<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Germany is about the size of California and has twice as many people.<br>
More than 90% of the people in Germany are German. They can decide
and agree what to do.<br>
<br>
Let a country be small and its people few. The United States is
plainly too big as a federal monster.<br>
The name says "United States". The good folks in New England have no
business at all trying<br>
to tell the good folks in Arizona or Montana how they ought to live.
Let every state mind its own<br>
business. A weak federal government will end warmongering.<br>
<br>
The balkanization of the USA can hardly come soon enough to suit me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/16/2012 8:07 AM, David Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:5EAE16A1CC25449EBB690EA0BFDCEDE9@owneryr3fp4mcb"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><br>
<div class="master-row topSection" data-zone="topSection"
data-timer-key="1">
<div class="fullstory fullstoryHeader" data-timer-key="5"
data-comp-view="fullstory_title" data-comp-name="fullstory"
data-comp-index="3">
<h1>America has lost the battle over government</h1>
<div class="byline "><span>By <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/21d103cc-e6c3-11e1-af33-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_columnists_clivecrook%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz23dvqGMVy">Jeffrey
Sachs</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="storyContent"><span><br>
W</span>ith Congressman Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential
candidate, the US election is shaping up to be a full-throated
ideological brawl. President Barack Obama champions public investment
and social support for the poor, while Mitt Romney and Mr Ryan call for
a smaller state with lower taxes and spending. Yet for all the
rhetoric, the small-government agenda has already prevailed. No matter
who is elected on November 6, dangerous cuts in public goods and
services are already in train. There is considerable controversy about
Mr Ryan’s budget plan, which exemplifies an aggressive Republican pitch
to cut government spending, tax rates and social protection. Mr Ryan
would reduce the top rate of personal income tax from 35 per cent to 25
per cent and slash transfer programmes for the poor, such as Medicaid
and food stamps. His plan would also eliminate Mr Obama’s healthcare
legislation. Radical stuff.<br>
<br>
There are also deep doubts about Mr Ryan’s claim that top tax rates can
be reduced in a “revenue neutral” way by plugging loopholes. Mr Ryan
invites these doubts by offering few details on how such
loophole-plugging would work. It is more likely than not we would
repeat the history of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts:
revenues would plummet and the supposed offsets would never
materialise. Today’s enormous deficits would become even larger.<br>
Still, American liberals (those to the left of the political centre),
who are now vehemently blasting Mr Ryan’s budget should take note.
Their candidate has also already accepted a brutal shrinkage of
government programmes in coming years. The similarities of the Obama
budget and Mr Ryan’s are striking.<br>
<br>
Mr Ryan’s plan calls for federal revenues of 18.4 per cent of gross
domestic product in 2016 and 18.5 per cent in 2020 (though his lower
tax rates would probably put those targets out of reach). His budget
outlays come in at 19.7 per cent and 19.5 per cent in 2016 and 2020,
respectively. Of the total outlays in 2016, Mr Ryan targets
“discretionary” programmes at 5.9 per cent of GDP; social security, 5
per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent; other mandatory spending, 3.7 per
cent; and interest payments, 1.9 per cent.<br>
<br>
Now consider Mr Obama’s budget unveiled in February. Federal revenues
are targeted at 19.1 per cent of GDP in 2016 and 19.7 per cent of GDP
in 2020, only about 1 percentage point above Mr Ryan’s revenue targets.
In Mr Obama’s 2016 budget targets, discretionary spending is set at 5.9
per cent of GDP; social security, 5 per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent;
other mandatory spending, 5.8 per cent; and interest payments, 2.5 per
cent.<br>
<br>
In fact, Mr Obama’s overall discretionary spending targets are
essentially the same as Mr Ryan’s. Whether Mr Obama or Mr Romney wins,
the “non-security” discretionary budget – for education, job skills,
infrastructure, science and technology, space, environmental
protection, alternative energy and climate change adaptation – is on
the chopping block. Mr Obama’s budget would shrink non-security
discretionary programmes from an already insufficient 3.1 per cent of
GDP in 2011 to 1.8 per cent in 2020. That is the “liberal” alternative.<br>
<br>
In bemoaning Mr Obama’s budget, I do not mean to equate it with Mr
Ryan’s. Mr Ryan’s budget is nothing short of heartless in the face of
the dire crisis facing America’s poor. It is also reckless, guaranteed
to leave millions of children without the quality of education and
skills they will need as adults. Yet the sad truth is that the
Democrats offer no progressive alternative. Both parties are
accomplices to the premeditated asphyxiation of the state. Viewed from
an international perspective, the constricted range of the US fiscal
debate is striking. Total US government revenues (combining federal,
state and local governments) in 2011 came in at about 32 per cent of
GDP. This compares with an average of 44 per cent in the EU and 50 per
cent in northern Europe.<br>
<br>
Many Americans will say that they are dodging the European curse by
keeping taxation so low but they should look again. Northern Europe
(Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) gets
great value for its tax revenues: lower budget deficits, lower
unemployment rates, lower public debt-to-GDP ratios, lower poverty
rates, greater social mobility, better job training, longer life
expectancy, lower greenhouse gas emissions, higher reported life
satisfaction and greater macroeconomic stability.<br>
<br>
America’s two political parties depend on wealthy contributors to
finance their presidential campaigns. These donors want and expect
their taxes to stay low. As a result, social divisions, broken
infrastructure, laggard educational attainments, high carbon emissions
and chronic budget deficits are likely to continue no matter who is
elected, even though the public supports higher taxes on corporations
and the rich.<br>
<br>
Only a big political realignment, perhaps spurred by a third party bold
enough to campaign on free social media rather than expensive
television advertising, is likely to break the status quo. Until then,
the demise of public goods and services will continue apace.<em><br>
<br>
The writer is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia
University and author of ‘The Price of Civilization’</em> </div>
</font></div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>