Defining “Shared Sacrifice”

October 1, 2012

Yesterday, as I watched NBC’s Meet the Press, moderated by David Gregory, I was caught by surprise when I heard Gov. Chris Christie (NJ-R) use the phrase “shared sacrifice,” not once, but thrice. While I rarely give much thought to the words of campaign surrogates, as I take the candidate’s words as his or her official stance, this interview defined this election.

“Shared Sacrifice and a Balanced Approach,” also known as the “Shared Sacrifice Plan,” was President Obama’s fiscal message of 2011. He could frequently be seen touting the fact the he, and people in his income bracket, could afford to give a little more in this time of economic hardship for the country. Obama felt that if cuts to domestic spending, safety net programs included, were being considered, then revenue increases should be as well. His proposed solution would have had everyone with annual incomes greater than $250,000 experience an increase in their taxes, returning them to the rates they paid under former President Bill Clinton. The President stressed that the “Bush Tax Cuts” were a temporary measure when they were passed and have and will continue to add to the deficit. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2019, the war and Bush Tax Cuts will account for half of the federal debt (see the graph below).

The Republican operatives scoffed at the concept of “shared sacrifice,” saying that it was code for a tax hike. Though this was true in a sense, what this argument missed was the sacrifices the rest of Americans would endure. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, TANF (welfare), SNAP (food stamps), unemployment benefits, defense and even government issued students loans were all on the table when discussing domestic spending cuts. Revenue increases were not mentioned. The sacrifice made, given the tenor of the conversation at that time, would have been solely borne by those struggling most, as a product of the Great Recession. Ignoring the economic calculus that made clear America couldn’t cut its way out of its deficit, the debate around “shared sacrifice” illustrated how both parties thought about the working poor and struggling middle class. The President wanted to bring in new revenue to ensure that the cuts to safety net programs would not have to be so drastic that the programs were no longer effective. The Republicans were willing to effectively kill the programs, so long as the wealthiest among us were not impacted.

How does this year old debate, one which led to no new legislation, define the 2012 presidential election? Well, let’s look at Gov. Christie’s definition of “shared sacrifice.” The following is taken from the transcript of Meet the Press. Gov. Christie is responding to a question regarding Gov. Romney’s comments about forty-seven percent of the American electorate.

GOV. CHRISTIE: Here’s what I know Governor Romney believes because I have spoken to him.  He believes that every American has to have skin in the game.  He believes that every American going to wants to be part of a shared sacrifice in order to bring our country and its people to have another opportunity for greatness.  And that’s what he’s really talking about…  He believes that every American should be part of a shared sacrifice to fix the problems that are besieging our country right now, and that everyone should have skin in that game… What I say is that if you look at the context of his statements all across this campaign that what Governor Romney stands for is shared sacrifice for the American people, what he stands for is everyone having skin in the game and working together to create opportunities for greatness for our children and grandchildren.

On the surface, Gov. Christie’s comments seem to be on par with the President’s, but to understand the difference, you have to understand the context. Gov. Christie isn’t saying that the wealthy should share the burden; in fact, he’s saying that the least of us are not paying enough. Gov. Romney’s, now infamous, comments about the 47% were based on the fact that 46% of American households do not pay federal income tax. So when Gov. Christie says Romney believes that “every American has to have skin in the game,” it is still code for a tax hike – a hike on the lowest income brackets. Eighty percent of households that did not pay federal income taxes in 2011 made an income of under $30,000. These are people who need to sacrifice. Of those who did not pay federal income taxes, over sixty percent are working poor and paid payroll taxes, nearly a quarter are elderly, and the rest were compiled of disabled workers, students, early retirees and the unemployed. These are the people who need to have their skin in the game.

This is what’s at stake in this election. Gov. Romney intends to cap domestic spending at 20% of GDP. What that means for the average American is that in 2016 domestic programs, excluding Social Security and potentially Medicare, would be cut by a third and come 2022, they would be cut in half. These programs include income security (SNAP and TANF), education, veteran benefits and services, law enforcement, transportation, energy, health and scientific research, and the post office, to name a few. Meanwhile, a tax cut, on top of the existing Bush tax cut, would be imposed on the wealthiest job creators. This is the Republican definition of shared sacrifice.

On November 6, we decide which definition we prescribe to.

Welcome to Of Passion and Politics.

Advertisements

Written by winfredfields Posted in Election Tagged with 2012, Christie, Election, Obama, Romney