Critical Thinking

In his Budget Cuts and Bad Faith blog post, Jim Wallis publishes some numbers that make me angry. I don't for one minute think Jim intends to snow us with those numbers, as many writers to. Nevertheless, I personally tend to fall prey to this popular technique of persuasion.

It's been written that you can use statistics to prove anything. That's probably an exaggeration, but numbers, factual or not, can be used to persuade us. Do we, as critical thinkers, verfiy the reality of those numbers, or simply follow our emotions? If the latter, we've been effectively pursuaded.

-- Mike Steigerwald

House Republicans announced a plan yesterday to cut $43 billion in domestic spending and international aid, while increasing spending for military and defense by another $8 billion. This proposal comes just months after billions of dollars were added to the deficit with an extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. House Republicans focused in on only 12 percent of federal spending, and targeted things like education, the environment, food safety, law enforcement, infrastructure, and transportation — programs that benefit or protect most Americans. They also proposed cutting funding for programs that benefit the most vulnerable members of our society, such as  nutrition programs for our poorest women and children. We don’t yet know all the cuts Republicans are targeting in their proposals, but it’s good to finally know what their priorities are.

Under the proposed budget cuts, deficit reduction will not come from the super-rich; it will come from the rest of us. And the poorer you are, the more vulnerable you become, and the more you will pay for the burdens of deficit reduction. For example, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a program that helps provide food to hungry mothers and their children faces a $758 million cut. Also, the proposed budget cuts $544 million in international food aid grants for organizations such as World Vision. AmeriCorps, a program that provides public service opportunities for our young adults, would be eliminated entirely. But our military and defense budget, which sends our young adults off to kill and be killed, would receive an $8 billion increase.

Read More

If members of Congress are too intimidated to do what is needed to fix the economy, then Wisconsin's legislators should do what common sense dictates: follow the money. Rather than taking pay and benefits from schoolteachers and firefighters, it makes sense to take money from the people who have it. This means taxing Wisconsin's wealthy and its corporations. The tax increase only needs to be temporary, since the state budget should be fine once the economy recovers.

Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t

This article is made possible with the generous contributions of readers like you. Thank you!

Then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan adjusts his glasses as he prepares to make remarks before the House Financial Service Committee in 2003. (Photo: Doug Mills / New York Times)

Alan Greenspan has been strangely missing from the fierce battle over the future of public sector unions in Wisconsin and other states. His absence is strange because he bears more responsibility for the current conflict than anyone else alive.

The reason is simple. Mr. Greenspan's incredible incompetence in allowing the $8 trillion housing bubble to grow unchecked created the fiscal crisis that is gripping Wisconsin and most other states.

To be clear, states always face financial stress in economic downturns. Most states had to struggle to balance their budgets in 2001-2002 and earlier in the earlier 1990-1991 recession. During a recession tax revenues fall. Consumers buy less, which means less sales tax revenue. Workers earn less money, which means less income tax. And property values fall, leading to less property tax revenue.

More...