Friday, May 15, 2009
Deficits in history, by presidency
A nifty chart of federal budget deficits as a percentage of GDP during each presidency since Kennedy's reveals two factoids. First, that deficits under Republican presidencies have been significantly worse than under Democratic, suggesting that claimed Republican aspirations toward fiscal balance (as opposed to aspirations toward spending restraint) are a crock, at least as a matter of history. Second, that the Obama administration's projected deficits are so severe that they dwarf all previous imbalances in either party. Point is, Republican profligacy in presidencies past cannot be a justification, excuse, defense, or mitigation of President Obama's unprecedented profligacy now. Indeed, in this respect he seems to have betrayed longstanding practices and even principles of his own Democratic party.
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri May 15, 11:14:00 AM:
I'd suggest that the Republican deficits don't tell you much, as the Democrats generally controlled one or both Houses (with the disgusting exception of the Bush years). In the case of Reagan, and perhaps others, I always figured the idea was that if you spent money rebuilding the military (generally ignored during Democrat administrations) and cut taxes, the resulting deficits would be scary enough to dissuade the Dems from additional big spending programs. That idea seemed to work for a while, but now the Dems don't appear to be scared by any size of deficit,
By , at
Fri May 15, 11:29:00 AM:
Well it's proof I suppose, if any were really needed, that Obama isn't a traditional Democrat, and maybe not a Democrat at all. He is after all a past member of the Chicago based New Party, and worked closely with the DSA. The "progressive" side of the Democrat party is very different from the middle of the road traditional Democrats, of that there can be no doubt, and spending patterns is one clear example.
By , at
Fri May 15, 11:43:00 AM:
That graph has issues because it obscures some key factors -- who has control of Congress, whether we're at war, whether we're in recession, whether a President has inherited baggage, etc. ... all of which can create big deficits outside a President's immediate control. Ironically, Clinton looks the best because Reagan and Bush 41 left America at peace, and Newt Gingrich kept Clinton honest.
Obama assumes we'll be out of the current recession by 2010, that Iraq will have been wound down, and his party has a lock on Congress -- so what's his excuse for a planned-for $600 billion to $1 trillion or more annual structural deficit from 2011 until infinity. He can blame Bush & Co for 2009, but not beyond that. No President has deliberately put us on such a fiscal course. Ironically -- until WWII -- even FDR had to balance his budget each year, more or less.
I'm not an anti-deficit nut ... we can probably carry average deficits of $200 billion per year -- but like any household you shouldn't plan to live beyond your means.
If our growth slows, Obama's budget blows up even faster. I couldn't dream up a set of initiatives that would be more anti-growth than Obama's. Even his government spending is anti-growth ... find me any "investment" being made that has a positive net present value. Without growth, it all comes crashing down. After 2010, we won't hit 2% ... and this is without factoring in the risk of "things that could go wrong."
So if Obama now says these deficits are "unsustainable" what will be his answer ... cut spending ... or raise taxes. On the CBO's numbers we'd need to double the federal income tax on the top half of Americans to close the gap ... read that last sentence again slowly.
So how long do Larry Summers and Tim Geithner continue to go for this ride? Larry has nowhere to go to find a position to match his ego ... so my bet is that Little Timmy will "go postal" at some point. Rahm will break his balls just once too much, or Obama will publicly liken him to a fire hydrant just once too often. Developing ...
Link, over
By , at
Fri May 15, 11:48:00 AM:
" even principles of his own Democratic party. ".....they have/had principles ? Who knew ? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find this out. In politics and politicians, there is no integrity, fewer ethics, and no honesty. There truly is no honor among thieves.
By , at
Fri May 15, 12:56:00 PM:
One interesting thing is that the President has assumed his "health care reform" will not add to the deficit, since the very substantial costs of whatever program the Congress is cooking up behind closed doors right now are presumed to be offset by cost savings and tax increases. The recent summit at the White House enthused the administration considerably, even to the point where the President said the "stars were aligned" for passage of his giant new government program. He announced from the White House a committment from medical providers and others, led by the AHA, to cut 1.5% per year off their growth rate in costs for each of the next ten years. That $2 trillion savings, the President crowed, would go a long way to covering his new spending. In a twist today, Yuval Levin says the AHA threw Obama under a bus (good thing they got him before he got them), and said it was a fiction. They never agreed to any such thing. And, according to Levin, they didn't much like being used as a political prop.
That deficit TH is talking about is getting bigger and bigger.
