On Budgets and Europe

A dispatch from Greg Kaufmann:

On Budgets and Europe

Thursday afternoon, I was one of the 18 viewers in the age 3 to 100 demographic watching the Senate Budget Committee's markup of Obama's budget on C-SPAN.

There was actually a great exchange between Senators Judd Gregg and Bernie Sanders that I think 1) shows yet again how out of touch the GOP is; and 2) serves as another vindication of sorts for Sanders.

After being elected to the Senate in 2006, Sanders introduced his National Priorities Act that would have done many of the things the American people are now asking for and Obama is taking on -- by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent and using those revenues for health care, education, childcare, veterans services, infrastructure, deficit reduction and other vital needs.

He also urged his constituents, colleagues, and Americans to look abroad rather than blindly accepting arguments that we have "the best health care in the world", or "the best education system," etc.

Which brings me back to the hearing. Gregg introduced an amendment (defeated) that would have required 60 Senate votes for budget resolutions that don't meet the European Union standard of limiting debt to 30 percent of GDP.

"We're in such a bad situation in this nation right now… that [the Europeans] actually look good," Gregg said.

Sanders pounced.

"I'm glad to hear that my neighbor from New Hampshire is suddenly interested in Europe," he said. "And maybe we can take a hard look at the fact that virtually every European country has a national health-care program guaranteeing health care to all of their people, spending substantially less per capita than we do in this country -- maybe we can add that. And maybe we can look at the fact that while we have 18 percent of our kids living in poverty, our European friends in some cases have 3 or 4 percent of their children living in poverty. And maybe while our families have to spend $40,000 a year to send our kids to college, they do it virtually free. So I like the idea of opening up the discussion about the pros and cons of Europe, but it is broader than my friend from New Hampshire is talking about."

Sanders had it right. A flailing Gregg and the GOP continue to get it dead wrong.

Comments (29)

1. And maybe we can look at the fact that while we have 18 percent of our kids living in poverty, our European friends in some cases have 3 or 4 percent of their children living in poverty. And maybe while our families have to spend $40,000 a year to send our kids to college, they do it virtually free. So I like the idea of opening up the discussion about the pros and cons of Europe, but it is broader than my friend from New Hampshire is talking about." Sanders had it right. A flailing Gregg and the GOP continue to get it dead wrong.

   Yeah, let's "open up the discussion". I'll spare everyone a repeat of stats on male suicide rate and maternal mortality (lower in the US than many countries in Europe).

   how about these:

   Population below poverty line US 12% UK 14% Belgium 15.2% Spain 19.8%

   Gross national income per capita:

   US $33,070 UK $24,486 France $22,751 Spain $14,575

   And, the Euros don't look that great. Sarkozy is bailing out French banks big time.

   Posted by twillie at 03/29/2009 @ 9:16pm

2. I'd be happy to learn where you get your statistics, "twillie," particularly in regard to the poverty line.

   But the "gross national income per capita" is meaningless. What's important is knowing two things:

   (1) What can you actually BUY for one dollar?

   (2) How is this "gross income per capita" actually distributed? Because, you see, if you and I are sitting alone in a room and suddenly a billionaire enters, the gross income per capita of our room suddenly rises dramatically, but with no benefit for you or me. So why should I care?

   Posted by JakobFabian at 03/29/2009 @ 9:42pm

3. Most European states are much more ethnically homogenous than the US, although immigration (both legal and illegal) is clearly out of control in several states and may come to constitute an existential threat to them in the medium term. The ethnic and linguistic homogeneity of states such as Sweden and Norway and Denmark is of great advantage for education and for the blossoming of the social welfare state. Indeed, a strong case can be made that social democracy can only succeed in societies that are largely homogenous (cf. Scandinavia). There does not seem to be an example of a large society that is ethnically/linguistically heterogeneous and also meaningfully social democratic. Indeed, the increasing heterogeneity of the US is day by day making it ever more unlikely that the country can move toward successful social democracy; it is even making it difficult for the US to maintain its status as a "first-world" industrialized nation, especially when one looks at areas with major concentrations of low-skill, low-education immigrants.

   Posted by feinfein at 03/29/2009 @ 9:51pm

4. feinfein, this argument is oh so conveniently introduced whenever the subject of a national health care policy arises. unfortunately, it cannot absolve us of the question of whether it is moral, ethical or economical to continue our current health care policies which favor insurance companies over the well being of americans.

   and this argument can also be applied to our education policies as well.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2009 @ 10:14pm

5. Like "darladoon," I've heard this argument of "feinfein's" often, something on the order of: "We are multicultural; therefore, we cannot have socialism."

   I can accept this argument if one interprets it to mean that we have so far failed to create socialism in the United States largely because a racist "divide and conquer" strategy has so far succeeded. This may actually be true. But I cannot accept the above argument if one interprets it to mean that a country cannot have socialism unless it is all white, or nearly completely white.

   Racism is of course the enemy of many kinds of progress, including progress in social justice. We may have a greater challenge in the United States in creating socialism because too many white people here are racists and believe the poor are mostly black, even though most of the poor are not black. It's stupid that prejudice like this prevents us from having universal health care, but prejudice IS stupid. That's all there is to it.

   However, we are more likely to overcome this stupidity if we realize, as "feinfein" perhaps has not yet realized, that its source is RACISM and not race.

   I am particularly annoyed by "feinfein's" complaint about "low-skill, low-education immigrants." My own great-great-grandparents, and perhaps "feinfein's" as well, fall into this category. Modern immigrants differ from my great-great-grandparents only because more of them come from the global South and fewer come from Europe. I am confident that "feinfein" cannot explain why this is a problem. At least, (s)he cannot without relying upon racist presuppositions.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 03/29/2009 @ 11:51pm

6. feinfein, this argument is oh so conveniently introduced whenever the subject of a national health care policy arises. unfortunately, it cannot absolve us of the question of whether it is moral, ethical or economical to continue our current health care policies which favor insurance companies over the well being of americans.

   and this argument can also be applied to our education policies as well.

   Posted by darladoon at 03/29/2009 @ 10:14pm

   Agree entirely. We have an education system that is quickly getting worse. Our healthcare system is a sham. If you wanted to put a couple more thousand dollars in American's pockets just fix our healthcare system and develop a better education system. Do I know what the easiest and best solution will be? If I did I would work in the government right now. However I think everyone can agree the one we have right now sure ain't working.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 12:11am

7. Yo, feinfein, ... the % in the US who are immigrants is 12.6%.

   The percentage in Sweden who are immigrants is 12.5%.

   Sweden, with a population roughly equal to that of NYC, has accepted many, many times more Iraqi refugees than the entire US has ... in absolute numbers.

   So let's not start flinging homogeneity v. heterogeneity claims around, but 1st check out the facts.

   Posted by sloper at 03/30/2009 @ 07:41am

8. The Rubinite cronies are preventing real reform & merely prestidigitating new frauds to conceal continuation of crony capitalism, at the public's further expense ... why should other countries listen to Obama & follow the current US example?

   Yes, perhaps the US should be adopting more European-style safety net measures that result in great masses of people spending great masses of needed money at once ... instead of handing over a trillion or two, with little accountability, to the same gang of cronies to ensure their failures & frauds keep them profitable (their legacy) & the rest of us in deep pain (We the People's legacy).

   Posted by sloper at 03/30/2009 @ 07:42am

9. Posted by snowball666 at 03/29/2009 @ 9:07pm

   That'll be a hoot.

   Boehner will lay out a TON of specifics...on tax cuts. But almost none on spending cuts, because he knows if he does it'll get the GOP creamed in 2010. More "waste, fraud, and abuse" talk, but no details...and then a claim that "Our plan reachs a balanced budget by 2012".

   Posted by Mask at 03/30/2009 @ 08:00am

10. "And maybe while our families have to spend $40,000 a year to send our kids to college, they do it virtually free. So I like the idea of opening up the discussion about the pros and cons of Europe, but it is broader than my friend from New Hampshire is talking about."

    Sanders had it right. A flailing Gregg and the GOP continue to get it dead wrong."

    Sanders of course gets nothing right about America.

    Why do many thousands of Europeans immigrate here every year and not the other way around if things are so much better in Europe?

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 09:27am

11. Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 09:27am

    Are you talking about Eastern or Western Europeans? For the U.S. and Western Europe, I'd love to see the statistics on emigration each way, especially if they could control for the fact that most Americans do not speak another language while a fair number of Western Europeans can at least get by in English.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2009 @ 09:56am

12. Are you talking about Eastern or Western Europeans? For the U.S. and Western Europe, I'd love to see the statistics on emigration each way, especially if they could control for the fact that most Americans do not speak another language while a fair number of Western Europeans can at least get by in English.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/30/2009 @ 09:56am

    The number of Europeans is about 120,000 per year.

    You can break it down by country. Germany averages over 7000 per year; France over 4000. Bulgaria about 4000; Hungary about 1300.

    As to US citizens emigrating out, it seems no one I can tell has any hard data. One of the problems appears to be the number of people who have Legal Resident status who return to their home countries is mixed with citizens. Also both Immigration and the Census Bureau say that no hard figures have been kept since 1957.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:50pm

13. Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 12:50pm

    So in actuality you can't really say if more Americans immigrate or not since you can't find the data. On top of that. You forgot. Europe is not a country. It is a continent. Why don't you compare American emigration by country and not by Europe as a whole.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:19pm

14. So in actuality you can't really say if more Americans immigrate or not since you can't find the data. On top of that. You forgot. Europe is not a country. It is a continent. Why don't you compare American emigration by country and not by Europe as a whole.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 5:19pm

    It's hard to prove a negative when the numbers are so insignificant that nobody even tracks the data.

    As in the past, I noted some of the European country numbers for immigration to the US.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:03pm

15. It's hard to prove a negative when the numbers are so insignificant that nobody even tracks the data.

    As in the past, I noted some of the European country numbers for immigration to the US.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/30/2009 @ 7:03pm

    So you are upholding that the reason there is no data is because the numbers are so tiny? Is there any proof of that?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:46pm

16. http://www.census.gov/population /www/documentation/twps0010/twps0010.html

    Link contains a space.

    This link disagrees. The reason the numbers aren't kept is because most countries don't keep immigration data on United states citizens. In total it says about 48,000 US citizens emigrate every year. So that number is not insignificant enough to not be kept.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:52pm

17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe

    If you look at this article LVL and follow the the link to the country by country immigration you will see that we have a significant amount of people going to each country.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:56pm

18. The data is wide. But they are saying anywhere from 10,000 - 50,000 to France and Germany alone.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:57pm

19. Yay, Bernie! (Dugg, buzzed, and facebooked)

    Posted by udg at 03/31/2009 @ 05:01am

20. Indeed, a strong case can be made that social democracy can only succeed in societies that are largely homogenous (cf. Scandinavia). There does not seem to be an example of a large society that is ethnically/linguistically heterogeneous and also meaningfully social democratic. Indeed, the increasing heterogeneity of the US is day by day making it ever more unlikely that the country can move toward successful social democracy; it is even making it difficult for the US to maintain its status as a "first-world" industrialized nation, especially when one looks at areas with major concentrations of low-skill, low-education immigrants.

    Posted by feinfein

    ........................................

    You need to get to your library and check some reference books. Canada is a far from homogenous society - hell, a quarter of it is officially French and great large areas of the rest of the country are comprised of immigrants of every colour of the rainbow and Canada is a very strong social democracy. Universal health care, gay marriage, year long maternity/paternity leave, and many other social programs to numerous to note that you Americans would give your eye teeth to have.

    It's a nonsensical argument to make that the US can't move to a social democracy.

    Posted by vernonbc at 03/31/2009 @ 05:32am

21. CCC,

    I read the Wiki link prior to you posting it. Nowhere is there data on the Wiki link showing American emigration to Europe. Your other link doesn't work.

    However, I did find on page 32 of the following link, the totals for outmigration during the 90's.

    the Average appears to be between 2-3000 per year. It does not however specify where in the world they migrated to.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/97statab/pop.pdf

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:27am

22. I read the Wiki link prior to you posting it. Nowhere is there data on the Wiki link showing American emigration to Europe. Your other link doesn't work.

    However, I did find on page 32 of the following link, the totals for outmigration during the 90's.

    the Average appears to be between 2-3000 per year. It does not however specify where in the world they migrated to.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/97statab/pop.pdf

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:27am

    On the wiki link look at the immigration by country map. It shows each country and it's estimated numbers.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2009 @ 6:09pm

23. If you look at this article LVL and follow the the link to the country by country immigration you will see that we have a significant amount of people going to each country.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/30/2009 @ 7:56pm

    What it shows is that over an indefinite period roughly the same number I had (2-4000 per year) emigrated to Europe. What it doesn't provide is a further explanation of how many are returning to Europe or are the children of Europeans that immigrated to the US.

    Regardless, the net is still heavily weighed towards Europeans immigrating here.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 6:37pm

24. Thanks, Chris Hayes, for saving that exchange from the obscurity of off-hours in the Senate. It got picked up over at Daily Kos, so many people are now appreciating it. Bernie Sanders is a joy. He is succinct, direct, and chock full of facts right up to the eyebrows.

    And Judd Gregg is so...Republican. Sigh. His party drove our economy to the brink of destruction by blind, fanatical deregulation combined with insane tax cuts and wild deficit spending. People like Gregg sat around twiddling their thumbs. Now we're in a deep recession, the one time that deficit spending is NECESSARY, and he, like his elephantine brothers and sisters, has to make a meaningless, hypocritical, self-righteous, and vastly annoying "moral stand" against deficit spending at every opportunity.

    And his facts are wrong. EU limits debt to 60% of GDP, not 30.

    But Bernie Sanders has restored my blood pressure to a healthy range for at least a day or so. We need more Senators like him!

    Posted by Fiona10 at 03/31/2009 @ 7:29pm

25. AAAAAAHHHHEUROPE....It just rolls off the tounge doesn't it? If only we could be more like Europe. But in case you haven't noticed yet, Europe ain't lookin' to good lately.

    "shows yet again how out of touch the GOP is"

    How out of touch are you? What part of BANKRUPTCY do you not understand?!

    FreedomRanger

    Posted by FreedomRanger at 03/31/2009 @ 8:34pm

26. His party drove our economy to the brink of destruction by blind, fanatical deregulation combined with insane tax cuts and wild deficit spending.

    Posted by Fiona10 at 03/31/2009 @ 7:29pm

    Who's been in control of Congress for the last 2 years, while the economy was being driven down?

    Posted by twillie at 03/31/2009 @ 8:39pm

27. Regardless, the net is still heavily weighed towards Europeans immigrating here.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 6:37pm

    But since the data is incomplete we don't know. Because the same holds true for Europeans. How many are coming for whatever reasons and then going back to Europe?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2009 @ 10:29pm

28. Dear Twillie,

    could you please repeat your stats, just for the record? They were so disturbingly problematic I had to look into some of the numbers.

    Regarding maternal mortality. According to WHO's statistics in 2005 the MMR for the United States was 11/100.000. The highest MMR within the EU was in Luxembourg: 12/100.000. Lithuania and and Portugal were at 11/100.000. All the other EU member states were below 11, most of them around 4-8/100.000. The average for the EU-area is easily under 10/100.000.

    Yours sincerely,

    M.

    Posted by Miihkali at 04/01/2009 @ 01:26am

29. BOTH PARTIES ARE CORRUPT AS HELL!!!!..... BOTH PARTIES MUST ACCOUNT!!!....

    FreedomRanger

    Posted by FreedomRanger at 04/03/2009 @ 5:51pm