nor is it something to be ignored. Yet as the Tea Party and the Republicans both accurately state that our federal government is broke, they fail to take note of how the Tax Cut bill brought this about.
The tax rates we are currently enjoying was brought about while acknowledging that these rates will not be sustainable. They were brought about to promote economic growth at a time of stagnation. While many American businesses relocated production and manufacturing overseas, lower tax rates were touted as a spark to demand. These tax cuts were not budgeted for, but rather were financed through our national deficit.
But what does this all mean for Americans today? While there was a so-called “mandate” for even lower taxes and a smaller government, the Tea Party and Republicans are seeking to de-fund essential programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment. The programs they seek to cut financial corners out of will effect our retired, our disabled, our unemployed, our under-employed, and our poor.
In order to maintain the tax cuts for the upper 2%, it is the poor who shoulder the burden through the de-funding of heating assistance, food programs, Medicaid and education. Retirees will shoulder the burden through the cuts to Social Security and Medicare. While the discussion centers around how “we must all shoulder the burden” in order to balance the budget, it is not the wealthy who are shouldering the burden, or who are making sacrifices. Instead, they are only asking the poor to shoulder the burden.
I find myself in agreement with the Tea Party’s and the Republican’s talking point of personal responsibility, or to paraphrase “if you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it.” We can’t afford these tax cuts when our deficit is closing in on the GDP. So instead of scraping pennies off of the backs of those who can not provide for themselves, why can’t we have an honest discussion over how these tax cuts are unaffordable, and that the upper 2% don’t deserve them?
It is called “wealth redistribution” when you take money from one economic class and give it to another (which is typically done through tax cuts and tax incentives). Wealth redistribution is only demonized when it effects the upper class and it is touted as being “responsible” when it effects the lower classes. Wealth redistribution works both ways. For over thirty years, money has been redistributed from the lower and middle class and given to the upper class. The last three tax cut measures were not budgeted for, but rather were financed through our national deficit. Therefore, we find our government is “broke”, and we can no longer afford Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Programs, Heating Assistance, Planned Parenthood, Public Schools, Police protection, Fire protection, and other programs designed for either the public good or for those who can no longer provide for themselves, in order to permit those who have enough to gain more.
This approach is irresponsible and devastating to the American economy. We are left to wonder, what are the costs to us in order to reduce the size of the government and lower the tax burden? We may find that the costs are more than we are willing to stomach.
If you think Medicare denies more claims than an insurance company, you are a brainwashed idiot!!!!!!!
I find it a bit disingenuous to characterize a tax cut with redistribution. There are no funds going to the upper bracket individuals. What is occurring is that taxpayers of all brackets are paying less – although the upper brackets still pay both a much higher percentage of their total incomes as well as a large share of the total income taxes collected. The tax cut merely let’s them keep more of their earnings than before. Blatantly twisting the facts does not help make the case – it makes you look dishonest.
I believe that we as Americans are now emotional bankrupt we don’t seem to react to the issues that are out there. The Republicans have indeed caused this mess, they did nothing for 8 years during the Bush administration aside from getting us into this economic mess and not they are acting like they are our only saviors and people believe this crap; really! They (Republicians) have complained about the health care bill but in all these years still hold an empty hand to a better solution. Trust me the Republicans are all about money and staying wealthy they do not care about you the average American. I find it also interesting that abortion and Gay marriage issue keep coming up on the battle field, people really life has we have known it is going down the tubes and I think we need to spend a lot more attention in that we are going to be sick or homeless if we let these politicians keep playing games with our lives while they sip iced teas by their million dollar plus pool sides. Think about it !
If medicare/medicade are cut people will die, people depend on those services to survive. My boyfriend for one probably would not last more a few days without his medications should his prescription coverage be cut. He was born with congenital heart problems, and would much rather be healthy and able to work but it was his luck to be the victim of a random genetic mutation. Do the repbulicans really think he should have to die so that they can keep their tax cuts? My boyfriend is only 1 story out of thousands if not millions who would be adversly affected if these kinds of cuts should they happen. I really would like to know why the people with money think their aquasition of money is more important then the lives of the people they are steping on?
“If medicare/medicade are cut people will die, people depend on those services to survive.”
I guess that’s why Medicare denies more claims than any private insurer (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html) and why most doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html). But I guess we won’t have to worry about that once Medicare goes broke in 2024 (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/social-security-and-medicare-going-broke-faster-121878184.html?ref=184). Socialized medicine at its finest!
Irony or bold-faced lie? Despite the repeated claims of wanting smaller government, the actual size has grown under each Republican presidential term.
This is proven true whether you investigate statistics including every last government employee (including DMV to postal workers), or if you only wish to segregate figures down to Federal civilian employees.
Size of government per Presidential term
No matter how you slice it, government is ALWAYS bigger with a Republican President.
This is par for the course, as is the hypocritical stance of Republican financial conservatism. Spending – or more specifically, spending when there is no cash in the bank to pay for it – has been a Republican trait for quite some time now.
Sorted Deficit, % GDP
and
Sorted Spending, % GDP
Enjoy!
Wayne – What escapes most people and unfortunately invalidates your statistics is the fact that the calculation of GDP is a flawed concept for comparison with deficits because when calculating GDP government spending actually is counted as “product”.