THE GOP: PARTY OF 'FISCALAMITY'
Can the GOP ever be asked to be accountable for their debt-spending ways? Will the Dems move firmly ahead on economic issues, including on taxes?
It's hard to say, but the opportunity is available, of the once-in-a-lifetime variety. People always say that, but this one is for real.
Still, many may not be ready to seize the day. At the youTube debate, there was just one question about the economy, maybe two, if you throw in China. Of course, it was about taxes, a meme that the Republicans have been driving home a long time, now. You'd think that running the economy was all about taxes, so powerful has the GOP controlled the debate on the issue.
Debt spending in these large amounts is really just hidden taxes or welched obligations, including pension, health, and military benefits.
Two days ago, Kos posted this table, taken from a Rasmussen poll. It shows progress, but maybe not consolidated gains. For instance, I cannot believe that the GOP rank as high as they do on taxes. (Iraq is till a wild card, truly.)Which party do voters trust on these issues?
Dem GOP Dem advantage
Nat. Security 42 40 +2
Taxes 43 41 +2
Education 41 37 +4
Abortion 42 37 +5
Immigration 40 30 +10
Economy 47 38 +9
War in Iraq 47 35 +12
Soc. Security 47 34 +13
Ethics 38 25 +13
Healthcare 50 33 +17
Reagan popularized a variant of that question, but it's time to change the frame. The debt-spending has been enormous under the GOP's latest run.
Debt spending in these large amounts is really just hidden taxes or welched obligations, including pension, health, and military benefits.
How are the GOP doing? Well, just listen to how much their candidates want to keep spending on defense. (Romney is still on his permanent plus-up of 100,000 troops ...).
THE GOP'S DEBT BURDEN ON AMERICA'S FAMILIES
Don't cry. The GOP always puts families first. Mitt Romney said so, too. We can borrow and borrow and there is no increased risk and you'll never have to pay any more taxes.By the end of FY2009, Bush will have run up the National debt by 3.98 Trillion. Not even big debt-spender Reagan got away with that much. It's almost three times Clinton and just over twice Regan's tally.
How much is that an additional tax burden on families? Well, the Republicans will have cost American families some $33,289 in deferred taxes, in the same time period. The number of families grows each year, so that is a reasonable way to scale the figures for the economic impact on the average Joe.
Worried that's not "fair" because it's not adjusted for inflation? Well, adjusting for inflation shows that Republicans under Bush-the-younger spent more money, some $26,311 per household, than Bush-the-elder, just not quite as fast (which is a dubious achievement, I guess, since Bush-41 at least tried to do something about the revenue problem).
THE FANTASY BUSH ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Sure, the economy has been growing, but you can build a house over a sink-hole, too.
Sure, the economy has been growing, but you can build a house over a future sink-hole, too.The Republican's will have raided more of the Trust Fund's current surpluses than ever before. This is like stealing from the pantry. (If you argue that Bush isn't responsible for the 'mandatory' benefits accruals, then o.k. This is the conservative estimate of what he is at least responsible for, namely, not spending what cash there is on hand to fund those accruals in huge quantities).
In anticipation of the changing demographics, we should be building the Nation's debt capacity, not raiding its savings. Reagan was bad enough, he got only about $1,000 dollars per household away from the Trust Funds (in constant, 2000 dollars). The Republican's, always mindful of Reagan, will soar - soar - past that with a cumulative raid of the trust funds more than $12,000 per household, under Bush-43.
If the tax-cuts were supposed to trickle down into increased revenues, it's been five years, and they haven't yet even come close to breaking even, it doesn't appear. The expansion has been stimulated by wartime debt-spending. Cutting the estate taxes appears now to have simply been a crass effort that capped one of the fastest growing sources of revenue for the Federal government.
DUMP THE REVENUE PROBLEM CREATED BY DEBT-SPENDING ON THE NEXT EXECUTIVE
Some have openly wondered whether certain Republicans aren't quite happy to hobble the Federal government with debt, to force cuts in benefits, etc.
Cutting taxes may be a popular way to 'stick it' to the Dems, but it doesn't make America strong.
Debt-spending may be a way to 'dump' the Nation's fiscal problems, especially huge ones, at the next election, but doesn't that just make you an untrustworthy, big cheat?
Cutting taxes may be a popular way to 'stick it' to the Dems, but it doesn't make America strong. When you know there is not enough money on hand, it's like passing out candy. Debt-spending may be a way to 'dump' the Nation's fiscal problems, especially huge ones, at the next election, but doesn't that just make you an untrustworthy, big cheat?Debt-spending may be a way to 'dump' the Nation's fiscal problems, especially huge ones, at the next election, but doesn't that just make you an untrustworthy, big cheat?
TOUGH TIMES AHEAD - SKILL AND DISCIPLINE NEEDED, NOT MORE OF THE GOP DEBT-SPENDING
The next Executive will face a 'fiscalamity', including the costs to redeploy troops and a budget that has made no strides in reducing reliance on an ever-growing social security surplus. In the '80s, when the Trust Funds were in deficit to the tune of just several billions, a bi-partisan effort brought the situation back into balance, including raising taxes. Now, when the Trust Funds are in surplus to the tune of $300 billion per year, nothing can get done.
The debt ceiling is coming up, as are more hearings on the cost of the war. Let's hope that the Republicans are called to account. It might be nice if they were forced to propose some new taxes, before the next election, even if it is some misdirected gasoline tax (as if $72 per barrel oil and no windfall profits tax isn't enough of one ...).
| Big Debt Spender | Cumulative Total Debt Per President | Per Household | Per Household - 2000$ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEXT EXEC | 1,304,000,000,000 | 10,343 | 7,552 |
| BUSH-43 | 3,984,536,587,800 | 33,289 | 26,311 |
| CLINTON | 1,395,974,529,061 | 13,046 | 12,741 |
| BUSH-41 | 1,554,057,922,952 | 16,072 | 18,185 |
| REAGAN | 1,828,701,960,187 | 19,878 | 25,304 |
| CARTER | 309,786,000,000 | 3,780 | 6,395 |
| Big Debt Spender | Cumulative Trust Fund Raid | Per Household | Per Household - 2000$ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEXT EXEC | 1,260,000,000,000 | 9,994 | 7,297 |
| BUSH-43 | 1,828,000,000,000 | 15,272 | 12,071 |
| CLINTON | 803,800,000,000 | 7,512 | 7,336 |
| BUSH-41 | 209,200,000,000 | 2,164 | 2,448 |
| REAGAN | 72,100,000,000 | 784 | 998 |
| CARTER | -11,300,000,000 | -138 | -233 |
source: CBO Annual Budget Outlook, Bureau of the Public Debt; BEA; Bureau of the Census Population Estimates; "Next Exec" is based on CBO projections of the Federal Debt for four years (i.e. one term only).
