With the sweeping of the elections Republicans had in November, austerity became the new vogue.
Gone were the talks of economic recovery and jobs, usurped by talks of budget deficits and budget cuts.
After seeing the draconian budget cuts forced on the backs of the poor and working class and lavish tax cuts for the rich, I have one question: what would Jesus cut?
What social programs would Jesus cut or what taxes would he raise?
The budget deficit has exploded in the last few years due to a mix of declining tax revenue, increased spending to stimulate the economy and exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy.
Republicans were largely elected in 2010 on a platform of austerity in which they promised to balance the budget without raising taxes and by cutting spending.
In the first three months of the 112th Congress, there have only been 3 bills passed: a repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, an anti-abortion bill and a budget resolution to keep the government running with $60 billion in cuts.
With a budget deficit of $1.6 trillion, these cuts are a paltry drop in the bucket, yet they are completely ideologically motivated.
The resolution would defund Public Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood and other social programs, yet when Democrats offered an amendment to cut $30 billion in subsidies to oil companies, the amendment was defeated.
This shows that these cuts are not about saving money or trimming the budget, but about cutting programs that do not fit their narrowly rigid, ideological world view.
One of the phrases used when severe cuts are imposed by Republicans on social spending is “shared sacrifice,” but there has been no shared sacrifice.
The rich are getting richer and they are getting massive tax cuts, while social spending gets gutted.
In the proposed budget for Florida submitted by Rick Scott, corporations would get a $675 million dollar tax cut, while, in the same budget, education spending would be cut by $3 billion.
Bright Futures, which many students at UT rely on to help fund their tuition, will get cut by a third or a $100 million dollars.
This is hardly a “shared sacrifice.”
Would Jesus give the wealthy and corporations tax cuts while the poorest among us get hit the hardest?
Democrats have been complacent to this absurdity.
In December the previous Congress enacted $400 billion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, directly adding to the deficit.
Instead of asking for the most fortunate among us to share in the sacrifice, the wealthy are in agreement that they need the cuts.
President Obama’s proposed budget called for a $5 billion dollar cut to home heating assistance to the poor, and billions from Pell grants to poor college students.
Despite the insistence of politicians that they have a mandate to make these cuts, they are very unpopular with the American people.
According to a poll commissioned by the Wall Street Journal 81 percent of Americans would rather charge a millionaire’s surtax on the rich, than have these types of draconian cuts.
In this time of belt-tightening, we must employ a concept of true shared sacrifice, in which the wealthy are included.
There are other areas we can cut without affecting hard-working Americans, such as the $881 billion that is spent for defense.
When we are at historical lows for taxes, there needs to be a balanced approach that fixes the revenue problem.
The budget is a moral document that reflects our societies values.
We should ask ourselves if the way the government allocates money is morally acceptable.
Do we want to be remembered as the generation that gave to the rich and took from the poor?
Alex Caraballo can be reached at acaraballo21@gmail.com.
I used the term usurped in the context of being taken over suddenly and forcefully not necessarily meaning illegally. I meant it as the sudden change in narrative from creating jobs and recovery with one of budget cutting and deficits. Polls show that most Americans only care about jobs right now but most Republicans are only concerned with the deficit.
As for the exact definition of austerity implied in the article, the Republicans are advocating for a large reduction in non-defense discretionary spending which only accounts for 20% of the budget. You cannot balance a $1.6 trillion deficit by cutting from a part of the budget that accounts for around $700 billion. Republicans are also trying to push for cuts in benefits in Social Security and Medicare. If you want a good example of the Republicans plan just look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future.
I’m currently only looking forward to getting into medical school after I graduate and politics will just remain a hobby for now.
Overall this was a great assessment of the current budget debacle taking place in Washington and across the nation in approximately 45 states, however I feel as if your assessment is just a series of generalizations with very little supporting criterion. For example, you state “Republicans were largely elected in 2010 on a platform of austerity in which they promised to balance the budget without raising taxes and by cutting spending.” Now, I under that you are trying to imply that the GOP’s economic policies were/are a bit egregious, but could you elaborate for my sake. As a reader, I am curious to know what your definition of an austere economic policy is. In the context presented the term is used rather vaguely. Furthermore, “usurped” is typically used to describe a suspension of debate illegally, are you suggesting that the Republicans in congress are behaving in an illegal manner? If so, please elaborate.
Just as an aside, it is not “societies values” it is rather “society’s values.” Since the values are a process of society. Unless of course you are referring to multiple societies, which I do not believe you are.
Out of curiosity, do you plan to run for public office in the future? If so, how ambitious are you?