The Bush tax cuts were a redistribution of income to the very wealthy. If the country had been running a surplus, then the argument could have been made that the rich were just keeping their money. But the country wasn’t and isn’t close to running a surplus. These tax cuts were paid for with borrowed money. The young and the next generation will pay for this gift to the rich.
The Iraq war was a redistribution of income to the Military Industrial Complex. If the American people had been given the bill for the war upfront, would they have agreed to pay for it?
Why then do progressives instinctually oppose balanced budget amendments to the constitution? Progressives need to consider that if there had been a balanced budget requirement we probably would NOT have had the Bush tax cuts NOR the Iraq war. Big governments are not the friend of progressives, think of Franco’s Spain or Hitler’s Germany.
Why do the 1% love deficit spending?
There is a simple answer to that. The 1% control the government, so they can use the nation’s resources to benefit themselves. We’ve seen two examples of that, consider others. The gigantic bank bailouts of 2008 would not have been possible with a balanced budget requirement. This was a gift to the 1%, so that they could continue to receive their billion dollar bonuses.
What are the prospects for the future?
The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be restrictions on campaign contributions.1 The 1% will further increase their grip on all decision making within the government. Both parties are deeply indebted to the financial industry, the military industrial complex, energy corporations and other powerful groups.
Progressives need to reconsider their opposition to balance budget amendments. With unrestricted campaign contributions, big government is not your friend – it is your enemy.
- Adam Liptack, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit , http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html (Jan. 2010) [↩]