The Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility
NYT Opinion: By now, nobody should be surprised when the Republican Party violates its claims of fiscal rectitude. Increasing the deficit — through big tax cuts, mostly for the rich — has been the defining feature of the party’s economic policy for decades. When Paul Ryan and other Republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives, they’re basically doing a version of the old Marx Brothers bit: “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
Ever so slowly, conventional wisdom has started to recognize this reality. After Ryan’s retirement announcement last week, only a few headlines called him a deficit hawk. People are catching on to the con.
But there is still a major way that the conventional wisdom is wrong: It doesn’t give the Democratic Party enough credit for its actual fiscal conservatism.
By The New York Times | Note: Data through 2016 is deficit as a share of potential gross domestic product, excluding automatic stabilizers. Data for 2017 through 2020 is a projection of the deficit as a share of gross domestic product including automatic stabilizers.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Over the last few decades, Democrats have repeatedly reduced the deficit. They have raised taxes. They have cut military spending and corporate welfare. Some of them have even tried to hold down the cost of cherished social programs. Obamacare, for example, included enough cost controls and tax increases that it’s cut the deficit on net.
The charts here tell the story, and I’ll get into the details in a moment. But I first want to spend a few moments on the perception gap, because it highlights a problem that’s bigger than budget policy.
The country’s political impressions are heavily influenced by people who are supposed to be neutral observers — reporters, television anchors, think-tank experts and the like. They’re not perfectly neutral, of course. They have their biases. But most aspire to partisan neutrality. It’s an honorable aspiration.
And it’s not easy to achieve. For one thing, they’re inundated by partisan advocates. If your job involved listening to people claim that, say, the Obama administration’s Syria policy was a success or that George W. Bush’s economic record was underrated, you too would develop a robust skepticism.
The problem is this skepticism often morphs into a formulaic approach that can itself become untethered from reality. Whatever the facts, many journalists and Washington experts revert to familiar storylines: Both sides are hypocritical. The parties care more about scoring partisan points than getting anything done. The extremists have taken over, and there are no moderates left.
All of these storylines have at least some truth to them. Like a stopped clock, they sometimes have a lot of truth. But they are indeed like a stopped clock. They never change.
I’ve spent 25 years as a journalist and have repeatedly seen the discomfort that journalists feel about proclaiming one political party to be more successful than the other on virtually any substantive issue. We journalists are much more comfortable holding up the imperfections of each and casting ourselves as the sophisticated skeptic.
Sometimes, though, one party really is doing a better job than the other. To refuse to admit it is to miss the story.
So it is with budget policy. Get this: Since 1977, the three presidential administrations that have overseen the deficit increases are the three Republican ones. President Trump’s tax cut is virtually assured to make him the fourth of four. And the three administrations that have overseen deficit reductions are the three Democratic ones, including a small decline under Barack Obama. If you want to know whether a post-1976 president increased or reduced the deficit, the only thing you need to know is his party.
The trend holds under a wide variety of deficit statistics, too. The ones here focus on a president’s policies by, among other things, removing “automatic stabilizers” — spending that kicks in when the economy weakens. If anything, a simpler analysis, using just the topline numbers, would make Republican presidents (especially the Nixon/Ford administration) look even worse. Meanwhile, an even more sophisticated approach would change the ranking a bit — hurting Bill Clinton and helping Obama — but not the partisan pattern.
The caveat, of course, is that presidents must work with Congress. Some of the most important deficit-reduction packages have been bipartisan. The elder George Bush, in particular, deserves credit for his courage to raise taxes. Some of the biggest deficit-ballooning laws, like George W. Bush’s Medicare expansion, have also been bipartisan. In fact, the Democrats’ biggest recent deficit sins have come when they are in the minority, and have enough power only to make an already expensive Republican bill more so. The budget Trump signed last month is the latest example.
So it would certainly be false to claim that Democrats are perfect fiscal stewards and that Republicans are all profligates. Yet it’s just as false to claim that the parties aren’t fundamentally different. One party has now spent almost 40 years cutting taxes and expanding government programs without paying for them. The other party has raised taxes and usually been careful to pay for its new programs.
It’s a fascinating story — all the more so because it does not fit preconceptions. I understand why the story makes many people uncomfortable. It makes me a little uncomfortable. But it’s the truth.
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
104 visitors
I’ve spent 25 years as a journalist and have repeatedly seen the discomfort that journalists feel about proclaiming one political party to be more successful than the other on virtually any substantive issue. We journalists are much more comfortable holding up the imperfections of each and casting ourselves as the sophisticated skeptic.
Sometimes, though, one party really is doing a better job than the other. To refuse to admit it is to miss the story.
This is a real problem for the Unthinking Faithful TM, like the many we have here on NT. For many, many years, they have identified themselves with the Republican Party, because they are, in their personal lives, fiscal conservatives. Having been told by the media, especially Fox News, that the GOP is fiscally conservative while the Democrats are profligate... they have declared themselves Republicans for life!
Now they are told... with tons of data to prove it... that for decades the Republican Party has in fact been profligate, while the Democrats have in fact been fiscally responsible.
What are the Unthinking Faithful TM to do? It's really, really hard to admit to having been bamboozled for decades... as they have been.
So... I'll bet on denial.
While the Establishment Republicans love Marxist statism as much as Democrats, it’s still important to correct the myths put out by the left
Liberals. Lie about deficits. Obama left with a higher deficit than when he took office and a CBO projection of rising deficits because of Obamacare and entitlements
The Bush deficit was 481 Billion as of January 2009. At the end of FY 2008 the deficit was 454.8 Billion according to CBO.
Per the US Treasury's month to month data, the deficit as of January 31, 2009 was 481.84 Billion
U.S. Deficit Increases to $587 Billion, Ending Downward Trend
By JACKIE CALMES OCT. 14, 2016
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration confirmed on Friday that a six-year run of declining annual budget deficits had halted: The shortfall for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was $587 billion, an increase over last year in dollars and as a percentage of the economy.
Rising Deficits After 2018 Are Projected to Gradually Boost Debt Relative to GDP
In CBO’s baseline projections, the budget shortfall declines to $414 billion next year but then rises substantially, to $1.0 trillion in 2025. By those estimates, which incorporate the assumption that current laws will generally remain the same, the combination of significant growth in spending on health care and retirement programs and rising interest payments on federal debt would outpace growth in revenues.
The outlook for the 10-year projection period does not differ substantially from the one CBO described in March. As in the previous projections, deficits as a percentage of GDP are estimated to remain below this year’s level for the next three years but then begin to rise. In CBO’s current baseline, the deficit falls to 2.1 percent of GDP in 2017, but in the latter half of the decade, deficits average 3.5 percent of GDP. The cumulative deficit between 2016 and 2025 is $7.0 trillion.
Wow. Bob was right there's a lot of denial there.
It's a natural human reaction.
The folks who have believed the "GOP is fiscally responsible" claptrap for years and years... cannot now just turn around and say, "Hey! I was a stupid fool for all those years! Now I'm going to recognize the truth..."
They must persist, or recognize their own foolishness. Of course they persist!
Nowhere did I say the GOP is fiscally responsible. In fact I'll remind you of my opening line
"While the Establishment Republicans love Marxist statism as much as Democrats"
The GWB ’deficit’ left out major items, like the two wars, which we were borrowing money to fund. This ‘deficit’ is fake. Fortunately, since the US has never defaulted on its debt, the deficit is easy to calculate. You simply take the amount owed in a year (the debt) and subtract from it the amount owed the previous year. This is how much was borrowed, i.e. the deficit.
The US fiscal year ends on 9/30. The deficit for the FY ending 9/30/08 was $1.1T. The debt in a year that a president takes office is normally attributed to the previous president because the current president was only president for a portion of the FY, and it’s too little time for the policies of the new president to have an effect on the juggernaut which is the US economy.
FY 2009’s deficit was $1.9T, attributed to GWB. FY 2017’s was $671B, attributed to Obama. At best you could say Republicans obfuscate, but really, they’re just lying.
These numbers obtained from www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
Irrelevant. GWB handed a cratering economy borrowing $1.8T/year to Obama. Obama handed a strong economy borrowing $671B/year to Trump. Gov’t borrowing fell by 2/3 under Obama, which coincidentally, is exactly what happened under Clinton.
Nonsense. The bush administration gave two tax cuts, started two wars, added a Medicare drug benefit, and built the huge Dept of HomeLand Security. Borrowing for all these things and more; no spending cuts or new taxes to pay for any of these things. The lion’s share of the deficit handed to Obama was directly caused by Republican policies.
You're cheating!
You're using facts! That's totally unfair. You're risk provoking cognitive overload among the Unthinking Faithful TM!
Oh, wait... On second thought... "cognitive" doesn't apply...
Bob, everyone knows that all the free money and services go to lazy socialists, communists , hippies, freeloaders, bums , and coloreds. None of those people are Republicans, therefore the Republican Party is the fiscally responsible.
Oh.
I see.
Well...
Please tell us in intense detail how the democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Show all those charts and graph and stuff.
When Reagan took office, the government was borrowing $90B/year (the deficit).
When Bush I took office, the gov’t was borrowing $255B/year. So, Reagan increased borrowing by 180%.
When Clinton took office, the gov’t was borrowing $347B/year. So, Bush I increased borrowing by another 36%.
When Bush II took office, the gov’t was borrowing $133B/year. So, Clinton DECREASED borrowing by 62%.
When Obama took office, the gov’t was borrowing $1,885B/year. So, Bush II increased borrowing by 1300%.
When Trump took office, the gov’t was borrowing $671B/year. So, Obama DECREASED borrowing by 65%.
Cool dataset! VERY cool...
Nice try but Presidents do not control the purse strings, Congress (HOR to be specific). Let's take a look down memory lane to see who controlled the House of Representatives from Carter to today..
76-80 (Carter) Democratic control...deficits all on Democrats
80-88 (Reagan) Democratic control....So, Democrats increased borrowing by 180%.
88-92 (Bush 1) Democratic control...So, Democrats increased borrowing by another 36%.
92-2000 (Clinton) first term Democratic control, second term, Republican...So, Republicans mostly DECREASED borrowing by 62%.
2000-2009 (Bush II) first 6 years Republican control, last 2 Democrat...so mostly Republicans, but both parties increased borrowing by 1300%.
2010 to 2016 (Obama) first 2 years democratic control, last 6 Republican...So, mostly Republicans DECREASED borrowing by 65%.
You're welcome. Let me know if you need more free education.
Actually, the Presidents have very little control over spending. They can shift the budgets around in the Executive Agencies that actually spend the money; but all spending is set aside by Congress and specifically the House of Representatives. Reagan and Bush I never had a Republican House of Representatives. Clinton had both the House and Senate as being Democratic when he took office and then Republicans got control over both in 1995. Those Republicans went on to create the spending policies that created a surplus, not Clinton. Bush II had as surplus until 9/11 and then because of the recession that followed then the real estate bubble bursting along with unethical securities bundling by AIG and Democrats in control of both the House and Senate ended up with a major deficit. Until 2011, Obama had both the House and Senate being Democratic, then in 2013, had the Sequester which froze spending. That above all else actually is what caused Obama to have a deficit reduction. So, if you go by an actual and factual history of spending since 1980, you will find that the Democrats spend like sailors on a drunken weekend in port and until this Omnibus, Republicans had been spendthrifts. This Omnibus has Republicans really upset as Ryan and, in particular, McConnell have seem to lost their principles. McConnell keeps blaming Democrats when he should be willing to change the rules back to the original Senate set-up of "Move the previous question" instead of filibuster, which wasn't set up until the late 1800s.
If the Democrats were really the Party of fiscal responsibility, they would have told the public to get their own damn health insurance or die, to find their own way to pay for their shelter and food or go hungry in the cold. Those things are not the responsibility of government. Taking care of such things are matters for private charities and should never be a matter of legislation.
That is not what "FISCAL responsibility" means.
Fiscal responsibility means, over the long run, ensuring that revenues cover disbursements. In practical terms, in modern economies, it would mean running budget deficits when the economy is weak (to prime the pump), and then running budget surpluses when the economy is humming, to pay down the debt incurred during the bad side of the cycle.
In other words... It was right to run deficits to pull the country out of the post-2008 recession, but now we should be running surpluses.
No Bob, it was not all right. The job of the Federal Government is to defend the coastline, deliver the mail and ensure that contracts are followed. It is most certainly NOT the job of the Federal Government to run the economy.
That's a matter of opinion. You are entitled to yours, of course.
OTOH, every country in the world has a central bank, and every government in the world is charged with maintaining a healthy economy. (Some are more assiduous than others, and some are more successful than others...
Please
- READ the seed,
- Reply with pertinence.
I dont know how much any of this matters these days, it seems to me That America has recently decided on a huge gambling of the house financially and the outcome will either be a great win or a great loss.
Cutting taxes and raising spending is one hell of a bold move IMO.
I know I wouldn't take a cut in pay and go purchase a new home weeks later. But IMO that is what America just did. All I can figure out is, Billionaire math must be different that mine....lol But then again I've never declared bankruptcy either.
Aw c'mon people. Deficits don't matter, right? Cheney or some other joker said that.
None the less. Mexico will pay for the wall. Trump and the Trumpers said that too.
making some people pay a higher cost for a product, so others can pay less, or get that product free.... is a weird way of paying for its new programs (obamacare)
thank god for the supreme court smack down of forcing people to buy under the commerce clause
trumps bill to lower taxes and end that buy or be taxed scheme? priceless.
I will be the first to admit the Republican party is no longer about reducing the deficit, more about spending money "their way" (military and tax cuts), but to suggest the Democratic party has any fiscal responsibility is ridiculous. They just piss it away on constituent building (illegal immigration, welfare, food stamps) Stop kidding yourself.
Actually, Newt Gingrich Republicans are the Fiscal Responsible party. Moderate Republicans spend like the Democrats did when Tip O'Neill was speaker, ignoring their promises to Reagan to cut spending by the same amount that they cut taxes. Did anyone notice how the author pointed to how it was the Presidents that had all of the deficits due to their policies? He only had 2 paragraphs talked about how Congress influences the budget and the resulting deficits. He even ignored the fact that the main reason we hadn't had a balanced budget or surplus since 2001 was the result of the recessions caused by the 9/11 attacks and then the real estate bubble bursting. He gives Obama credit for cutting the deficit, when in fact it is easy to cut a deficit when it starts at about $1 trillion each year due to bank and auto bailouts as it was for the first several years of Obama's terms. I am quite sad that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have both forgotten the lessons of Newt Gingrich and how to balance a budget as the foundation for all of the surpluses before 9/11 was solely from the actions Newt Gingrich took while Speaker of the House with Bob Dole and Trent Lott being the Senate Majority Leaders. Frankly, Republicans need to re-embrace those policies that Newt had while Speaker.
Not really. It all depends on how one frames "fiscal responsibility." Speaking strictly from a fiscal standpoint, removing all emotion (difficult for some i know) Democrats easily lose the "fiscally responsible" battle. The largest example being social spending and how to pay for it.
Almost all of the massive spending on social programs and "non discretionary" spending was created and/or implemented by Democrats. While i'm not arguing validity of that one way or the other, when one claims Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility they are ignoring almost all of the facts like that which are salient from a purely "fiscal" standpoint.
One can argue that much of that social spending is what a "good" society does for it's people but that does not speak to what a "fiscally responsible" society does for it's people. I know talk like that makes some folks uncomfortable John but you can't change the facts. You can try to spin the conversation another way like this article does but that is all that is.
Spin.
Yes. And you are framing completely beside the point.
"Fiscal responsibility" is about balancing the budget (over a long period). "Fiscal responsibility" has nothing to do with whatever may be in that budget:
- A small, no-social-safety-net budget is "irresponsible"... if revenues do not cover expenditures.
- A huge nanny-state budget is "responsible"... if revenues do cover expenditures.
Either
- you do not understand the meaning of the words you use - "fiscal responsibility", or
- you do know what they mean and are intentionally misusing them. Bad Faith .
Nah, it's right on point but it blows the nonsense you like to push right out of the water. Yours is simply a load of socialist claptrap.
Lol, of course it matters but no worries. I prefer to not take my lessons in Economics for our capitalist system, from a socialist spin doctor. And please, save your sophomoric insults for someone they might work on. I could give a shit what you think.
That said I should know better by now than to get into discussion like this with you. No matter how hard you try to spin it, you have ZERO interest in having a truly GOOD FAITH discussion. So you just claim "bad faith" with anyone who doesn't goose-step in exact unison with your radical narrative and move on to your next socialist crusade.
Sad, since it's the exact opposite of what you claim to be. Good faith from you? Hilarious!
Ummm... It's my seed.
If you should decide to never come to any of my seeds, ever again... well... I'll miss you.
Oh, is there where you say - "It's my ball and I'll take it home if I don't get my way"????
No worries .... i'll leave you to the echo chamberisih nirvana you appear to be working towards here ..... as you were ....
On the off chance that anyone participating here is actually interested in the topic expressed in the title...
There's a pretty good counter-point up on Vox .
Thanks to all for participating here. Response times are getting pretty bad, with 250 Replies to load... so I'm going to lock.
For those who would like to continue discussing tax policy, I suggest my most recent seed .