Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Michel Martin & Michael Fauntroy: The Majority Of Voters In Detroit Supported The Policies There But Also Reserved The Right To Blame Outsiders Upon The Collapse Of The City Because It Is The Majoirty Opinion

This is a POPULAR OPINION within the City of Detroit, Michel Martin. The POPULARITY of this viewpoint may INDEED compel people to take the streets in protests - BUT IT DOES NOT show evidence of COMPETENCE in the running of the city's fiscal affairs.   
One thing is for sure, Ms Martin - the people who were calling for DIVERSITY in the ranks of  "Municipal Bond Traders" who sold the debt financing paper on behalf of Detroit ARE NOT going to lead the protests TO THEIR OWN OFFICES and lead a protest -------------------- AGAINST THEMSELVES.

Does this world of POPULIST DEMOCRACY work fabulously?
MORE APPEASEMENT in the ranks of the people  than COMPETENCY IN GOVERNMENT





POPULISM VS MANAGEMENT Mixed With "Keep Your Enemy On Trial - So You Don't Have To Appraise The Merits Of Your Friends Economic Proposal And Offend Your Listening Base"

If there ever was an example of "A Fish Don't Know He Wet"

NPR's Michel Martin was marketing the presence of Republicans who agreed that taxes need to rise.
IF she finds no Democrats who say "Entitlement spending needs to be cut" does THIS make for a legitimate policy position?  Is Ms Martin even intellectually curious about a gap between the position voiced by President Obama versus the Congressional Budget Office?

Is Maxine Waters who says "No Cuts In Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid!!!" any less of an ideological bigot than a Republican who is guarding the wealthy from taxes?  Will "Tell Me More" ever go to a favorable politician who "received the valuables" from The Least Of These and demand to see DEVELOPMENT of those who contributed as proof of the effectiveness of "Progressive Fundamentalism" OR at least to serve as "consumer advocates" on behalf of the investors?


The twin brother to "The Republicans want to privatize Social Security" is the fact that "The Progressive Fundamentalists understand that 'TAX THE RICH' is the chant that will cause their troops to fall in line"

Best of all - they will NEVER tell you that the $81 billion in "New Revenue" from "The Rich" is but a mere fraction of the $1,000 billion federal deficits that have been run EACH YEAR for the past 4 years with this present budget year that started in October projected to be the 5th.  They would prefer to find marginal marketing "good news" (example $49.5 billion given to General Motors Saved The Auto Industry!!!!) because them detailing the deficit that was run up that same year would cause them to sound critical of the forces they live vicariously through.

BUT ARE THEY PROVIDING TRUTH TO THEIR CONSUMERS?

The proper way to appraise the veracity of Michel Martin's "marketing position" is to get her to prove that her ideologically entrenched notion that "The Rich Need To Pay More In Taxes" is sufficient to close the massive economic hole that is presently in this nation.  

Like so many other issues, Ms Martin understands that if she does a "targeted filibuster" - the masses will line up behind a marginal point while not considering the larger field that goes unmanaged.  ($81 billion from the rich versus a $1,000 billion federal deficit).  NOTHING more than "Ideological Bigotry" can explain the SATISFACTION delivered by this talking point.

When I tell you that "Progressive Fundamentalism is a 'Struggle Meme', it does not 'Stand Alone' " this is what I am talking about.  There is no doubt that 40 and 60 years ago these ideologically based financed were channeled at the city and state level.   We are never going to see the present state of any "Mission Accomplished Cities" appraised based upon the "Struggle Motion" that lead them off track.

DEAR MR FAUNTROY - I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!
Michael Fauntroy: "There is no credible economist that says anything other than the fact that we need a BALANCED APPROACH of Tax Increases and Spending Cuts"

The problem is that you are dishonest.

Michael Fauntroy voices the same words that President Obama has been saying about "balance" but then inspects the ENEMY REPUBLICAN'S TIRES to check their balance!!

Mr Fauntroy:  Is President Obama's "Fiscal Cliff Proposal" sufficiently balanced to achieve the debt stabilization that the "Simpson Bowles Committee" that he assembled had suggested?   OR is this of no interest to you to "Put Obama's Claims On Trial"?  Do you even see a distinction between "Defending Your Interest In A Fiscally Strong America" versus "Defending Your Interest In A "Strong Obama - To Fight The Right Wing"?   (You don't have to ask me which one you favor).




Even Though The Final Set Of Proposals For The Simpson Bowles Plan Saves "Projected Debt" That Is Not Much More Than A Few Years Of The Present $1T+ Annual Deficits - It Was Not Received By Either Of The Two "Dung Producing Political Party Animals" Because It Forced Both Of Them To Violate Their Respective Bigoted Ideological Positions
The final plan was broken down into six major components (savings are 2012-2020):
1. $1,661 billion of discretionary spending cuts by putting in place discretionary spending caps into law lower than what is projected to be spent.
2. $995 billion in additional revenue with $785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax
3. $341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing, reform health-care tort, change provider payments, increase drug rebates and establishes a long-term budget for total federal health-care spending after 2020 to GDP + 1 percent.
4. $215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs, reform the military and civil service retirement system, reduce farm subsidies, reduce student loans and various other reforms.
5. $238 billion in Social Security reform, to be used to ensure the program is sustainably solvent in the infinite horizon by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI, include newly hired state and local workers after 2020, increase the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050 and creates a new minimum and old-age benefit.
6. Budget Process Reforms by creating discretionary spending caps and caps total federal revenue at 20 percent of GDP.
An additional $673 billion is saved due to lower projected spending interest payments as a result from lower deficits.


MY POSITION:  Taxes will necessarily have to rise on EVERYONE.  There will need to be spending cuts to entitlement programs and defense.  This "new revenue" CANNOT be used to fund an existing lifestyle (government spending) that we can no longer afford - as proven by the federal debt.  It must be used to sure up the revenues at a time of anemic economic activity and to pay down the debt.

The truth is, Mr Fauntroy:  NO CREDIBLE ECONOMIST says that the big 3 entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - which are now 40% of the Federal Budget - won't grow to near 60% in several decades - functionally crowding out other important programs - thus THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE).

We need to note how various operatives use their relative ideological bias to drive home their positions.  Within the Black community, however, the indictment that includes "On The Backs Of THE LEAST OF THESE" is used as the "thumb the scale" to convert a tough economic decision into a POLITICALLY POPULIST decision.   They can't produce FISCAL NUMBERS that affirm their position so they bring a pile of PETITIONS to show how POPULAR their views are among the people.



What If "The Majority" Doesn't Limit Their Views To Facts But Instead Are Informed By Streaming Propaganda?  Can The "Majority Rule" Be Deemed Good Governance OR Should The Opposition Hire More "Paid Journalists"?  

I asked previously:  "As America faces demographic changes and the Progressives become the economic establishment can 'Black Enterprise Magazine' transform its editorial position from 'marginalized minority' in support of DBE's over to a position in which it is the voice of the companies that cover the demand for employment and goods & services for the entire economy"?

No comments: