JONATHAN COHN JULY 25, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.
By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.
In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.
Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
Of course, tomorrow's deficit problem is a bit different from today's. Looking decades into the future, it's the rising cost of health care that seem likely to wreck federal finances. But health care reform addresses that too, by putting in places the policies and institutions necessary to curb spending on medical care.
7 comments
Well, sure, but if you look at that graph, it strongly implies tax-cuts that you don't pay for with spending cuts, in fact ignore and make huge spending increases (wars aren't free, you know) are a really stupid idea. I mean, how can you advocate NOW for a balanced budget, if when your party was in power you unbalanced the budget by 5 trillion dollars? There's only one way, ignore reality and blame it all on Obama. After all, they unbalanced the budget in the first place to justify that we can't afford Social Security.
- AllanL5
July 25, 2011 at 9:39am
Politically it doesn't matter because in the public's mind Obama and deficits/debt are synonymous. Of course, it didn't help that Obama himself raised the deficit to the highest priority by creating the so-called deficit commission and then, in a bazarre turn, agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts last year. Now Obama has staked his re-election (and maybe the financial health of the nation) on establishing his bona fides as a deficit/debt hawk. It's enough to confuse policy wonks.
- rayward
July 25, 2011 at 9:56am
I've never been able to fathom why Obama and the Democrats have been so pathetically inept at countering the charge that the massive deficits we're forced to deal with are the fault of the present administration. Why hasn't Obama gone on national television with a chart like this one and shown the American people where the fault really lies? Instead, he just makes vague statements about the mess he inherited. The Republicans counter with the charge that Obama is trying to evade his culpability and that the deficits are due to the Democrats' "out-of-control spending." Ross Perot showed that you can achieve a lot of traction with charts. Show, don't just tell, and maybe people will understand where the blame lies.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
July 25, 2011 at 12:04pm
Rayward writes, "...in the public's mind Obama and deficits/debt are synonymous", & DaveyD writes, "I've never been able to fathom why Obama and the Democrats have been so pathetically inept at countering the charge that the massive deficits we're forced to deal with are the fault of the present administration". And I say 'amen' to both. The Repub spin machine is just a vastly superior mechanism. The Dems, especially BO, need to adopt a more aggressive mental attitude and a more pointed plan of attack if they want to have any chance of winning the propaganda war. (And I guess the point is that for too long BO just hasn't realized that it is in fact a war he's in.)
- Haole45
July 25, 2011 at 2:12pm
I suppose that the reason the cited facts are not given more attention is because President Obama will be called a blamer. "it's been almost two years already," they say, "And Obama is still blaming President Bush." It's like, after 18 months massive mistakes disappear as if they never happened. And companies that went out of business for poor management, will pop back into existence; or dead bodies come back to life with vigor. Nothing happens for very long before it no longer happened.
- Nusholtz
July 25, 2011 at 3:12pm
I have a terrible problem with this website. When I try to email the column the website tells me I can't send more than one email in one hour. I haven't sent any emails at all. Then if I try to copy and paste the article the website won't let me do that either. This happens all of the time!!!!
- midgesimba
July 26, 2011 at 3:00pm
The chart would look a bit different if the "Bush Tax Cuts" were divided between the two presidents who have authorized them so far. But, yeah, it's a good graphic. Don't know how to deal with the website either midgesimba--maybe the Canadians are back.
- Robert Powell
July 27, 2011 at 1:15pm