One of the uglier consequences of living in a plutocracy is to have to live through something like the current debate in the United States on the debt ceiling. The American people have been saying, in poll after poll, that (a) the US federal government should live within its means, and (b) that the budget should be balanced not by cutting the government programs that vulnerable people depend on -- such as social security, medicare, and medicaid -- but by raising taxes on the rich, who have been cornering a larger and larger share of the nation's income since at least the 1970s. And yet the Republican Party is prevailing in the debt ceiling debate by steadfastly sticking to the view that tax increases -- of any kind, on any group or entity, no matter how rich -- are unacceptable, and that the federal budget deficit must be reduced entirely through spending cuts. Their legislative strategy is essentially that of a bank robber who shows his suicide vest to the teller. They are threatening to precipitate an economic crisis by refusing to vote for increasing the government's debt limit and thereby causing an unprecedented default by the US Treasury. They have essentially reduced the Obama administration to begging them to accept the closing of a few tax loopholes, such as tax exemptions for corporate jets! They know that they have Obama over a barrel and are dismissively laughing at even Obama's corporate jet pleas.
How can the Republicans get away with this flagrant disregard for the vox populi? Why do they not fear the wrath of the electorate?
The following excerpt from yesterday's PBS Newshour may indicate why. I suspect that the Republicans believe the corporate media will help them pull the wool over the electorate's eyes. This is why they don't fear all those polls.
Judy Woodruff, the anchor of this Newshour segment, is talking to Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, a polling organization, and Naftali Bendavid, congressional correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. The emphases are mine.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Andy Kohut, you have been looking at what the American public thinks about the deficit, the debt. What do you find when you look at public opinion in terms of how they see the debt and what they think has caused the debt?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, the debt and deficit, concern about it are at an all-time high.
Interestingly, we did a poll a few weeks ago which showed 60 percent saying that great contributions to this were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only 24 percent said increased domestic spending.
And while there is a lot of focus on domestic spending, if you talk to the ordinary person, it's -- that spending is seen as vulnerable if it involves waste, fraud and abuse, but when benefits or when the entitlements are considered, that's not considered waste, fraud and abuse.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, when you -- when you ask them about the tradeoffs they're prepared to accept in terms of, you know, how much of -- how much cutting are you, as a citizen, prepared to see to deal with the debt, what do you find?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, surprisingly, when you ask about what is more important, preserving benefits for Social Security and Medicare, by 2-1 -- or reducing deficit or the debt -- 2-1, people say, preserve -- preserve our benefits.
There is very little give there. Now, Republicans are of the view -- more of the view that reducing the -- reducing the deficit should be given high priority. But even among Republicans, it's really interesting. There is a big income divide. Affluent Republicans say it is more important to reduce the deficit, but poorer Republicans, middle-class and lower-middle-class Republicans say, no, no, protect our benefits.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And have -- are these attitudes, Andy, that have changed over time, with all the attention that's now being given to the size of the debt and the urgency of the problem?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, a lot -- people are willing to do a lot of things to reduce this deficit. Concern is at an all-time high.
But when it comes to entitlements, there's no movement. It really is rock-solid when we see 2-1 margins.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, again, entitlements meaning Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
ANDREW KOHUT: And even Medicaid. Having states raise the -- make it more -- reduce eligibility for Medicaid, not 2-1, but a solid majority say, no, let's not do that.
...
JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the -- I guess one of the overriding sense, senses that one gets out of all this is that more of the debt reduction would come from cuts, from cuts in entitlement, than it would on the revenue side. Is that pretty much a given?
NAFTALI BENDAVID: That is pretty much a given. I think there is something about the way the political landscape has evolved, that people are willing to accept far more cuts, even Democrats, spending cuts, rather than tax increases.
I mean, tax increases have become such anathema, such political poison in the political dialogue, that I think people are talking about a 3-to-1 ratio or something approaching that.
ANDREW KOHUT: And that is completely opposite to public opinion.
When we say, if push comes to shove, if you have to do something, what would you rather see with respect to these entitlements, revenues increased, or taxes increased, or benefits cut? People say, raise taxes, raise costs, but don't cut those benefits.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you see that across the board?
ANDREW KOHUT: See that across the board.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Republican -- what about Republican vs. Democrat?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, there is a gap on this, but when you get such large 2-1 margins and you have this class division within the Republican Party, that is potentially big stuff come election time. There will be a huge cry and howl if benefits are seen to have been -- to have been cut here.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And so I hear you saying some of the public reaction is going to depend on how this is packaged, how it is described to the American people, whatever -- if they come up with an agreement.
ANDREW KOHUT: Right.
I mean, there is support for raising the contribution cap [on social security taxes -- U.R.], of doing some things like that. But the notion that the retirement ages will be delayed or in some way people are going to have to pay a larger share of their Medicare costs out of their pocket, all of those things are very, very unpopular.
