Jeffrey Sachs: How Not to Make America Great

[muriel_volestrangler]

For thirty years, the Republican party has been trying to "starve the government beast" by rejecting the taxation needed to finance the public sector. The Democratic party has timorously followed along. Despite Barack Obama's recent paeans to liberalism in his Inaugural and State of the Union addresses, the Republican agenda is very far advanced: The Age of Sequestration is at hand.
...
An essential purpose of government is to defend the nation. How much do we need for that? Much less than we are spending today. Start with the $700 billion military budget and subtract the $100 billion we are wasting in Afghanistan, another $100 billion for hundreds of military bases around the world to defend against the Soviet Union (RIP), and at least another $50 billion for wasteful, duplicative, and overpriced weapons systems. We're down to $450 billion, or around 3 percent of GDP. We'd still be spending more money than the next ten countries combined, but we will have saved $250 billion. Even more savings are possible in a world in which we work harder on negotiating the control of nuclear and other weapons.
...
Health-care costs could probably be cut by at least 20 percent during five to ten years of reform by putting our health delivery on a true systems basis. The private industry will scream, the rest of us will get affordable care, and the budget will be spared. Let's assume that instead of rising to 6 percent of GDP in 2020, Medicare (net of offsetting receipts), Medicaid, and other federal programs come in at 5 percent of GDP.

Let's now turn to income support for the poor. These programs are not all that popular, but no matter what one's views, they are also not all that large. There's family support, food stamps, the earned income and child tax credits, unemployment compensation, and a handful of other programs. They total just 2 percent of GDP. I'd give them a pass, or even raise them. It's very tough to be down-and-out in America today, and we are by far the least generous country in the high-income world to our own poor.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/how-not-to-make-america-great-0413?src=rss

He goes on to propose a federal budget that needs revenue of 22% of GDP - compared with 19% that it would get under present rules, even after the economy recovers. So he proposes a wealth tax of 1% above $5 million net wealth, a financial transactions tax, a carbon emissions tax, and reformation of corporation taxes so that profit isn't salted away in tax havens.

[pscot]

1. Of course we can't do any of that

because SOCIALISM!!!

[xtraxritical]

2. Socialism, the "ism" that works for everyone.

[woo me with science]

3. We could absolutely do it,

if we had the right representation.

It would be massively supported by the people, if we had a President and a party who made the case for it. Overwhelming public pressure plus powerful advocacy by the President and over half of Congress could make it politically poisonous to oppose.

Unfortunately, both parties have been purchased and co-opted by the one percent, and we continue to be fed the garbage message, even from our own party, that it's impossible.

[Blue_Tires]

8. +1

[cheapdate]

4. Jeffrey Sachs has a solid understanding

of economics, government, and public policy. His proposals are well aligned with Democratic and Progressive priorities. Our budget problems are important, but Sachs demonstrates with ease how they could be solved. He also shows, once again, how the Republican's grasp of the budget problem is not connected to reality.

[CTyankee]

5. If only he wasn't on Joe Scarborough's payroll so he wouldn't come on his show and say how

awful Paul Krugman was for saying we don't need to concentrate on the deficit now, we need to concentrate on creating jobs!

What the hell was this guy doing saying this sh*t on Morning Joe, just to shore up Joe and Mika after their appearance with Krugman on the show?

I was embarrassed for Sachs, really I was. It was so obvious that Joe was cashing in some chips with Sachs for having him on the show so much. Sachs delivered a little diatribe against Krugman that was totally beside the point that Krugman was making and was self serving to the most embarrassing limit. I felt sad for him at that time and I still do. He sold out.

[cheapdate]

6. I'm paying attention to what he proposed.

It stands on its own merits. In brief, he offers a rational path to stabilizing the debt that boosts investments in education, infrastructure, science, and poverty reduction while leaving Social Security untouched -- and paying for it by reducing the military budget by at least one-third, but mostly by increased taxation of wealthy Americans and increasing corporate tax collection by tightening the rules on loopholes, shelters, and foreign tax havens.

It's a very close match to the People's Budget put forward by the Progressive Caucus.

The fact that Sachs and Krugman, two economists by the way, disagree is not the salient point. The point is for our government to do something positive and rational.

[CTyankee]

7. Yes, I read what he wrote. And I agree with it 100%. I was bemoaning the fact that he

betrayed his own message by his performance in the service of Joe Scarborough's vile attempt to discredit and marginalize Paul Krugman. I suggest that you watch Sachs's cringeworthy appearance on MJ in the days following the Krugman-Scarborough "debate " on Charlie Rose's show. So now Joe can say "even Jeffrey Sachs agrees with me." The fact is that Sachs doesn't agree with him and he shouldn't allow his great message to be undermined by the likes of JoScar. So it goes further than just "two economists disagreeing" because that happens all the time in academia. It is about being part of a smear campaign by a know-nothing, pompous blowhard with a deceitful and dangerous jihad against "big government."

[Doctor_J]

9. Esky - the only glossy left that isn't a Republican propaganda rag

Subscribe! Toss them a few bucks to keep them afloat.