Reagan, Bush the Elder, Obama, and our Federal Debt... why our country is upside down financially...
 Bruce Bartlett, a man who held senior policy roles in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, as well as serving on the staff of noted tax cutting supply side economics Congressman Jack Kemp, explains why our federal budget is so out of whack in this article from the New York Times. Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say. The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents. In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion. Read the entire article... if you dare... Many thanks to my friend Shaw Kenawe over at Progressive Eruptions for finding this jewel in the rough. Labels: Bruce Bartlett, Bush, Federal Budget, Federal Deficit, Jack Kemp, NY Times, President Obama, Reagan |
posted by Dave Miller at 9:23 AM
Comments on "Reagan, Bush the Elder, Obama, and our Federal Debt... why our country is upside down financially..."
-
BB-Idaho said ... (10:11 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:15 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (4:12 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (4:22 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (7:34 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:37 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:50 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (6:04 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:22 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:22 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:26 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (8:57 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (8:59 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (9:01 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:37 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (9:03 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:57 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (8:39 AM) :
post a commentVoodoo economics and 'trickle down' have been the norm going on
thirty years and a good argument can be made for these policies bringing us to where we are today.
Yet there are many who believe such
policy is the solution. Go figure.
BB... exactly...
"Reagan, Bush the Elder, Obama, and our Federal Debt... why our country is upside down financially... "
Don't forget Bill Clinton. He chose to run 8 years of constant deficits for a total of $1.6 trillion. Sure it ls less than the other ones, but it is still grossly irresponsible. Especially since he gave a loud NO to the idea of a responsible balanced budget.
------------
BB: Trickle down has been great and has resulted in a lot more prosperity and tax revenue. The only offered alternative has been to cut off the trickle.
Also, in regards to "In January 2001, the office projected..."
Realize that such projects aren't worth the paper they are printed on... pretty much as good as Jeane Dixon.
Since so much of this argument hinges on Bush losing a surplus that never existed, it's rather hollow.
The cold hard facts remain that GWB increased the debt and deficit at a much greater (worse) rate than Clinton. And Obama increased the debt and deficit at a much greater (worse) rate than Bush did. This is a matter of historic record: real dollars carefully and meticulously counted by the Treasury Department year after year, and each of these years you can see which President presided over it.
------------
Now, as for the $5 trillion (50% increase) in the national debt which Obama has chosen to cause... I wonder what those who blame it on a man not responsible for it, Bush, will do if Romney is elected this fall?
Watch these exact same people blame Romney for all of the debt he accumulates during his time in office.... and the same people blaming Bush will get really angry if anyone blames Obama after Jan 2013.
RE: 'BB: Trickle down has been great and has resulted in a lot more prosperity and tax revenue'
..tell that to the first and foremost of the supply-siders:
"A poll I saw the other day indicated that 25% of people on the verge of retirement think they are in such bad financial shape that they will have to work until age 80. Now, the average life expectancy is 78. People's financial circumstances are so bad that they think they will be working two years after they are dead!" David Stockman
I guess Dmarks forgets that Bush increased the government (a permanent rise in government expense) and most of Bush's expenses were off budget, like the Iraq war. Obama, properly, put those expenses back on the budget, so of course his budget shows more debt.
Homeland security is a large expensive department, that never use to exist, and is not necessary.
Anon:
I didn't "forget" the first thing. I know and have said many times that Bush caused a big problem by increasing the debt and spending. There, that misperception of yours is taken care of. Also, no government spending is "permanent". Any President can choose to change the spending programs that were passed to him. Instead of reducing Bush's over spending on government programs, Obama increased spending a lot.
As for the second, how can I forget what is not true? Bush's expenses were on budget. I saw them included in the actual Treasure Department figures.
I think when you and others are speaking of "off-budget" you are referring to an accounting trick that hardly anyone considers when they look at matters of the national debt. Lets look at reality here.
"Obama, properly, put those expenses back on the budget, so of course his budget shows more debt."
Both wars in the Middle East and Asia are a low percentage of the total budgets, and even of the total budget deficits.
Once you take out the "cost of war", Obama is still choosing to run much higher deficits than Bush.
Consider Obama's 2009 deficit, which was over $1.5 trillion (source: Obama's own planned budget) His spending on the fight against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq was about $130 billion... less than one-tenth of the total of Obama's planned deficit for that year, and a far far smaller percentage of Obama's total budget for the year.
There, the whole idea from you and others that "Bush's wars" have caused Obama's deficits to be so high has been entirely refuted.
In fact, of the total $10 trillion run up in debt since Bush was inaugurated ($5 under Bush in 8 years and $5... a much worse rate... under Obama in three years), the "cost of war" is just only a little over 10%.
Let's look at the facts:
Total cost of war (from the anti-war, left-wing 'Cost of War' site:
$1.4 trillion.
Total Bush debt (the sum of his 8 years of deficits, source CBS NewS)
$4.9 trillion.
Total Obama debt (the sum of his 3.5 years of deficits, source, CBS News)
$4.9 trillion.
$1.4 is fourteen percent of $9.8. Take away "the war", and you still have most of the deficit... and also you have the terrorists still attacking us with impunity.
"Homeland security is a large expensive department, that never use to exist, and is not necessary."
The Taliban and Al Qaeda strongly agree with you that the US does not need this. But the rest of us who are concerned with legitimate security problems in the US know it is needed.
But I know that is an opinion, a point for debate. The budget figures aren't/.
Sorry you are wrong. Bush never had his war costs in his budget. All Bush's war costs (and other costs were in supplementals. A fact.
Dmarks... Clinton made the type of profress that the GOP today is calling for... that's why he is not included in the list.
That and a great majority of economists seem to be in agreement as to when the scale of deficit spending got out of hand, and it wasn't in the admins of a bunch of tax and spend liberals...
can you tell me, or anyone else why the wars of the Bush admin were not included as part of the normal budgetary process and were funded in supplemental appropriations?
Doesn't that seem financially wrong to you?
Why should we fight any war in which the American people are not willing to pay an additional tax to fund?
Wouldn't this simple idea help ensure that our people were behind a war effort and that it was paid for?
After all, if we cannot afford it, why fight it?
BB and Anon... thanks for stopping by and joining the conversation...
"Trickle down has been great"
WOW, trickle down has brought us to where we are today. The fact that you think our current situation is great, is scary.
David Stockman: Reagan's economic adviser. The guy who said the government runs best, with a deficit. He was trying to justify Reagan's huge debts during the Reagan recession, brought on by his tax cut legislation.
Dave asked: "can you tell me, or anyone else why the wars of the Bush admin were not included..."
They were included in the end. See the Treasury Department figured. They include all part of the budget, regardless of what it is called. It doesn't seem "wrong" at all, since it was part of the budget anyway.
"Anon" has no idea what he/she is talking about when he/she says "Bush never had his war costs in his budget."
The Treasury Department figures (a department run by Bush during that time) did include the wars in their budget figures.
Anon said: "WOW, trickle down has brought us to where we are today. The fact that you think our current situation is great, is scary."
Actually, what got us to where we were today was the housing crisis in which Fannie and Freddie, two government agencies, strongly encouraged banks to behave badly.
"He was trying to justify Reagan's huge debts during the Reagan recession, brought on by his tax cut legislation."
This is completely untrue. Check the Treasury figures, please. The Reagan tax cuts on the middle class resulted in steady revenue increase, not decrease.
Dave asked: "Wouldn't this simple idea help ensure that our people were behind a war effort and that it was paid for?"
It was already paid for. National defense is one of the few necessary parts of the Federal budget, and the cost of the wars covered just a small part of the total revenues coming in each year.
The idea of an unnecessary tax hike to pay for something that is already paid for is a pretty bad one to me. That would be a war against the American people.
Anon said: "The fact that you think our current situation is great, is scary."
No, I think we need to change direction. I never said the current situation was great.
But overall, the idea of "trickle down"... that the government rob less from people in the hopes that it will help the economy, is a sound and proven one.
Dmarks... are you serious? You know what I am saying regarding the military spending...
The Bush Admin did not include the projected costs of the Middle East wars in any budgets submitted to Congress. They used the supplemental route, after the budgets were approved.
Yes, of course, the wars were funded and paid for, but not in a way that said, we project the cost to be X trillion and we are including it in our annual budget.
As for your stance on taxes and war funding, was WWII also a war on the American people because Congress enacted a War Tax?
Let's just say our budget was balanced and approved prior to the Iraq war.
Doesn't it seem reasonable for a President to go to Congress ahead of time to arrange funding?
And if Congress wants to approve the requested funding, and they do not want to increase the deficit, what should they do?
They either have to cut spending enormously, or raise taxes to make sure the war effort is defect neutral. This was the spirit of PAYGO.
However, our leaders, from Congress and the White House, at that time mostly GOP, decided against the very principles they are now trying to force on President Obama.
I still stand by my call that if the American people want to support a war, they will want to pay for it.
The war is against our enemies, not the American people. Make them pay extra, not us.
DMarks... how? Give me a realistic way to get our defeated enemies to pay for our war effort.
That idea sounded wonderful when the idiots in the Bush Admin proposed it too.
But it is not a effective way to do it.
Should Europe have paid us financially for the war?
How about Japan, should we have taken enough money from that country to have paid the bill for WWII?
Come on... give me a reasonable way to pay the bill...
Conservatives always talk about fiscal responsibility but when pressed are unable to come up with a solution that works financially and politically...
No, I meant that in wartime, the goal should be to make the enemy suffer. Not to make people suffer at the home front. Not even with unnecessary tax hikes which would have further impoverished people and clobbered the economy.
That is what I meant by "pay". Not literally have them pay money for it
The American people are not the enemy. Declaring war on our pocketbooks during the "War on Terror' is certainly not the answer.