And the legacy of the Bush administration is still the major factor that is ballooning the current deficit. Note the chart above. If the two wars had not happened and the Bush tax cuts not enacted, by next year the deficit would less than half of what it is projected to be (around $400 billion instead of more than $1 trillion) -- and the cause of that remaining deficit would be the recession, not Obama's efforts to stimulate the economy. And personally, I believe if a more substantial stimulus and jobs plan could have been passed even that part of the deficit could have been much lower.
Here's how Paul N. Van de Water, Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, puts it:
President Bush’s tax cuts, and the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit projected for the rest of this decade (that is, through 2019). That is, there would be practically no deficits over that period if the tax cuts, the wars, and the downturn had not occurred and other policies remained the same. . .
For the years ahead, CBPP found that the tax cuts (if policymakers extend them in full) and the wars, plus the lingering effects of the recent downturn, essentially account for the entire deficit between now and 2019. Indeed, the tax cuts and the wars alone account for nearly half of the public debt by 2019.
I certainly am in agreement with Obama not being at fault for the economic downturn that occurred while he was still campaigning for office, but there are a few flaws in the scenario prosented.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Clinton did not "leave us with a nice surplus" as is popularly claimed. The figures usually cited use the SS trust fund revenue surplus to conceal federal budget deficit, and in reality Clinton's federal revenue was in deficit all years but one, when it ran a 2% surplus. The projections for Clinton's future budgets, excluding the SS revenue stream, were for continuing deficits.
Bush was a disaster, and used the false reportage of SS revenue surplus to pretend we had a surplus and drive the deficit into horrendous territory, so the scenario is not without merit, but let's not pretend that Clinton was someone who he was not.
The projections for the "Bush-era tax cuts" out to 2019 is exaggeration, since they presently expire at the end of this year, and they do that because they were extended by Obama for two years. Democrats had complete control of Congress for four full years and never even raised the subject of income tax, so them blaming Republicans alone for these taxes rings a little hollow.
" If the two wars had not happened and the Bush tax cuts not enacted, by next year the deficit would less than half...""
But Obama actually increased one of those wars, when it was within his power to end it, and it was he who made the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, so how do we legitimately say the that the wars and the tax cuts are entirely the "Bush effect" on the deficit? And even then Obama is not seeking to end the "Bush-era tax cuts," he is seeking only to end the "tax cuts for the rich" which is less than half of the total amount of the package.
Certainly the Republican claim of "this mess is all Obama's fault" is utter nonsense, but let's not join the left wing wignut parade which claims that it's all the Republican's fault and poor little Barry is an innocent victim.