us impunity erodes world justice <u+2192> deficit hysteria invades the presidential campaign the smog of decades-old fiscal wars crept into the final debate<u+2014>and the folks who want to cut social security managed to sneak in. by todd gitlin posted on october 27, 2016 by todd gitlin 




whether you think donald trump or hillary clinton prevailed in last week<u+2019>s debate<u+2014>clinton by sounding like an adult, trump by clenching his jaw to keep from foaming at the mouth<u+2014>one undisputed winner was an entity called the committee for a responsible federal budget . that awkward mouthful adorns a letterhead think tank that moderator chris wallace cited twice as an authority on the purportedly world-shattering dangers of government overspending. 




the crfb wears the bluest of ribbons at the forefront of the parade of worthies who have been shaking their fists at a falling fiscal sky for decades. let<u+2019>s call them the responsibles. they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the bowles-simpson-peterson establishment, which has long crusaded to cut social security benefits and otherwise put federal government spending in a chokehold. erskine bowles is the financier and onetime white house chief of staff for former president bill clinton, who has apparently never met a corporate board he didn<u+2019>t like to join. alan simpson is the former republican senator from staunchly republican wyoming who once likened peter g. peterson is a billionaire who served as president richard m. nixon<u+2019>s commerce secretary, a veteran of the wall street investment firms lehman and blackstone who has been beating the drums for public austerity since at least 1992. in 2010, peterson joined warren buffett and bill gates in agreeing to give half their wealth to charity. on the receiving end of peterson<u+2019>s largesse, reputed to add up to $458 million between 2007 and 2011, was the foundation that has sported his name 




if trump were a normal republican candidate, we would have heard a great deal more about nightmarish debt and entitlement crises during this campaign. even as republican presidents from reagan to george w. bush ran up the deficit and bill clinton ran surpluses, republicans and blue-dog democrats have thundered consistently on<u+2014>deficit, deficit deficit, brought on by tax-and-spend liberals . this was the theme song behind the so-called sequester deal of 2012 




officially, these worthies can lay claim to the label because they do feature center-right democrats (leon panetta is the best known) to lend a certain sheen. former federal reserve chairman paul a. volcker enjoys widespread esteem, so when he co-authors a new york times op-ed with peterson, and refuses to engage the progressive counterarguments , the conventional wisdom gets one more boost and the regressiveness of their argument is obscured. 




volcker and peterson allow that bending the medical cost curve would help medicare in the long run, but fail to acknowledge that the long run has already arrived. panicky americans are left to quaver at the unwarranted expectation that social security will go bust before they get to collect. volcker and peterson ignore the promise of progressive taxation. a financial transaction (or robin hood ) tax does not interest them. neither does cracking down on the corporate practice of tax evasion with shell games of offshoring profits . the appallingly regressive nature of the social security payroll tax does not catch their eyes. as the new america foundation<u+2019>s steven hill wrote in july 




calling proposals to balance the budget by further cutting the social safety net <u+201c>nonpartisan<u+201d> disguises the skewed nature of the center-right consensus that chokes off grown-up debate on the options. americans are allergic to straightforward ideological disputation, so if we<u+2019>re not looking closely, we regard <u+201c>nonpartisanship<u+201d> as a surrogate for <u+201c>fairness and balance.<u+201d> there<u+2019>s not a progressive in the responsible pack. but why should there be? however willing clear-headed progressives are to acknowledge that government spending is not a sure-fire solution to everything that ails the body politic<u+2014>not even close<u+2014>they think that a good deal of unnecessary suffering could be avoided with the judicious use of deficits. this prospect 




american politics is deadlocked in no small part because of received opinion<u+2014>what paul krugman this post was first published on billmoyers.com 




todd gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology and chair of the ph.d. program in communications at columbia university. he is the author of 16 books , including several on journalism and politics. his next book is a novel, the opposition. follow him on twitter: @toddgitlin
deficit hysteria invades the presidential campaign
todd gitlin