I want to focus more on why we aren't really getting anywhere with the search for a solution. This article says "While Democrats prefer using a mixture of cuts and tax increases, Republicans want to rely entirely on spending reductions." To be honest, it sounds to me like the Republicans are siding with the rich and targeting the poor by wanting to reduce spending on things such as "social safety net programs" as mentioned in the article. Higher taxes on the rich may be annoying for them and slow the economy, but significant cuts on social programs could be detrimental for a family barely making ends meet. Hopefully, congress doesn't create a solution where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I know I targeted the Republican plan, so I want to hear if you have any comments on the Democratic plan of an even split between cuts and tax revenue. Does the trade-off of less spending cuts in return for higher taxes seem like it will be more or less effective? How do you think the middle class will react to either plan? Some sort of negative impact seems inevitable, but is there any hope of reducing it or at least slowing it down before March 1? Also, even though bipartisanship seems to be the path to a solution, how can we create a sense of bipartisanship in the first place? What sort of compromises will each side have to make to be considered "bipartisan"?
2 comments:
It is disappointing to see such polarization again. Hopeful was I when bipartisan cooperation was announced in immigration reform, but obviously my hope was short lived. Concerning how we can reach bipartisanship, I think the answer is clear. Both sides need to be more flexible in their compromising. Republicans need to accept that defense cuts are inevitable. Honestly, I can understand why House Republicans are unwilling to cut defense spending. They are afraid that such cuts will make the US seem militarily weaker in the short term, but I think they need to open their eyes and realize that if the US economy is not remedied soon the military will be degraded in the long term. To me, this problem seems largely a result of Republican obstinance, but Democrats also need to make some compromises. Yes, higher taxes on the wealthy seems like a good idea, but to Republicans it sounds like political suicide. Generally, Republicans serve the interests of the wealthy and of large businesses and I think that any Republican who agrees to higher taxes on the rich will have trouble getting reelected, at least as a Republican. Perhaps the wealthy private sector is willing to compromise itself. Perhaps they are willing to sacrifice higher taxes on the wealthy in exchange for lower corporate tax rates. We saw that lower corporate tax rates were a common theme for both parties during the recent presidential election, so perhaps this is what's going on behind the scenes.
About how the middle class will respond, I don't know. To me, the "middle class" seems to broad to make generalizations about. Those at the lower end of the "middle class" will obviously not support cuts to social welfare programs while those at the upper end may not care as much about these cuts, or may even support these cuts. But making one, overarching generalization about the "middle class" just seems impossible. The "middle class" has just become a political tool for politicians to appeal to majority of Americans. Who doesn't support the middle class? It makes perfect logical sense for politicians to support programs that benefit the "middle class," but really, which part of the "middle class" do these cuts affect?
Forgive me, after reading through this I realized that I ranted/blabbed a little/alot....
While it may seem to some that the Republican plan is only appealing to the rich and hurting the not so well off, one can turn it the other way and say that Democrats are turning out a plan that seeks only to tax the rich and citizens in general. This clearly presents the issue of polarization in congress. You can't have it one way or the other, a happy median is the only solution. Broad cuts and widespread tax increases are not the way to go. Cuts in certain programs and tax raises in certain areas are compromises both sides need to make. As Brandon pointed out, which part of the middle class do these cuts in programs actually affect? And how many will be effected? I'm simply trying to point out that fact that one side's policy/plan isn't any better than the others. It's what you think in your mind is the best solution. Only compromise and work will get any sort of plan passed.
Post a Comment