CommunityFDL Main Blog

The Red Budget Of Courage

So it isn’t just me.  The Economist also thinks that the Village’s definition of “courage” makes about as much sense as its definition of “shared sacrifice”:

Mr Ryan’s plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus’s plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.

I’m not really sure what “courage” is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards. For 30 years, certainly since Walter Mondale got creamed by Ronald Reagan, the most dangerous thing a politician can do has been to call for tax hikes. Politicians who call for higher taxes are punished, which is why they don’t do it. I’m curious to see what adjectives people would apply to the Progressive Congressional Caucus’s budget proposal. But it’s hard for me to imagine the media calling a proposal to raise taxes “courageous” and “honest”.

Amazing how the Republican debt-reduction plan that stuffs more money into pockets that are already full, screws over the poor and elderly, and doesn’t actually reduce the debt, is hailed as courageous and serious while the far more effective progressive plan gets ignored completely.

Only in a country where white Christian males claim to be some kind of oppressed minority, and conservative pundits saturate the airwaves with accusations of liberal media bias, can a plan that screws over the powerless to enrich the powerful be described as “courageous.”

Previous post

Bobo's Good Friday Sermon - South Park and Tolerance Are Right Out

Next post

LGBT New Yorkers Getting Out Their Easter Bonnets