The following editorial first appeared in the Baltimore Sun:
The economic and political tumult in Europe has continued this week with anti-incumbent votes in France and Greece as well as signs of disaffection in Italy, Great Britain and Germany. The electorate is angry, and the election results have raised renewed concerns about whether Europe’s most debt-burdened countries will stick with their quest toward fiscal discipline.
On this side of the Atlantic, it’s tempting to view the uproar in purely parochial terms — out of concern that the U.S. economy will continue to be encumbered by the eurozone crisis. Or, perhaps, as evidence that President Barack Obama will get a taste of the same anti-incumbent fervor this fall, particularly if the nation’s recovery falters.
But the real lesson to be drawn from the rise of France’s Francois Hollande and others is that many in Europe are fed up with austerity measures. In choosing Hollande for president over incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy, the French embraced socialism — the real deal, not the kind Obama’s opponents blithely accuse him of — over conservatives and further cuts to government spending.
While European voters have long had a greater taste for taxpayer-financed social-welfare programs — and higher expectations of cradle-to-grave services, from health care to higher education — than their U.S. counterparts, there are signs that Americans are perfectly capable of mustering a substantial anti-austerity reaction, too.
The widening gulf between the haves and have-nots, the 1 percent and the 99 percent, over the past three decades is not merely some partisan invention of Obama, the Democrats or the Occupy Wall Street protesters but a real and worrisome trend fueled largely by the financial sector. Income inequality inevitably gives rise to economic instability — which is essentially what’s happening in the European Union, where income differences are even more out of whack.
Yet Republicans seem determined to shield the wealthiest Americans from making even the slightest additional sacrifice to help address the nation’s deficit. They scoff at the mere mention of the word “fairness.” The current impasse over student loans reflects the GOP’s intransigence on this subject: With student loan rates set to double this summer, Senate Republicans are steadfastly opposed to a Democratic proposal to cap them because it would be paid with higher payroll taxes on the wealthy and on some privately owned corporations.
Republicans prefer to support budget cuts alone as a means to bringing the federal budget into balance. Yet that approach inevitably falls most heavily on the poor and working class, with less going to education, health care, public transportation, housing, and so on. This is not only insufficient for addressing the deficit — a point made most clearly by the bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility and reform two years ago — but a recipe for social upheaval and class warfare.
Mitt Romney has frequently suggested that the U.S. is headed toward becoming another Greece under its current Europe-loving president. But at least the Europeans have expected sacrifice from all (and expect even more from the rich in the future, it appears). Under Republican rule, the U.S. seems destined to go straight to an anti-austerity uproar.
What America needs is a balanced approach to promote growth and opportunity and not just one focused on either spending cuts or higher taxes alone. Obama has at least shown some willingness to move in this direction (although his efforts in entitlements have been underwhelming); the GOP seems to be stuck in a more rigid, doctrinaire view.
The problem with the current political gridlock in Washington is that unless the two sides compromise, U.S. economic policy may prove rudderless no matter who occupies the White House in 2013. Already, there is talk of an impending “taxmaggedon” with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the end of the payroll tax cut and other benefits expiring next year, but little hope the two parties can do much to prevent (or even soften) the blow between now and then.
A government that has lost control over its own economic policies? Sounds a lot like Greece, where they have yet to form a governing majority. That may not be the U.S., at least not yet, but it’s not difficult to envision such a future if Washington continues to be stuck in its polarized and paralyzed state.




Comments (22)
Add commentYou can't credit your own
You can't credit your own quote RC lol. :p
trickle trickle trickle
keep hoping the trickle will finally get to you as the GOP reverts to this great concept of trickle down economics. The GOP mantra: just because it has not worked in the past in not evidence that it will fail in the future. Followed closely by the theory that eventually water will flow uphill.
While wealth is not trickling
While wealth is not trickling down, poverty is definitely trickling up. What happens when you eliminate things like food stamps and fuel subsidies, and their are no jobs, when you reduce school spending and student loans so our children are uneducated and unprepared to survive in this world....... you get destabilization and revolt
Good if you run a private prison and you lock everyone up, but the government has to pay for that also so where is it better to spend the money
AK Commrades , we....
don't need any austerity. “The U.S. government spent $17,762 for every man, woman and child in Alaska in 2010, putting the state at No. 1 for per capita federal expenditures — 69.8 percent above the national average,” according to the summary written by economist Neal Fried in the February 2012 edition of the state publication, Alaska Economic Trends"
Long live the PFD!
Rudderless? What about POTUS?
1. Who wrote this? Could've been the Baltimore Sun copyboy having a moment;
2. despite not-so-subtle progressive slant, it does have some merits:
"The problem with the current political gridlock in Washington is that unless the two sides compromise, U.S. economic policy may prove rudderless no matter who occupies the White House in 2013."
3. the missing leg here is leadership from the WH. We have an electorate grown used to leadership as synonymous with whining, blaming, and sound-bites to media-fed meatball pitches. Get off the schtick of blaming those "doctrinaire" republicans and have a presidential moment POTUS.
Indeed, Grendel. The
Indeed, Grendel. The president, despite not having the powers of an autocrat, should be blamed for congressional gridlock and abuse of the filibuster in the senate! Yes sirree.
No PP
But a leader would DO SOMETHING besides say we got a problem and it's THOSE GUYS that deserve the blame. Where has that gotten us? It plays well with the victim-minded -- does it play well with you too?
The Gipper
I agree wholeheartedly. A real leader, like Ronald Reagan, would march on down to the Capitol, lock it from the OUTSIDE (with personally forged steel chains), and then force members of congress to run laps, do calisthenics, and catch medicine balls (thrown by Reagan himself at speeds comparable to Randy Johnson's fastball) until they pass a bill.
And then do you know what Ronnie would do? Do you? He'd veto that MFer, tear it up, and throw the confetti in Harry Reid and John Boehner's faces. Just to show congress who's boss.
Too bad we're stuck with Obama. REAL leaders apparently don't apply blame to the appropriate parties or utilize political pressure to get things moving.
incorrigible
you waste much time & effort being a spring-butt. I've listened to 3 yrs of how bad it is. You play the hand you have, not the one you want. At the end of the day it's still called the Obama Administration.
Are you kidding Grendel? The
Are you kidding Grendel? The republican party made they're number one to get him out of office and have done nothing to work with anyone. They're acting like a bunch of bullied children.
Obama has tried and tried. He's ordered and threatened. It's congress' responsibility to pass legislation, not the presidents.
The fact you can blame Obama for inaction in congress shows your ignorance with politics.
Not kidding AKstu
The fact you think he "tried and tried" shows your lack of understanding of his JOB.
He and his band of merry non-budget-making, spend-like-there's-no-bottom dems alienated and disenfranchised the GOP for 2 yrs till the electorate ran a majority of the clowns out of office. Don't cry foul now. The GOP saw the ship sinking, saw an incompetent leader, and said ENOUGH.
HE drew the bad blood; it's his job to stop the bleeding because it's HIS administration that gets the responsibility for everything that is done or not done.
I'm so frustrated
What the American people need is a voice in Washington and honesty in Government. Washington Red or Blue is for sale. Campaign reform, term limits and accountability across the board is what we need to fix the economy. We are far too worried about whats in grandmas underwear, who our neighbors are sleeping with and what the boys down the street are smoking to focus on the real danger to our way of life. Greed in Washington, theft on wall street and healthcare fraud are picking our pockets. Its not grandmas social security check for heavens sake. Democrat or republican is no matter...the red wants to take it all and the blue wants to give it away to their buddys.
Sheeeeesh.....
Mama T, I agree with that
Mama T, I agree with that statement 100%.
Then explain his job. Because as far as I know, like I said, it's not his job to pass bills. He can tell congress what he wants but it's congress' job to write debate and pass laws that our country needs. They have not been doing that.
While both sides have been overly difficult the past decade, the republicans have basically said 'we give up' and have done nothing but filibuster anything that has a chance of passing.
I think my problem really is that you or anyone can blame the man on top but say nothing of the other couple hundred people we elected to do they're jobs and havent.
At the end of GWBs past term I didn't feel good about our next president. Over the last few years I have realized the rep party has become a scary backwards thing, in my eyes.
While I feel Obama has pushed things I don't agree with, I feel much safer with him for another 4 years then the jokes the republicans ate trying to push.
Thanks to the current republican party I plan to vote far more left for the time being.
I will never forget President Obama's remarks
about how the Republicans could help with his agenda or move to the 'back of the bus'. Of course to put it into context he was still in the 'honeymoon' stage with the media and Congress was his sandbox. I'm sure he was just feeling his oats at the time, maybe a little invincible, but it revealed something to me. My President considered the Republican's conservative base second-class citizens. How does one reach across the aisle after burning the pews?
The republicans stated before
The republicans stated before he was elected that thy would make him a one term president if elected.
I think that has been the goal of both parties
whenever the 'other' party gains the White House. I would not expect the DNC to actively support a Republican incumbent for a second term either.
Agreed
Agreed
I'd vote GOP in a heartbeat
I'd vote GOP in a heartbeat if they could bring back one of their champions of yesteryear: Abe, Teddy, or Ike. However, this current pack of clowns, crooks, and outright dimwits just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm not convinced that Obama is all that great, but compared to the troglodytes the GOP has dredged up from "Beyond the Pale" he seems like the Return of the Jedi.
http://www.chicagonow.com/quark-in-the-road/2012/03/the-least-interestin...
Europe's austerity measures were a prerequisite
to being bailed out, but it came too late. Or just in time seeing how it changed the political landscape. But I understand how hard it is to get the kids to drink powdered milk when whole milk is a human right.
They will get the real deal now. The real socialism, not the powdered version, which is close enough to communism to be frightful yet distant enough to carry its own banner. But they should make haste to do it right before the 1% (being the kingpin to this whole 'share the wealth' happening) grabs the next freighter out with all their luggage.
French military...
Does that include their assistance in helping us win our Revolutionary War??