Properly understood, the standard idea of efficiency presents no problem for progressive advocacy. Like other principles, of course, it can be distorted beyond recognition.
>Jessica wrote:
>
>> No, on second thought I still think it has no place in that
consideration whatsoever - at least in countries like the U.S. and Canada.
There isplenty of wealth in these countries.>>
The plenitude of wealth does not mean much to people below the top who can always find legitimate uses for a little extra wealth and properly resent government waste of their tax dollars.
Marta said:
> As we all know cost efficiency does get used against social welfare
programs for political reasons. Currently, every expenditure proposed in
congress must come up with its method of payment - from somewhere else in
the budget, this is referred to as PAY-GO. >>
Strictly speaking, only entitlements come under PAYGO. These include social insurance of all types, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and some other programs for low-income persons. Moreover, PAYGO means a spending increase is possible with a tax increase. What is called discretionary spending is capped, so it is "paygo" in the different sense that an increase in one item must be offset by a decrease in another. The difference is that it is possible to expand the size of the public sector only by expanding entitlements, not discretionary.
This is important because getting rid of the caps, even under paygo, would be a step forward. Then we could more easily support "tax and spend" measures. Better, we could then raise the issue of why we need paygo if the budget is in surplus.
>Cost-benefit analysis is used to pass or reject legislation,
Congress has been quite capable of passing and rejecting whatever it likes, under either party, with or without the blessing of cost-benefit analysis. Economists don't have nearly so much influence.
<<EXCEPT congress does not seem to use the cost benefit anaylsis when it comes to MILITARY or CORPORATE SUBSIDIES. The military has steadily gotten more than it asked for from congress under Clinton- for at least two years, maybe three. The defense industry corporations have been very effective with getting more for star wars and other war toys.>
Defense has been on a downward slide since 1986. It's still too large, and it might expand again, but it's fallen significantly. This points up the inadequacy of the "butter" beats "guns" argument. We've not been able to translate less guns into more butter because the public is befuddled by public debt.
>It is a false argument that we cannot afford universal health care, etc.
public welfare programs. The austerity forces (global corporations that
control government) have been edging the people into a corner - using the
debt as a means of cutting those dirty entitlements >>
Quite right.
>all over the world. Someone remind me - how many billions was Clinton
going to take from the general fund to give to the IMF? It really is a
matter of priority - the political priority of those in power with the neo
liberals continuing the game Reagan began.>
It wouldn't come from the general fund. It is from one of the 'funny money' off-budget accounts. Even so, it's not much in the grand $1,650 billion budget scheme of things.
>It seems that if we accept the premises that are being dished out, that we
will end up debating questions which have been defined by the capitalists.
Isn't the real question how does social wealth get distributed? for whose
benefit?>>]
The principle of wealth redistribution is not as compelling to the public as such themes as strengthening social insurance, getting serious about anti-poverty, and promoting public investment, even though these accomplish the same thing.
<<What is the priority, to perpetuate the military industrial complex and corporate welfare ( I like Bernie Sanders response to Gingrich/Congress giving these defense contractors merger bonus money from the taxpayer coffers - he asked, can't these corporations make it on their own?) or to provide decent housing, full employment at living wages, accessible qualilty education, etc.>>
Cutting the military budget is the last war. The priority now, I would suggest, is preventing the segregation of Social Security trust fund surpluses into a separate fund. This will mean that instead of looking forward to $1.5 trillion of budget surpluses over the next ten years, we will see little or no surpluses in the so-called "on-budget deficit", and hence will need to get political support for tax increases if we are to have any expansion of public spending.
Cheers,
Max