The Economic Populist
Mon 2010-09-20 19:16 EDT
James K. Galbraith
...Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues. First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction... Second, there is a question of leadership. A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way...Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission...Third, most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists. With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue...Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions...You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO's unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It's a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies, and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace...
deficit Commission;
deficit reduction;
economic justification;
economic populist;
Galbraith.
