No federal aid for states. No tax increases period. Keep all Bush tax cuts.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:03 AM, mike [never forget] 532 < [email protected]> wrote: > > Fifty Herbert Hoovers > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html?th&emc=th > No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, > in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the > face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit > concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis. > > But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will > be > reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who > are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense > both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation's > economic future. > > > These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant > acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina's juvenile justice > program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into > prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state > spending to halt all construction outlays for six months. > > > Now, state governors aren't stupid (not all of them, anyway). They're > cutting back because they have to — because they're caught in a > fiscal > trap. But let's step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy > it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services > and public investment right now. > > > Think about it: is America — not state governments, but the nation as > a whole — less able to afford help to troubled teens, medical care > for > families, or repairs to decaying roads and bridges than it was one or > two years ago? Of course not. Our capacity hasn't been diminished; > our > workers haven't lost their skills; our technological know-how is > intact. Why can't we keep doing good things? > > > It's true that the economy is currently shrinking. But that's the > result of a slump in private spending. It makes no sense to add to > the > problem by cutting public spending, too. > > > In fact, the true cost of government programs, especially public > investment, is much lower now than in more prosperous times. When the > economy is booming, public investment competes with the private > sector > for scarce resources — for skilled construction workers, for capital. > But right now many of the workers employed on infrastructure projects > would otherwise be unemployed, and the money borrowed to pay for > these > projects would otherwise sit idle. > > > And shredding the social safety net at a moment when many more > Americans need help isn't just cruel. It adds to the sense of > insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down. > > > So why are we doing this to ourselves? > > > The answer, of course, is that state and local government revenues > are > plunging along with the economy — and unlike the federal government, > lower-level governments can't borrow their way through the crisis. > Partly that's because these governments, unlike the feds, are subject > to balanced-budget rules. But even if they weren't, running temporary > deficits would be difficult. Investors, driven by fear, are refusing > to buy anything except federal debt, and those states that can borrow > at all are being forced to pay punitive interest rates. > > > Are governors responsible for their own predicament? To some extent. > Arnold Schwarzenegger, in particular, deserves some jeers. He became > governor in the first place because voters were outraged over his > predecessor's budget problems, but he did nothing to secure the > state's fiscal future — and he now faces a projected budget deficit > bigger than the one that did in Gray Davis. > > > But even the best-run states are in deep trouble. Anyway, we > shouldn't > punish our fellow citizens and our economy to spite a few local > politicians. > > > What can be done? Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio, is pushing > for > federal aid to the states on three fronts: help for the neediest, in > the form of funding for food stamps and Medicaid; federal funding of > state- and local-level infrastructure projects; and federal aid to > education. That sounds right — and if the numbers Mr. Strickland > proposes are huge, so is the crisis. > > > And once the crisis is behind us, we should rethink the way we pay > for > key public services. > > > As a nation, we don't believe that our fellow citizens should go > without essential health care. Why, then, does a large share of > funding for Medicaid come from state governments, which are forced to > cut the program precisely when it's needed most? > > > An educated population is a national resource. Why, then, is basic > education mainly paid for by local governments, which are forced to > neglect the next generation every time the economy hits a rough > patch? > > > And why should investments in infrastructure, which will serve the > nation for decades, be at the mercy of short-run fluctuations in > local > budgets? > > > That's for later. The priority right now is to fight off the attack > of > the 50 Herbert Hoovers, and make sure that the fiscal problems of the > states don't make the economic crisis even worse. > > > > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
