Reality emerges in some quarters (via Sullivan):
Too many conservatives delude themselves that all we have to do is cut foreign aid and pork-barrel spending and the budget will be balanced. But unless Republican lawmakers are willing to seriously confront Medicare, they cannot do more than nibble around the edges. With Republicans having recently added massively to that problem, and with a Republican president who won
Mr Furious
“The blame will go to those Republicans…”
Wrong. The blame will (wrongly) go to the first Democrat President or Senate that responsibly raises the taxes, be that in 2008 or beyond. Bush and this crew of Republicans will do nothing of the sort, and if Bush’s successor wins in ’08, they will probably continue to punt on this.
Most likely scenario? A Democrat wins the White House in 2008, the Republicans barely hold the house and the Senate is a toss-up. some taxes get raised around the edges and fingers are pointed squarely at the new President even though he’s merely trying to clean off 8 years of republican shit off our shoes.
Rick
Why not have these triumphant Democrats propose fiscal restraint, and trim entitlement and discretionary spending.
Republicans can’t/won’t do it, in part because it plays to stereotype.
But if *Democrats* would show this leadership, it might be popular and palatable, in a Nixon-goes-to-China way.
Mr Furious
So the Democrats get to do the dirty part of the Republican agenda? The whole point of giving away the store over the last four years (aside from the immeidate upward transfer of money) is to create such a fiscal mess as to necessitate gutting Federal programs.
Bush gets to give away the “free” lunch, and sticks the Democrats (and our children) with the check.
No thanks. Undo the tax cuts first, then start trimming. that’s what should happen. We’ll see if either party has the courage to do it.
Rick
That’s a beaut: the “store” is given away, and “bennies” flow upward.
From whom?
The poor don’t have enough money to keep Rockefellar, Corzine, Kennedy and the rest of the plutocrat club in the luxury they’ve become accustomed to.
Seriously, I have no problem with the rich as a class. Having no problem, I don’t wish to see what is already an immoral tax code grow worse. 35% marginal rate? Pshaw! Or rather–THERE’S your dog poop for you.
No, put the brakes on spending (not just DoD), or actually cut it. The Dems would draw lots of grass-roots GOP support.
It woudl stick in my craw, but I’d have to admire it in spite of myself.
Cordially…
TJIT
The republicans and democrats are both being idiots with spending. And the solution to this stupicity is to raise taxes so they have more money to spend?This will result in the cycle below.
1. They will promptly spend the new revenue on more pork and entitlements.
2. The deficit will get worse so they will say we have to raise taxes.
3. They will have more revenue to spend on pork and entitlements.
repeat and repeat and repeat.
Raising taxes to fix the feds bloated spending is insanely idiotic.
TJIT
I will believe the democrats and their supporters are serious about the budget deficit when they can find one non defense program to cut back. There is plenty of corporate welfare so they should be able to find at least one thing they want to cut.
I will also take them seriously if they would support straight line vs baseline budgeting. Until they do one of these things their concern strikes me as political posturing. Especially when one of the democrats chief complaints about Bush’s budget busting medicare prescription plan was that it was too small.
Kimmitt
Why not have these triumphant Democrats propose fiscal restraint, and trim entitlement and discretionary spending.
We tried that in ’93 and ’94. You saw the results.
Rick
Kimmitt,
Did not–saw tax hikes, and what I believe was a fillibuster on a multi-billion dollar “stimulus” package that was unnecessary, as the economic recovery was some 20 months old when Clinton took office.
I also recall the proposed enactment of the largest entitlement package: HillaryCare.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Federal Budgetary outlays as percentage of GDP:
Baseline:
1992: 22.1
Bush 41 Budget Administered by Clinton:
1993: 21.4
Clinton budgets, both Houses Democratic:
1994: 21.0
1995: 20.7
Clinton Budgets with Rep. House and Senate:
1996: 20.3
1997: 19.6
1998: 19.2
1999: 18.6
2000: 18.4
Clinton Budget Administered by Bush, Republican House, Democratic Senate:
2001: 18.5
Bush Budgets, Republican House, Democratic Senate:
2002: 19.5
2003: 19.9
Bush Budget, both Houses Republican:
2004: 19.8
Looks to me like the budget got smaller under Clinton and perked up again under Bush.
The Congress changed a lot during the Clinton Presidency, but there were two constants: President Clinton’s consistent commitment to bringing down the size of the Federal Government to bring it into line with revenues, and President Clinton’s power to do so. There are two constants under the Bush Presidency — increased size of the Federal Government and Bush’s power to do so.
Not all Democrats are in Clinton’s mold, certainly, but the Party as a whole has embraced the idea of fiscal discipline — that we have to pay for what we want, and that we have to cut the bloat.
Kimmitt
Forgot my source: CBO.
Rick
Kimmitt,
Very nice, earnest try. But percentage of GDP consumed is a useful measure when, say, comparing typical U.S. public sector spending to Europe’s, or other nations.
Emphatically, it’s *not* a measure of any fiscal restraint (by either party) in an expanding economy.
When we right-wingers say we can grow out of a deficit, it assumes an expanded economy yielding up more tax revenue w/o repeatedly raising tax rates (and, in fact, that trimming rates indeed has a supply side effect. Thus, the confiscatory marginal rates swept away by Reagan are hopefully entombed forever. Bush I’s raising the top rate from 28% to 36% in the 1990 error made not a dent in his deficits, because they were mostly caused by spending, and the recession.), and with some spending restraint. As happened in the late 90s.
Here’s part of the doc you didn’t summarize (year/receipts/outlays):
1992 1,091.3
Kimmitt
The point of posting numbers which are a percentage of GDP is:
1) To account for inflation.
2) To account for population growth.
It’s still an approximation, but if you account for neither of these two, the numbers are meaningless.**
Way to cherry-pick your years, by the way, to include Bush 43’s massive increase in spending and somehow blame it on Clinton.
Year Receipts* Spending*
1992 1091.3 1381.6
1993 1116.9 1363.8
1994 1180.5 1371.2
1995 1230.2 1379.5
1996 1285.8 1380.8
1997 1360.1 1379.0
1998 1451.7 1393.4
1999 1507.3 1403.7
2000 1622.7 1433.6
2001 1545.1 1445.6
2002 1400.3 1519.6
2003 1313.4 1591.6
2004 1355.3 1652.3
*adjusted for inflation and population growth. 1992 = baseline
What’s the pattern here? Revenues rise steadily under Clinton, while expenditures are contained within the range 1363-1445. That is, over eight years, there is an 80 billion dollar increase in the size of the Federal Government, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. In the one year 2001-2002, there is a sixty billion dollar increase in the size of the Federal government, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. In the years 2001-2003, there is a 146 billion dollar increase, adjusted. 2001-2004, a 207 billion dollar increase. Let me make this more clear: by your measure, in his first three budgets, George W. Bush has increased the size of the Federal government eight times as quickly as Clinton did.
Look, if you want to say that Bush is a better person, has better policies, yada yada, fine. But you simply cannot support the claim that the Democrats under Clinton were anything other than fiscally responsible. They kept costs tamped down and brought revenues up to meet them. Bush slashed revenues and massively expanded the Federal Government.
GDP Deflator
Population Growth (Middle Series used)
**One also wishes to account for the increased complexity of an economy which requires more transactions per person — and therefore more state intervention to maintain the integrity of those transactions, but that is an extremely fuzzy concept.
willyb
Kimmitt:
How do you factor in the Republicans’ control of the House starting 1995?
willyb
Kimmitt:
How do you factor in the Republicans’ control of the House starting 1995?
Rick
Kimmitt,
Another nice try, but not really connecting. You miss (or ignore) the point about GDP. If the economy was supercharged under Bushchimphitlerburton, growing at 8 – 12 % per year, that percentage of GDP consumed by the Fed. public sector would be falling, despite the current spending like the proverbial mariners.
Likewise, in a recession or depression, without changing the budget in any way, it would be soaring even more.
Real dollars is fine for retrospective looks at buying power and all, but the year by year current dollar record captures the data exactly enough–on an annual basis– for the purposes of this dispute. Budgeteers, whether evil Republican ones or great hearted, saintly Democratic ones, don’t budget with “real” dollars. A conjectural $200B deficit in year X remains a $200B deficit, and it’s of no import what the population growth is, or what $200B translates to in “real” dollars of year Y.
Speaking of dispute, whip out your calculator to run my numbers. Immensely chastened by your accusation of “cherry picking,” I limited myself to the FYs totally launched in the WJC terms (94-2001), so no Bush Dynasty fingerprints are on their inceptions.
I ALSO HAD EVERYTHING THE WRONG WAY/BACKWARDS IN MY EARLIER CALCULATIONS. THE FIGURES WERE COUNTER-INTUITIVE BECAUSE OF REVERSE CALCULATING. EVEN EYEBALLING THE COLUMNS SHOWS SOMETHING WAY OFF.
I get receipts increasing by 58.20%, and outlays growing 27.43%. Population growth and inflation (a very minor issue since 1983) make no impact on these numbers, being mere, apolitical arithmetic of current years differentials being summarized.
By bracketing his 8 budgets with the Booshezzz, the new reciept/outlay growth percentages come to 60.51 and 42.67%.
Despite the gall and wormwood of my elementary error earlier, this does show that the problem is in spending, not receipts. Rather steadily growing, receipts are, whether Poppy and Bill raise taxes, or Chimpy cuts them. And revenue gushes most in robust expansion–the go-go 1960s, 1983-89, and 92-2000 are the great examples.
Bush and the GOP Congress disappoint me for their spending itch, and I’ve so stated, perhaps even to you directly. But to imagine Democrats as restrained in spending? Guffaw! I mean, they’re quite upfront about the wish to broaden the public sector, so they never disappoint in the way the pubbies do.
I’m all for bring the budget into balance, but I’d sure like to see Federal economy truly tried. You know, along the lines of all the school lunch program cuts (not) that so terrified the 1995 soccer moms.
Cordially…
likwidshoe
Mr Furious said, Undo the tax cuts first, then start trimming. that’s what should happen. We’ll see if either party has the courage to do it.
Why? That doesn’t make sense. A small cut in tax rates doesn’t cost anything. Why is your answer to raise taxes anyways? It’s like a store raising prices to make more money. It just doesn’t make sense. (you can think of the product as economic activity)
Kimmitt said, But you simply cannot support the claim that the Democrats under Clinton were anything other than fiscally responsible.
What are you talking about? Congress controls spending and Congress has been controlled by the Republicans since 1995. You can also add the Republican tax cut that helped to take away from Clinton’s idiotic biggest tax raise in history. You might remember it – we pulled out of an economic recovery and into a recession after he did that. If that’s “fiscal responsibility”, then I ain’t buying.
They kept costs tamped down and brought revenues up to meet them.
Yes. The Republicans were good then. Now they are spending like Democrats.
Rick said, But to imagine Democrats as restrained in spending? Guffaw!
Exactly. The core of the Dempcratic party is socialist and unless that changes, Democrats and “restrained spending” are two things will never go together. Don’t they talk about this stuff in the “reality based community” Kimmitt?
Kimmitt
You might remember it – we pulled out of an economic recovery and into a recession after he did that.
I don’t recall that at all, and neither does the Bureau of Economic Analysis:
Change in real GDP, annualized:
1993 Q3 2.1
1993 Q4 5.5
1994 Q1 4.1
1994 Q2 5.3
1994 Q3 2.3
1994 Q4 4.8
1995 Q1 1.1
1995 Q2 0.7
1995 Q3 3.3
1995 Q4 3.0
1996 Q1 2.9
None of these quarters qualify for recession status. Annual growth for ’94 was 4.0%, while annual growth for ’95 was 2.5%, making ’94 above-average and ’95 below-average, but both well above recession status.
Source: BEA.
Finally, if tax cuts are the end-all and be-all of economic growth, why were the growth rates in 2003 and 2004 less than the growth rates in, say, 1998 and 1999? I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to blame 9/11 for growth rates three years later.
sojourner
The reality is that all discretionary spending could be zeroed out and it would not be enough to cover the lost income from the tax cuts for the wealthy. That’s the reality. And if taxes are cut for the wealthy, guess wo gets to pick up the difference? The middle class, of course, including cuts in social security benefits. What a deal.