McArdle gives time to express the sanctimonious reason for not dealing the budget, and just hoping higher taxes will solve the issue. Then I think effectively blunts those reasons.
Blogger and occasional Atlantic commenter Freddie DeBoer writes that "serious" budget pundits aren’t thinking seriously about what budget cuts would entail:
Here’s what you won’t find at the Daily Dish, or at the Corner, or in any of the other places showily demanding seriousness: the actual, human, negative consequences of harsh entitlement cutbacks. I mean, from reading online today, you’d be hard pressed to know why we have Social Security and Medicare at all. I’ll tell you why: because our winner-take-all economic system leaves defenseless, impoverished people in its wake. We have Social Security because the sight of so many elderly people left literally homeless and starving , too old and weak to work, was unseemly to an earlier generation that was willing to take less for themselves to provide for others. We have Medicare because it is an obscenity for a country responsible for the atom bomb and the moon landing and the Hoover Dam to allow suffer and die from lack of health care access due to the vagaries of birth and chance. That’s why those programs exist.Cutting them will lead to human misery and death. It will. Cutting Social Security will mean the difference between subsistence and a pitiful existence for untold thousands of senior citizens. Cutting Medicare will mean some people won’t get the health care they need when they need it and will suffer the physical pain and indignity that comes with that. That’s just the way it is. Yet I keep reading all of these very serious people today failing to mention this reality at all. It’s as if we have entitlement programs for no reason.
Phony, showy seriousness is built on complaints, vague talk about thrift and national virtue, and a studied, preach-to-the-choir attitude where well paid journos and pundits see who can outdo each other in advocating measures that will be painful to others but painless for them. Actual seriousness means wrestling with the very serious and real costs of the harsh measures you’re advocating. You don’t get to show your courage in being ruthlessly pragmatic if you aren’t willing to show who you are being ruthless against. The first step is showing the victims. Perhaps if Sullivan gets the deficit-reducing budget he wants, the Dish can start a "Homeless Grandmother of the Day" feature. Democracy needs that sort of thing; it’s far, far too easy for people to operate in generalizations that preserve the illusion of painlessness.
It goes both ways, though. Me, I’d like to see our insane military budget cut severely, and you start by pulling almost all of the troops out of the 155 countries we have them currently stationed in. But the defense industry employs a lot of people…. That’s the problem with austerity measures; they kill jobs. I hope the people asking for these sweeping budget measures are ready for 12%-15% unemployment….
I’d say that at least this pundit wants to get serious now precisely because I don’t want to see punishing cuts in pensions and health care services, or 15% unemployment. The way that you avoid making those kinds of cuts is that you start early, before there’s a crisis. You refocus social security on people with low lifetime earnings, giving those with higher earnings plenty of warning that they need to save. You put tight(er) means tests on Medicare and Medicaid to encourage the development of markets for private health insurance and long term care insurance for the carriage trade. You start cutting back military priorities relatively slowly, so that companies, workers, and redundant troops have time to transition into something else. You phase out tax breaks like the mortgage income deduction slowly enough that neither budgets nor the housing market break. If this was on the table now, most of us budget hawks would be perfectly fine with the current deficit.