【案例】
Editorial
The Human Cost of Ideology
Published: May 10, 2012
For more than a year, House Republicans have energetically worked to demolish vital social programs that have made this country both stronger and fairer over the last half-century. At the same time, they have insisted on preserving bloated military spending and unjustifiably low tax rates for the rich. That effort reached a nadir on Thursday when the House voted to prevent $55 billion in automatic cuts imposed on the Pentagon as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, choosing instead to make all those cuts, and much more, from domestic programs.
Related News
House Approves $310 Billion in Cuts, but Passage in the Senate Is Very Unlikely (May 11, 2012)
House Bill Offers Aid Cuts to Save Military Spending (May 8, 2012)
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (418) »
If this bill were enacted, estimates suggest that nearly two million Americans would lose food stamps and 44 million others would find them reduced. The bill would eliminate a program that allows disabled older people to live at home and out of institutions. It cuts money that helps low-income families buy health insurance. At the same time, the House bill actually adds more than $8 billion to the Pentagon budget.
In all, the bill would cut $310 billion from domestic programs; a third of that comes out of programs that serve low- and moderate-income people. Other provisions would slash by half the budget of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was set up after the financial meltdown to protect consumers from predatory lending and other abuses, and reduce the pay of federal workers.
Fortunately, it will never be taken up in the Senate, where the majority leader, Harry Reid, has said it would “shred the social safety net in order to protect tax breaks for the rich and inflate defense spending.”
House Republicans are already claiming that this bill, along with the equally inhumane overall 2013 budget written by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, shows their seriousness in reducing the deficit and why they should keep control of the House in November. In fact, it does the opposite on both accounts — and serves as a reminder of their destructive priorities.
As a resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis, Republicans had already agreed to $109 billion a year in automatic spending cuts — half from defense, half from the domestic side — if lawmakers failed to agree to lower the deficit in more reasonable ways such as mixing targeted cuts with tax increases on the rich. Even Democrats who supported big defense cuts wanted them chosen carefully, not with the sequester’s cleaver. But Republicans refused to take that path when the supercommittee deliberated and now are trying to make all of the cuts on the domestic side.
In just one particularly destructive example, the bill would eliminate the social services block grant, a $1.7 billion fund that is given to the states to help people struggling the hardest. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the fund provides services to 23 million people, including Meals on Wheels and other programs that help older Americans. It also helps pay for child care assistance, foster care and juvenile justice at a time when states are cutting back these programs.
House Democrats offered an alternative bill that would replace the $109 billion sequester by raising taxes on the wealthy, ending oil company tax loopholes and cutting farm subsidies, but it was rejected. Republicans are determined to protect millionaires and defense contractors, no matter the costs to the country.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on May 11, 2012, on page A30 of the New York edition with the headline: The Human Cost of Ideology.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailShare
418 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
AllReader PicksNYT PicksNewestComments Closed
Kevin RothsteinNew YorkKevin Rothstein is Verified
Verified Commenters enjoy the privilege of commenting on articles and blog posts without moderation.
Verified Commenter FAQ
VerifiedNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
There are so many things I would like to say, however, I would lose my "trusted" status. It gets tiresome to express the same sense of disgust and outrage every time the current crop of far right ideologues display for all to see just how low they can go. I wonder just what it will take, how bad do things have to get, before enough Americans get fed up and vote these people out of office? When will we have that defining moment, like the fruit and vegetable peddler in Tunisia who touched off the "Arab Spring" last year? I'm not calling on someone to immolate themself or anything else quite so drastic. Maybe we need something like a "Rosa Parks" moment. Maybe history doesn't always repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The old Buffalo Springfield classic anthem from the 1960's, 'For What It's Worth", never sounded more relevant than today.
May 11, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.Recommend510
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
AnniePittsburghNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Would Eisenhower be a Republican today?
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
In reply to Phil CorselloMay 11, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.Recommend309
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
donaldoColoradoNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Time and again, the Republicans clearly show their hand - they are all for government spending when it goes to a bloated military, but have no interest in helping struggling Americans. What dumbfounds me is that these people get elected. How can anyone who is not wealthy or in the defense industry vote for these uncaring individuals who would be happy to take away the life preserver and watch their poor countrymen and women drown?
May 11, 2012 at 8:49 p.m.Recommend209
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
Jeff GOakland, CANYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Forget UFOs, the Mayan calendar and the popularity of animal hats. The greatest mystery on this planet is why the people of America continually vote against their own interests.
May 11, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.Recommend496
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
R. AdelmanPhiladelphiaNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
The dilemma for social programs is this: To make them work, they need a lot more money than than the government ever allots. The government is unable to justify the actual amount that would make the program successful. So the liberal wing of the government provides what it can and, when the program struggles with too little funding, the "fiscal conservatives" say, "See, I told you it wouldn't work," and attempt, often successfully, to trash it completely. For example, there are many children in the foster care system, but not enough social workers to really watch them. Often enough, foster parents commit evil deeds; then those who do not believe in social programs point to the failures and denigrate not only foster care but the whole social safety net. The same is true in education. There is some spending, but not nearly enough, and when results are questionable, the system gets blamed and the funding dries up. It's a vicious cycle. First comes the problem. Then a contentious, half-baked commitment. Since the commitment is never complete, the program suffers, loses credibility, and gets cut. Then the problem worsens.
May 11, 2012 at 10:56 p.m.Recommend77
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
KurtNYNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
The entire effort is misguided. Discretionary spending, even though President Obama has increased it maybe 30% above the levels pertaining when he took office, is not the overriding fiscal problem, or even the most important current economic issue. First we need to get the economy moving again, and while I agree governmental fiscal discipline is a necessary component of that, it is hardly sufficient in itself, and even can be harmful to the process if that is the only thing you are doing.
Furthermore, in comparison to the tsunami of fiscal disaster on the horizon due to unchecked entitlement spending, all of this is small potatoes. We shouldn't be obsessing on short term deficits occasioned by economic downturns, but should undertake the long term reforms needed to get us into balance overall.
While in general sympathy with the GOP's goals, I feel their approach here is wrongheaded. Not so much on the tradeoffs between guns and butter, but that their push on relatively inconsequential fiscal matters diverts attention and wastes political capital when there are more important uses for both.
But that also reflects a bipartisan tendency of all politicians to talk about almost anything other than the third rail of American politics, Social Security and Medicare. Yet, if we wish to preserve those programs, reform must be undertaken.
Meanwhile, this tinkering around the edges hurts people and our national security for no good purpose.
May 11, 2012 at 10:57 p.m.Recommend13
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
Len CharlapPrinceton, N.J.NYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Please explain to me how the debt and the deficit hurt us. Is public debt crowding out private borrowing? Are the "bond vigilantes" attacking our bonds as in Europe? Does it cost us a fortune to service our debt? Come on guys. Explain it.
The first two questions can easily be answered in the negative since interest are low Real interest rates are zero or negative (!). The cost of debt service is 0.8% of the GDP. I have heard for years about increasing interest rates. If we would spend now, by the time that happens, the country will have recovered.
From 1946 to 1973, the public debt went from 109% of GDP (it is about 65% today) to 24%. Did they do it by cutting taxes on the Rich? Marginal rates were at least 70% during this period. Did they cut spending? No, spending went up almost every year. The amount of the debt was almost twice as much in 1973 as in 1946.
What they did do is grow the the GDP. They did this by investing in America. They did it by rapidly raising the wages of their workers, by holding CEO's compensation to 50 times their workers', not 500 times as it is today. And please don't tell me these CEO's were more enlightened because Europe was devastated. They took less because of a very high marginal rate.
And they did it with low economic inequality. Today we have higher inequality than any time since the 1920's, and look what happened in 1929 and 2008.
Inequality => Speculation.
May 11, 2012 at 10:58 p.m.Recommend79
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
mark weinernyack, nyNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Of course there is waste in the military budget that can be cut, but the problem is that even if the entire military budget was eliminated, entitlements and interest on the debt would still exceed tax revenues, and there is a limit to how much taxes can be raised. Unless we want our children to live in a failed economy like Greece, entitlements need to be cut. If we can get close to a balanced budget, then once the economy recovers, the increased tax revenues will allow us to increase entitlement benefits, but not have to pay for the increases by borrowing more from China. he cuts need to be across the board.
May 11, 2012 at 11:00 p.m.Recommend5
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
Steven SiegelRed Hook, NYNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
I am a Democrat and I would consider many cuts in vital social programs if the Republicans were willing to reneg on their pledge to Grover Norquist, an unelected lobbyist, to never raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances. Never. He has somehow has assembled the clout to drive this country into a fiscal ditch as we have watched the Clinton tax rates and surplus disappear into the Bush disaster of lower taxes and two unpaid for wars. So, tell my you are really serious about cutting the deficit in part with enhanced revenues - a la Bowles Simpson - and I am ready to talk. Otherwise, it is pretty clear that deficit reduction is not the real agenda.
In reply to AACMay 11, 2012 at 11:00 p.m.Recommend85
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
Laird WilcoxKansasNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Part of the social impact (social cost) of Pentagon programs involves the military security of the United States. What is gained by a small decline in funds spent on welfare programs if it tips the balance in America's military preparedness and makes the entire nation vulnerable to attack or sabotage?
This is a false dilemma. The United States has to maintain a sufficient military in order to deter aggression or defend our allies in situations where it is approrpiate and necessary to do so. If it fails to do this, a scenario could develop where our social programs no longer even exist.
May 11, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.Recommend
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
HNPNew ZealandNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
Of all the reasons why US citizens tell themselves that they need to fund such a gigantic military machine, lets get one right out the way. The rest of "the free world" does not require it of you. It does not make you our benefactors. In fact, we would all breathe a lot easier if you cut it right back, at least in half, which would take care of all your budgetary problems. Please feel free to spend all you can on yourselves, on your infrastructure, on investments that will get your great economic engine back to full power.
You might find it quite refreshing to leave it off with the heavy military presence everywhere. We need a better basis for building world peace ... like being peaceful. The nuclear arsenal would be an excellent place to start. As I recall, New Zealand told you we didn't appreciate that aspect of your "defence umbrella" way back during the Cold War, and your military establishment is almost getting over its huff that we spoke up. Big brother out of international relations, mutually respectful partnerships in, now that would be much nicer.
May 11, 2012 at 11:27 p.m.Recommend138
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
JamesMizzouNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
I was in college, playing sports, earning academic honors and working a job to support myself. Some of my classmates were on food stamps. The knee jerk reaction on this forum is comical. There are plenty of people who are on social programs because they WANT to be lazy and not because they NEED help. Cut the food stamps to these people and let the people who actual need them keep them. Food stamps should not be able to be collected forever. Food stamps should be allowed to be a safety net for a determined period of time for those who fall on hard times and not an excuse to not contribute to society.
Spare me the "evil republican empire" talk, all this party is trying to do is stop the gravy train to those undeserving.
If you do not agree, go volunteer for meals on wheels and become your own food stamp program on your own dime and not mine.
May 11, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.Recommend1
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
Thomas MischlerCairo, EgyptNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
If the Republicans wanted to balance the budget, they would cut all spending, including the military. They will not.
If the Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy, they would fund government programs that would do just that. They will not.
Republicans are interested in one thing - getting rid of Obama and controlling all branches of government. I keep wondering when America will wake up and realize what they are doing. I have concluded that Americans are not asleep, they are actually in a drug-induced coma. The drug is outrage.
As long as Republican leaders, with the strong support of right wing media, can keep conservative Americans filled with outrage and fear, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
May 11, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.Recommend78
Share this on FacebookShare this on Twitter
bobRancho Cucamonga, caNYT PickReport Inappropriate Comment
VulgarInflammatoryPersonal AttackSpamOff-topicSubmitCancel
Flag
I heard some of Republican Ryan's comments. He assumes that people who get food stamps(a program he wants to cut back) choose to get food stamps or other government services, like, say, unemployment insurance, I imagine, etc. rather than do the hard work of getting a job. That people could work but they would rather not because than can get food stamps or whatever else from the government. That opinion infests conservative thinking. It needs to be challenged. Conservative Ryan and the rest of them need to be called out. First, they need to be reminded that food stamps or other programs do not provide anything nearly as good as the congressional benefits package and the great checks and multimillion dollar swag that Ryan and his collegues enjoy. Second, prove it! Present some research from a reputable source, affirming that we're all just kickin' back, suckin' those gov checks. Third, since you can't prove 2, why do you choose to have negative, ugly opinions about citizens of this country? You could have more positive views so why do choose to assume the worst in people? What's up, Paul? Let's get answers to those questions. That's what this election needs to be about.
May 12, 2012 at 12:33 a.m.Recommend77
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/1 ... st-of-ideology.html |
楼主: admin
楼主