Just got home from teaching class (mesmerizing!--see, I've gotcha already) fully intending to wax nostalgic on an unrelated matter. But, I turned on the tube for less than one minute and caught a summary of the latest budget proposal submitted by a Republican congressman. Now, let me make one thing perfectly clear (shades of Watergate): add budgets and taxes to the phoenix-like mound of subjects upon which I am not an expert. Not to worry, I speak from my version of common sense. And, I'm out of college.
The bill's goal is to balance the budget. Its principal targets are medicare and medicaid. Tax loopholes for the giant corporations and opulent companies are ignored. A generalization: yes. A misstatement of bottom line fact: no.
Why do most Republican budget remedies sound this same theme? Because, in the main, their support (read: $$$) comes from the wealthiest Americans. This is neither illegal nor immoral, but it is a fact which must be included in almost any political discussion. Hey, I would love to boast membership in the "wealthy few", but alas, I can only envy them from afar. Reducing taxes for everybody is a tax break for them.
Moreover, the Obama budget, the ultimate agreement on which shall be as close to bipartisan as you can get, will itself include spending cuts effecting, mainly the middle class. The uppermost class can enjoy the benefits of Medicare, if they wish, bolstered by their ability to purchase supplemental insurance. But what of those who can only afford and therefor must exclusively rely on the "entitlement" of Medicare and Medicaid?
To claim that the only way to begin to balance the budget is to cut or practically eliminate such programs is to obviate the notion, art and benefits of compromise. Hey, when the banks were going under, it was Uncle who bailed them out. Nobody labeled this an entitlement. How about legislation which draws from everybody IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR INCOME.
Compromise, anyone?
In the words of Great Frank "nobody wins"
ReplyDelete