almost didn’t write this column. Simply put, I am so disgusted with Obama’s wishy-washy mealy-mouthed administration, which didn’t prosecute the bankers for the crimes that led to the crash (because it might “delay” the recovery!), which wasted six months “negotiating” with “moderate” Republican senators in the forlorn hope that he would get some Republican votes for his health care bill, and is right now plotting with Republicans to pass another so called “free-trade” act, which will take rights away from democratically elected governments in order to give special privileges to corporations, that I am extremely reluctant to defend him.
However, after reading Rob Portman’s column in the February 19th Sun (“The Budget that the American People Deserve”), I must respond, not so much to defend Obama as to set the record straight. First, Portman spends a great deal of time in his article moaning about the budget deficit. One thing that was proved conclusively and beyond all possible doubt during the administration of George Bush, Jr., is that the Republicans (by whom I mean the elected officials) don’t give a rat’s behind about the deficit. As long as the money is being spent on things they approve of, such as the defense budget, for contractors who can be relied upon to give kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions, the Republicans have no problem with it. Once a Democrat is elected, of course, the budget deficit is suddenly our greatest problem.
When George Bush, Jr., was in the White House and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (2001-2006), they had every opportunity to reduce the deficit. Instead, they piled up record deficits while they enacted tax cuts for the rich.
Portman, in addition to his whining about the deficit, makes much of his concern over the national debt. It will be remembered that this debt was run up during a recession that was the second worst economic catastrophe in American history, and was the direct result of Republican policies of “deregulation” (it is true that some so-called Democrats voted for these policies as well, but the majority did not).
There were the deregulatory rollbacks of the early 1980’s, the one after 1994, and then in 1999 (with the Clinton administration’s approval) the elimination of the Glass-Steagal act. After the Enron scandal of the early 2000’s, the Republicans enacted a “reform” bill that actually legalized some of the crimes that Enron had committed. In reality it was just more “deregulation”.
Not all wisdom is new wisdom. The regulations enacted during the 1930’s were intended not just to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression, but to prevent another crash like the one in 1929 from occurring again. These regulations outlawed many dishonest and deceptive practices that helped bring about the crash. Time has proved that those legislators of the 30’s were much wiser than those who voted for “deregulation”.
What America needs now is a budget that will focus on rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure.
I have not seen this “very different” budget that Portman says the Republicans will unveil “in the coming weeks”. I have no doubt that it will be “very different” from Obama’s budget. But I will bet on one thing: this Republican budget will not be “very different” from any Republican budget that we have seen in the last 30 years. The same tired, old, worn-out nostrums, attacks on social security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc., etc.
It seems that the Republicans persist in the belief that if they attempt to stigmatize the elderly, or the unemployed, or the poverty stricken, they can make these groups the scapegoats for the economic situation. Especially if it distracts people from taking notice of the billionaire who pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
Since the people did elect a Republican congress (in gerrymandered districts, to be sure-more total votes were cast for Democrats) Portman may be right about one thing – the people may get the budget they deserve.