The Republicans, especially congressional Republicans, are doing a lot of whining about the deficit these days. They would like for people to believe that the deficit is the fault of President Obama and the Democrats, and the only solution is to let the Republicans abolish Medicare, privatize Social Security, and slash dollars from all other social programs. To say this is pure hogwash is to put it mildly.
So how did the country get into a situation where we currently have a federal deficit approaching $1.5 trillion? If we go back to the year 2000, the last year of Democrat Bill Clinton's presidency, we find that while there was some national debt (which was being paid down) there was actually a surplus in yearly revenue for the federal government. When Clinton left office, he left the incoming Republican president (George Bush) with a budget surplus of about $236.4 billion a year. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that if nothing was done by the new president the budget surplus would grow to about $800 billion a year by 2009.
And Bill Clinton created that surplus without cutting social programs, without abolishing or privatizing Medicare and Social Security, and with a tax rate that was lower than at any time since World War II. Whatever else one might think of Bill Clinton, he left the country in good fiscal shape (much better than he found it, since both Reagan and Bush-I had left the country with large deficits).
But Bush-II (George W.) could not leave well enough alone. He instantly instituted more tax cuts (most of which went to the rich) even though the top rate was already lower than with his Republican predecessors. This act alone cost the government over $400 billion a year and instantly threw the government into a deficit situation. He had promised Americans that the tax cuts would actually produce more revenue for the government (an old Republican lie), but now evrn his own economic experts admit that did not happen. Less revenue came in and the deficit was created.
That would have been bad enough economically, but Bush then had to start two unnecessary and unwinnable wars -- Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. These wars have siphoned billions of dollars from our economy (and still cost the U.S. about $2 billion a week). By 2003, Bush had turned the budget surplus he had inherited into a deficit of $304 billion, and it continued to grow throughout his presidency. By the end of his presidency, Bush-II had raised the total national debt from about $5.6 trillion to over $10 trillion dollars (nearly doubled it).
Then in the last year and a half of his presidency, the bottom fell out of the economy and the nation fell into a massive recession (with at least 12 million jobs being lost). This was largely due to the Republican "trickle-down" policies of Reagan and Bush-II, where they gave huge subsidies to corporations, deregulated Wall Street and the financial giants, gave massive tax cuts to the rich, and suppressed unions and wages for workers. This resulted in the worst wealth and income inequality since before the Great Depression, and was the main cause of the current recession. The recession (and huge job losses) resulted in even less revenue coming in to the government -- a problem that persists to this day.
When Wall Street melted down, Bush-II then gave them a huge bailout -- further increasing the deficit. So while Bush-II had inherited a large budget surplus, he left President Obama with a massive budget deficit. To be fair, President Obama has only increased the Bush-II deficit. Part of this is due to the recession he inherited, but a good portion is also due to his continuation of Bush policies (such as massive tax cuts for the rich, unneeded corporate subsidies, and the continuation of both of Bush-II's wars). He campaigned on change, but we are still waiting for a change in economic policy.
Now the Republicans want us to believe the deficit is all Obama's fault. He's got to shoulder his share of the blame, but most of it can still be laid at the feet of George W. Bush. And the Republican solution is to double-down on the failed Bush policies (and abolish Medicare as a bonus). It would be laughable if it wasn't so scary.
All we can hope for is that these Republican politicians have overstepped the boundaries of good sense by wanting to abolish Medicare and give the rich more tax cuts (both of which are opposed by the majority of Americans), and this will be recognized by the voters in 2012.
Jeese dude how do you lie so friggin much and still slepp at night?
ReplyDeleteWhere am I lying? And I "slepp" very well at night.
ReplyDeleteWhere are you lying?
ReplyDeleteWell, for starters, your chart says that George W. Bush is still President (2001-present [sic] George W. Bush [Emphasis added]). Any chart posted in April 2011 that deliberately leaves out the trillion-dollar plus deficits of the Obama Administration is at best misleading.
In an effort to save time and space, here's a link to what I said about this over a year ago. (Looking it over, I noticed that I left out the dot-com bubble that also contributed to the Clinton surplus.) Please notice that I have in no way let George W. Bush off the hook for accruing unsustainable deficits. But it's gotten much, much worse under President Obama, a fact that you've conveniently omitted (yet again).
As of today, Barack Obama has been President of the United States for 817 days. Until you start including Obama's deficits in your charts, I have no alternative but to believe that you're purposely cooking the books.
I stand by everything I said, including the statement that Obama must shoulder his part of this deficit mess by continuing the Bush policies.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bill Clinton created that surplus without cutting social programs...
ReplyDeleteEver hear of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996?
Or don't you consider welfare to be a "social program"?
I know, I know - You stand by everything you said - regardless of the veracity (or lack thereof).
Ted your charts grasp the essence of the deficits through history. May I include that also during the Clinton Years many military bases and programs were closed saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some libertarians will continue to argue that Democrat presidents spend more that Republican but for more than the last 2 decades Republican presidents has outspent Democrats 3 to 1
May I include that also during the Clinton Years many military bases and programs were closed saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly may. And while you're at it, you may also mention that those savings were the result of the "peace dividend," realized by the end of the Cold War. That victory (or should I be more politically correct and say "substantial success") over communism was accelerated by the
increased defense spending during the Reagan years.
For example, the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles in the mid-80's against the SS-20's under the Dual-Track Decision helped break the back of the Soviet empire, because they simply couldn't keep up.
(To be fair, the Dual-Track Decision occurred under the Carter Administration. But it took the political resolve of a Ronald Reagan to follow through. Had we continued with the containment strategy of the previous three decades, the Soviet empire might have eventually collapsed under its own weight, but not nearly in time for the Clinton Administration to reap the benefits.