Most Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives. I say bunk! There are two ways you can be a fiscal conservative. You can support high taxes and high spending or you can support low taxes and low spending. Well, actually there's a third way: You can support high taxes and low spending but no one's for that. Republicans are for low taxes and high spending. That's fiscally irresponsible.
Now if you listen to Republicans they say Democrats are "tax and spend". I translate this to mean they are for high taxes and high spending. This is fiscally responsible. Republicans claim to be for low taxes and low spending. They have been modestly successful at cutting taxes (and conning Democrats into also cutting taxes) but they are completely incapable of cutting overall federal spending. They claim otherwise and point to programs they have cut. And they have cut a few programs over the years. But each time they have cut a program they have increased another program by much more than the cut in the same year. The record bears me out on this.
First of all, it doesn't matter what congress says. All Federal Budgets (and I am focusing exclusively on Federal Budgets in this piece) are set by the Executive. The final budget that congress adopts is very similar to what the White House sent up. Congress only makes minor changes that do not affect the overall situation. So we only need to focus on what the White House does.
The last fiscally responsible Republican President was Richard Milhous Nixon. Jimmy Carter was more fiscally prudent than his Republican predecessor. William Jefferson Clinton was more fiscally prudent than his predecessor. It is too soon to tell but the possibility exists that Barack Hussein Obama will be more fiscally prudent than his predecessor. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan ran up bigger deficits than his predecessor, George H. W. Bush ran up bigger deficits than his predecessor and George W. Bush ran up bigger deficits than his predecessor. So Reagan and both Bushes were fiscally irresponsible. The all time champion most fiscally responsible President in the modern era is William Jefferson Clinton. It's not even close. He came in with big deficits and left office with big surpluses. Those are the numbers boys and girls.
Now Republicans, especially those running for election this year, are promising they have turned over a new leaf. But a look at what they say about taxes and spending tells the opposite story. You can close the deficit by either increasing taxes or reducing spending. No Republican is in favor of increasing taxes so that leaves reducing spending. All Republicans make grandiose but vague promises to reduce spending. They are complete bunk in almost all cases. I have adopted a "one hundred billion dollar rule" BS test to simplify the situation. If a proposal is not specific and if it does not cut spending by at least one hundred billion dollars per year, it is BS.
John McCain proposed attacking ear marks in the 2008 campaign, for instance. He was not specific so it fails the BS test on that count. But more importantly if you zeroed out all ear marks it would only save $18 Billion. So it is BS. He also made vague promises to cut military spending without supplying specifics. Military spending is a good place to look for cuts, but without specifics its more BS. McCain is a typical full of BS "fiscal conservative" Republican.
There are some Republican proposals on the table that have the potential to pass the BS test. Congressman Boehner has proposed drastic cuts to “nonsecurity discretionary” spending . If fully implemented they would save just over $100 billion per year. I don't believe they would be fully implemented. But if Rep. Boehner's proposal was fully implemented it would reduce out current deficit by less than 10%. That's why my BS test is so important. It would take more than ten proposals that did pass the BS test to balance the current budget.
Rand Paul, a candidate for the House, has proposed unspecified "drastic" cuts to the defense budget. This proposal has the potential to pass the BS test but it currently fails due to lack of specificity. Rep. Ryan has purposed big cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Again, details are lacking but the potential exists for these proposals to pass the BS test. But none of these proposals have gathered even a dozen supporters among Republicans. Are they serious? I don't think so.
But wait, it gets worse. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Continuing these tax cuts will increase the deficit in 2011 and out years by over $400 billion per year. This is the proposal championed by all Republicans I am familiar with. Now the Obama plan is almost as bad. He wants to continue the "middle class" component and drop the "wealthy component". This is almost as bad as the Republican proposal. It would increase the 2011 and out year deficit by over $300 billion per year. Any Republican who claims to be worried about the deficit and who does not decry both the Obama and the Republican plan for the Bush tax cuts is full of BS.
My personal position is for fiscal conservatism with some flexibility. I think that most years the Federal Government should balance the budget or run small deficits. But when the economy is bad (like it is now) and if there is a lot of slack in the economy (like there is now) then it is a good idea to run big deficits. I came around to this way of thinking many years ago. It has enabled me to observe the state of politics on this issue over many cycles of good times and bad, of Republican, Democratic, and split government. In all this time Republicans have been full of BS on this issue. They talk one game and do exactly the opposite. They also lie about the Democratic record on this issue. Some Democrats are very fiscally responsible. Some are less so. Most, if not all, Republicans are fiscally irresponsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment