Sharing Responsibility

Over the years many elections have been decided on the issue of corruption, yet I have no recollection of a candidate claiming to favor it. The same can be said of deficits. Both political parties agree they should be reduced or, if possible, eliminated. They disagree as to how and when. Democrats are in less of a hurry and prefer a blend of increased income, sometimes known as taxes, and reduced expenses. Republicans are insisting exclusively on the latter at once, or else they’re threatening to huff and puff and blow the house down.

Differences between the two approaches are largely semantic, a fact that Republicans know how to use to their advantage. A reduction in benefits for an entitlements such as Medicare may seem like a clear cut case of reducing expenses. But Medicare contributor/beneficiaries would then have to pay additional out of pocket money for services previously covered. To them this is in effect a tax increase by any name. Payments to Exxon/Mobil, purportedly the most profitable corporation in history, are subsidies by any rational definition. But under the Grover Norquist “no tax increase ever” rules, eliminating this gift would be a tax increase.

As I see it a dollar of red ink from entitlement programs and a dollar spent on favored treatment of privileged taxpayers and corporations are identical once they reach the balance sheet. Paying for either is less a matter of what it’s called, than who is doing the paying.  A fleeting glance at the Ryan Budget passed by House Republicans should settle the question of who they feel should bear the burden of fiscal austerity.   

If there’s still doubt, we have this statement by Orrin Hatch, now a party “moderate;” “I hear how they’re caring for the poor and so forth. The poor need jobs and they also need to share some of the responsibility,”   It’s reassuring to know that the Senator has heard about this “caring for the poor and so forth.” But I’m curious as to how he would have them do more sharing of the responsibility.    

It seems to me that simply being poor could be counted as sharing responsibility. It’s not that easy to become rich.  Republicans have a cost effective method of sharing in their cornucopia of proposals, specifically drastic cuts in Medicaid, health care for those who can’t pay for it. If the poor can be made to disappear a big financial burden will be lifted. Validating Chuck Darwin’s theory might not sit well with the religious right if thinking is involved. But when all is said and done I believe they’d be satisfied with the thought that a penny saved is still a penny earned.