(MintPress) – In a time when millions of Americans continue to struggle with household expenses for education, health care and housing, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have declared war on the working class in America with talk of devastating federal budget cuts that would limit funding for critical social programs in order to finance a bloated military budget.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, more than three-fifths of the proposed Paul Ryan cuts come from programs for the poor.
The vast majority of Americans favor upholding critical entitlement programs for poor and middle class Americans while slashing military spending. The proverbial “books not bombs” may not resonate in the major party debates this election season, but the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 75 House representatives have heard the calls of the millions struggling to find work and support their families. The People’s Budget provides a fiscally sound alternative to bipartisan attacks on the middle class.
Even more compelling is the proposal’s calls for progressive taxation on Wall Street and corporations that would help to reduce the budget deficit by more than $5.6 trillion by 2021. With a soaring national debt of more than $16 trillion, the People’s Budget, supported by millions of Americans, demonstrates that it is possible to end class warfare, extend critical entitlements and reduce the national debt.
End the wars, close the deficit?
The message is clear: Most Americans support cutting military spending in order to maintain critical social programs. Such a position would not require sacrifices to U.S. national security as our quantitative military edge would still outstrip all other spending by major military powers in the world. Rather, a reduction to Clinton era spending levels would suffice in alleviating many of America’s long term deficit woes.
“The military budget itself has gone from 3 percent under Clinton in 2000, to 5 percent more or less today. If all we were to do is to bring the military budget back down to the Clinton era level, that alone would essentially solve the long term deficit problem,” claims Robert Pollin, co-director of the Perry Institute in Washington D.C.
The U.S. spent $711 billion on the military in 2011, outspending China, Russia, France and the the U.K. combined. With public disapproval of the War in Afghanistan reaching a record 69 percent, according to recent opinion polls, the idea of slashing a bloated military budget to reduce the deficit should be gaining popularity in Congress.
However, Romney has touted his plans to increase military spending, extend the troop presence in Afghanistan and expand the malicious military industrial complex through his first term.
Another hurdle to overcome is the long-winded, bureaucratic budget process prevents an honest discussion representing the type of spending most Americans would like to see.
“Congressional committees will put forward alternative visions to show how they differ from the majority party. The Congressional Black Caucus has a long history of these proposals,” said Dr. DeWayne Lucas in a MintPress statement.
Lucas, a professor of political science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, added, “Although each party will allow groups like the Congressional Progressive Caucus to put forward budget proposals, they usually represent a minority opinion with the party.”
While individual points of these budget alternatives may gain traction in the American public, any proposal must be passed in its entire, unedited form in order for the Allocations Committee to make it a legally binding proposal. That is, even popular ideas get lost when the majority party dictates the construction and passage of any budget in Congress.
Restoring populism in budgets
As a result, average citizens suffer when a majority Republican sponsored budget calling for cuts to social programs is passed simply because of congressional majority. While the process itself may be a hindrance to the passage of a popular budget, the common Republican fixation on “reducing the deficit” doesn’t have to come at the expense of the health and well being of the middle class.
The preamble to the “People’s Budget” reads, “In poll after poll, they are telling us, their representatives in the American government, that they want to preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand job training programs, to cut taxes burdening the middle class, to subsidize affordable housing, and to provide financial assistance for those struggling to prevent foreclosures.”
This is confirmed by a Pew Opinion Poll conducted last year. The overwhelming majority of respondents believe that social entitlements Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been “good for the country.” Eighty-seven percent viewed Social Security positively, while Medicare received slightly higher public approval at 88 percent. Medicaid received the lowest public approval at 77 percent.
“As the Senate votes this week on the Republican’s scheme to end Medicare, I’m standing up to protect health care for our seniors,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) last year when discussing the cuts to the program. Ellison, one of the co-authors of the People’s Budget, is a strong proponent of reforming Medicare and maintaining a public option for Americans who cannot afford a private health care option.
Republicans turning health care into a voucher program would be devastating for many lower income and elderly Americans who rely upon the program.
If Congress cannot see the moral imperative of such a budget proposal going forward, they should at least see the dollars and cents of a sound budget that curbs runaway government spending.
“That is the most fiscally responsible budget in Washington. If you care about reducing the budget deficit, this seems to be the one that does it,” says political commentator Rachel Maddow when commenting on the People’s Budget in an MSNBC statement.