Little Hoovers
by digby
Paul Krugman wonders why David Broder doesn’t understand why “cutbacks at the state and local level would tend to undermine fiscal stimulus at the federal level,” or even acknowledge that such a belief exists.
I would guess that he’s been listening to Pete Peterson’s lieutenant, David Walker, who let loose with this in his interview with Terry Gross:
WALKER: … I think it’s understandable to be able to provide some additional unemployment benefits, given the fact that unemployment is so high right now.
I think it’s also potentially acceptable to be able to take some additional steps to try to get unemployment down through timely, targeted and temporary infrastructure projects that actually will help grow the economy and improve our environmental and other situations and through targeted tax incentives that will encourage small business and other employers in the private sector to be able to hire people.
Those are the kinds of things that might be meritorious, but just spending without targeting or spending to try to be able to prop up unsustainable situations, such as the current problems with the states, doesn’t make sense.
GROSS: What are you referring to when you say spending on the current problems with the states?
Mr. WALKER: The states have their own fiscal problems, and they’re going to need to restructure what they do and how they do business, and in many cases the states have also grown larger in government employment levels than they should be, and they’ve also made promises with regard to their pension and health care programs that are much more lucrative than people get in the private sector, and taxpayers are not going to stand for higher and higher taxes to be able to pay for benefit programs that are much better than the average American gets.
Little Hoovers want to shock the states so they can break the state level public sector programs once and for all. At the very least, all those useless bureaucratic parasites living off the taxpayers need to be brought down to the level of the rest of the proles. Saving their jobs and the services they provide is counter-productive to the goals of the revolution.
And anyway, as any financially comfortable villager will tell you — suffering and sacrifice are good for the little people. It incentivizes them to work harder and expect less. They’re happier that way.
.