Saturday, April 30, 2011

When is a Pig Not a Pig?

When it's a Republican Plan....with lipstick!!



Robert Reich says that there is a new bipartisan proposal regarding the budget. Although it approaches the budget from the angle of capping spending while not taxing the rich, it would still have the same disastrous results on the economy. Reich says this is The Republican Plan with Lipstick.

Republicans figure that if they can’t sell the pig, they’ll just put lipstick on it and find some suckers who will think it’s something else.

That’s the proposal emerging in the Senate from Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee and also Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri. It would get the deficit down not by raising taxes on the rich but by capping federal spending.

If Congress failed to stay under the cap, the budget would be automatically cut.

According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the McCaskill/Corker plan would require $800 billion of cuts in 2022 alone. That’s the equivalent of eliminating Medicare entirely, or the entire Department of Defense.

Obviously the Defense Department wouldn’t disappear, so what would go? Giant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and much of everything else Americans depend on.

It’s the Republican plan with lipstick. It would have the same exact result. But by disguising it with caps and procedures, Republicans can avoid saying what they’re intending to do.

The McCaskill/Corker spending cap would also make it impossible for government to boost the economy in recessions. Which would mean even higher unemployment, lasting longer.

Other Senate Dems are showing interest in the lipsticked pig, including West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. Not surpringly, Joe Lieberman is on board.

But don’t be fooled, and don’t let anyone else be. McCaskill/Corker is the same Republican pig.

Republicans figure that if they can’t sell the pig, they’ll just put lipstick on it and find some suckers who will think it’s something else.

That’s the proposal emerging in the Senate from Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee and also Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri. It would get the deficit down not by raising taxes on the rich but by capping federal spending.

If Congress failed to stay under the cap, the budget would be automatically cut.

According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the McCaskill/Corker plan would require $800 billion of cuts in 2022 alone. That’s the equivalent of eliminating Medicare entirely, or the entire Department of Defense.

Obviously the Defense Department wouldn’t disappear, so what would go? Giant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and much of everything else Americans depend on.

It’s the Republican plan with lipstick. It would have the same exact result. But by disguising it with caps and procedures, Republicans can avoid saying what they’re intending to do.

The McCaskill/Corker spending cap would also make it impossible for government to boost the economy in recessions. Which would mean even higher unemployment, lasting longer.

Other Senate Dems are showing interest in the lipsticked pig, including West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. Not surpringly, Joe Lieberman is on board.

But don’t be fooled, and don’t let anyone else be. McCaskill/Corker is the same Republican pig.

It is time to tell you Congressperson or Senator that the only budget plan that makes sense is the People's Budget, an alternative budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus. It's proposals will generate a government surplus by 2021.

Unlike the Ryan Roadmap to Ruin or the new bipartisan McCaskill/Corker spending cap, this plan creates millions of twenty-first century jobs, makes everyone pay their fair share and protects the social safety net that's kept this country strong for generations. You can learn more by reading this outline or selecting "FY2012 Progressive Budget" under "Issues" at the Progressive Caucus Web site.
It would get the deficit down not by raising taxes on the rich but by capping federal spending.
It would get the deficit down not by raising taxes on the rich but by capping federal spending.
McCaskill/Corker
McCaskill/Corker
McCaskill/CorkerV
McCaskill/Corker
McCaskill/Corker
McCaskill/Corker
the McCaskill/Corker plan
the McCaskill/Corker plan
the McCaskill/Corker plan

No comments: