Judd Gregg and the GOP's Triple-Double on National Debt
Timing, they say, is everything. On the very night President Obama suggested Republican critics of his $3.6 trillion budget plan have a "short memory" when it comes to the sea of red ink he inherited, PBS' Frontline offered a stinging reminder in a documentary titled "Ten Trillion and Counting." Featured prominently among the Republican amnesiacs was Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who just one day earlier slammed Obama's "banana republic" budget. Absent, of course, from Gregg's recollection for PBS was the inconvenient truth that the U.S. national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush.
To be sure, Frontline's Forrest Sawyer presented a grim picture of the dangerous and irresponsible Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. But despite studies showing that windfall for the wealthiest Americans accounted for half of the mushrooming budget deficits of the Bush years, Gregg tried to maintain the tried and untrue GOP talking point that tax cuts produce revenue gains for the Treasury:
SAWYER: Way back in 2000, there were surpluses projected, and that had come after some good luck with the economy and some hard work. And then came along this massive tax cut. Was that in retrospect a mistake?
GREGG: No, absolutely not. The surpluses that were projected weren't lost because of the tax cut. They were lost because of...the fact that we went into a recession as a result of 9/11 and the Internet bubble bursting...much like the real estate bubble we are going through today...The surpluses which we were running, which we thought we were going to run for a long time, simply weren't realized as a result of those two events.
But if that delusion sent jaws dropping to the ground, Gregg's admission of the myth of Republican fiscal discipline kept them there. The failure of conservative government, Gregg acknowledged, is a feature, not bug:
SAWYER: What happened to the Republican Party during those eight years?
GREGG: What happened was that conservatives, when they took the majority position in the government, decided to use the government in a very aggressive, conservative way to promote conservative programs and to spend money for conservative initiatives.
SAWYER: Isn't that sort of not the conservative position?
GREGG: Absolutely. I think you'll find I voted against almost all that spending.
In defense of Obama's aborted Commerce nominee turned gadfly, the Republicans' fiscal rot didn't begin with George W. Bush, but with Ronald Reagan. It was the legendary Gipper whose financial recklessness and tax-cutting fetish came to define the modern GOP.
The numbers tell the story. As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."
Forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe (a fact conveniently forgotten in the conservative hagiography of Reagan), the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt. The $998 billion debt he inherited in 1981 exploded to $2.9 trillion by the end of his second term. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.
For his part, George H.W. Bush hardly stemmed the flow of red ink. And when Bush the Elder broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge to address the cascading budget shortfalls, his own Republican Party turned on him. While Bush's apostasy helped ensure his defeat by Bill Clinton, it was Clinton's 1993 deficit-cutting package (passed without a single GOP vote in either house of Congress) which helped usher in the surpluses of the late 1990's.
Alas, they were to be short-lived. Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced.
Like Reagan and Stockman before him, Bush resorted to the rosy scenario to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009. Before the financial system meltdown last fall, Bush's deficit already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By this January, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.
None of the above is to suggest that President Obama's budget won't add to the mounting debt. The urgent need for massive federal deficit spending to counter the deepening Bush recession combined with needed investments in health care, energy and education could produce another near-doubling of the debt by 2019 (according to the CBO). The debt would top 80% of GDP, a level not seen since the years after World War II. And persistent annual deficits of 5% of GDP, as Obama's OMB director Peter Orszag acknowledged "would ultimately not be sustainable."
But in the near term, the Obama administration has little choice. The severity of the economic crisis makes continued deficit spending unavoidable and any tax hikes beyond the rollback of Bush's giveaway to the wealthy out of the question. Meanwhile, needed savings from Medicare and Medicaid (and to a much lesser extent, Social Security) hinge on entitlement reform that Congress likely won't tackle before the 2010 midterms. This is one reason why both the Obama and CBO projections show the deficit increasing again after being halved by 2013.
But the biggest reason for Obama's budgetary straightjacket is the dual legacy of fiscal ruin bequeathed to him by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Republican fiscal mismanagement left President Obama with red ink as far as the eye can see even as he battles to undo the economic carnage they wrought. Worse still, the party of Reagan and Bush has made raising taxes almost impossible even during boom times. . (It was, after all, Vice President Dick Cheney who in 2002 announced, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.")
Judd Gregg's selective amnesia notwithstanding, it is the GOP which is home to the Banana Republicans. And the triple-double debt they produced represents Bush's handcuffs and Reagan's poison pill.
You say the technology is really useful, thanks to share with you, thank you!
Hey, I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part
people lack substance but
I just wanted to make a quick comment to say GREAT blog!…..
I'll be checking in on a regularly now….
Keep up the good work!
I've been interested in the idea of hosting a very niche job board on my blog. Are there any programs out there that share a fraction of job post revenue with bloggers? I am a very faithful audience, best wishes!
thanks you sharing
Good post!As i was passing by here and i read your post.
It's quite interesting.I will look around for
great post,so useful
I'll be checking in on a regularly now….
Keep up the good work!
This is a wonderful example of history that is relevant to our lives today. Knowing the ERA of some pitcher twenty years ago is what is popular, but not terribly useful to the republic. Thank you for the information. We need to produce more of it.
No, absolutely not. The surpluses that were projected weren't lost because of the tax cut. They were lost because of...the fact that we went into a recession as a result of 9/11 and the Internet bubble bursting...much like the real estate bubble we are going through today...The surpluses which we were running, which we thought we were going to run for a long time, simply weren't realized as a result of those two events.
i have the experience for shopping online.you should choose good shop. i ever bought some really good stuff(Ed-hardy,CA,LV,Coach,Juicy Couture) From BOS, cheapest price under $40.00 for clothing and good design. you should try. Source(s): http://www.foisontrade.com/
What a fun pattern! It's great to hear from you and see what you've sent up to. All of the projects look great! You make it so simple to this.Thanks!
This looks absolutely perfect. All these tinny details are made with lot of background knowledge. I like it a lot. This was a useful post and I think it is rather easy to see from the other comments as well that this post is well written and useful.
I like the article because it is not only the informative ，but also the interesting.
e made with lot of background knowledge. I like it a lot. This was a useful post and I think it is rather easy to see from the other comments as well that this post is well written and useful.
Very good post. Made me realize I was totally wrong about this issue. I figure that one learns something new everyday. Mrs Right learned her lesson! Nice, informative website by the way.
A number of excellent content pieces here on the subject of just how to take good care of your white gold locket
I found your site in yahoo. And I will be back next time, thank you.
This blog is cool.
You spin an amusing diatribe. My response to you is to re-phrase James Carville’s famous campaign line, “It’s the spending stupid.”
The blog states, ”None of the above is to suggest that President Obama's budget won't add to the mounting debt. The urgent need for massive federal deficit spending to counter the deepening Bush recession combined with needed investments in health care, energy and education could produce another near-doubling of the debt by 2019 (according to the CBO). The debt would top 80% of GDP, a level not seen since the years after World War II. And persistent annual deficits of 5% of GDP, as Obama's OMB director Peter Orszag acknowledged “would ultimately not be sustainable”."
So, let me get this straight. We need more spending to solve the problem that Bush and Reagan spent too much relative to total tax revenues? We need to continue to pursue the literally bankrupt Keynesian economic theory that government spending of freshly printed (QEII) or borrowed dollars (from China?) will not only keep our economy afloat, but grow a higher standard of living for the future?
The blog states, “But in the near term, the Obama administration has little choice. The severity of the economic crisis makes continued deficit spending unavoidable and any tax hikes beyond the rollback of Bush's giveaway to the wealthy out of the question.”
So, the problem is that Bush and Reagan spent too much relative to total revenue, but Obama has no choice but to promote an even worse spending to total revenues received ratio? Adjusted for inflation, the $152.6 billion deficit of 1989 equals $268.4 billion in current dollars. That means that the three years of the trillion plus deficits of Obama averages to a five times per year average larger in real terms than the deficit Reagan ran the year he left office.
Spending is the problem. More spending is not the solution. Increased taxes are also not the solution. Capital is more mobile than ever and Capital has always fled from high taxes. With a nod (and a wink) to James Carville, "It’s the spending stupid."
Maybe we should not worry about spending and just get out the credit card to take a nice Greek vacation...
In the past Republican spending was too great. Try a look into the future. Obama is not a cheap date in comparision folks.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/budget.pdf
The future will look even worse if the Rose colored glasses that were used on the base assumptions prove too heavily tinted.
s that Bush and Reagan spent too much relative to total revenue, but Obama has no choice but to promote an even worse spending to total revenues received ratio? Adjusted for inflation, sert yapaed
Wow, didnt even know the economical system was in such a mess. Wish us all luck, it's the end of the world!