Republicans Double Down on Plan to Screw the Poor and Aid the Rich


According to Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times, the Republican budget goal for next year is simple and clear: if President Obama is for it, they want to cut it. “His priorities are going nowhere,” said Rep. Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. But there’s obviously more to it. Here’s a quick taste:

On Tuesday, a House Appropriations subcommittee formally drafted legislation that would cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 34 percent….education grants for poor students will be cut by 16 percent….The House transportation and housing bill for fiscal 2014 cuts from $3.3 billion to $1.7 billion the financing for Community Development Block Grants, which go mainly to large cities and urban counties for housing and social programs, largely for the poor….The Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been flexing its muscle against hedge fund managers and insider trading schemes, would see financing cut 18 percent from the current level….the Internal Revenue Service would be cut by 24 percent….clean water grants from the Environmental Protection Agency would be slashed by 83 percent.

I assume everyone can see the principle at work: If it helps the poor, slash it. If it reins in the rich, slash it. If it’s defense related, leave it alone. And if we don’t get 100 percent of everything we want, burn the government to the ground.

Here’s a simpleminded—but fair—summary of the past year: Republicans ran on a platform like this in 2012 and the American public rejected it. The deficit is already on a steep downward slope, which gives us a lot more breathing room than we had in the past. And the economy is still fragile, which makes even deeper austerity insane. In other words, pretty much every macro trend argues against either the need or the public desire for massive new spending cuts.

And yet Republican spending mania has gotten nothing but worse. They’ve gone from fanaticism to….what comes after fanaticism? Is there even a word? Nihilism? They obviously don’t genuinely care about the long-term deficit, since that’s almost solely a product of higher health spending and low tax rates. They just care about screwing the poor and helping the rich. Is there anything else left that animates them?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate