Why we need Progressives
25 Years of Republican Fiscal Failure; a Concise History
by bonddad
The Republicans have sold the country a false bill of goods: that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and sanity. The actual record is in fact the exact opposite: They are the party that squanders fiscal success and borrowers against our children's future. Starting with the Reagan revolution, the US government began the process of massive federal borrowing to fund tax cuts for the rich. Bush I continued Reagan's basic fiscal blueprint. It took a "tax and spend" Democrat - Clinton -- to return the country to fiscal sanity. However, Bush II has clearly demonstrated his complete disdain for history, repeating the same mistakes as Reagan - in fact, exacerbating the problems.
Reagan
Despite the recent spate of praise the Republican's heaped on Reagan on the 25th anniversary of his inauguration, Reagan's presidency was a complete fiscal disaster. According to the Congressional Budget Office's Historical Budget Tables, Reagan started with a deficit of -$79 billion in 1981 and ended his presidency with a budget deficit of -$152.6 billion. The Federal budget deficit was near the same percentage of GDP when he started office (2.83%) as when he left (2.78%). However, total federal debt outstanding as a percentage of GDP increased from 36% in 1981 to 52% in 1989. Total federal debt outstanding increased at a compound annual rate of 13.62%.
Reagan's basic problem was a decrease in revenues combined with an increase in spending. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently noted, federal revenues increased at an annual rate of 1.7% after accounting for inflation and population increases during Reagan's term. Personal income taxes decreased as a percentage of GDP from 9.3% in 1981 to 8% in 1988. Over the same period, discretionary spending increased from 307.9 billion to 464.4 billion, largely as a result of the US military build-up. Adjusted for inflation, this is an increase of 12.32% -- 7.24 times higher than the decrease in individual tax revenue. Conservatives always argue the expenditures were necessary because they brought about the end of the "evil empire". However, Conservatives fail to mention the US has never paid the bill of "winning" the cold war."
Finally, Reagan never balanced a budget.
So, Reagan spent like a "tax and spend" liberal, but refused to pay for it. Instead, he started the process of debt financing the U.S. government, passing the cost onto future generations. But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility
Bush I
Bush I did nothing to alleviate the problem Reagan started - massive deficit spending. Receipts from personal income taxes decreased as a percentage of GDP from 8.3% in 1989 to 7.6% in 1992. The total amount of revenues from individual taxpayers increased from $445.7 billion to $476 billion. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 9% to 8.6%., while the dollar figures for discretionary spending were 488.8 billion in 1989 and 533.8 billion in 1992. From a financial perspective, this is essentially a wash.
Bush I never balanced a budget.
However, debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 52% in 1989 to 64% in 1992. The total amount of debt outstanding increased from 2.857 trillion in 1990 to 4.064 trillion in 1993, growing at a compound annual rate of 9.2%.
So, once again we have a president who spends money he doesn't have, passing the bill onto future generations. But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Bush II
Clinton handed off a great fiscal situation to Bush II. The "tax and spend" liberal balanced his last three budgets. Debt as a percentage of GDP decreased from 66% to 57%. Total debt outstanding increased from 4.064 trillion in 1993 to 5.807 trillion in 2001, or a compound annual growth rate of 4.2%. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP decreased from 8.2% in 1993 to 6.3% in 2000. All Bush had to do was take the hand-off and continue the trend.
Bush dropped the baton.
Bush tax cuts are nowhere near paying for themselves. Revenues from individual taxpayers have decreased from 9.9% of GDP in 2001 to 7.5% of GDP in 2005. Total revenue from individual taxpayers has decreased from 994 billion in 2001 to 927 billion in 2005. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted:
...only once since the Great Depression have nominal revenues fallen for three years in a row. That anomaly was the period from 2001 through 2003, reflecting the 2001 tax cuts
In addition, Bush's own budget projections don't anticipate his tax cuts will pay for themselves:
Under the revenue assumptions in the budget, real per-person revenues will grow by an annual average of 0.6 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about one-third the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s. The Administration's budget projects that revenues in 2011 will be about $450 billion below the levels projected before the 2001 tax cuts.
Over the same period, discretionary spending has ballooned. Discretionary spending was 649.3 billion in 2001 and 967.9 billion in 2005, or an inflation adjusted increase of 38%. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 6.5% in 2001 to 7.9% in 2005.
And Bush has once again increased total federal debt outstanding at a typically Republican compound rate of 7.1%. Debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 57% in 2001 to 65% in 2005.
But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility
Conclusion
In the last 25 years, Republicans have controlled the White House for 15 years. During that time:
They have never balanced a budget.
Have decreased government revenue and
Increased discretionary government spending
Increased total debt outstanding by 5.562 trillion, growing at a compound annual rate of 11.91%
When did this qualify as fiscally responsible?
by bonddad
The Republicans have sold the country a false bill of goods: that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and sanity. The actual record is in fact the exact opposite: They are the party that squanders fiscal success and borrowers against our children's future. Starting with the Reagan revolution, the US government began the process of massive federal borrowing to fund tax cuts for the rich. Bush I continued Reagan's basic fiscal blueprint. It took a "tax and spend" Democrat - Clinton -- to return the country to fiscal sanity. However, Bush II has clearly demonstrated his complete disdain for history, repeating the same mistakes as Reagan - in fact, exacerbating the problems.
Reagan
Despite the recent spate of praise the Republican's heaped on Reagan on the 25th anniversary of his inauguration, Reagan's presidency was a complete fiscal disaster. According to the Congressional Budget Office's Historical Budget Tables, Reagan started with a deficit of -$79 billion in 1981 and ended his presidency with a budget deficit of -$152.6 billion. The Federal budget deficit was near the same percentage of GDP when he started office (2.83%) as when he left (2.78%). However, total federal debt outstanding as a percentage of GDP increased from 36% in 1981 to 52% in 1989. Total federal debt outstanding increased at a compound annual rate of 13.62%.
Reagan's basic problem was a decrease in revenues combined with an increase in spending. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently noted, federal revenues increased at an annual rate of 1.7% after accounting for inflation and population increases during Reagan's term. Personal income taxes decreased as a percentage of GDP from 9.3% in 1981 to 8% in 1988. Over the same period, discretionary spending increased from 307.9 billion to 464.4 billion, largely as a result of the US military build-up. Adjusted for inflation, this is an increase of 12.32% -- 7.24 times higher than the decrease in individual tax revenue. Conservatives always argue the expenditures were necessary because they brought about the end of the "evil empire". However, Conservatives fail to mention the US has never paid the bill of "winning" the cold war."
Finally, Reagan never balanced a budget.
So, Reagan spent like a "tax and spend" liberal, but refused to pay for it. Instead, he started the process of debt financing the U.S. government, passing the cost onto future generations. But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility
Bush I
Bush I did nothing to alleviate the problem Reagan started - massive deficit spending. Receipts from personal income taxes decreased as a percentage of GDP from 8.3% in 1989 to 7.6% in 1992. The total amount of revenues from individual taxpayers increased from $445.7 billion to $476 billion. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 9% to 8.6%., while the dollar figures for discretionary spending were 488.8 billion in 1989 and 533.8 billion in 1992. From a financial perspective, this is essentially a wash.
Bush I never balanced a budget.
However, debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 52% in 1989 to 64% in 1992. The total amount of debt outstanding increased from 2.857 trillion in 1990 to 4.064 trillion in 1993, growing at a compound annual rate of 9.2%.
So, once again we have a president who spends money he doesn't have, passing the bill onto future generations. But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Bush II
Clinton handed off a great fiscal situation to Bush II. The "tax and spend" liberal balanced his last three budgets. Debt as a percentage of GDP decreased from 66% to 57%. Total debt outstanding increased from 4.064 trillion in 1993 to 5.807 trillion in 2001, or a compound annual growth rate of 4.2%. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP decreased from 8.2% in 1993 to 6.3% in 2000. All Bush had to do was take the hand-off and continue the trend.
Bush dropped the baton.
Bush tax cuts are nowhere near paying for themselves. Revenues from individual taxpayers have decreased from 9.9% of GDP in 2001 to 7.5% of GDP in 2005. Total revenue from individual taxpayers has decreased from 994 billion in 2001 to 927 billion in 2005. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted:
...only once since the Great Depression have nominal revenues fallen for three years in a row. That anomaly was the period from 2001 through 2003, reflecting the 2001 tax cuts
In addition, Bush's own budget projections don't anticipate his tax cuts will pay for themselves:
Under the revenue assumptions in the budget, real per-person revenues will grow by an annual average of 0.6 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about one-third the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fifth the growth rate during the 1990s. The Administration's budget projects that revenues in 2011 will be about $450 billion below the levels projected before the 2001 tax cuts.
Over the same period, discretionary spending has ballooned. Discretionary spending was 649.3 billion in 2001 and 967.9 billion in 2005, or an inflation adjusted increase of 38%. Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 6.5% in 2001 to 7.9% in 2005.
And Bush has once again increased total federal debt outstanding at a typically Republican compound rate of 7.1%. Debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 57% in 2001 to 65% in 2005.
But remember, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility
Conclusion
In the last 25 years, Republicans have controlled the White House for 15 years. During that time:
They have never balanced a budget.
Have decreased government revenue and
Increased discretionary government spending
Increased total debt outstanding by 5.562 trillion, growing at a compound annual rate of 11.91%
When did this qualify as fiscally responsible?
posted by Doughnutman at 6:52 PM
0 comments
