Bait and Switch: Is Pope Benedict Really Against Raising Taxes On the Wealthy to Help Balance Government Budgets?
(Reuters) – Invoking Pope Benedict, Republican Representative Paul Ryan defended his budget plan on Thursday at Georgetown University, where a group of the Jesuit institution’s faculty has accused him of misusing Catholic teachings to push cuts to programs that serve the poor.
“The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt,” Ryan said, speaking in a Gothic, oak-paneled auditorium on the Georgetown campus.
“The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth.'”
— “Republican Ryan cites popeto defend budget cuts,” David Lawder, Reuters, Apr. 26
The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt? Well, maybe. But this is an argument against raising revenues by raising taxes on the wealthy? Or, for that matter, on anyone?
What’s most angering is this deliberately disorienting, gimmicky refusal by these pols—Ryan and Romney, in particular—to acknowledge that raising revenue through taxes reduces the government’s budget deficit and debt; that lowered tax rates in the last 11 years have significantly increased budget deficits and the debt (and that that also happened in the 1980s); that budget deficits and the national debt decreased during the 1990s after tax rates were raised during the G.H.W. Bush administration; and that Ryan’s and Romney’s tax-reduction plans would, according to (apparently) all projections except their own, substantially increase the national debt.
It’s one thing to argue for a substantial reduction or elimination of the national debt, but quite another to pretend that raising tax revenues isn’t one possible way to help do that.
These people do make Ayn Rand philosophical arguments to support their policy proposals, but the claim that the pope “has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth,’” is a non sequitur to the question of how we reduce the national debt.
What’s most angering is this deliberately disorienting, gimmicky refusal by these pols—Ryan and Romney, in particular—to acknowledge that raising revenue through taxes reduces the government’s budget deficit and debt; that lowered tax rates in the last 11 years have significantly increased budget deficits and the debt (and that that also happened in the 1980s); that budget deficits and the national debt decreased during the 1990s after tax rates were raised during the G.H.W. Bush administration; and that Ryan’s and Romney’s tax-reduction plans would, according to (apparently) all projections except their own, substantially increase the national debt.
It’s one thing to argue for a substantial reduction or elimination of the national debt, but quite another to pretend that raising tax revenues isn’t one possible way to help do that.
These people do make Ayn Rand philosophical arguments to support their policy proposals, but the claim that the pope “has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth,’” is a non sequitur to the question of how we reduce the national debt.
It appears, though, that this particular bait-and-switch—Ryan’s claim that the pope supports his budget proposals because the pope has expressed concern about high debt levels of governments, communities and individuals—is causing outright revulsion among both mainstream media pundits and the general public once they hear about it. The pope as Ryan’s budget guide? Really? Comments posted to an article about it yesterday on Slate, titled “Paul Ryan Cites Pope In Defense of Budget Plan,” almost universally express disgust and dismay at Ryan’s claim. The pope as Ryan’s budget guide?
The beauty of Ryan’s statement is that it helpfully highlights that, Romney’s insistence to the contrary, this election is not about the present and future economy—will cutting taxes for the wealthy by 20% and eliminating the EPA and banking regulations really spur the economy and lower the national debt?—but instead about the very structure and purpose ofgovernment itself. And because Ryan has now invoked the pope as supposed political supporter of Ryan’s budget, the real Republican intent will likely gain widespread attention.
Halleluiah. And praise the pope.
I think what the Pope is more likely to have meant is that politicians like Ryan are mining the planet and destroying the future of our children.
Frankly I can’t see how borowing money from the rich can possibly hurt “our children.” Won’t the rich just invest the interest and grow the economy like they always say?
At some point someone needs to sit down and think through just what “borrowing” means… particularly “borrowing from the future.”
Hint, except in the sense of destroying the earth, it can’t be done.
i suppose it’s not clear… but when the “money is paid back” it will be paid back to the rich who lent it. What will they do with it?
Take a rocket ship to the next most livable planet?
It seems that altar boy Ryan ran into a bit of a buzz saw from a bunch of Jesuits at Georgetown. I guess they, like the National Council of Catholic Bishops, just don’t understand.
He must have thought he could hide under the pope’s skirt, but it looks like Benedict would not like that.
I’ve thought ever since Romney gave a speech to the Detroit Economic Club a few days before the Michigan primary outlining what his tax and budget proposals would be—which track Ryan’s pretty closely—that once the greater public actually learns of these specifics, Romney’s chance to win in November will evaporate. The specifics of that speech were drowned out by the comical setting; that was the speech that Romney gave to about 800 people in an otherwise-empty Detroit Lions football stadium. Since then, of course, he’s repeated the basics again and again, but I think most of the public hasn’t been aware of it. And most of the public doesn’t even know who Paul Ryan is. Hopefully, this incident will inform a lot of people.
Beverly,
“The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt? Well, maybe.”
It is NOT a threat at all. Trust your intincts here.
The amount of Treasury securities that have been issued is a not a REAL issue, it is a financial issue…. the govt can always credit bank accounts to redeem these securities…
http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/soft-currency-economics/
Resp,
gosh Matt
or the government could just tax the people with the money enough to pay down the debt.
what is more likely to happen is that we will see some kind of inflation and the Fed will panic and raise interest rates and cause a(nother) recession which will cost the country more actual “product” than paying the debt would.
thing i think i have learned here watching economists is that they don’t know anything. they just recite the great truths they learned as undergraduates and when they don’t work, recite them harder.
The point is that the debt won’t be paid back. Instead the debtors will become indentured servants to the children of the rich.
coberly,
The govt does not NEED the tax revenue to be able to spend. The govt dosent have to “borrow” it’s own USD balances to be able to spend. Treasury issuance, which many call “borrowing” while making the mistake that the govt is just like a household, acts to remove reserve balances from the banking system which if left as reserve balances, would prevent the Central Bank from maintaining a non-zero interest rate policy.
Treasury securities are a “savings account” at the Central Bank vs. USD accounts which can be though of as “checking accounts” at the Central Bank.
Treasury securites are an ASSET to those who hold them, just like USDs. They are redeemed and isssued all of the time with no problems by the Treasury. This year alone, Treasury has redeemed $32 TRILLION of these securities with no problem…
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/03/we-paid-off-32-trillion-in-past-6.html
The only true economic challenges we face are REAL (unemployment, output gap, etc..) not financial. Politicians mouthing off about so-called “unsustainable” fed govt debt are wrong and fear-mongering and dont know what they are talking about, they think the govt is like a household and this is absurd; our economic policymakers are morons in this regard.
Resp,
Min
yes. there is that possibility. see Greece.
Matt
I think I mostly agree with you. But “just printing” money will create other problems. That doesn’t mean I think the gov’t can’t “just print” money to solve problems… but it does need to be done with some attention to how much and when and for what.
See Greece before Disney buys it. 😉
I’m sorry, but the image of Pope Benedict as bait tickles me. 😉
Min
“i will make you fishers of men.”