Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

We Need Job Creation

The Debt-to-GDP Diversion

by DEAN BAKER

Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles and former senator Alan Simpson are still trotting around a plan for arbitrary deficit reduction targets that completely ignore the basic reality of the deficit. In their new version they tell us:

“To be credible for the long-term, we believe that the debt must be brought to below 70 percent of GDP by early in the next decade, and kept on a downward trajectory thereafter.”

Where did the 70 percent number come from, divine inspiration? It is clearly not grounded in reality. Japan has a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 200 percent and can still borrow long term at just 1.0 percent interest.

Of course such debt targets are easily shown to be silly, since we can buy back debt issued at low interest rates at sharp discounts when the interest rates rise. If a lower debt-to-GDP ratio is important, that is the simplest way to meet it.

This would be a small matter if Bowles and Simpson were not proposing real pain to real people. Their cuts to Social Security and Medicare will be a major hit to tens of millions of seniors who even now have a median income of just $20,000 a year. The change to the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment alone, which amounts to a 3 percent cut over the lifetime of a typical beneficiary, would be a much larger hit to the income of the typical senior than President Barack Obama’s tax increases were to the high-income people affected by them.

The proposed cuts to Medicare seem like gratuitous pain. In their 2010 plan, Bowles and Simpson had called for $300 billion in cuts to Medicare spending over the decade. Since then, the Congressional Budget Office has already reduced its Medicare spending projections by more than $500 billion. This means that we already have seen more savings from Medicare than they originally targeted.

Bowles and Simpson also again ignored demands to tax Wall Street. Europe is moving ahead with plans to impose a financial speculation tax. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that a modest tax on speculation here could raise $40 billion a year. But for some reason taxing Wall Street never appears in their plans.

However the most infuriating aspect of their plan is the implication that we have an out-of-control deficit. As every budget analyst knows, the deficit is high because the economy collapsed when the housing bubble burst. Serious people talk about getting the economy back on its feet and re-employing the millions of people who lost their jobs. Bowles and Simpson talk about debt-to-GDP ratios.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.

This article originally appeared on Debate Club.