--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/opinion/krugman-fiscal-phonies.html?
Quick quiz: What’s a good five-letter description of Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, that ends in “y”?
The obvious choice is, of course, “bully.” But as a recent debate over
the state’s budget reveals, “phony” is an equally valid answer. And as
Mr. Christie goes, so goes his party.
Until now the attack of the fiscal phonies has been mainly a national
rather than a state issue, with Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House
Budget Committee, as the prime example. As regular readers of this
column know, Mr. Ryan has somehow acquired a reputation as a stern
fiscal hawk despite offering budget proposals that, far from being
focused on deficit reduction, are mainly about cutting taxes for the
rich while slashing aid to the poor and unlucky. In fact, once you strip
out Mr. Ryan’s “magic asterisks” — claims that he will somehow increase
revenues and cut spending in ways that he refuses to specify — what
you’re left with are plans that would increase, not reduce, federal
debt.
The same can be said of Mitt Romney, who claims that he will balance the
budget but whose actual proposals consist mainly of huge tax cuts (for
corporations and the wealthy, of course) plus a promise not to cut
defense spending.
Both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney, then, are fake deficit hawks. And the
evidence for their fakery isn’t just their bad arithmetic; it’s the fact
that for all their alleged deep concern over budget gaps, that concern
isn’t sufficient to induce them to give up anything — anything at all —
that they and their financial backers want. They’re willing to snatch
food from the mouths of babes (literally, via cuts in crucial
nutritional aid programs), but that’s a positive from their point of
view — the social safety net, says Mr. Ryan, should not become “a
hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and
complacency.” Maintaining low taxes on profits and capital gains, and
indeed cutting those taxes further, are, however, sacrosanct.
Still, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney are playing to a national audience. Are
Republican governors, who have to deal with real budget constraints,
different? Well, there have been many claims to that effect; Mr.
Christie, in particular, has been widely held up, not least by himself,
as an example of a politician willing to make tough choices.
But last week we got to see him facing an actual tough choice — and
aside from the yelling-at-people thing, he proved himself just another
standard fiscal phony.
Here’s the story: For some time now Mr. Christie has been touting what
he calls the “Jersey comeback.” Even before his latest outburst, it was
hard to see what he was talking about: yes, there have been some job
gains in the McMansion State since Mr. Christie took office, but they
have lagged gains both in the nation as a whole and in New York and
Connecticut, the obvious points of comparison.
Yet Mr. Christie has been adamant that New Jersey is on the way back,
and that this makes room for, you guessed it, tax cuts that would
disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Last week reality hit: David Rosen, the state’s independent, nonpartisan
budget analyst, told legislators that the state faces a $1.3 billion
shortfall. How did the governor respond?
First, by attacking the messenger. According to Mr. Christie, Mr. Rosen —
a veteran public servant whose office usually makes more accurate
budget forecasts than the state’s governor — is “the Dr. Kevorkian of
the numbers.” Civility!
By the way, even Mr. Christie’s own officials are predicting a major
budget shortfall, just not quite as big. And the two big credit-rating
agencies, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, have recently issued
warnings about New Jersey’s budget situation, which S.& P. called
“structurally unbalanced” because of the governor’s optimistic revenue
assumptions.
New Jersey, then, is still in dire fiscal shape. So is our tough-talking
governor willing to reconsider his pet tax cut? Fuhgeddaboudit.
Instead, he wants to fill the hole with one-shot budget gimmicks,
including reneging on a promise to reduce borrowing for transportation
investment and diverting funds from clean-energy programs. So much for
fiscal responsibility.
Will Mr. Christie’s budget temper tantrum end speculation that he might
become Mr. Romney’s running mate? I have no idea. But it really doesn’t
matter: whoever Mr. Romney picks, he or she will cheerfully go along
with the budget-busting, reverse Robin Hood policies that you know are
coming if the former governor wins.
For the modern American right doesn’t care about deficits, and never
did. All that talk about debt was just an excuse for attacking Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps. And as for Mr. Christie,
well, he’s just another fiscal phony, distinguished only by his fondness
for invective.
1 comment:
My five-letter word was "fatty."
Post a Comment