Teh Stupid Debt / Deficit debate

Did you know that Clinton never had a budget surplus?


It’s true. That confused the shit out of me, because at one point I had numbers that said otherwise, but it’s true. This article, while conservatively biased BIG TIME, explains why and I have since found National Debt Numbers from other sites that back that up. So, it’s right. We’ll just have to accept it.

Now… I told you that because I want to show [the following.] Basically? Republicans and specifically their supply-side econonsense still pretty much suck it fiscally, big time. Now… I’ve done pieces on the debt before, mostly making the same mistake (focusing only on PUBLICLY held debt) this is criticized in the above article. But I want to destroy one of the lies you are hearing from Tea Partiers, John Boehner, Harry Reid (yes, him too!), the Laffer Curve and Reaganomists. The idea that we can UNDER NO CIRCUMSATANCES raise taxes to fix the deficit. Laffer said that the markets will turn down and you’ll lose revenue. Reagan (and later Bush) insisted that the market would boom and the tax cuts would pay for themselves. And even HARRY REID’s current deficit reduction plan includes NO TAX INCREASES.

What. The. Fuck?!

So check this out – and if you want to skip the fancy explanation, just scroll down to the graph and keep reading. I got the followg debt numbers from THIS SITE. Now, based on his comments, I would interpret his ideology as fairly balanced, yet slightly right-leaning. He’s pretty fair with criticism and credit for both sides, acknowledging the realities facing Presidents of ALL parties, but there’s a little more poo-pooing of Democrats and a little more apologism for Republicans; at least it seems that way to me. In any case, I’m only pointing all of this out to show that my information and the data used here doesn’t come from some "Liberal Propaganda" site. It comes for two conservatives (one moderate, one hard) and the U.S. Treasury.

So, to test the theory that, as republican’s put it, we have a “spending problem” and not a “revenue problem,” I thought I do a fairly simple analysis: I’d plot each president’s deficit against their top-tier tax rate and see how they all faned out. (Yeah: I knew how it would look ahead of time, but play along OK? *wink*) For simplicity and legitimacy’s sake, I’m only looking at post WWII numbers – big wars, great depressions, etc… Are bound to have a greater impact on the budget AND the tax rate than anything else, and pretty much ANY partisan will acknowlegde that. (And uh... those ALL happen to work against Democrats, BTW!) Also, while deregulation and lesse-faire economics may have helped create the "roaring twenties," which would boost Republican numbers, all but the most brain-dead partisans realize that those practices were unsustainable.  And history bore that out in the 1930's. Also note – for some reason, these deficits are in 1983 dollars. I'm not sure why he did that, I would have preferred 2010 or 2011 dollars, but I think most of you know that while the absolute values might shift the TRENDS will always remain the same regardless of what year you decide to normalize to. So these are in 1983 dollars, and in Millions. (With no further conversion on my part.)

Federal Deficits in Millions of 1983 Dollars vs. Top Tier Tax Rate the same year:

Wow! Would you look at that! Deficits and top-tier tax rates, in fact, have a negative correlation!

And go figure: The more you take in, the more you can pay off! Wow! What a freaking concept!

And where are we now? Well: Do you see all those REALLY HUGE deficits? Yeah, those are all Bush’43’s and Obama’s. And you see that cluster around 30%? Between $200,000M and $400,000M? Yeah: Those are Reagan’s and Bush’41’s. (Incidentally, those LOW deficits, just below that cluster are all Clinton’s. So while he didn’t have a true SURPLUS, he still did MUCH better than any of the Republicans of the past 30 years!) And I think it's fair to call any top –tier rate under 40% “Reaganesque.” After all, those big deficits at 50%? Were all Reagan’s! So anything UNDER that? IS ABSOLUTLEY Reaganesque – including all current proposals being put forth but Harry Reid and Barack Obama. And it’s time to stop this nonsense. This country, and its Rich, were doing just fine with top tier rates of 50, 70 and even 90%. And the deficits were basically nil’ compared to ANYTHING that we’ve seen in the past 30 years of continuous Reaganomics.

So once again, I’m going to go back to my simple mantras:

Republican philosophy in eight words:

I’VE GOT MINE, SCREW THE REST OF YOU.

[What SHOULD BE] the Democratic philosophy in nine:

TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH.

Now… Both of those are parodies, of course, but I find it rather telling that, even in satire, the Liberal position is a solution to the problem, while the Conservative position IS the problem!

So WTF Barrack? WTF Harry?

TAX. THE. RICH!

This will:

1) Fix everything. Seriously.

2) Harm nothing. Seriously!

3) Render the Republicans and Tea-Baggers and RW Libertarians permanently irrelevant.

4) Put the final nail in the coffin of the myth of Supply-Side Economics and its urine-soaked, mentally retarded cousin, trickle-down Reaganomics, and put us back on the path of being a country of opportunity for ALL people and not just the top 2%.

And if that’s “class warfare?” Then SO FUCKING BE IT. The Right has been waging war on the Middle Class, The Working Class, the Unions and the Poor for THIRTY FUCKING YEARS NOW and it has resulted in fiscal disaster. We need jobs. And if the rich won’t provide them, then the Government should TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM and provide them. And you know what? After all the money is spent, it will end up right back in the hands of the rich! Because after all, they own the Companies and the Stores and the Services providers where all of that money will be spent! And that’s fine! That’s as it SHOULD BE! That’s why this will do NO HARM! That’s why “trickle down” is a MYTH and “percolate up,” as Obama put it on the ’08 campaign trail, is ECONOMIC REALITY! The only money that the wealthy WON’T get given right back to them? Interest payments on the National Debt – which should be an ever-shrinking number, if we’re running surpluses and paying down the debt! And whatever the Poor, Working and Middle Class manage to keep a hold of, in the form of savings and investments for themselves. And you know what? That will STILL end up going to the CHILDREN of the current-day rich, pretty much fort the same reason.

We need not cry for the Rich in America, folks. They will still be rich. They will still keep all their money. And that’s fine. I don’t want to take it away from them. I just want them to share it a little, since it will all end up going right back them anyway. But it can support a much more comfortable and secure lifestyle (and therefore a much more robust economy) if it passes through a few more hands before ending up back in their wallets.

But no, they’d rather take their toys and say, in the word’s Eric Cartman:

SCREW YOU GUYS, I’M GOING HOME!



-------------------------------------------------

BTW… In case anyone was wondering, you CAN do the same analysis with all of the data going back to 1913, and the negative correlation between top-tier tax rate and deficits still holds:

So, bottom line?

John Boehner and company are full of shit, and Harry Reid and Barrack Obama should stop listening to them!

--- TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH.  ---

Republicans to a supermajority of America: Screw you!

So I'm down at the gym and, because my headphones got run over in the parking lot a few weeks back, I'm listening to NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.  Here's the video feed:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now... What really struck about this were the statistics.  And these are from the WALL STREET JOURNAL, mind you: Ruppert Murdoch's own news rag!

In favor of Presdient Obama's Debt Reduction Proposals: 58%
In favor of Congressional Republican's Debt Reduction Proposals: 36%

Should Republicans compromise and agree to raise taxes?
YES: 62%
NO: 27%

Should Democrats compromise and allow cuts to Social Security and Medcicare?

YES: 38%
NO: 52%

To put those numbers in perspective...
% of people who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984: 59%
% of people who voted for Walter Mondale in 1984: 41%


The Republicans are polling at least 3 points lower that Walter Fucking Mondale did in what ended up being one of the worst landslide losses in U.S. Electoral History.

The Democrats are polling within 1 point overall - and three points ahead on tax increases - of Raonlad Reagan, the Right's great hero, in his brightest hour.  (What's more? That lone 52% on the Entitlements issue? Is still over a full point higher than Reagan polled in 1980 against Carter!)

So... here's my question: Why do we even NEED a gang of six?  Why is ANYONE still listening, compromising, fucking PANDERING with ANY of these Right-Wing Ass-Hats?  The Republicans have a position which is unpopular on a Mondalian scale and they're STILL trying to (and our Democratic leaders are letting them) shove it down our throats! 

Mister President, Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Minority Leader Pelosi:

The way I see it, and according to Ruppert Murdoch's own Wall Street Journal about 200 MILLION AMERICANS agree with me, we can fix everything, keep all entitlemants intact, erase the deficit and render the Republican Party permanently irrelevant by following nine simple words:

Tax the rich.

Tax the rich.

Tax the rich.

That's it. Tax the rich. It will literally fix everything and harm nothing. And it will make you the party of the people once again.  Screw this "gang of six" crap.  Tax the rich and veto anything that doesn't. Leave Social Security and Mecdicare alone - or better: FIX THEM without cutting benefits - and veto anythign that doesn't.  It is time to LEAD.  You failed for two years to do this and you lost the house. So I implore you... It's time to grow a spine, step up, LISTEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and do what everyone (even the rich) know that you HAVE TO.  I already like your chances in 2012.  But if you stand firm and deliver what a SUPERMAJORITY OF AMERICA is askign you for?  I'll actually FEEL GOOD about liking your chances.

GOLD STAR AWARDS, May, 2010

I was a little bit nervous that my follow-up to my last post would end up being really lame by comparison.  Which is just silly of course - since this is now the last day of the month, it time once again to do the Gold Star Awards. (So... this was pretty much GUARENTEED to be really lame in comparison to my last post! LOL)

(We're up to 1948 - 2 Golds, No Silvers)

The Herb Pennock Gold Start #17: The National Debt Clock

This may seem a bit odd for a liberal call out, no?  I mean - isn't it the Right that's always harping about the deficit?  Aren't they the ones that want to cut spending?  Yeah.  If you believe that. I've got some tax services to sell you.  The Right (Republicans, Conservtaives, etc...) only give two shits about the deficit when the DEMOCRATS are in power.  I've done some write-ups on this before.  Reagan, Bush'41, Bush'34 - it's THESE guys who creatd and perpetuated the problem.  The National didn't budge, after you adjust for inflation, between Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter - and Carter's last two budgets ended up with surpluses.  Clinton's did too, even after inheriting record debt from Bush'41 at the start of his term.  The jury's still out on Obama, and it's the BUSH tax cuts that need to be repealed first, once the economy is really going again.  In any case, I think the Debt and Deficit is every bit as much a Republican problem, more so actually, as it is a Democratic one.  What you here from the right is no more than hypocritcal posturing.  And this IS an important issue.

The Pie Traynor Gold Star #18: The Daily Kos

At one point, I think I viewed Kos as kind of a somewhat more underground, more 'real' version of HuffPo; sans all the celebrity crap that brought the latter farther into the forefront at the cost of diminshed quality and seriousness.  Of course, once you're under Bill O'Rielly skin the way Kos has gotten, you've pretty much arrived at the forefront of liberal blogging.  There's some really great stuff there.  And I dig almost anything that get's under the skin of conservatives as much as Kos does.

-----------------------------------
I'm STILL in the process of adding my HOF to the main page of the blog, but, for reference, previous inductees include:

Ty Cobb's GOLD STAR #1: Media Matters for America
Babe Ruth's GOLD STAR #2: The Skeptic's Dictionary
Honus Wagner's GOLD STAR #3: Snopes
Walter Johnson GOLD STAR #4: Armchair Subversive
Christy Mathewson GOLD STAR #5: Humanism by Joe
Cy Young's GOLD STAR #6: The American Prospect
Nap Lajoie's GOLD STAR #7: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
Tris Speaker's GOLD STAR #8: Rational Wiki
Pete Alexander's GOLD STAR #9: Republican Offenders
George Sisler's GOLD STAR #10: Newshounds
Willie Keeler's GOLD STAR #11: Newscorpse
Eddie Collins' GOLD STAR #12: Wikipedia
Lou Gehrig's GOLD STAR #13: FactCheck.org
Rogers Hornsly's GOLD STAR #14: Election-Projection
Michey Cochrane's GOLD STAR #15: Think Progress
Frankei Frisch's GOLD STAR #16: People for the American Way
- and -
Hoss Radbourne's SILVER STAR #1: FAILBlog
Cap Anson's SILVER STAR #2: Some Grey Bloke
Buck Ewing's SILVER STAR #3: Sore Thumbs
Roger Bresnahan's SILVER STAR  #4: The Dictatorship.com
Dan Brouthers' SILVER STAR  #5: Seanbaby's Super Friends Page
Fred Clarke's SILVER STAR  #6: Item Not as Described
Jimmy Collins' SILVER STAR  #7: I-am-bored.com
Ed Delahanty's SILVER STAR  #8: Baseball-Reference.com
Hugh Duffy's SILVER STAR  #9: Menage a 3
Hughie Jennings' SILVER STAR  #10: YU&ME: Dream
King Kelly's SILVER STAR  #11: Anime News Network
Jessie Burkett's SILVER STAR  #11: Ugliest Tattoos, A Gallery of Regret.
Frank Chance's SILVER STAR #13: Netflix
Johnny Evers' SILVER STAR #14: Very Demotivational
Joe McGinnity's SILVER STAR #16: Runescape
Joe Tinker's SILVER STAR #17: Baseball Almanac
Rube Waddell's SILVER STAR #18: Sporcle
Ed Walsh's SILVER STAR #19: Cracked
-and-
Jim O'Rourke's TIN STAR : Conservapedia
Jack Chesbro's CARBON STAR: The Global Warming Petition Project
Eddie Plank's LEAD STAR: FoxNation
Tommy McCarthy's PYRITE STAR #15: The Drudge Report

Defense Spending and the Deficit

I don’t want anyone to think that I’m anti-military or anti-defense spending. Despite its long history of misuse, I still believe that our strong military CAN be a force for good in the world. And as I’m a Keynesian (or as I like to say, “Educated”) I still realize that ANY reduction is Government spending will not only destroy jobs, but do more harm that then equivalent tax increases would cause. However, I wanted to look at one area of Government Spending, and judge it as “wasteful” just on the basis of necessity. BTW, “wasteful” is not a word I like to use, as there is really almost no such thing as wasteful spending, but we’ll save that for another time. In this case I’m judging it against its stated purpose, NOT against the economic impact.


I came across the following graph from http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending:

Granted, it’s a couple of years old, but as it’s expressed in percentages rather than actual dollars, I would think the overall proportions will have remained pretty close. The US accounts for 41.5% of the World’s Military Spending. The other four permanent members of the UN Security Council account for only 18.8%. The next ten countries combine for only 21.1%. So were spending a little more than our fourteen biggest allies and enemies COMBINED. The rest of the world accounts for the other 18.6%.

Now… you hear the proposal kicked around form time to time that we should cut our defense spending by something like 5-10%. Conservatives (and some hawkish Democrats) always howl in protest over this, but I think it’s pretty clear that we’ll still be able to keep out the invading hordes, even with these cuts. What this graph tells me is that we could make 50% cut in spending and still be spending more that England, France, China and Russia combined. COMBINED! That’s just crazy! You’d probably need to add the top 1 or 2 of the next 10 countries to the list just to make it EVEN. If you think about that, it’s staggering, so I’ll say it again: With a 50% cut in defense spending we’d still be spending TWICE AS MUCH as Russia and China COMBINED, and AS MUCH (more, actually) as Russia, China, France and Great Britain… COMBINED!

Now… let the awesome reality of that sink in for a moment before moving on.

Now, using FY2010 as an example, our federal budget is about $3.55 trillion. Without pointing any fingers, the federal DEFICIT was about $1.42 Trillion. $663.7 billion of that was Defense Spending. Now… as I’ve stated before, we could cut our defense spending in HALF and still be outspending our four biggest enemies and allies combined. This would save us about $332 Billion. In other words – we could knock 23% off of the Federal Deficit in one single action and still single handedly account for about a fifth of the world’s military spending all by ourselves. Again, more than our two biggest “enemies” and two biggest allies COMBINED. (I’m sorry I keep restating that, but I’m just so utterly gobsmacked by the enormity of it!)

Now… am I advocating for such a reduction? Not necessarily. There would be significant job losses in terms of Soldiers, Defense Contractors, Arms Manufacturers, as well as many Civilian Business that have nothing to do with War or Defense, but still do business with or on Military Bases. So cutting these funds would have an ECONOMIC impact many times as big as any security concerns. But that’s true of ANY reduction in spending. And that’s really the problem with the reckless deficit spending that the Republicans have pursued over that last 30 years – out of VICE, rather than NECESSITY as the Democrats have done. And for the country, it’s like an addiction because fixing it - no matter HOW you fix it - HURTS. It causes HARM. Whether it’s though tax increases or spending cuts, there WILL be pain.

And remember: Republicans are still advocating for Tax CUTS, so don’t believe ANYTHING they say about the deficit! Their aim is to ‘reduce the size of Government’ by BANKRUPTING it. If they really cared about the deficit and National Debt, they’d be calling for tax increases as well, just smaller ones than the liberals are, while advocating for larger spending cuts than the liberals do. Not to mention that they CAUSED the problem. They CREATED the culture of borrow-and-spend which replaced the more responsible model of tax-and-spend. Regan kicked it off, Bush’41 continued it. Clinton put an end to it, but Bush’43 couldn’t have that, so he kicked it into high gear! Obama has so far mostly inherited these problems. To be fair, he has added to the deficit, but with the economy he inherited that was almost inevitable – a matter of necessity rather than choice.

Moving foreword, we’ll see. In any case, you can’t cut a Trillion+ dollars in spending or raise a Trillion+ dollars in taxes overnight with causing some serious economic pain. That’s beyond dispute. So I don’t put this up as any sort of deficit-cutting silver bullet. But it’s certainly interesting food for thought regarding where our National Priorities are, and where our money goes. We should consider these facts before we talk about how we CAN’T provide health care, and CAN’T provide social safety nets and CAN’T support public education, CAN’T, CAN’T, CAN’T... Because if there was ever an attitude that sums up everything that America is all about, it’s “YES WE CAN.”

Maybe it’s not about spending LESS, but about spending it MORE WISELY.

----------------------------------------------------

BTW… I had this graph, from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258, but the wiki article pretty much had all the numbers I needed. But here’s tabulation, in case you want to cross-reference anything, or just wanted another breakdown.

Jim Bunning

First off, I would like to say a few GOOD things about Hall of Fame Right-Handed Pitcher, Jim Bunning.  He won 20 Games for Detroit in 1957, and 19 in 1962.  He won 19 games in a season three years in a row for the Philadelphia Phillies, from 1964 to 1966.  In 1964 he pitched one of the only 17 perfect games in Major League history.  He struck out of 200 batters in a season six times, leading the league three times.  When he retired he was second on the All-Time strikeout list behind only Walter Johnson.  He was an All-Star Seven times - that's a ton, for a Pitcher.  For his efforts, the Phillies retired his #14 and in 1996 he was deservingly inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame.

Now I'd like to say a few things about Jim Bunning the Right-Leaning Senator from Kentucky.  In 2006, Time Magazine listed him as one of the five worst in the Senate.  Among other things, this honor was bestowed because, in their words, he was a Senator who basically did nothing and accomplished nothing.  So it's worth noting that now, with nothing but retirement pending and nothing to lose (or gain) politically he has done his best single handedly decide that the ENTIRE SENATE will become a body that, like his, does and accomplishes NOTHING.

One has to wonder if he felt is was in the best interests of the 10.7% of the workforce in Kentucky right now that is out of work, and has been for so long that their unemployment benefits have run out, despite not being able to find new jobs in this slowly improving economy, to stand up as a one-man road block to a bill that was sure to pass (seeing as most of his colleagues ARE up for re-election) that would have extended thier benefits, possibly long enough until work became more plentiful.  I guess those thousands of Kentucky families must be feeling tremendous relief, despite their mounting debt and impending poverty, that Senator Bunning has decided that fixing the Federal Budget Deficit is more important than helping them stay in their homes, put food on the table and maintain a dignified standard of living, despite the economic down turn that Senator Bunning's party played no small part in creating.  I'm sure they're glad that the Senator had the best intersts of their great-grandkids in mind, even though their children are hungry today.  (Of course, I'm only talking about the National Debt here, not Global Warming!) And I'm sure that they are in no way bitter about this last parting shot, this one time that their Senator FINALLY stood up to represent them... by pissing in their well.

Of course... one has to wonder... Where the heck were all these deficit hawks during the Bush years?  How many times did the good Senator Bunning stand up and speak out as President Bush added $4.3 Trillion Dollars to our National Debt?  How many of Bush tax breaks did he oppose?  How much of Bush's spending did he oppose?  How much did he stand up to the expansion of the Government that the Department of Homeland Security represented?  How often did he protest the spending that the War in Iraq forced us to incur?  Um.... that would be: NONE and NEVER.  Not ONCE.  So I do find it curious that the deficit is suddenly this man's legacy-breaking issue, seeing as how (1) There's a Democrat in the White House, (2) He in a Democratically controlled Senate and (3) He's retiring, and has nothing to lose in the way of a future political career.

Now don't get me wrong: I too am concerned about the deficit.  But when you listen to these idiots on the Right, do you ever notice how they always follow up their concern about the Deficit by saying, "And that's why we're proposing these TAX CUTS?"  *ARGH!*  TAX CUTS DO NOT LOWER THE DEFICIT, MORANS!  Cutting taxes can only, CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY, CAN ONLY INCREASE the deficit!  Oh, they'll help the economy.  No doubts there.  But they'll do so by reducing the amount of money the Gov't collects in taxes.  THAT MAKES THE DEFICIT WORSE!  Now... I will say this: The right always talks a good game when it come to CUTTING SPENDING.  But do you notice how, whenever their in power, they never seem to actually cut any spending?!  There's a reason for this, and it goes beyond just disagreement over WHAT spending to cut.  It's a lot more sinister than that.

You see... there are two things the government can do to help the economy.  CUT TAXES and RAISE SPENDING.  And while most economist agree that you get more bang for your buck increasing spending, the fact is that BOTH will help the economy.  But: Both will also increase the budget deficit.  Conversely, there are two things the government can do to reduce the budget deficit: RAISE TAXES and CUT SPENDING.  Either (or both) of these will reduce the deficit, but either or both will harm the economy.  And economist also generally agree that cutting spending will be MORE HAERMFUL to the economy that RAISING TAXES will.  There are reasons for this, both in practice and in theory.  I'm not going to into them right now, but if you don't believe me, just ask yourself: WHY then, do the Republicans NEVER, not since 1980, cut spending or balance the budget?  The answer is simple: They know it would wreck the economy.

Now... we all know they don't want to raise taxes.  And I can't say I blame them.  Although this does less harm to the economy, the political effect is so much greater because we can all see, once a year and in every paycheck exactly what we pay in taxes.  We're reminded of it on a regular basis, and we have an exact number to value it at.  It's a little harder to determine what percentage of our pay derives from gov't spending.  (But it's approximately, for most people, it's just about what you pay in taxes, minus the % of the budget that pays for the National Debt; which you'd have to pay, even if the gov't spent NOTHING.)  But that number has a lot less impact on most people, at least everyone (con and lib alike) who doesn't receive a check directly from the government.  So raising taxes in out.  For them, I mean. Fine.  So that leaves cutting spending.

Now... I've already pointed out that Republicans never have any intention of reducing spending in any meaningful way when they're in power.  My Feb 1 posts pretty much proved THAT.  And I've already explained why: If they do, they'll get blamed for the resulting economic fallout.  So what do they do? Simple: They force the spending cuts to happen when the DEMOCRATS are in office, that way the Democrats can get blamed for the fallout, while Republicans can take credit for being "fiscally conservative."  Here something to remind all those "fiscal conservatives" you meet out there: ANY actions that reduce the deficit will harm the economy.  And pretty much any gov't action that's good for the economy will increase the deficit.  That's why you only ever see a deficit hawk in the minority party, or one that's retiring when his term is up.  This is a political and economic fact of life that both Liberals and Conservatives alike need to come to grips with.

So... Why then, given that rising deficits seem to help the economy, at least in the short term, should we be concerned? Well... every year you run a deficint, more of your budget NEXT year will be spent financing the every-increasing National Debt.  So unless you raise taxes or cut spending somewhere, you will not have as much money to spend on the things that HELP THE ECONOMY.  Put simply, a day of reckoning must come and the longer you put it off, the worse it will be.  And despite Bill Clinton's best efforts, the Republicans have managed to put it off for THIRTY YEARS now.  Think about that: There are people getting married and having children who have lived their entire lives and have only seen a balanced federal budget twice, both times under a Democrat, and yet they remain convinced that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility! *barf*

The real key is WHEN you do these things.  The time to do them is DEFINITELY NOT when the economy is still shaky.  Just ask Herbet Hoover!  Amazingly, Bill Clinton manages to pull off both: He raised taxes AND cut spending and didn't kill the economy doing it!  Of course, Al Gore's pet-project-come-to-fruition had something to do with that, but the economy was booming in a way that would not be slowed by increased taxes or reduced spending.  Now... we may get there again.  Bush had a few chances, not the least of which was when he first came into office.  But you don't reduce the deficit, or even help the economy really, by giving all of the money away to people who don't spend any of it!  (That would be "tax breaks for the rich" for any Con's who don't know what I'm refering to.)  So he blew it.  BIG TIME.  And President Obama will have is chance as well.  But that time is definitely not now. 

You see, the last thing the Republican's want is to see any economic recovery under the Democrats before November.  THAT'S what this is about.  Bunning's vote is not about the deficit.  It's about rooting against America while they Dem's are in office.  It's about making sure things don't get any better and then blaming the Dem's for not fixing anything!  And this far form the first time they've done this, and it's amazing that America keeps falling for it.  (Gotta love that Liberal media, keeping the Right-wing honest!) *barf*

So my best hopes go out to the families of my home state of Michigan and of the rest of the country.  Hang in there.  Things are getting better.  Just hold on a little longer and good things will come your way, despite Jim Bunning's best efforts to insure otherwise.  As for the people of Kentucky? You elected this bastard EIGHT TIMES, so: SCREW YOU.  You're getting what you deserve.  It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer while you lot learn the hard way what the Republicans really think about working class families.  To you, all I can say is that I hope next time you'll consider NOT voting against your own economic interests.  If you elect another Republican after THIS insult?  Then you really are a bunch of illiterate, brain-dead red-necks down there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS... Just a bit more on Bunning: I found this on wikipedia:

On December 18, 2008, the Lexington Herald Leader reported that Sen. Bunning's non-profit foundation, the Jim Bunning Foundation, has given less than 25 percent of its proceeds to charity. The charity has taken in $504,000 since 1996, according to Senate and tax records; during that period, Senator Bunning was paid $180,000 in salary by the foundation while working a reported one hour per week. Bunning Foundation board members include his wife Mary, and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. In 2008, records indicate that Bunning attended 10 baseball shows around the country and signed autographs, generating $61,631 in income for the charity.[37] "The whole thing is very troubling," said Melanie Slone, Executive Director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Yeah... I'd sure as hell say this is a bit "troubling." His "charity" takes in $504,000, of which he helped them get $61,631, or about 12%, himself.  For that they PAY HIM $180,000, or about 36%, while paying out just 25% ($126,000) to actual charitable causes.  That's either a really obvious crime, or the worst run charity in the entire world!  Way to give back to the community you scum-sucking son of a bitch!

And, once again, to everyone out there who's benefits have now run dry?  Please remember who's responsible for this: the Republican Party and the people of Kentucky.

So... Who's REALLY responsible for all our debt? (con't)

Continuing my "Who ran up all this debt?" discussion from earlier, I thought I'd break the main graph down a little further, as well as add another little chart to perhaps put all this in perspective. (And take a few more cheap shots at Reagan, just to shut the Johnny-come-lately Reganite Deficit-Hawks up.

The first thing that frustrated me about my last post was the fact that "FDR" had such a huge chunk, and that he was not only getting blamed for others who ran up the debt, including debt he inherited, but also credit for those who may have brought it down. So... I thought I'd go all the way back to WILSON. And to really do this right, I need TWO graphs: One to show the contributions of all the presidents who ADDED debt over their years in office (adjusted to 2010 dollars, juat as before) and a second that shows the relative contribution of the presidents that REDUCED the debt during their administrations, and how they compared relative to one an other; again in 2010 Dollars.

Graph#1:

This graph reresents all of the net-debtor Presidents. The total is $14.7 Trillion dollars (in 2009 Dollars) which is more than our current Debt, but don't forget that this ignores the results from all those who paid in DOWN during their term in office.

Graph#2:

This is how the Net-Creditor or Net-Surplus Presedents compare. It's worth noting, for both graphs, that we had to pay a LOT for World War II. President Roosevelt ran up that bill, and President Truman paid it.

But just think about that for a minute... Franklin Roosevelt had to deal iwth both the great depression AND the Secord World War.  Doing so he ran about about the same level of debt that Ronald Regan did.  But... What was Reagan's exscuse? SERIOUSLY!

Now... I mentioned ealier that it IS rather alarming that in ONE YEAR, President Obama has run up a deificit that amounts to just uner 12% of the OVERALL NATIONAL DEBT.  Now...  One might be tempted to think that THIS is the reason all these Newbie Deficit Hawks keep popping up: that in just one year, someone's added 12% to the National Debt.  But is even THAT really unpreciedented?  The following is a chart of ever year in which a 20th Century President has added at least 10% to the National Debt, with Obama's projected 2010 deficit highlighted:

So, as you can see it is not all that unheard of for a President to "break the ceiling" by a pretty wide margin.  Now... Right off the bat, we can give Wilson a break due to World War I, Roosevelt a break for World War II and the Great Depression and, yes, to be "fair and ballanced" Hoover gets a break for having to deal with the Great Depression as well.  What's more, I don't even really fault George W. Bush for his huge defict (basically as big as Obama's) seeing as how he had the whole Mortgage Crisis / Great Recession to deal with, and it goes without saying that a good portion of Obama's deficit is also due to the continuing fallout, and a continuation of many of the same policies. (You just can fix a $1.5T deficit in one year without DESTROYING your economy!) The one that really jumps out at me though is 1986.  How the hell does Ronald Reagan (or his present-day idolizers) justify his being on this list in 1986?! I REMEMBER 1986 and the biggest news-story of the year was a baseball going between some guy's legs! Did he fight a World War or confront a Global economic disataer? In 1986?!  Christ, if he did, I sure as hell don't remember it!

So when it comes to deficits, you should remember that not all deficits are created equal, and that some are more unavoidable than others and others still are more justifiable.  I'm not saying it's right, just food for thought.  But don't be so quick to accept everything the media tells you: They've been covering for the Right for DECADES now.

So... Who's REALLY responsible for all our debt?

I'd like to take one more look at the Federal Deficit and the National Debt, before going back to health care for a few posts.  I made up the follow Pie-Chart, to show which administration's contributed the most to the National Debt.  I'll explain some of my assumptions, and methodology, and then I'd like to note a few bits of information that I took away from it.

This is through the projected end to FY2010, and is in 2010 dollars. The first point that might need explaining is "FDR." Since the National Debt did not appreciably change between WWII and 1982, and as a concession to our conservtaive friends, I attributed all of the debt accumulated prior to Ronald Reagen to Franklin Roosevelt. I could just as well have said Harry Truman, or anyone else really, since this was where every President since Roosevelt decided to leave the National Debt, so whatever... We'll just call it "FDR."

So, as to my methodology... I got the overall National Debt, by year, from the Treasury Department's Website. For each year, I adjusted for inflation using E.T.'s Inflation Chart. THAT only went to 2008, so I assumed 3% inflation for 2009 and adjusted all the numbers accordingly. So, taking the overall debt in 1981 and calling it "FDR" I looked at the change from year to year and calculated the deficit or surplus (in 2010 dollars.) So the combined deficits from 1982 to 1989 were attributed to President Reagan, 1990 to 1993 to the first President Bush... you get the idea... to determine what each Administation was responsible for since Reagan took office. (And remember, since the debt level in 1981 was within 2.2% of what it was in 1947, there's no point in talking about anyone in the intervening years. Hence I've lumped it ALL into "FDR." (And then I added in, the recently projected $1.6T deficit that is being projected for Obama in 2010.)

Now... right off the bat, I'll give the newly minted Deficit Hawks on the Right one point: It is a bit disconcerting that President Obama managed to accout for 11% of of the overall nation debt in just one year. I think it's celar to EVERYONE, not the least of whom is President Obama, that we cannot continue on THAT path. But consider this:

A full 66.6% of our current National Debt is attributable to Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush. Bill Clinton accounts for a scant 4%, and even with Obama's record-breaking deficit, all Democratic contribution COMBINED account for only a third of the overall debt.
Now... to anyone who points out that the Republicans had the presidency for 20 of the 28 year prior to 2009, all I have to say is this: That only means they had more opportunities to try and FIX the problem! Bill Clinton did more in 8 years to address the budget deficit and the National Debt than the Republicans did in 28!

And the only reason I find that amusing is that all the Deficit Hakws these days seem to come from RIGHT! As I've said before, if your concerned about the deficit, whatever you do: DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!

WHY the Republicans will ALWAYS run up the National Debt

I'd like to think that I'm not one to buy into paranoid copnspiracy theories too easily.  I mean... I've said many times that the Skeptic's Dictionary is my bible.  I think Glenn Beck is a delusional loon in desperate need of medication.  So, yeah... I'd like to think I know crazy when I see it.  Also, I'd like to think that, at least in the long term, people tend to be rational.  (Or failing that, then at least in the short term!)  And that's what's so crazy about the insane idea I'm about to present: It's really, truly rational, from the point of view of those on the Right.

In my last post I think I clearly demonstrated that, despite their rhetoric, it's Republicans rather than Democrats that spend like drunken sailors and run up huge debts.  And at the end I said that I'd explain why this is the case, or at least has been since 1980.  And it sounds crazy, unless you're just predisposed to believe ANYTHING about Republican's, but I'm actually not one of those types.  In fact when I first read this from some poster on MMFA a year or two ago, I dismissed it as "liberal bullshit." (Which, as a liberal, I think I'm especially entitled to call out from time to time! LOL) But the more I think about the more I appreciate the genius of it.

One of the things that you always hear from the Right is that we've got to rein in (get rid of) entitlements.  It's a nice buzzword that you can throw out there if you want to sound intelligent to a conservative crowd. (Of course, sounding intelligent isn't the same as BEING intelligent, but you won't get along with these people using your fancy librul edukashun and yer fancy librul LOGIC and REASONIN'.)  ANYWAY "entitlements" is a fancy way of saying, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc..." and if you REALLY but into it you can throw in Public Schools, and just about everything else that most reasonable, moderate people have come to expect their governement to provide.  You see... the Right HATES these things.  They HATE they idea that someone might get something they didn't "earn" and that someone else (on the Right) is losing an opportunity to profit from providing it to them.  You see, in their ideal world, you'd have two classes: Company Owners and the Shleps who work for them.  One group would have pretty much EVRERYTHING and the other would have whatever the HAVES felt they were worth.  So... yeah, pretty much nothing.  It's the kind of environment revolutions spring from, but most on the Right think that little more than a bluff these days, at least in this country.  Anyway, suffice to say that ANYTHING that HELPS PEOPLE has to go.  After all, if people stay poor, then the cost of labor goes down, and it's supply-side economic heaven.  (Which is to say, HELL, but I'll save that for another post!)

So they want to kill Social Security, Medicare, etc... But the pretty much know they can't actually RUN on that platform.  President Eisenhower knew this to be true:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

(What happened to these kinds of Republicans?!)

So what to do? How do we get people on board with this?  Well, one way would be to run up huge deficits every year, and get to the point where financing the National Debt (that means the annual interest payments) would end up consuming so much of the Federal Budget that we would be left with NO CHOICE but to gut or cut these programs.  Now it's not like they can do this in just one year.  People might notice.  And congress, and the public will never go along with it, right?  But this has been going on for THIRTY YEARS now! Two or three generations of Americans have grown up knowing nothing but huge federal deficits, and have come of age to the constannt drum beat of how there's a crisis in Social Security and a crisis in Medicare... And by now, we almost take for granted that these programs are doomed.  That they won't be around by the time we retire.  And the media (all of whom are corporate owned, which means all ofwhom are Right leaning) have been very complicit in driving this message home, and in helping perpetuate the narrtive that it the spending levels of the Democrats that are the problem.

And think about it... At this point how DO we fix things?  Well... the right knows that only one or two thigns will happen: Either we cut spending, which will effect these programs.  That's fine with them, that's thei rultimate goal - to get rid of these programs.  Or we raise taxes.  And WHO will raise taxes?  Well, the DEMOCRATS of course!  Because they're the only one interested in sustainable long-term governance!  There only only ones interested in reversing this trend.  Tax-cuts and higher defiicits serve the Republican cause!  But the Right, and their lap-dogs in the media will hammer home the narritive that the Democrats are the "tax-and-spenders" and not showing "fiscal discipline."  They'll never really show you that the crisis was created entirely by Republicans, specifically so they can either gut these otherwise perfectly sustainable (and popular!) programs or be able top paint the Democrats as the party of "high taxes" and use this to win elections and get right back to their agenda of bankrupting the Government... in order to get rid of these otherwise sustainable (and popular!) programs.

At least when a Liberal runs a deficit, it with a Keynsian motive in mind: They want to help the economy, save jobs and maintain people's financial security.  And running deficits by NOT raising taxes and NOT cutting speding will do just that.  But the way these Republicans act, doing this even in boom-times, I can't see any rational outcome OTHER than bankrupting the governement.  So I ask again: WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?  The one who taxes and spends in a effort to improve the economy, and help improve people's standard of living, or the one who wants to bankrupt the government, get rid of all social programs, and eventually pay NO TAXES so that they can keep ALL the money, and no one else can have ANYTHING?

I realize that I'm channeling Glenn  Beck at this point, but I challenge you to come up with any other explanation that can reconcile Republican fiscal rhetoric with Republican fiscal POLICY.

WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?!

I love it when I hear conservatives talk about exploding deficits. And I love this not only because they only seem to care about it when there’s Democrat in the White House, and/or a Democratically controlled Congress, but they scoff at the very idea that the Democrats show any fiscal restraint, or are capable at all of reining in spending, while they proudly (and stupidly) post about the fiscal credentials of the Republicans. This whole notion is laughably absurd to anyone who knows what they’re talking about, just like the “liberal media” myth is, but if you need some facts to support your arguement, here’s something that might help:

(Click for full-size)

This graph shows the National Debt, adjuster for inflation to Y2K dollars. It's a modified (only for color) version of what can be found on The National Debt Clock's FAQ. It only goes to 2007, but you KNOW the problem's only gotten worse since then. The Right Wing Media keep hammering THAT home, don't they? And it’s all Obama’s fault, right? Even though we’re only about a month into the FIRST Obama budget, and the budgets for ’08 AND ’09 were in fact singed by George W. Bush! That’s a FACT by the way, not “liberal bias” or “making excuses.” I’ll own up to the deficit from 2010 on, but I won’t take any guff from some blowhard who was silent all through the Bush years, and who thinks that even the 2009 deficit has anything AT ALL to do with President Obama.

There a couple of things about the graph that might need clarifying. First off: Red = Republican Budget, Blue = Democratic Budget. I figured I’d keep that convention. Second, you’ve got to remember that a President ELECTED in Year X, doesn’t start his term until Year X+1 and the budget he passes that year doesn’t take affect until year X+2. So President Kennedy, for example, was elected in 1960, took office in 1961 and his first budget wasn’t in effect until 1962. That’s why you don’t see the first transition to Kennedy's Blue (from Eisenhower’s Red) until ’62, even though he was elected in ’60 and took office in’61. All clear? Good! Now let’s walk through the graph…

The first thing you see is a huge spike in the later Roosevelt years. The cost of the New Deal? LOL, no. That would be the cost of World War II. And it was paid down to a sustainable, strategic debt level within a few years despite another War (Korea) waged by his successor, President Truman. For the most part Truman had a balanced budget, even despite the war, and overall the natinal debt remained constant with a very slight downward trend until his final year in office. Switch to President Eisenhower, a Republican, and you’ve got about the same thing. Pretty consistent debt levels, even a very slight downward trend – and remember: He build a National Highway system! So even given that very New deal-esque / Keynsian stimulus project, he kept his budgets balanced as well. The Kennedy/Johnson years showed much the same thing. Even with the great society progrmas, the National Debt didn’t budge in those years. So far, I’d say both sides are on the same page when it comes to budgets, taxation and spending. (Namely: Pay for what you spend!)  And they’re both showing a restrained, but clearly Keynsian approach to managing the economy. (You can point to an expensive governement "project" is every case.)

Now it starts to change a bit in the Nixon/Ford years. Starting here we see the first appreciable up-tick in the National debt since World War II. Nothing extreme, but it does look like they’re starting to feel the combined affects of not only President Johnson’s social programs, but their own taxation policy, the Vietnam War costs, and the beginning of the economic turmoil that would plague us through the 1970’s. One thing that’s really apparent is that in President Nixon’s second term (three years of which were served by President Ford) not only did we have three years in a row that we ran a Federal Budget Deficit for the first time since World War II but each of these deficits were also the largest we’d seen since the War.  (This is evident becuase at no other previous time do we see as large an increase in the National Debt.)

Now… Given what was going on in the 1970’s, I don’t mean this as a swipe against Presidents Nixon and Ford. Truth be told, I don’t think either was actually a bad President. The more I read about Richard Nixon the more I despise the man, but the more I admire the President. There’s very little you can point to policy-wise to criticize, either in terms of foreign or domestic policy. (I’m not too crazy about his Supreme Court nominees, but hey: I AM a liberal, after all!) But I seriously don’t have any problem with the fact that they ran deficits. I’m a KEYNSIAN! And if you understand Keynes, you’ll understand that running a deficit in a recession (which pretty much describes most or all of the 1970’s! LOL) is no vice. I only point it out because the only people I hear harping on the deficit are REPUBLICANS, and even then only when DEMOCRATS are in office! But up to this point, there is no evidence to support that Democrats even really RUN deficits. I know, I know: It was a long time ago. Things are different t know. Yeah, they’re a lot worse… for REPUBLICANS!

Moving on, President Carter fits the mold, both for the Democrats being the ones to show fiscal restraint, and in support of the Keynsian model of economics. His budgets were wither balanced or ran a surplus, and yet the economy still taked. What does this show you? In addition to bolstering the Democrats as the one who know how to balance a budget, it also shows that a balanced budget doesn’t give you economic success. It as Keynes predicted: In bad times you HAVE to run deficits! You increase spending to stimulate the economy, and you worry about the budget only once things are on good footing again. Cutting spending HURTS.  And it hurts even more than raising taxes does in terms of people incomes.  So President Carter had the wrong plan at the wrong time… just like the deficit hawks (meaning Tea-Bag Conservatives) do NOW. But starting in 1982, the first year that a REAGAN budget was in effect… everything goes totally cattywampus.

Why the hell do these tea-baggers hold up Ronald Wilson Reagan as their idol? If they had any clue at all they should DEPSISE THE MAN! And George Herbert Walker Bush as well! Check it out… Every single year of the Reagan-Bush administration we ran a deficit. Every. Single. Year. TWELVE YEARS IN A ROW! Recession or Boom-times... It didn’t matter! Talk about runaway spending! Talk about out-of-control government! And not only did they RUN deficits, but they ran HUGE deficits! Every year the deficit was bigger than it had been in any year between Wordl War II and when they took office! I don’t have the exact number, but judging form that graph I’d say at least TWICE as big!  Imagine that: Twelve years in a row of running a deficit that DOUBLED the previous record, adjusted for inflation, and these poeple still claim credability on fiscal matter!  Their audacity in makig that claim is surpasssed only by the ignorance of their supporters who believe it.

And I’ll reiterate: I’m not necessarily trying to take a swipe a Reagan here! I found Reagan to be an inspiring leader, even if I did find his policies lacking. And I actually really liked George Bush, the elder. I’d have voted for him twice, had I’d been registered to vote at the time. So again: This is not MY criticism. It just shows that if the National Debt is your chief concern, maybe you shouldn’t idolize the guys who brought it from just under 2 Trillion Dollars (in Y2000 dollars, remember!) in 1981 to over 5 Trillion dollars in 1993. A twelve year trend of record deficits that increased the National Debt over two and half times and yet somehow these people can still claim “fiscal restraint” with a strait face. Unbelievable.

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

Once Bill Clinton comes into office, we immendiate see a DECREASE in the deficit. IMMEDIATELY. (Notice how the increase in the Debt is about half what it was in even the best year under Reagan or Bush’41?) And even so, if you were around at the time, you’d still have heard Rush Limbaugh, back in his early days, ranting in tirades about how Clinton’s ruining the country, taxing the hell out of us, running deficits… (See? They were blithering hypocrites even back then!) And yet, we not only had eight strait years of GROWTH under President Clinton, but by the end we saw a balanced budget, followed by TWO years of budget surplus. So again… WHO’S THE PARTY THAT HAS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?!  (And to anyone who would ask why he could have that surplus immediately, it just goes to show how bad thjings were under Reagan/Bush.  The spendign cuts and tax increases that were needed would have destroyed the economy had they gone it all at once.  At that point we were pretty much addicted to gov't spending and had to weened off slowly.  (And HOW MANY times od we here that it's the DEMCRATS that want to make people dependant on the government?!)

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

George W. Bush. The all-time heavyweight champion of drunken-sailor-like fiscial irresponsibility. Think about it: The man was handed a budget surplus, with low interest rates and a strong economy. Allhe had to do to keep a balanced budget, a suplus, actually, and continue to pay down the national debt was... NOTHING AT ALL! And within ONE YEAR he turned a record surplus into a record deficit! And that’s before the War in Afghanistan even started, let alone Iraq! What’s more, neither war was ever actually IN his regular budgets. Even several years in, he was still funding them with “emergency spending” bills. This was a gimmick to make his budgets look better, and his deficits smaller, but the effect on the National Debt is still the same. Deficit spending is deficit spending, after all. So he’s right back on the Reagn/Bush’41 path. He didn’t even raise taxes to fight his wars! It’s absurd! EVERYONE raises taxes to fight wars! (And THAT was also before TARP, the Auto bailout, the Stimulus, etc…)

Which brings us to President Obama. And here we go again, with the Right complaining about Obama, and the deficit. The claim he’s “tripled the deficit.” This is a LIE however, because his budget INCLUDES the war finding up front, rather than playing Bush’s childish game of “hide the salami” with it. In truth, his budget deficit is up something on the order on 20-30%. A modest increase only, and certainly on par with what we saw during the Reagan/Bush’41 and Bush’43 years.  (When these same clowns were silent about it.)

Now remember… and it bears repeating… I don’t think Bush'43 was wrong to do TARP, the Auto Bailouts or the first stimulus. Nor do I think Obama was wrong to continue these policies or pass his own stimulus. I’m a keynsian, and I aced Macroeconomics in grad school, and I KNOW how these things work. These things were NECESSARY.  So again, in and of itself, I am not trying to criticise Republicans or praise Democrats here. I’ve expressed admiration for both Reagan and Bush’41 and I’ve said before that I was never really a fan of Bill Clinton's. I do despise George W. Bush, I’ve made no secret about that, but overall I don’t want this to come off as a purely partisan hit piece. That’s NOT the point here.

The point, and what need to be taken away from all this, is that if you are concerned about the National Debt, and the annual Budget Deficits, whether you are a tea-bagger or not, there is NO EVEIDENCE, at all, going back almost 40 years, that the REPUBLICANS are the ones who show fiscal responsibility, and the DEMOCRATS are the ones who spend willy-nilly. If anything this is a swipe at the ignorant tea-baggers who are so angry, but have been brain-washed by the very people who caused the problem into blaming it on the only ones who've shown any interest in fixing it! If these tea-baggers had any brains at all, they be voting for DEMOCRATS, in droves!

But hey, since when has the media ever let FACTS get in the way of promoting Right-Wing propaganda?

Coming next… WHY the Republicans keep doing this, and why they’ll NEVER stop!