Home Tournaments Calendar Weather Merchandise Sponsors

Go Back   Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum > The Spearboard Tavern > Politics/Religion Forum

Politics/Religion Forum This special place is for threads that are primarily on political or religious subjects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-14-2012, 12:47 PM   #1
yeskaa
Jess
 
yeskaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Bdno CA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,389
more tax cuts wont work

The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...pagemode=print

By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say.


This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.

The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.

In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.

The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.

The second major contributor to budget surpluses that emerged in 1998 was tough budget controls that were part of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals. The main one was a requirement that spending could not be increased or taxes cut unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This was known as Paygo, for pay as you go.

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.

This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.

However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.

In late 2010, Mr. Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for another two years. In 2011, this reduced revenues by $105 billion.

On the spending side, legislated increases during the Bush administration added $2.4 trillion to deficits and the debt through 2008. This includes $121 billion for Medicare Part D, a new entitlement program enacted by Republicans in 2003.

Economic factors added almost nothing to increased spending – just $27 billion in total. This is mainly because interest rates were much lower than C.B.O. had anticipated, leading to lower spending for interest on the debt.

After 2008, it becomes harder to separate spending that was initiated under Mr. Bush from that under Mr. Obama. We do know that spending for Part D has risen rapidly – Republicans phased in the program to disguise its budgetary cost – adding $150 billion to the debt during 2009-11.

According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the debt by $795 billion through the end of fiscal 2008. The continuation of these wars by Mr. Obama added another $488 billion through the end of 2011.

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.


Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.

Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.
yeskaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 04:51 PM   #2
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,350
Re: more tax cuts wont work

Partisan rhetoric. GW was to blame, as is Obama, as is Clinton, as is HW Bush, as is Reagan...
__________________
"The Truth Shall Set You Free, But First It Will Make You Miserable"
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 06:57 PM   #3
jfjf
.
 
jfjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Palm Bch County
Posts: 8,787
Re: more tax cuts wont work

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Partisan rhetoric. GW was to blame, as is Obama, as is Clinton, as is HW Bush, as is Reagan...
Marcus:

I am surprised by such a simplistic response. Clinton actually handed GW a SURPLUS !!! (Remember that?)

However, we can not begin to equate the spending and deficits of Reagan with that of GW or Obama.. the current deficits are far, far more destructive due to their magnitude.

We need higher taxes, lower spending and a reduced standard of living to work our way out of this one.
jfjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 07:24 PM   #4
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,350
Re: more tax cuts wont work

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfjf View Post
Marcus:

Clinton actually handed GW a SURPLUS !!! (Remember that?)
No, actually he never did. It was a 'projected surplus' that never happened. Furthermore, Clinton enjoyed his time in presidency during one of the largest bubbles in history...the dot.com bubble. The revenues vs. spending he can't claim much credit for.
Under the 'Keynesian' philosophy, we should've been massively paying down our debt during that time. But that didn't happen, and never will when fallible corruptible humans are at the helm
The Clinton admin was a great example of the failure Keynesianism economic model...yet full speed ahead we go...off the cliff. Nobody courageous enough to slam on the brakes...except RP.
__________________
"The Truth Shall Set You Free, But First It Will Make You Miserable"
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 12:08 PM   #5
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,350
Re: more tax cuts wont work

Yep....until we get gov't spending under control tax cuts won't work, neither will tax increases. I'd much rather starve the beast then feed it though.
__________________
"The Truth Shall Set You Free, But First It Will Make You Miserable"
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.


The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Social Media Forum Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2014 Spearboard.com