President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts caused the deficits” narrative.
Well, perhaps Obama is running that line of crap, but I’m not – and never have been. But let’s look at what’s being “identified” by the CBO:
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%) [We lied and the economy was being pumped with excessive debt], other new spending (32%) [Medicare Part D anyone?], net interest on the debt (12%) [What, you mean I have to pay that credit card?!], the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.
Right. But notice the above. And notice who was responsible for all of it. Who signed Medicare Part D again? Who pumped credit following 9/11? Who directed his DOJ to interfere with state regulation of predatory lending – that is, knowingly fraudulent credit creation?
The Democrats might get the “cause” wrong but they sure as hell didn’t misidentify the responsible jackass. His name was George W. Bush and he was (up until Obama took office!) the undisputed KING of Ponzi Economics in the history of America.
Not that this should surprise. You might want to look into what sort of businessman he was before he came to the White House. Being one of his “investors” would have been great – if you liked turning large fortunes into small ones.
First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)
Now THAT is a damned lie:
Have a look for yourself, specifically, that blue line. Or if you prefer, let’s just do it in numbers instead of percentages, so we can see just how big a liar this jackass really is!
How is this possible?
Simple, really. George Bush, like all the Presidents before him in recent history, stole the surplus from FICA and Medicare and spent it.
Note that Herr Clinton never managed to get a negative number in that chart either.
Let me repeat: President Clinton never ran a surplus.
That too is a damned lie.
These aren’t my numbers, they’re Treasury’s. I didn’t come up with them independently. They are official public records. They’re correct, and they’re reality whether you want to accept them or not. You, or anyone else, can independently verify them. Go ahead. Don’t believe me. I don’t want you to – I want you to prove up the figures on your own.
Yes, the problem is spending, not tax cuts (or increases.) And incidentally, it has never been true in the United States that the government can manage to siphon off more than about 20% of GDP via taxes. This means we either address the problem on the spending side of the balance sheet or we will hit the wall – with certainty.
Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies
Utter and complete horseshit.
Look at that top graph again – the blue line is the actual deficit run by the Federal Government. It is the amount of increase in borrowed money by Treasury as a percentage of GDP. That’s the number that matters, not the intentionally fraudulent reporting that is done by both government and the mainstream media.
If I reported financial results how government does in a private company I would go to prison for fraud.
The above numbers say that President Clinton ran deficits of about 4% until 1997, at which point he managed to slowly decrease them to nearly zero (NOT to surplus.)
George W. Bush ran deficits that, following 9/11, ran between 4-5% of GDP continually, each and every year, from 2002 onward until the end of 2007. In his last year in office (2008) he ran a ten percent deficit referenced to GDP.
President Obama has managed to “better” that, ramping it to nearly 12% last year and, on a run-rate basis, just over 12% so far this year.
Those are facts, and while the problem is spending, not taxes, there has been no President in the modern era who has been serious about doing anything about it, and neither side of the aisle has shown any indication about being willing to face this reality.
The first step toward resolving a problem is truthfully identifying and confronting it. Sadly it appears that you won’t find any such honest analysis in the mainstream rags such as The Wall Street Journal.