Born-Again Deficit Hawks
Matt Yglesias tries to make a point, but it will be lost on most of the media. Republicans do not care about the deficit.
It’s genuinely hard for me to know what would persuade people that I’m correct about this, but to recap the key points:
1) There have been two presidents who were members of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, and they both presided over massive increases in both present and projected deficits.
2) The major deficit reduction packages of the modern era, in 1990 and 1993, were both uniformly opposed by the conservative movement.
3) When the deficit was temporarily eliminated in the late-1990s, the mainstream conservative view was that this showed that the deficit was too low and needed to be increased via large tax cuts.
4) Senator Mitch McConnell says it’s a uniform view in his caucus that tax cuts needn’t be offset by other changes in spending.
5) The deficit reduction commission is having trouble because they think conservative politicians won’t vote for any form of tax increase.
…
But the key element of conservative fiscal policy is that tax revenue as a percent of GDP should be made as low as possible. This isn’t a goal they pursue that stands in some kind of balance with concern about the deficit, it’s the only goal they pursue.
Republicans don’t care about jobs either. They only care about tax cuts for the rich. That’s it. That’s their entire economic policy. Their “budget measures” are ridiculous – cutting out earmarks? That’s <1% of the total budget.
There’s always a disconnect between what politicians say they believe and what they actually do but this is just transparent, naked lying to the American people. With a big assist by the media. What is the point of the media if they can’t point out the difference between what politicians say and what politicians do? If they’re just going to post Republican talking points why are they needed at all?
The deficit hawks have another trick in thier bag as well, another attack on Social Security and Medicare. Some are even daring to suggest we phase out both(Sharron, the new nut queen, Angle) and some to “privatize” the funds, alias put them in the stock market.
Exactly bamboozer. They want to steal from the poor to give to the rich. I can’t believe after a huge stock market crash that anyone still talks about privatization.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but it would sure be nice to have an opposition party dedicated to frustrating Republican plans to fuck everything up.
Voters will always be for spending cuts, until the cuts actually happen.
Considering that the Democrats in Congress create deficits and the only stretch the gave us budget surpluses came with a Republican Congress that was demagouged over budget “cuts”. The Democrat President shut the government down to avoid agreeing to a balanced budget. Clinton had proposed 200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see and talked of a structural deficit.
Political realities made him work with Gingrich and the revolution when they stood strong. He then turned around and claimed credit for the very policies that he was vetoing. Right, Republicans don’t care about deficits. Maybe Repbulican Presidents don’t.
The deficit reduction plan of 1990 sent us into recession along with the Clean Air Act and tripled the deficit with its tax increases. The Deficit ended up double the previous record. Opposing it was the smart thing. It increased spending and taxes which leads to a less stable budget.
Clinton had proposed 200 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye could see and talked of a structural deficit.
This is a load of crap. The deficit arrow was headed for zero no matter what, due to massive economic growth, thanks to the Clinton economic plan. Clinton and Gingrich were haggling over whether the budget would be balanced next year or the following year, based on some education spending Clinton wanted and Gingrich didn’t. That’s all.
The Clinton budget was balanced due to Democratic-led economic growth, not Republican spending cuts. You and Gingrich are deficit peacocks, claiming credit for Democratic economic success.
Considering that the Democrats in Congress create deficits
Funny how Clinton created surpluses with a budget that Republicans voted against.
Bush went from surplus to deficit, happily. Republicans gratefully voted along and suddenly started wringing their hands when a Democrat became president.
tripled the deficit with its tax increases
WTF?
Have pity. Special rules apply to David. He does not have to address the simply facts of an argument, or make sense. He can just let wingnut programming flow out his talk radio pickled brain. He is special.
Kinda like the Democrats were against torture, GITMO, secret prisons, and violations of civil liberties, but suddenly stopped wringing their hands when a Democrat became president.
Or at least Matt Yglesias SAYS he proved it, which is hardly the same thing. In the first case, A Democrat-controlled House and non-conservative Senate sent Reagan budgets that were not balanced. In the second case, there was a small incident involving hijacked airplanes that led to major combat operations that led to deficit spending — something that conservatives are willing to support given that defense spending is undeniably a proper government function.