As far as finding another "Truman", look to Virginia Governor Mark Warner. He may be too centrist for some in this blog, but he seems like a strong principled man.
Take Social Security as one case. Privatization of Social Security doesn't exactly take us back to a time when 80% of the population didn't have savings, but it does seriously undermine the program as a whole. We already have 401k's and IRA's for those that want tax-free savings, so private, idividual accounts that are taken from your paycheck contribute nothing new. It's not that some form of mixed privatized, social security would be bad - but what is it solving? The coming retirement en mass of Baby Boomers that will put a serious drain on benefits? Maybe having more privatized savings will address structural issues for future generations, but I do not see how it does anything for the short term - except add to our deficits.
Because of this it seems to me that Republicans are less solving problems than moving to as close a pre-New Deal economy that they can get to.
My understanding of Social Security is that it was put in place for the people who do not save money. Making part of it private seems to me allows us to keep our own future investments as well as contribute to the current in need. I do agree that the reform will be a hit on our national debt, but I think the investment could be well worth it if it fixes the future bigger problem.
Personally I don't see national debt as a huge issue. Our deficit was much higher during the 80's. I am not sure the constant handing ringing about our deficit will connect with the majority of Americans.
It gets worse. So far I have assumed that people are still willing to loan the US money. Unlike US voters, foreign investers are not stupid. They see the growing debt and the SS crisis. On top of that the dollar is sliding badly against foreign currencies. All we need is one medium-sized country to decide that their US investments are better placed elsewhere. This would set off a major sell-off of US bonds leading to a crash in the bond market. In order to generate more income the Fed would be forced to hike interest rates and effectively kill the domestic money supply (those home re-finances have been fueling our economy over the last decade.)
I think the prospects for a currency crash and a '30s syle depression are way too real. But on the bright side, I'm sure if somebody points this out to our fearless leader he will take steps to correct it.
Proposed 2005 budget is 2 trillion dollars Estimated 2004 Budget deficit 500 billion dollars. 2004 National GDP roughly 11.5 trillion 2004 National Debt as a percentage of GDP 66% 1996 National Debt as a percentage of GDP 67% 1930 National Debt as a percentage of GDP 25% Deficit as a percentage to GDP for 2004 is 4.5 roughly equal to 1992 and below much of the 80's where it peaked at 6% under Reagan.
Office of Budget and Management: Budget Totals Deficit as a percentage to GDP
First and foremost is that the deficit is much larger than you think it is, this years deficit is listed at about 420 billion, however the FEDS are not telling you how much they took out of the trust fund in order to get it to that level. This is 250 billion dollars that has to be paid, this 250 billion dollars was replaced by IOU's and in addition to the national debt will have to have interest paid on it also.
Second, we have run deficits and debt ratios larger than this, look at the period of WWII as an example, however, if you look at the historical tax rates you'll notice that we as a nation sacrificed by paying our own way and getting those deficits under control and paying the debt off.
This is something that the Republicians will not ever do lest they lose their hold on rural America, they have painted themselves into a fiscal box that they cannot possibly get out of.
Third, up until the 80's we were not a net debtor nation for trade and ran a trade surplus for all of those years, the additional impact of the trade deficit is huge and not a scenario we've faced before.
Fourth, all of that income re-distribution from 1950 on in the form of those high tax rates, resulted in the largest middle class in world history. Since 1980, we've seen that middle class shrink and shrink and shrink, all the while there is ever growing wage imbalances as less and less income as a percentage of the total is made by larger and larger percentages of the population. In short, your eroding the tax base.
Doing the numbers there, that means that when the interest payments on the debt reach 1/2 trillion, nearly 70% of the population will work their entire year paying nothing but the interest on the federal debt.
Fifth, believe it or not, we're about to enter a period where the workforce is going to shrink as the age ratios significantly change in the next 20 years.
Sixth, never believe the Governments numbers, they are flat out lies, you can get a great priner on this at Gillespies Website or you could visit the Grandfather Economic Report and get another great view on how our government lies to us.
Actually I could go on here, however IMHO, the issue is a moral one, it's morally wrong to pass these costs on to the generations that follow us, period, end of discussion. We cannot reasonbly be expected to make good decisions on whom we vote for unless we ourselves are affected by the decisions they make. That's why the Republicians are winning, because they do things and refuse to make the people voting for them accountable in the form of taxes and or the spending cuts that come with their policies.
Look at those tax rates above, those generations, in addition to fighthing 3 wars during that period paid their own way and built the greatest nation on earth in doing so. We instead bitch and moan about how we're an over-taxed society while sending our soldiers off to fight a war that we want our children to pay for...
You seem to accept that SS and Medicare will collapse...why? Why couldn't we simply raise taxes to cover increased expense? Now this might not be the ideal solution, I hardly think it means the system is a failure or that it will fail.
Rising medical costs is a problem but the GOP doesn't focus on medical costs because they are in the pocket of the insurance industry and healthcare. Frist's hospital chain is an example. Addtionally, the right backs the drug companies when they lobby for keeping a closed market, which happens to be contrary to their central "great tenet" of economics: free trade.
I think the problem is that you think there is a problem. The right has always been against the graduated income tax, social security, medicare, the Dept of Education(Dole's 96 GOP wanted it abolished,) and most all social welfare spending. The problem is that their message has convinced you these institutions and programs need fixing...it's a the same old story.
The GOP casts the government as evil in order to shift the tax burden from the corps and investors.
Here is more info on the Social Security problem: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/index.html
Education: NCLB is a cruel joke. The "standards movement" was mostly originated and championed by a group of Democratic Governors like Clinton in Arkansas and Reilly in South Carolina. What Bush et al have done is take whatever was good about the system (identifying schools in need and trying to fix the problem) and turn it into a destructive force, with failure to reach impossible goals leading to a gradual strangulation of a school. But, again, it's important to note that even if you like the idea of standards (and there are some things that are valuable), it's primarily a Democratic idea on a policy level.
Health Care: You imply the GOP has anything to say about health care? Please. They've tried to thwart every attempt to do anything about the system, while attempting to piggyback on the issue to stick it to a group they perceive as a primary source of Democratic funds: trial lawyers. Medical malpractice reform does nothing about the health care crisis in this country.
Medicare & SS: There's no problem with Social Security. No crisis. Nada. The system is solvent for decades and decades. The GOP likes to lump it in as an "entitlement crisis" because there is a genuine problem coming down the pike with Medicare. But that's because of the broken health care system in this country, where, again, the GOP is trying desperately to keep any reform from happening.
The GOP has no solutions to any problem. Their entire domestic agenda consists of tax cuts and rollbacks of liberal ideas. It's an inherently destructive agenda.
The GOP is like an anti-body to a governmental bureaucracy out of control. It can be useful in attacking wasteful government and keeping the civic/economic life of the country clean. But, right now, this country has an auto-immune disease, a political AIDS that is leaving our society defenseless against a whole host of ills: poverty, disease, economic disparities, environmental degradation, outside aggression in the form of terrorism, rapacious globalism, the list goes on.
If people do not feel and see the "AIDS" in America like poverty, disease etc, it is hard to make them believe it. I do not agree that our country is going to hell in a hand basket and it can't continue to be the party line. It doesn't offer a very bright future or a clear vision. An effective message should not need any mention of Bush or the GOP. It just comes out sounding like partisan double speak.
