Krugman: The Republican spending cuts will 'eat the future'

[kpete]

Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
February 12, 2011, 10:10 am
Eat the Future

The public says it wants to see government spending cut — and the Tea Partiers really, really want spending cut — but people don’t want to cut any program they like; and they like almost everything. What’s a conservative to do?

The obvious answer, once you think about it, is to eat the future: to cut spending in a way that undermines the nation’s long-run prospects, but doesn’t impose all that much pain on voters right now.

And that, as best as I can tell, is the running theme in the cuts proposed by House Republicans. The proposal is, deliberately I think, hard to read and interpret; I hope and assume that the good folks at CBPP will do the detail soon. But on a quick read, here are some of the cuts that jumped out at me.

more:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/eat-the-future/

[ananda]

1. The cutting frenzy is nuts all right!

"WIC is nutritional aid for pregnant women and women with young children; let’s cut that, because the damage to the nation from malnourishment is a problem for future politicians. NOAA is weather and climate — hey, what we don’t know can’t hurt us. Nuclear nonproliferation — well, we probably won’t feel the pain of a terrorist nuke assembled from old Soviet fissile material for a couple of years. FEMA — well, how often do hurricanes hit New Orleans? CDC — with luck, by the time plague hits someone else can be blamed.

Don’t start thinking about tomorrow."

The liberal leftie human solutions:

Stop all spending on wars and the military-defense system. Then pass laws that create jobs here and prevent outsourcing completely. Punish all outsourcers with high import fees and taxes, and reward businesses for staying here.

And tax the rich and assess fines against corporate and financial kleptocrats. For example, put a tax of 90% on all executive bonuses. That would do it.

[Rage for Order]

2. No doubt we need to cut a LOT of spending

Sorry, but annual $1.5 trillion deficits aren't sustainable. We need to run an annual surplus of $250 billion, so we actually need to cut $1.75 trillion in spending. We need to use that surplus to pay down our existing $14 trillion debt. At that rate we could pay off the national debt in just under 60 years.

[ladjf]

3. We do have some intelligent Americans. Krugman is one of them.

We would do well to heed his warnings.

[Dokkie]

4. Defense cuts

everyone seems to support that, so why not start with that?

[Johonny]

5. this is why I think the Obama economic recovery is short lived

These cuts will kill the future economy. Republicans are always bad for business. I never understand the "business" class that thinks otherwise.

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[robcon]

7. The cuts are not Republican. They are bipartisan. Obama joins in.

Obama’s Budget Seeks Deep Cuts in Domestic Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13budget.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

AP Source: Obama to seek changes in Pell Grants

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/02/13/general-us-obama-pell-grants_8306119.html