How George learned to stop worrying and love the deficit
When it comes to red ink, George W. Bush has a colorful history. In 1997, as he began toying with a presidential campaign, Bush called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution because we “owe it to our children” to avoid deficits. In 2001, he described deficits as “dangerous” and promised to pay down “an unprecedented amount of our national debt.” In 2002, he promised “our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.”
In hindsight, it would be comical if it weren’t so wrong.
The federal budget the White House unveiled yesterday is so ridiculous, it’s hard to know where to start. One could point to the fact that Bush wants the poor and elderly to sacrifice so he can afford to give tax cuts to millionaires. Or perhaps one might note that the military budget, if it were up to the president, would swell to a jaw-dropping $713.1 billion. Or maybe one should emphasize the fact that Bush’s projections are based on a ridiculously sunny economic forecast, which no credible person could possibly take seriously.
But my personal favorite is the breathtaking scope of the president’s debts.
What will definitely outlast Mr. Bush for years to come are big deficits, a military so battered by the Iraq war that it will take hundreds of billions of dollars to repair it and stunted social programs that have been squeezed to pay for Mr. Bush’s misguided military adventure and his misguided tax cuts for the wealthy.
The president claimed on Monday that his plan would put the country on the path to balancing the budget by 2012. That is nonsense. His own proposal projects a $410 billion deficit for 2008 and a $407 billion deficit next year. Even more disingenuous, Mr. Bush’s projection for a balanced budget in 2012 assumes only partial funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2009, and no such spending — zero — starting in 2010.
It also assumes that there will be no long-running relief from the alternative minimum tax — which would be ruinous for the middle class — and that there will be deep cuts in Medicare and other health care spending that have proved to be politically impossible to enact.
Just a couple of years ago, Bush and his cohorts were boasting that they’d successfully cut their own record-setting deficits in half, ahead of schedule. So much for that idea.
The WaPo adds this tidbit of news:
The federal debt will have climbed to $9.7 trillion by the time Bush leaves office, a rise of $4 trillion during his administration, according to the budget.
Interest on the debt next year will total $260 billion, about what will be spent by the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Justice combined.
That’s just the interest. Before taking office, Bush argued, “Interest payments on our national debt are now our nation’s largest expenditure. What a waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.” At the time, the deficit was a fraction of what it is now, and headed towards zero.
And Prof. DeLong explains that it’s worse than it appears.
[The] reference to “near-record levels” of the deficit doesn’t give a full and fair account of the magnitude of what can only be called a clown show. The headline deficit number ought to be $738 billion–we have a $331 billion Social Security surplus for 2009, and an honest and honorable administration would be using that surplus to pay down the government debt in order to get ready for the challenges that our aging population will pose for the federal budget over the next two generations. The headline number shouldn’t be 2.7% of GDP; it should be 4.8% of GDP. That is how far Bush fiscal policy is from what a prudent and responsible fiscal policy should be.
What I’d love to see now is some enterprising DC reporter make note of all the times the White House talked about “cutting the deficit in half” by 2009. On its face, it was a ridiculous claim — Bush created half-trillion dollar deficits, and promised to curtail them to quarter-trillion dollar deficits. That’s a bit like an arsonist setting 10 fires and then bragging, “Eventually, I’ll help put five of them out. Isn’t that great?”
Except even the foolish goal proved meaningless. After more than 1,000 references to cutting the deficit in half, Bush plans to hand his successor deficits of at least $400 billion.
And let’s not forget, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee all appear anxious to follow in Bush’s footsteps, embracing similar economic and budget policies.
Excellent summary.
Thank you, Republicans. Thank you for enabling the greatest heist in human history, which has been going on for a long time now. It’s now obvious that Bush and his buddies are brazenly ripping off the middle class, the lower class, and everyone’s children no matter how rich they are.
We should all be very firm and ask every single Republican candidate if they voted for Bush, and if they think the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. If they say yes to either question, they are obviously unfit for office. Republican voters who answer yes to the second question should have the word “IDIOT” tattooed on their foreheads.
“9/11 changed everything” excuse in five, four, three,….
I’ve said it beofre and I’ll say it again: This is by design. What would you expect from an ideology that wants to shrink government down to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Just think, when the government can no longer function, the conservative dream of privitization will be realized.
Credit needs to be shared.
Reagan inherited a national debt of about $1 Trillion
Reagonomics added $4 Trillion in the 12 years of Reagan/Bush I.
Bush II added $4 Trillion in only 8 years.
Bush II = Reaganomics on steriods
There you go again with the timetables. Bush will get us out of debt and out of Iraq like…whenever.
I guess people do realize somewhat how much Bush has put us into debt since his approval ratings are so low, but McCain hasn’t shown a willingness to change any of Bush’s policies and he is their Frontrunner.
The 2000 Republican party platform:
My, how things have changed
while artfully re-appropriating my hard-earned dollars to the military-industrial complex and oil companies, bush also managed to sell our country to china either by direct borrowing, or allowing wallmart to do it indirectly. thanks!
On February 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am, citizen_pain said:
I’ve said it beofre and I’ll say it again: This is by design. What would you expect from an ideology that wants to shrink government down to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
I agree. George Bush has been in Grover Norquist back pocket for the past 7 years.
Let’s privatize everything!
Both Democrats have already stated that they plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts; realistically, they must. However, come the general election the Republican candidate will beat them over the head with the albatross of raising taxes. That meme is so ingrained in the national consciousness that it is likely to have at least some effect…even though rolling back those cuts will not affect the vast majority of Americans.
Not being a tax lawyer or an investment banker, i’m way out of my league here. But i had a thought the other day, and i’d like to run it by you folks. (you folks being more intelligent and thoughtful than most of the blogosphere and representing a group where liberals and conservatives seem capable of rational conversation)
What if the Dem nominee said that he/she would end those tax cuts, but did so in a way that created a purposeful loophole big enough to drive a truck through? The loophole would be that if you want to avoid taxes, you can do so by investing locally/regionally. That is, create an absurdly favorable tax scheme for building small and medium sized businesses across America. We need to get real money into the real economy; we need to create jobs; we need to develop new technologies and industries; and we are in dire need of reforming our agriculture (i won’t get started there, but it is something i know well…please trust me on it).
Like i said, i have no idea if it would be truly feasible. But if it is, it would be a way to end run the the aversion to raising taxes; moreover, it would be easy to present in a positive frame and would also be likely to address fundamental issues. Finally, it would raise revenues in the long run because more employment and higher wages equals higher tax receipts.
Like i said, i’m talking out of my proverbial third eye (and i don’t mean Shiva’s third eye), so i’m interested in having my theory torn apart.
Having screwed the country for eight years, Bush now wipes off his dick on the drapes as he heads out the door.
This article does note that the SSI side is running a $ 331 Billion surplus this year.
In fact, the SSI side has run a surplus every year for over 20 years.
Notice that Repubs never call for rebates or refunds on this tax.
Is it because this is a flat rate tax?
Is it because it is actually regressive as it is capped near $100K?
Repubs sure howl about any taxes that fall a bit more heavily on the wealthy.
They howl about the Estate/Death Tax
They howl about Cap Gains taxes
They howl about the Income tax and rates for upper levels.
They ignore that most local and state taxes are flat.
Then they accuse others of Class Warfare who disagree.
Mr. Bush’s projection for a balanced budget in 2012 assumes only partial funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2009, and no such spending — zero — starting in 2010.
Well, this could be seen as a realistic assessment of what’s going to happen to Little Georgie’s Invasion of Poland once he and Big Dick aren’t around anymore.
To #6 Dennis D
Great to quote the Repub 2000 Party Platform
Dems need to push on how Repub talk is never backed by actions.
Repubs = great campaign slogans. Lousy actions.
Jim K: I have slightly different numbers. I got them a few months ago, but my notes say they were from Treasurydirect.gov.
Debt after Carter: .91 Trillion
after Reagan 2.60 Tr.
after Bush I 4.06
After Clinton 5.67
Now 9.2
Not huge differences, but can I ask what article you got your numbers from?
Republicans have been running for a very long time on their image of being more fiscally responsible. Their rejection of expensive social programs and willingness to cut taxes, under the guise of limiting government’s ability to spend those tax dollars, seemed convincing especially when they took a pro-business stance on everything from environmental concerns to OSHA regulations to product safety issues. They wanted the economy to grow, or so it seemed.
When the last time Republicans could ever be considered true budget hawks is something in the far past tense. What’s emerged from those ashes are the personal enrichment Republicans who work to get themselves and their buddies rich at taxpayer expense. The US Treasury is one big ATM machine and the levers of government are a tool to tilt the economic playing field their way. They could give a damn what the tax load is on other people, as long as its not carried by them.
Bush’s budget should be used to bash Republicans back to the stone age. They won’t win the Iraq war because it’s too lucrative to continue on with it. They won’t balance the budget when there is more to skim off of it. They won’t raise their own taxes because it’s easier for others to carry their load. Rome’s burning and Bush is fiddling. And Republicans no longer have a shred of a claim of being good with this nation’s money.
“reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” –dick cheney, c. 2005
Great points…this is my main issue (I have kids and feel it’s imcomprehensible that we put anything and everything on the national credit card–we are bankrupt!)and why I WAS a card carrying member of the Republican Party.
Bush has DESTROYED my view of this party.
I just got back from voting for real change–OBAMA!
That’s quite a switch, huh?
What Dennis said at #10. This budget is the final example of the unvarnished contempt Bush has for the American people. And we return it to him many times over.
9. On February 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, jackpine savage said:
Both Democrats have already stated that they plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts; realistically, they must. However, come the general election the Republican candidate will beat them over the head with the albatross of raising taxes. That meme is so ingrained in the national consciousness that it is likely to have at least some effect…even though rolling back those cuts will not affect the vast majority of Americans.
The only way that Putsch‘s tax giveaways to the rich got enacted in the first place was that they would be ending in the future. There were a huge number of reality-based liberal voices out there (waves hand, gives peace sign) who said that the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter would renege on this promise, claim that the expiration of his giveaways to the rich were a tax increase, and bash Democratic politicians over the head when they tried to be fiscally responsible and start trying to clean up the mess the Republican’ts made. And we were Cassanadracized, ridiculed, and ignored.
I hate to say I told you so, but in this case I feel quite justified in saying it…
Just curious: what would happen* if the Democrats told Drinky McDumbA$$ where he could stick his budget, and sent him a budget with half the defense spending cut out and increases to all the programs he proposes to cut back (but that actually eliminates the deficit and starts paying down the debt)?
* – besides huge cracks appearing in the ocean floor, horsed apocalyptic avatars generally causing mayhem, and cats and dogs living together…
@ #9:
As I understand it, one of the major hurdles for small business start-ups is health insurance for employees. Single-payer health care would likely see a boom in the sort of entrepeneurship you want.
“Mr. Bush’s projection for a balanced budget in 2012 assumes only partial funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2009, and no such spending — zero — starting in 2010.”
I guess that means he’s set a *timetable* with 2010 as the *surrender date* for Iraq and Afghanistan.