Eugene Robinson: The limits of a compromise on the debt ceiling

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-limits-of-a-compromise-on-the-debt-ceiling/2011/07/21/gIQAcWRhSI_story.html?hpid=z3

The limits of a compromise on the debt ceiling

By Eugene Robinson,

snip//

Do we want a government that ensures medical care for senior citizens and the poor? According to a recent Post poll, 72 percent of Americans oppose cutting spending on Medicaid as a way to reduce the debt; 54 percent oppose raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67.

Do we want a government that provides retirees with an adequate baseline income? Fifty-three percent of Americans oppose changes to Social Security that would reduce the rate at which benefits rise over time, according to the Post poll. These entitlements are sacred cows not just for Democrats but Republicans as well. Across both parties, Americans would rather see increased taxes on the well-to-do.

Far-right conservatives who harbor a radically different vision — of a much smaller government without the wherewithal to provide this kind of safety net — now control the House of Representatives and the Republican Party. In the debt-ceiling debate, they have rejected long-term solutions that have conceded most of what they demand. They want it all.

Progressives who say no — who acknowledge that we must reduce the debt but in ways that do not kill economic growth or gut entitlements — are being partisan for the best possible reason: Much is subject to compromise, but not our future as a great nation.

[flamingdem]

1. These pollsters, or the people who answer them are stupid cows

"54 percent oppose raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67."

Why would anyone support this, except a teabagger?

[florida08]

2. great article by Gene

In the spirit of compromise, however, one-third of the stimulus package put forth by the White House consisted of tax cuts — which a Keynesian would say are much less stimulative than direct government spending...

Effective solutions, however, do not lend themselves to meet-in-the-middle compromise.

There are basically two ways to reduce the debt as a percentage of gross domestic product: Cut government spending or make the economy grow. The problem is that doing more of one means doing less of the other.

If we cut government spending too much, we pull the rug out from under the recovery — and increase the demand for costly government services such as unemployment insurance. We have to make a decision: Is the most important task right now to grow the economy or cut spending? If we pretend to do both, we’ll end up doing neither.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. When large majorities of voters say 'no cuts' then making cuts

is not 'meeting in the middle' it is serving the extreme right instead of serving the people and the majority. If public opinion was split, that might be different, but it is not.

[florida08]

4. of course

that's what is being argued by Robinson. Obama is calling it 'shared sacrifice' and we know that's baloney. Gene is just doing it delicately

Effective solutions, however, do not lend themselves to meet-in-the-middle compromise.

Progressives who say no — who acknowledge that we must reduce the debt but in ways that do not kill economic growth or gut entitlements —are being partisan for the best possible reason: Much is subject to compromise, but not our future as a great nation.

He's saying that Obama's belief in a shared sacrifice will not help us..we need an economy that is growing. Domestic spending cuts will not repair this economy and could kill it. We need Americans to work.