Thank you Mr. Lofgren for helping to forcefully refute the Republican economy stereotype. If more journalists did their job, the American public would not be misled into thinking that the Republicans are fiscally conservative and are better at balancing the budget than Democrats. As you point out, it is no mystery that the GOP under Reagan and both Bushes ran up major deficits with huge military spending combined with massive tax cuts for the rich. The data is crystal clear. Rubio is merely just another "trickle-down" copycat. He has a terrible record even managing his personal finances, let alone the largest economy in the world. It is not "fair and balanced" journalism to allow the myth of Republican financial conservatism to prevail, it is knee-jerk propaganda. Your reversion to the truth is important to all of us.
36
Most thoughtful and cogent article on Republican fiscal policy I have ever read. Thank you.
32
Republican economic lunacy started with Reagan's trickle down tax cuts coupled with huge increases in military spending. It has only gotten worse since then.
20
If the author had been paying attention during his 28 year political career he would know that pretty much everything a candidate says is a lie. Hence, no new taxes, we are dead broke, I will be transparent, lobbyists will not influence me, I will shut down Guantanamo, I will ensure that everybody will have quality and affordable healthcare, I do not like the Patriot Act etc etc.
1
Mr. Lofgren seems to assume that government must consume a fixed share of a nation's GDP. If that assumption is correct then plainly taxes must be pretty close to whatever percentage of GDP is consumed by the government. Yet in fact the share of GDP consumed by government varies considerably from country to country (the Heritage Foundation has some numbers; Singapore is down around 14 percent while Denmark is over 50 percent).
1
I hope, Mr. Lofgren, that "recovering Republican" means that you'll be voting for the Democrat come November.
14
Hilarious.
Meanwhile, the cherished President Obama passed through an all-Democrat Congress the most expensive piece of legislation in the history of the USA - Obamacare. Helps no one, assists no one, costs over $1 TRILLION a year.
Did I mention that the Democrats passed this just ahead of the 2010 elections without even waiting for the OMB to do projections on the cost and/or the risks of this disastrous legislation?
Reagan had it right. Democrats are socialist at their core. Tax and spend, tax and spend.
Tax and spend.
Meanwhile, the cherished President Obama passed through an all-Democrat Congress the most expensive piece of legislation in the history of the USA - Obamacare. Helps no one, assists no one, costs over $1 TRILLION a year.
Did I mention that the Democrats passed this just ahead of the 2010 elections without even waiting for the OMB to do projections on the cost and/or the risks of this disastrous legislation?
Reagan had it right. Democrats are socialist at their core. Tax and spend, tax and spend.
Tax and spend.
1
Mention might have been made the the "leaders" in the House and Senate have just approved a budget that increased the debt along the same lines as the GOP candidates have in "mind," if that is the right word.
In budgets as in most "governing," (again, I doubt my syntax) the GOP is the ultimate Congregation of Hypocrisy and Outright Lies.
How can The People be so blind when they vote for their representatives in Congress?
In budgets as in most "governing," (again, I doubt my syntax) the GOP is the ultimate Congregation of Hypocrisy and Outright Lies.
How can The People be so blind when they vote for their representatives in Congress?
12
So why are there so many (uninformed) US citizens that vote for the GOP ie ~48.5% of voters ?
Answer: The evolution of our species did not emphasize development of Critical Thinking genes/skills. Just the opposite happened. The nerds were the least likely to pass on their genes while the sheeple bred prolifically. A further example of this is the fact that in 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 27 yrs, on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old & that evolution didn`t happen. In 22 European countries the grasp of reality was better according similar polls.
The 47.5% of voters (subtracting out the 1%ers) who vote for the GOP against their & the nation`s interests is not a mystery given the above. It is a stretch however that there are ANY female supporters of the GOP. My explanation for Carly Failorina , a GOP female, is that she has a very high testosterone level. eg. She says that she wanted to give birth to a family but god didn`t want it (adoption wasn`t an option ?). My guess is that her testosterone level makes her act like a male rather than a female which apparently results in a degree of success in the male dominated business world. This doesn`t make her a bad person just someone on the spectrum of Homo sapiens.
Answer: The evolution of our species did not emphasize development of Critical Thinking genes/skills. Just the opposite happened. The nerds were the least likely to pass on their genes while the sheeple bred prolifically. A further example of this is the fact that in 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 27 yrs, on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old & that evolution didn`t happen. In 22 European countries the grasp of reality was better according similar polls.
The 47.5% of voters (subtracting out the 1%ers) who vote for the GOP against their & the nation`s interests is not a mystery given the above. It is a stretch however that there are ANY female supporters of the GOP. My explanation for Carly Failorina , a GOP female, is that she has a very high testosterone level. eg. She says that she wanted to give birth to a family but god didn`t want it (adoption wasn`t an option ?). My guess is that her testosterone level makes her act like a male rather than a female which apparently results in a degree of success in the male dominated business world. This doesn`t make her a bad person just someone on the spectrum of Homo sapiens.
5
The bottom lime is: why should anyone trust any of Marco Rubio's financial plans and proposed budgets when he himself cannot balance his own checkbook and must rely on a sugar daddy to fund him and his family? Rubio is a financial (and very leveraged, indebted, possibly insolvent) trainwreck as are his budgets that have been drafted in fantasy land.
21
We just have to look to Kansas, where the Governor, a Republican assured the state legislature that cutting tax rates on the wealthy would stimulate sssssssoooooo much investment that the cuts to the budget would pay for themselves plus extra. How'd that work out Governor Brownback?
32
This column is refreshingly candid and entirely accurate. The NYTIMES should reproduce it and hand a copy of it to each and every representative and senator in Congress. In addition, the paper should break from tradition of about 140 years and reprint this in the newspaper once every month until the upcoming election is over. The Citizens United decision by our Supreme Court was entirely wrong headed and threatens the campaign system that gave us worthwhile Presidents. The Bush V Gore decision by our Supreme Court gave us Bush who led us to financial ruin in 2008 and a knowingly false war - Hans Blix UN WMD inspection team examined every WMD site reported by SecState Powell in his speech to the UN and found ZERO WMD with a report to Bush a full month before he launched a $2 Trillion war on Iraq from which we will never recover. If the Republican candidates, other than Kasich and Paul, are the party's nominees and if elected, then we as a country will no longer exist. Terrible, terrible Supreme Court decisions, Bush decisions, and terrible terrible mis-leading GOP promises on spending by 2016 candidates will bring our democracy to an end. Mr. Lofgren should be given a Pulitzer prize and the JFK Courage award for this powerfully written and accurate piece.
19
Mr. Rubio cannot even balance his own checkbook and his personnel spending as we have seen is just irresponsible. If he would ever get elected, and it does not appear that he will, he would do excessively more damage than that GOP Economist (W)!
9
Unfortunately, the people with the microphones asking the questions don't call out these hypocrites to their face. I hate to say it, but you can't exclusively blame the Republicans for engaging in no-risk hypocritical behavior because there is no risk to calling for increased spending, lowering taxes and balancing budgets. The 24 hour news networks never, ever call them on their scam, so why should they give it up.
This is the 1st time that I can remember the NYTimes focusing on this game. Our media has fallen down on the job.
This is the 1st time that I can remember the NYTimes focusing on this game. Our media has fallen down on the job.
15
Thank you, Mr. Lofgren.
Would that others (Republicans) suffering from deficit hypocrisy addiction might join you in recovery. I suggest you join up with Paul Krugman, who has been saying the very same thing for such a long time. Congratulations on kicking the habit.
Would that others (Republicans) suffering from deficit hypocrisy addiction might join you in recovery. I suggest you join up with Paul Krugman, who has been saying the very same thing for such a long time. Congratulations on kicking the habit.
11
I stopped watching the debate after 45 minutes out of
boredom ans disgust. I highly recommend the op-ed by
by Mike Lofgren a former republican staff member from
the senate Budget Committees pointing out how irresponsible
and hypocritical are the various economic reforms of all those
candidates. From tax reductions to increase the military budget
Logfren demonstrate factually how such plans draw on fantasy
math will wreck America economy.
The tone in yesterday debate was petty and bombastic as usual
yet worse is the dishonesty of all those contenders. Governors,
senators, business man and neuro surgeon are all
cruising on the same boat of lies.
boredom ans disgust. I highly recommend the op-ed by
by Mike Lofgren a former republican staff member from
the senate Budget Committees pointing out how irresponsible
and hypocritical are the various economic reforms of all those
candidates. From tax reductions to increase the military budget
Logfren demonstrate factually how such plans draw on fantasy
math will wreck America economy.
The tone in yesterday debate was petty and bombastic as usual
yet worse is the dishonesty of all those contenders. Governors,
senators, business man and neuro surgeon are all
cruising on the same boat of lies.
12
Republicans have proven their politicians are incompetent or traitorous when it comes to managing the fiscal affairs of our country. There is no other party in our history that has created deficits and social disorder on the magnitude that the republican party has caused America since and including Reagan.
In the 20th century there have been two republicans who served the country well as leaders of our nation. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight D Eisenhower. Neither would be admitted to today's party. Both would be ridiculed for putting the nation above their political party.
So long as a sizable percentage of Americans enjoy being trickled upon by republican politicians, economic disasters will characterize republican administrations.
In the 20th century there have been two republicans who served the country well as leaders of our nation. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight D Eisenhower. Neither would be admitted to today's party. Both would be ridiculed for putting the nation above their political party.
So long as a sizable percentage of Americans enjoy being trickled upon by republican politicians, economic disasters will characterize republican administrations.
14
Might this be yet another NY Times Opinion that is anti-GOP? That would make this the 1000th such article in the past year. And how many positive GOP stories? NONE. Gee, might one think that the Times has an agenda ?
1
This evidence-based argument regarding the GOP's obsession with reducing deficits as a talking point but not an actual policy is, of course, far worse than the various hatchet pieces from the Newsmaxes and Fox Newses of the world. At least those have the decency to present themselves as straight reporting rather than as opinion pieces.
8
When "conservative" media is by definition deception, which demonizes and rejects all views other than its own, then of course all truth or reason must belong to the opposition. So yes, everything that doesn't have your parties' fantasy asterix next to it is going to be "anti-GOP", as if there was a GOP left, now that everyone who is not a wild-eyed racist demagogue has been reduced to RINO status. If there is nothing good one can say about the GOP, then the Times isn't going to print anything good. I can only assume that the kind of person who is taken in by this nonsense is never going to change, which amounts to saying that we are going to have to wait for all the angry white men to die before we can get the foundation of our democracy back. Glad I have the Times to keep the flame of truth alive until then.
15
It's possible, except that this very sound, factual piece is written by a republican.
18
In 2000 due largely to the 1993 tax increase on ordinary income put in place before the start of the dot com bubble, our spending and tax revenues in 2000 matched each other - at $2T. Tax revenues were significantly enhanced by the dot com bubble. Since 2000, spending has doubled to $4T while both the economy and tax revenues have risen 70%, to $3.5T. There is no question we need to get our spending increases in line with our tax revenues. The size of the government should rise in tandem only if needed and in line with GDP growth. To do otherwise is irresponsible. The real danger down the line is if our debt gets up to say, $25 trillion and interest rates rise to say, 6%. Do the math. That would mean we would be paying our debt holders $1.5 trillion each year, just on debt service. This will croud out spending on everything else. It is totally irresponsible not to get our debt in order AND TO PAY IT DOWN TO A REASONABLE LEVEL. And yes, I am very critical of our President when he says in his state of the union address that he has decreased our deficits when in fact they have rised $9T to $19 trillion on his watch - a fact. Even if we were to fairly carve out $2 trillion of this deficit spending and attribute it to the 2008 financial crisis that is still $7 trillion of additional debt over 7 years, which is totally responsible. I blame both parties for the December 2015 budget which increased spending and lowered taxes! Really? Get your acts toether and soon!
So this is the final version of the truth? Pardon me if I am cynical about anything said by a career politician.
The real lesson for all politicians was demonstrated by GHW Bush who said "read my lips no new taxes." Then he went out and raised taxes and Dems threw it back in his face and he lost the next election. No matter he was doing what he thought was responsible and in the best interests of the American people. Bill Clinton reaped the benefit of these new taxes and an economic bounce that took him through 2 terms.
The rule in DC since then for POTUS is let someone else worry about the debt. Spend money, pay off your friends and kick the can down the road.
Under Obama the debt has doubled. Sanders has programs on the table which will cost a ton of money. Republicans also have their own wish list. Hillary is sitting back but will likely be forced to go with Sanders as she is losing momentum. This is the silly season for making promises which will only drive more debt and they are coming from the left and right.
No matter who is the next POTUS expect the debt to increase unless Americans really make it an issue. Right now it is not.
The real lesson for all politicians was demonstrated by GHW Bush who said "read my lips no new taxes." Then he went out and raised taxes and Dems threw it back in his face and he lost the next election. No matter he was doing what he thought was responsible and in the best interests of the American people. Bill Clinton reaped the benefit of these new taxes and an economic bounce that took him through 2 terms.
The rule in DC since then for POTUS is let someone else worry about the debt. Spend money, pay off your friends and kick the can down the road.
Under Obama the debt has doubled. Sanders has programs on the table which will cost a ton of money. Republicans also have their own wish list. Hillary is sitting back but will likely be forced to go with Sanders as she is losing momentum. This is the silly season for making promises which will only drive more debt and they are coming from the left and right.
No matter who is the next POTUS expect the debt to increase unless Americans really make it an issue. Right now it is not.
In 2011, Fox News’ Bret Baier said to all eight of the GOP candidates on the stage
“I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?
Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”
All eight candidates raised their hand. Literally all of them, if offered a debt-reduction deal that’s 10-to-1 in their favor, would simply refuse.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/tentoone_isnt_...
No matter how reasonable and now matter how much compromise is offered to the Greedy Old Party, they refuse to be reasonable.
Grand Old Phonies 2016
“I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal?
Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”
All eight candidates raised their hand. Literally all of them, if offered a debt-reduction deal that’s 10-to-1 in their favor, would simply refuse.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/tentoone_isnt_...
No matter how reasonable and now matter how much compromise is offered to the Greedy Old Party, they refuse to be reasonable.
Grand Old Phonies 2016
24
It is not GOP hypocrisy. They want to cut taxes in order to increase the deficit so they have an excuse to cut government even more. They simply want to subvert what is left of the government that protects the rest of us from the plutocrats.
21
The reason that no one has caught on to this game is what we see every day in our lives when we deal with the federal government. What we see is waste, waste and waste. We see telephones not answered "too high a volume of calls". We see wrong doers not punished, more and more complex regulations and tax rulings. It goes on and on. This is the real world - one in which the federal government struggles to get anything done. So, it makes perfect sense that if you starved the beast things would get better. That's what people see - someone cares more for the snail darter than for farm workers. Once you realize that gap, you can understand why these policies make sense. As a final note, when was the last time you saw an advertisement for the department of energy or the FDA or any other federal agency - they have terrible PR.
8
"This is the real world - one in which the federal government struggles to get anything done."....Keep cutting the budget and see how much that helps. With a few more cuts you too can live in a third world country.
21
Most of the commenters realize that cutting taxes and eliminating Social Security and other so-called "entitlements" will simply make the rich richer and the poor poorer and quickly destroy our nation as we know it. So do the Republican candidates for office. The difference is that the commenters care, the candidates don't.
20
Why hasn't the public caught on? The public knows exactly what it's doing. No one really wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants the security, education and infrastructure that taxes pay for. We let someone else make the tough decisions, complain about it, and then vote out of the office the people we need to tell us what we don't want to hear. The stuff we want costs money and it doesn't grow on trees, we all have to earn it.
Instead of the constant litany of how unfair it is to pay taxes then get *nothing* in return, how about being grateful for the what we have in this country and acknowledge that we, individually, pay for it. A friend who is a free-lance photographer complains bitterly every quarter about the taxes he has to pay as a self-employed person. He seems to think that he is the sole source of tax income for the state of California. Instead of ignoring his remarks on social media, I finally started thanking him. Thank you for the Medicare that my mother receives, thank you for the security every time I get on an airplane, thank you for the disability that your own mother received for decades.
It's an honorable thing to pay for the things that we need to survive and be a great nation. I can't think of anything more dishonorable than paying some of the lowest tax rates (compared to other western nations), letting our infrastructure crumble and our citizens go hungry and without healthcare - and then complaining about how much taxes we pay!
Instead of the constant litany of how unfair it is to pay taxes then get *nothing* in return, how about being grateful for the what we have in this country and acknowledge that we, individually, pay for it. A friend who is a free-lance photographer complains bitterly every quarter about the taxes he has to pay as a self-employed person. He seems to think that he is the sole source of tax income for the state of California. Instead of ignoring his remarks on social media, I finally started thanking him. Thank you for the Medicare that my mother receives, thank you for the security every time I get on an airplane, thank you for the disability that your own mother received for decades.
It's an honorable thing to pay for the things that we need to survive and be a great nation. I can't think of anything more dishonorable than paying some of the lowest tax rates (compared to other western nations), letting our infrastructure crumble and our citizens go hungry and without healthcare - and then complaining about how much taxes we pay!
13
Most of this was obvious by the end of the Reagan administration.
7
Sure was ! And it was why H.W. HAD TO raise taxes in 1990 !
4
Scrap the entire GOP.
Give Obama a 4th term in office so he can ruin the US economy once and for all.
Give Obama a 4th term in office so he can ruin the US economy once and for all.
Let me help you with the numbers.
THIRD term.
Sheesh, no wonder the Right handles the economy so well.
THIRD term.
Sheesh, no wonder the Right handles the economy so well.
12
DCBarrister, you have such an interesting definition of "ruin". "ruin" = grow. It's not how it's usually used, but what the heck, you're obviously a Republican.
3
Maybe the sooner we start calling all this political talk precisely what it is - theater - and stop trying to square any of it with reality, can anything really ever be done to fix it. Not that that's even possible.
1
After 35 YEARS people just noticed the Republican Deficit Hypocrisy?
And people wonder why America is in Decline.
And people wonder why America is in Decline.
11
The Republicans are ready to trickle down on the middle class and all we have to do to start the stream is give them the keys to the White House and we'll start to feel their trickle.
3
Saint Ronald Reagan famously started the meme that government is the problem, not the solution. Subsequently, almost every GOP elected official has signed the famous promise promoted by Grover Norquist, whose stated purpose in life is to starve the government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub.
The policies and statements described by Lofgren are simply the logical outcome of this very clear and coherent philosophy. The party that loudly proclaims they want to make America great again is actively, consistently, diligently working for the destruction of our government and our nation.
The policies and statements described by Lofgren are simply the logical outcome of this very clear and coherent philosophy. The party that loudly proclaims they want to make America great again is actively, consistently, diligently working for the destruction of our government and our nation.
13
Budget math? Not required. USA debt was $10T when Obama took office. He promised to cut it in half. It is now $19T.
Got it?
Got it?
Let me help you with the numbers.
At the end of this President's first year in office--a bit off to blame him for this, don't you think?--it was about $13 trillion. By the end of this year, the estimate is for about $19 trillion.
Second, a) the deficit has come down by about half, and b) the economy's far stronger, and c) at least $3 trillion of the debt is Bush's demented war in Iraq and Medicare Part D (neither of which were budgeted for), plus roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest.
Got it?
At the end of this President's first year in office--a bit off to blame him for this, don't you think?--it was about $13 trillion. By the end of this year, the estimate is for about $19 trillion.
Second, a) the deficit has come down by about half, and b) the economy's far stronger, and c) at least $3 trillion of the debt is Bush's demented war in Iraq and Medicare Part D (neither of which were budgeted for), plus roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest.
Got it?
4
J., are you one of those people who don't understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit"?
If not, I recommend you compute the same ratio for G.W. Bush. Also, I recommend you look at who was responsible for the deficit in Obama's first year, when the economy was on the brink of collapse due to -- G.W. Bush!
If not, I recommend you compute the same ratio for G.W. Bush. Also, I recommend you look at who was responsible for the deficit in Obama's first year, when the economy was on the brink of collapse due to -- G.W. Bush!
9
Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit? When he took office the annual budget deficit was 1350 billion. It is no down under 500 billion He cut the deficit in half. Got it?
11
The only correction I have for this otherwise excellent brief history of Republican malfeasance is that the 2009 deficit of over $1.4 trillion should be ascribed to Mr. Bush43 as well as the 2008 deficit. Republicans like to scream that that huge deficit belongs to the Obama administration, but the budget was written by the Bush admin and the crisis was inherited by Obama.
The facts are so obvious that it is incredible Republicans have any credibility at all on financial matters in Washington.
The facts are so obvious that it is incredible Republicans have any credibility at all on financial matters in Washington.
16
Are the figures mentioned here accurate? If so, why is this on the opinion page instead of the front page? Inquiring minds NEED to know.
5
Because Republican's will be in full denial of it ! Just as they have for over 30 years now !
2
"Here’s the short version: It draws on fantasy math that would wreck America’s fiscal house." My fear is also that total Republican control of the US government might send us into a new recession!
If the Republicans cut back on entitlements and other support programs I fear that consumers will stop spending. In no time, the economy may start to slide, making waves around the world. Then, if foreign economies drop it may bring us down, more and more.
So, who does Mike Lofgren support for president, if not a Republican?
======================================
I support Hillary Clinton with all her emails and with Benghazi, because she will stay the course and work to maintain our economic stability. I support her because she can become our first woman president, so she can empower women and men to climb the ladder of success.
Thank you, Mike Lofgren for sharing your fears!
If the Republicans cut back on entitlements and other support programs I fear that consumers will stop spending. In no time, the economy may start to slide, making waves around the world. Then, if foreign economies drop it may bring us down, more and more.
So, who does Mike Lofgren support for president, if not a Republican?
======================================
I support Hillary Clinton with all her emails and with Benghazi, because she will stay the course and work to maintain our economic stability. I support her because she can become our first woman president, so she can empower women and men to climb the ladder of success.
Thank you, Mike Lofgren for sharing your fears!
6
Obama want to save his legacy of pure failure???? Doesn't make sense. Most people want to hide their failures
A lot of Obama's failures are Republican fantasy. Just look at the 16 hour release of the sailors and the boats after they wandered into Iranian waters. Republicans are calling that a failure. They would claim up is down if they thought it would make Obama look bad.
4
May one ask you to point to where our President is even so much as mentined in this article?
Thanks.
Thanks.
2
Apparently recovering from deficit hysteria comes at a later stage than recovering from Republicanism. Everything in steps though I suppose.
Mr Lofgren, I must draw attention to your egregious lack of education regarding deficits and government spending, especially as you apparently served on the budget committee. One good line Cheney left us with was this: "deficits dont matter". And he was absolutely right. Even a quick glance over modern economic theory will bring you to MMT, which is not really a theory at all just an explanation of how government spending works with a sovereign currency issuer such as the USA.
When running a ~3-4% trade deficit as the US is, and having some positive integer savings rate as the US has, it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the government to run a balanced budget or surplus without throwing us into a recession - unless you perhaps advocate inflating yet one more phony asset bubble? Again, this is not theory or some idea I have about how government spending works, this is cold hard numbers and reality.
In order for the private sector to have net dollars, the government must have spent more than it collects in taxes. When we do not have enough demand and jobs in our economy (as is the case right now), either taxes must be lowered or spending must increase, BY DEFINITION. Instead of pointing this out, you just go "yaa well they did it too!" to the Republicans, which I'm afraid just makes you the most shameful type of "liberal".
Mr Lofgren, I must draw attention to your egregious lack of education regarding deficits and government spending, especially as you apparently served on the budget committee. One good line Cheney left us with was this: "deficits dont matter". And he was absolutely right. Even a quick glance over modern economic theory will bring you to MMT, which is not really a theory at all just an explanation of how government spending works with a sovereign currency issuer such as the USA.
When running a ~3-4% trade deficit as the US is, and having some positive integer savings rate as the US has, it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the government to run a balanced budget or surplus without throwing us into a recession - unless you perhaps advocate inflating yet one more phony asset bubble? Again, this is not theory or some idea I have about how government spending works, this is cold hard numbers and reality.
In order for the private sector to have net dollars, the government must have spent more than it collects in taxes. When we do not have enough demand and jobs in our economy (as is the case right now), either taxes must be lowered or spending must increase, BY DEFINITION. Instead of pointing this out, you just go "yaa well they did it too!" to the Republicans, which I'm afraid just makes you the most shameful type of "liberal".
Taxes WERE lowered for most, and spending HAS been increased a bit this year.
By the way, did you notice that a) this is a lifelong Republcan talking, and b) the article's about the way that ALL the current Republican plans would explode the deficit and the debt?
By the way, did you notice that a) this is a lifelong Republcan talking, and b) the article's about the way that ALL the current Republican plans would explode the deficit and the debt?
3
Except that Lowering Taxes has NEVER stimulated the economy ! Since the 1920s it has ALWAYS been spending, even Reagan spent out of recession !
Tell me of one since 1929 that we haven't spent out of ?
There is no such beast !
Tell me of one since 1929 that we haven't spent out of ?
There is no such beast !
3
I have been saying this very thing for over 12 years now ! People that vote Republican never listen !
5
Did this "new" knowledge of the incompetent if not outright fraudulent Republican budgets, ever since Reagan, suddenly strike the writer recently, or has he known about this swindle from the beginning? A fraud it is, of course, and it continues. I'm sorry, I appreciate the candor (and repentance?), but I don't forgive so easily. Republicans have done their worst to destroy not only the economic and social remnants of the New Deal and LBJ's presidency but our entire economy and culture. Did the writer ever think what he was doing while serving such masters?
5
If you want to see what works:
Let's compare WI under Walker and MN under Dayton since both took
office and see what is working. Both states switched leadership
and legislatures then. In MN Dayton inherited $5.9 billion deficit
(Walker half that) MN had a $1.9 billion surplus going into new
budget, Walker a similar deficit. Since Feb 2010 MN added 197,000
private sector jobs (with a tax increase on higher incomes and an
increase in minimum wage(supposedly real job killers) WI 167,000.
Walker promised to add 250,000 in his first term. MN made up
payments to k-12 schools of
over a billion dollars (payments that republicans had delayed)
and increased educational spending at all levels including
financing all day kindergarten. Walker cutting funding for
education including proposing $300 million cut to U of WI
and asking them to freeze tuition on top of it. Last thing
republicans want is an educated electorate. Only effect of RTW
is RTW for less pay and benefits. Trickle down
has never worked. Quite evident what is working and what is not.
Another thing Republicans here in MN keep saying our taxes drive
business away. MN has jumped up to 9th on Forbes rankings of best
states to do business in. Forbes also ranked MN 7th in economic
climate, and 2nd in quality of life. CNBC just ranked MN the top
state for business.
Let's compare WI under Walker and MN under Dayton since both took
office and see what is working. Both states switched leadership
and legislatures then. In MN Dayton inherited $5.9 billion deficit
(Walker half that) MN had a $1.9 billion surplus going into new
budget, Walker a similar deficit. Since Feb 2010 MN added 197,000
private sector jobs (with a tax increase on higher incomes and an
increase in minimum wage(supposedly real job killers) WI 167,000.
Walker promised to add 250,000 in his first term. MN made up
payments to k-12 schools of
over a billion dollars (payments that republicans had delayed)
and increased educational spending at all levels including
financing all day kindergarten. Walker cutting funding for
education including proposing $300 million cut to U of WI
and asking them to freeze tuition on top of it. Last thing
republicans want is an educated electorate. Only effect of RTW
is RTW for less pay and benefits. Trickle down
has never worked. Quite evident what is working and what is not.
Another thing Republicans here in MN keep saying our taxes drive
business away. MN has jumped up to 9th on Forbes rankings of best
states to do business in. Forbes also ranked MN 7th in economic
climate, and 2nd in quality of life. CNBC just ranked MN the top
state for business.
9
The Republican positions and "beliefs" about these budget issues remind me of the Gerald Garner book "The Watergate Follies: Who's in Charge Here" in which he depicts President Nixon with the speech balloon saying, "Who are you going to believe, me or the facts?"
Life imitating art...
Life imitating art...
4
My mother taught me early on…to save money for those times when it is needed. Save for a rainy day, the expression goes. The fiscal corollary is to spend when revenues are low and tax (e.g.: save) when revenues are high. Simple, right? Unfortunately, be it the "asterisk", the "trickle down theory" or "voodoo economics", all too often the plan has been to spend (on our military or social services) at all times. Yes, Obama has doubled the debt, but he did so in order to avoid a depression, when revenues were at historic lows…consequently, we have one the the strongest economies on the planet. Now that our economy is rebounding, ,we must prepare for an increase in taxes. Saying this as we are certainly not going to reduce our spending…be it military or social programs…so, hopefully a debate along these lines will emerge…either among the candidates or continue (thank you Mr. Lofgren!) within the press.
5
The media has failed the voters in this country. Instead of worrying about candidate access, the media should be calling out the frauds that are clear and open for inspection
Every candidate, both parties have had a free ride with the truth, and the media allows it
Do your job! Expose the facts!
Report the truth.......
Every candidate, both parties have had a free ride with the truth, and the media allows it
Do your job! Expose the facts!
Report the truth.......
4
I understand that the Republican tax plans are hypocritical, that Republicans say they want to cut deficits & pay down the debt, but propose plans that do the opposite.
I understand that these plans are bad economics primarily because they exacerbate the increasing inequality that gets more money to the people who do not need it and who spend a smaller percentage & use the rest to speculate, & not to the people who need it & will spend it.
I GET IT.
Paul Krugman and others in these pages have pounded this point for years.
BUT underlying all these protests is the assumption that the Republicans are basically correct, that we must reduce the deficit & sooner or later significantly pay down the debt. Not one word of support for this is ever offered. Everybody just knows it is true. BUT
THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
AND simple arithmetic shows it is still wrong today. I don't have space here to give the arithmetic, but let's look at history. ALL 6 times in the history of the US that we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years & significantly paid down the debt, we have fallen into a real depression. Every time at least since WWII, we have significantly reduced the deficit, we have had a recession or slowed a recovery.
For example after WWI we had 10 years of balanced budgets. By 10/1929 we had reduced the debt by 38%. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
On the other hand after WWII from 1946 - 1973 we INCREASED the debt by 75%, & real median household income surged 74%.
GET IT?
I understand that these plans are bad economics primarily because they exacerbate the increasing inequality that gets more money to the people who do not need it and who spend a smaller percentage & use the rest to speculate, & not to the people who need it & will spend it.
I GET IT.
Paul Krugman and others in these pages have pounded this point for years.
BUT underlying all these protests is the assumption that the Republicans are basically correct, that we must reduce the deficit & sooner or later significantly pay down the debt. Not one word of support for this is ever offered. Everybody just knows it is true. BUT
THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
AND simple arithmetic shows it is still wrong today. I don't have space here to give the arithmetic, but let's look at history. ALL 6 times in the history of the US that we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years & significantly paid down the debt, we have fallen into a real depression. Every time at least since WWII, we have significantly reduced the deficit, we have had a recession or slowed a recovery.
For example after WWI we had 10 years of balanced budgets. By 10/1929 we had reduced the debt by 38%. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
On the other hand after WWII from 1946 - 1973 we INCREASED the debt by 75%, & real median household income surged 74%.
GET IT?
4
Clarity is a beautiful thing.... And from a republican no less!
4
The Republican Deficit Hypocrisy
The Republican ... Hypocrisy
The Republican Hypocrisy
Republican = Hypocrisy
The Republican ... Hypocrisy
The Republican Hypocrisy
Republican = Hypocrisy
3
The GOP has already wrecked America across the board. Just how much further will we let them go is the real question.
7
This article is fantastic. But it plays down and fails to mention all the economic disaster W left us with, along with just about everything else. I am no fan of the Bush family but I will give H.W. credit where credit is due. His fiscal decisions did help pave the way for Bill Clinton's great responsible economic policy and world view. 22 million jobs created among them.
It's what the Republican's spend the money on also. War, Tax cuts, War ........ And they constantly threaten the programs everyone loves, medicare & social security. All the things that really protect us, like people that test foods and other watch dog agencies get underfunded.
All the truths that are stated here like Reagan's deficit and Clinton's turnaround are twisted and the lies repeated over and over, just like they do with anything they want, the Iraq War, ... until it just becomes part of the narrative, and people just state it as fact. The one person on the Republican side who really is a fiscal conservative, Rand Paul, I like. It's his wacky views on health care, religion and a few other things that bother me.
It's what the Republican's spend the money on also. War, Tax cuts, War ........ And they constantly threaten the programs everyone loves, medicare & social security. All the things that really protect us, like people that test foods and other watch dog agencies get underfunded.
All the truths that are stated here like Reagan's deficit and Clinton's turnaround are twisted and the lies repeated over and over, just like they do with anything they want, the Iraq War, ... until it just becomes part of the narrative, and people just state it as fact. The one person on the Republican side who really is a fiscal conservative, Rand Paul, I like. It's his wacky views on health care, religion and a few other things that bother me.
5
Private debt, borrowing from banks, increased tremendously during the Clinton administration because not enough money flowed FROM the federal government via spending to make up for the growing economy and the trade deficit. Although Bush returned to deficits, his deficits sent the money to the wrong people and even ignoring that, were not enough to compensate for the huge trade deficits. Private debt continued to increase until in 2008, the banking system imploded.
Rand Paul favors a balanced budget, the elimination of deficits. ALL 6 times we have had a balanced budgets for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a real depression.
Please spare us a 7th depression.
Rand Paul favors a balanced budget, the elimination of deficits. ALL 6 times we have had a balanced budgets for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a real depression.
Please spare us a 7th depression.
2
A tax cut in every return has become the new, bipartisan, chicken in every pot.
4
Finally, an honest assessment of Republican smoke and mirrors. I love the phrase, "recovering Republican."
4
Many thanks to this "recovering Republican" for reminding us that the myth of voodoo economics is alive and well and dangerous as ever.
3
Mr. Lofgren, I deeply appreciate your candid comments regarding he nation's fiscal problems. But it would have been more enlightening if you had put your numbers in relation to the "annual" budget or the "ten year" budget. A trillion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but is it over one year or ten years. Rarely does either the media or politicians put their numbers into a perspective that makes sense.
2
Mr. Rubio advocates a balanced-budget amendment while, at the same time, pushing for reductions in tax rates on personal and corporate income and the elimination of all tax on capital gains and estates. This reduction in Government income would be accompanied by an increase in Government spending on the military.
Don’t fight it, America. Enjoy it. Move to a location with a military contractor and take a job in that industry. Long-term employment will be guaranteed and there will be all the overtime that one can handle. Add to that, the benefits from: lower taxes on those increased earnings, the possibility of tax free capital gains on investments in the stocks of defense contractors and no estate tax on wealth accumulated at the time of passing. Sleep filled nights will also ensue, knowing that one’s good fortunes are being achieved while America is balancing its budget.
So, as the saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Don’t fight it, America. Enjoy it. Move to a location with a military contractor and take a job in that industry. Long-term employment will be guaranteed and there will be all the overtime that one can handle. Add to that, the benefits from: lower taxes on those increased earnings, the possibility of tax free capital gains on investments in the stocks of defense contractors and no estate tax on wealth accumulated at the time of passing. Sleep filled nights will also ensue, knowing that one’s good fortunes are being achieved while America is balancing its budget.
So, as the saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
1
Thank you for exposing the GOP's self styled fiscal and economic policies for what they are a Potemkin village built of lies and a mortar of moralistic half-truths. The GOP claims to be the party of the grown-ups on these issues, "trust us we know what we are doing" - they certainly do know what they are doing - they are doing their master's bidding.
1
Fortunately for the Republicans (and not fortunately for the rest of us), their supporters are not very good at arithmetic.
4
Wait, why is this news now?
Look at all the praise and deification of Paul Ryan several years ago, when he was being lauded by conservatives and independents (really just the same thing) for being a strict "deficit hawk" when he released his budget details.
This is the same Paul Ryan who voted to add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the Bush years, not my idea of a "deficit hawk".
Look at all the praise and deification of Paul Ryan several years ago, when he was being lauded by conservatives and independents (really just the same thing) for being a strict "deficit hawk" when he released his budget details.
This is the same Paul Ryan who voted to add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the Bush years, not my idea of a "deficit hawk".
4
Everything in this column basically boils down to the philosophy of "If you repeat an untruth often enough it becomes truth." And the reason so many people fall for this is because of another aspect of the New Republican Party: anti-intellectualism.
Has anyone else noticed that the candidates who've railed against Obama's college education policies all have college educations? It's good for me, just not you! This suggests to me that our politicians all understand what they're doing when their votes turn budget surpluses into deficits, and when they propose budgets and policies with magic asterisks. They're just banking on the fact that we won't! So far it's worked like a charm.
Has anyone else noticed that the candidates who've railed against Obama's college education policies all have college educations? It's good for me, just not you! This suggests to me that our politicians all understand what they're doing when their votes turn budget surpluses into deficits, and when they propose budgets and policies with magic asterisks. They're just banking on the fact that we won't! So far it's worked like a charm.
6
If math, history and correctly-placed blame were all it took to change votes, we'd be living in a very different country.
2
Well, there are no surprises here, but I suppose it's helpful to see it in print.
The challenge is to get these facts out in the twitter/blogger/network news area before it's too late. Can you get a spot on Fox News?
The most dangerous person isn't really any of the Republican candidates. It's Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been studiously pushing these kinds of idiocies for years. Two states have already moved in this direction, Kansas and Louisiana--and they're fiscal disasters. But team him up with Cruz or Rubio and the whole country will be like them.
Presumably Trump can actually add, and isn't as conservative in this area. Could this also be a source of his popularity?
The challenge is to get these facts out in the twitter/blogger/network news area before it's too late. Can you get a spot on Fox News?
The most dangerous person isn't really any of the Republican candidates. It's Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been studiously pushing these kinds of idiocies for years. Two states have already moved in this direction, Kansas and Louisiana--and they're fiscal disasters. But team him up with Cruz or Rubio and the whole country will be like them.
Presumably Trump can actually add, and isn't as conservative in this area. Could this also be a source of his popularity?
3
Republicans only care about the deficit when it's a Democrat who is increasing it. When the Bush administration wanted to cut taxes and then massively increase spending by waging 2 wars, Dick Cheney famously said that deficits don't matter.
5
Mike Lofgren should be chosen as the chief moderator of the next Republican whatever that is when the whole group faces off on stage. I think it's time for a neologism that captures the insanity, fantasy, outright lies, and sheer stupidity that pours forth.
4
One need only look at Kansas where Republican Governor Sam Brownback, a deficit hypocrite, slashed taxes and is now using money from the state education and transportation departments to fill holes.
5
Mr. Lofgren accurately describes the link between magic asterisk budgeting and enormous deficit increases, but he grossly understates the extent of the deficit's increase during President George W. Bush's administration. Despite inheriting such a huge surplus, President Bush left behind a deficit of $1.2 Trillion (source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753, the last Congressional Budget Office report while President Bush was still in office, Jan 7, 2009).
Mr. Lofgren is right to point out the potential deficit disasters that lurk in Republican candidates' plans. He is also right to draw on the historical examples of recent Republican administrations. The CBO report simply shows the problem to be of even greater magnitude than he presented.
Mr. Lofgren is right to point out the potential deficit disasters that lurk in Republican candidates' plans. He is also right to draw on the historical examples of recent Republican administrations. The CBO report simply shows the problem to be of even greater magnitude than he presented.
2
Mr. Nelson, can you point to one "deficit disaster" in all of the economic history of the United States? Just one.
I can point to many in the other direction. For example, after WWI we eliminated deficits for 10 years. That was a disaster.
I can point to many in the other direction. For example, after WWI we eliminated deficits for 10 years. That was a disaster.
2
For anyone like me that cares about deficits, let me state that there is only one thing worst then a tax and spend democrat and that is a don't tax and spend republican. One of the many reason I vote democratic is at least democrats know how to do basic math.
5
Every single Republican running for President does not have a grasp of reality and it should scare the heck out of the entire World. These guys don't have any grasp of reality whatsoever. Think about it: was there even one statement in last night's debate that was factually and objectively true? Bashing President Obama with a bunch of lies and innuendo is all the GOP has to offer. If any of them are elected and reinstitutes the failed Republican economic policies and the economy will collapses again but the Republicans are never accountable for their failures. They will blame Obama even though he will have left office. We've seen it with 9/11 and the Republicans 'blaming' President Clinton for something that happened 8 months after W! was inaugurated and it isn't even questioned as being in dispute in the GOP it is just common knowledge that 9/11 is Clinton's fault just like the Third Great Depression will be Obama's fault if the GOP wins the White House.
1
Voters only care about the taxes they pay. And voters who pay most of the taxes care the most. Budget deficits don't matter. Voters know that paying the nation's bills is just a matter of printing more money. We did it for the Big Banks that would have failed if we hadn't bailed them out. Now it's time to do it for the rest of us.
Why does the public not catch on we ask? Republicans rely on a base that is ignorant on this subject, that has been conditioned to question any fact, and to rely on Fox News for the truth. I guess you can say the working class and working poor in the Republican party have been brainwashed. It is shameful to see poor working families fall for this propaganda rather than vote for policies that will actually help themselves and their neighbors.
4
"Recovering Republican"--what a wonderful term. You have to tear your eyes and ears away from their snake oil sales pitch that we can have more by taxing less. As a well recognized visiting professor said in one of my graduate classes: The Laffer curve is a laugh put forth by the greedy and supported by the uneducated reporter. The only thing that trickles down to land on your head is yellow.
2
It's not that most Republican politicians don't care about the deficit, it's just that they care about other stuff more: tax cuts for the wealthy and getting reelected. If they could decimate social welfare spending they'd get that budget balanced in a flash. The only problem is that a pesky election shows up every two years, making it awful tough to end medicare for their most reliable voters.
In regard to the budget and deficits, to say the republicans are hypocrites is a grotesque understatement. Their dismal history of fiscal irresponsibility is well documented. It's undeniable. The amazing thing is to hear the republicans accuse Obama and the democrats of creating the massive deficits that they themselves created, and then to propose tax cuts and imprudent spending increases that would quickly make matters worse. It's astonishing, really.
6
What a true and accurate picture painted by none other than a decent republican, the hypocrisy and double standard displayed by politicians in his own party, willfully ignoring the facts...and its consequences. Not only that, as they continue to attack the democrats who saved their day, by trying to instill necessary changes for sanity to prevail. And now, the new batch of G.O.P.presidential candidates are more than eager to show their irresponsible behavior by lying to a misinformed electorate, demagogues telling folks angry and fearful of an uncertain future what they want to hear, not what they need to know, so they can vote rationally...and hold their leaders accountable. As we see it, republicans with unrestricted power, would bankrupt the country...and blame any scapegoat at hand (currently, any refugee would do).
53
A country that can print its own money and whose debt is in its own currency can NEVER go into bankruptcy unless it wants to.
I am fortunate to live in an affluent township in the NJ, with roads in the worst possible condition.
Next summer, when I hit a bump or crack in the pavement or pothole still left in disrepair I will remember this article and to vote against any one of these clowns.
The gall of these candidates for them to believe that we won't catch on to this financial nonsense.
Let me remind everyone,there was an article in this paper a few weeks back outlining Trump's budget plan…it was scary.
I don't like Hillary as a person,in fact I can't stand her, but I will probably vote for her. Her plan for the budget has been published and it makes sense for our future.
Next summer, when I hit a bump or crack in the pavement or pothole still left in disrepair I will remember this article and to vote against any one of these clowns.
The gall of these candidates for them to believe that we won't catch on to this financial nonsense.
Let me remind everyone,there was an article in this paper a few weeks back outlining Trump's budget plan…it was scary.
I don't like Hillary as a person,in fact I can't stand her, but I will probably vote for her. Her plan for the budget has been published and it makes sense for our future.
77
More people need to think like you and realize it's not about the popularity (remember the GWB you could sit down and have a beer with?), but about the intelligence, experience and fiscal responsibility while caring for the least fortunate in our society. That IS what government is all about after all.
2
The whole Republican agenda follows:
1. Increase the Military to absurd levels
2. Decrease all taxes for the 1%
3. Remove all financial, emotional and physical safety nets for the bottom 50% of all Americans.
4. Repeal Obama care and replace it with...nothing.
5. Start a War
6. Decrease social security benefits
7. Stop abortion
8. Allow no gun control
9. Praise Ronald Reagan
This is the Republican message at every debate, campaign stop and conservative media outlet. Makes me want to throw up my GMO breakfast.
1. Increase the Military to absurd levels
2. Decrease all taxes for the 1%
3. Remove all financial, emotional and physical safety nets for the bottom 50% of all Americans.
4. Repeal Obama care and replace it with...nothing.
5. Start a War
6. Decrease social security benefits
7. Stop abortion
8. Allow no gun control
9. Praise Ronald Reagan
This is the Republican message at every debate, campaign stop and conservative media outlet. Makes me want to throw up my GMO breakfast.
3
As clear-eyed and succinct an analysis as I've read; probably could only be framed by someone who survived the Kool Aid. The trouble is, this is all so doggone obvious that one bridles furiously at the thought that an entire party doesn't get it.
I guess if you are convinced that taxes are in and of themselves evil, all manner of looniness follows.
I guess if you are convinced that taxes are in and of themselves evil, all manner of looniness follows.
5
The whole Republican agenda follows:
1. Increase the Military to absurd levels
2. Decrease all taxes for the 1%
3. Remove all financial, emotional and physical safety nets for the bottom 50% of all Americans.
4. Repeal Obama care and replace it with...nothing.
5. Start a War
6. Decrease social security benefits
7. Stop abortion
8. Allow no gun control
9. Praise Ronald Reagan
This is the Republican message at every debate, campaign stop and conservative media outlet. Makes me want to throw up my GMO breakfast.
1. Increase the Military to absurd levels
2. Decrease all taxes for the 1%
3. Remove all financial, emotional and physical safety nets for the bottom 50% of all Americans.
4. Repeal Obama care and replace it with...nothing.
5. Start a War
6. Decrease social security benefits
7. Stop abortion
8. Allow no gun control
9. Praise Ronald Reagan
This is the Republican message at every debate, campaign stop and conservative media outlet. Makes me want to throw up my GMO breakfast.
2
Facts, logic, the truth mean nothing to the extremist conservatives that make up the crazed Republican base. They are driven by anger, hate, fear, racism, misogyny, and a political fanaticism as strong and dangerous as any religious fanaticism. The Republican party and its propaganda machine, Faux News and Hate Radio, Inc. feed their base a constant menu of disinformation 24/7. A few plutocrats and an Australia media mogul pull the strings of their radical politicians. All one has to do is look at the buzzing hive of Republican presidential candidates to see how dangerous the GOP has become.
5
Thank you for this excellent summary of the Big Lie so championed by conservatives: give the ultra-wealthy even more money, and through some fancy arithmetic on our end, we will make sure that you end up even richer too! And if that doesn't work, we will blame it on the EPA, teachers unions, the UN, Planned Parenthood "funding," or some other conspiracy we pretend has any significant impact on our budget. But no, it's definitely not the military or tax breaks that cost us so much cash.
Like the author, I was once a Republican. I used to believe that they were a fiscally sensible alternative to keep the runaway spending of Democrats in line. And at their best, they can be. But following the utter folly of Boy George's double punch (two wars put on a Visa card huge tax breaks), I am astounded that not one of the current Republican candidates can speak honestly about this blunder. Instead, they are perpetuating the same fantasy policy: tax breaks on the top will not only pay for themselves, but will somehow make the middle class and poor better off too! All while slashing our deficit! By magic! Call and order now!
Like the author, I was once a Republican. I used to believe that they were a fiscally sensible alternative to keep the runaway spending of Democrats in line. And at their best, they can be. But following the utter folly of Boy George's double punch (two wars put on a Visa card huge tax breaks), I am astounded that not one of the current Republican candidates can speak honestly about this blunder. Instead, they are perpetuating the same fantasy policy: tax breaks on the top will not only pay for themselves, but will somehow make the middle class and poor better off too! All while slashing our deficit! By magic! Call and order now!
5
As a fiscal conservative, I hope this opinion piece is also published in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard and other conservative sites. But I doubt that will happen. Way too many right wing types believe in Voodoo economics.
4
It is hilarious to see someone try to place the blame on Republicans for what the liberal democrats have done to the nations debt. I see another liberal who has no trouble lying and spinning a story. Usually it is one of the liberals who received training in obscuring the truth at law school. The only thing worse than a liberal politician is one who is also a lawyer.
Dewey Dixon: Now that you've shared your rant, prove it! Of course, you can't!
1
Well, this is the party that denies global warming, denies evolution, claims that abortion leads to cancer, and believes that more guns make us safer and the death penalty decreases the murder rate. They are completely divorced from reality, so of course they'll put out budget plans that are nothing more than science fiction. Their approach to policy is "Yeah, that sounds good, let's go with that."
Someone once said, "Reality is that which persists even when you don't believe it." How can anyone seriously contemplate any of these deluded demagogues leading the country? Would you get into a cab where the driver is wearing a blindfold? We have to stop them. They are very, very dangerous.
Get out the vote!!!
Someone once said, "Reality is that which persists even when you don't believe it." How can anyone seriously contemplate any of these deluded demagogues leading the country? Would you get into a cab where the driver is wearing a blindfold? We have to stop them. They are very, very dangerous.
Get out the vote!!!
3
The wealthy have used their money well and have bought the Republican Party. But the real point of huge tax cuts on the wealthy is the unspoken desire to pay for it by eliminating Medicare and Social Security.
2
Mr. Lofgren, I'm sure you were a valued member of the budget committees you served on as an aide, but you seem to have missed something the rest of us grasp fairly easily.
Every election cycle opposing parties vilify each other. The democratic candidates say the republican candidates caused all the world's problems, the republicans blame them on the democrats. Once elected, however, it's business as usual. There is no correlation between the job interview (campaign) and the job performance. The gainsaying is just kabuki theater. After nearly 30 years in government, how can you have missed this?
Separately, the government not collecting a tax isn't a cost to the government. If the government doesn't steal your assets after you die, if the government doesn't pinch your investment gains after you realize them, it is not a cost to the government. The government wasting trillions on frivolous spending initiatives and the massive jobs program that is the federal government is a cost.
The people don't exist to serve the government through. The government exists at the will of the people. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - even recovering ones should get that.
Every election cycle opposing parties vilify each other. The democratic candidates say the republican candidates caused all the world's problems, the republicans blame them on the democrats. Once elected, however, it's business as usual. There is no correlation between the job interview (campaign) and the job performance. The gainsaying is just kabuki theater. After nearly 30 years in government, how can you have missed this?
Separately, the government not collecting a tax isn't a cost to the government. If the government doesn't steal your assets after you die, if the government doesn't pinch your investment gains after you realize them, it is not a cost to the government. The government wasting trillions on frivolous spending initiatives and the massive jobs program that is the federal government is a cost.
The people don't exist to serve the government through. The government exists at the will of the people. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - even recovering ones should get that.
1
On so many things, Republicans have become the party of magical thinking. Worse, one's true measure of how faithful a Republican one is, is dependent on how fervently one believes things that are not so. Ever since Reagan, the party has been diving farther down the rabbit hole of orthodox insanity.
1
Please note re my earlier post that i am not advocating any of the Republicans' plans. I think they would be a disaster. But the "balance the budget"-types do not understand Fed Gov financing, and they do not understand sector balances. They think Government accounting should be the same as household accounting, and they do not take into account the effect of fed gov budgets on the rest of the economy. And so they are just as dangerous.
2
John T, you are a voice crying out in the wilderness.
2
Americans must credit the GOP spin machine that has achieved genuinely Orwellian heights of deception. The country has truly fallen in thrall to a decades-long "up is down, white is black, falsehood is truth, evil is saintliness" propaganda campaign.
This was blatantly on-display last night at the GOP presidential "debate" where angry mutants plied the fiction that the country, which has steadily been digging itself out of the septage of mismanagement, "is a total mess." It's not, and it hasn't been since 2008.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
This was blatantly on-display last night at the GOP presidential "debate" where angry mutants plied the fiction that the country, which has steadily been digging itself out of the septage of mismanagement, "is a total mess." It's not, and it hasn't been since 2008.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
A large part of the blame for this can be laid at the door of the media and the news "analysis" business. When you only hear about the proposals and not about alternatives or weaknesses in the proposals the consequence is an ignorant public, incapable of figuring out how such a proposal will actually affect their own budget because of how it affects the federal budget -- before the tsunami of Republican debt overwhelms them and not afterwards.
1
Please explain how the federal debt can overwhelm anyone. After WWII the public debt was, as a percentage of GDP, about 50% larger than today. Who was overwhelmed? In fact, the period from 1946 - 1973 is known as the Great Prosperity. We increased the debt in dollars by 75%. We invested in America, and the debt just became insignificant,
3
Mike Lofgren admits that he is "recovering" -- but he was a staffer, not the politician babbling this nonsense. He never checked his sanity at the door, got on TV and started babbling nonsense like this.
We need to see the true nature of this addiction (and that is what it is), and in particular what gives it the quick rush that makes it so addictive. It's simple: babble any crazy story that cuts taxes for the rich, contributions come in -- big ones.
Citizens United is like the development of crack, from powered cocaine. It makes the hit quicker and more potent for politicians.
I don't see any way to fix this, as long as hope springs eternal in the plutocrat's hearts that Mark Twain's immortal "Duke of Orleans" was right, saying:
"H'ain't the fools on our side? T'ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
In Twain's morality tale the two grifters got tarred and feathered in the next chapter. In the real world the grifters move on to K street -- to grift some more.
We need to see the true nature of this addiction (and that is what it is), and in particular what gives it the quick rush that makes it so addictive. It's simple: babble any crazy story that cuts taxes for the rich, contributions come in -- big ones.
Citizens United is like the development of crack, from powered cocaine. It makes the hit quicker and more potent for politicians.
I don't see any way to fix this, as long as hope springs eternal in the plutocrat's hearts that Mark Twain's immortal "Duke of Orleans" was right, saying:
"H'ain't the fools on our side? T'ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"
In Twain's morality tale the two grifters got tarred and feathered in the next chapter. In the real world the grifters move on to K street -- to grift some more.
2
Republicans say they want to reduce the debt? They don't. They want to decrease taxes and spend on the military like a drunken sailor.
Why? Actually, so that the debt will increase (which they will blame on Democrats), and then they will pursue their real objective in all this: to eliminate social welfare programs that they, and their wealthy sponsors, have hated since FDR'S administration?
Why? Actually, so that the debt will increase (which they will blame on Democrats), and then they will pursue their real objective in all this: to eliminate social welfare programs that they, and their wealthy sponsors, have hated since FDR'S administration?
5
When Cruz gets elected president we will return to the gold standard which fewer than 1% of Americans have ever heard about nor understand. Then, the GOP will have completed the task of undermining over 100 years of relative financial stability and plunge the world into chaos in which only the rich and entitled will be able to survive.
3
Hypocrisy? No, it is just dishonesty. Every person in the United States, also around the globe, that the United States has no intention of ever paying off its debt. To think otherwise put you in the delusional camp. Notice the words, it is all about 'control' of the debt, meaning let it grow within some function of GDP. Reduce it or pay it off, nonsense, and everybody knows it. America, born to be conned.
1
You wonder why the public hasn't caught on to this scam? This is one of the few times I have seen anything in the mainstream "liberal" media laying out the facts.
Since Reagan Republicans have been selling the snake oil of tax cuts that magically pay for themselves with almost no effort by the mainstream media to correct this outrageous lie. The media was in an uproar over the debt in the nineties (remember all the focus on the debt clock?) Yet after the budget was balanced under Clinton and we were generating huge surpluses the media shrugged off Dubya's claim that the surplus showed we were paying too much in taxes. Instead they mocked Gore for being boring - after all who wants to hear about using the surplus to pay off the debt and putting SS into a "lock box" to stop borrowing from its surplus? When Bush kept saying the surplus was "our money" the media that had been soooooo worried about the debt never bothered to point out that that debt was also ours and the ei me to pay it down was when the economy was booming (not during an economic crash as they later advocated).
No tax cut has ever come close to paying for itself, something even Dubya's top economic advisers publicly admitted (surprised?) yet Republicans can still get away with that seductive lie because the media has never tried to inform the public about this critical fact, preferring instead to play the faux balance game.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR200711...
Since Reagan Republicans have been selling the snake oil of tax cuts that magically pay for themselves with almost no effort by the mainstream media to correct this outrageous lie. The media was in an uproar over the debt in the nineties (remember all the focus on the debt clock?) Yet after the budget was balanced under Clinton and we were generating huge surpluses the media shrugged off Dubya's claim that the surplus showed we were paying too much in taxes. Instead they mocked Gore for being boring - after all who wants to hear about using the surplus to pay off the debt and putting SS into a "lock box" to stop borrowing from its surplus? When Bush kept saying the surplus was "our money" the media that had been soooooo worried about the debt never bothered to point out that that debt was also ours and the ei me to pay it down was when the economy was booming (not during an economic crash as they later advocated).
No tax cut has ever come close to paying for itself, something even Dubya's top economic advisers publicly admitted (surprised?) yet Republicans can still get away with that seductive lie because the media has never tried to inform the public about this critical fact, preferring instead to play the faux balance game.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR200711...
2
It is important to remember that at this point in the process, these are not really tax plans, but are instead fund-raising arguments. They mainly benefit the Billionaire Donor class because they are nothing more than yet another effort by the candidates to secure a few more of those giant donations that are at the core of nearly all their campaigns.
2
"Republicans have been remarkably successful in delinking taxes from fiscal policy and 'framing' taxes s a distasteful personal burden unconnected to widely desired goods..."
That is it in a nutshell. People who receive government services are someone else. They are not me, and they are takers.
We hear over an over again from fiscal conservatives that we have to run the country as a business, and need to tighten our belts. Yet the plan over and over for our "business" is to tell customers that they don't need to pay for any of our goods. Then we stop stocking goods people need because we cannot afford the inventory. And in a final step, we buy a whole lot of stuff that customers don't need, but that some of our friends like anyway, and we get loans to pay for it. We still don't charge anyone any money though.
The first responsibility of a successful business is to figure out how to get money for your product.
Take a page from your contributors, GOP. Tax the inefficiencies. Money earned in micro-second trades; taxes on wealth sitting in accounts not doing any trickling down; and relief for money invested in actual economic improvement and job creation.
That is it in a nutshell. People who receive government services are someone else. They are not me, and they are takers.
We hear over an over again from fiscal conservatives that we have to run the country as a business, and need to tighten our belts. Yet the plan over and over for our "business" is to tell customers that they don't need to pay for any of our goods. Then we stop stocking goods people need because we cannot afford the inventory. And in a final step, we buy a whole lot of stuff that customers don't need, but that some of our friends like anyway, and we get loans to pay for it. We still don't charge anyone any money though.
The first responsibility of a successful business is to figure out how to get money for your product.
Take a page from your contributors, GOP. Tax the inefficiencies. Money earned in micro-second trades; taxes on wealth sitting in accounts not doing any trickling down; and relief for money invested in actual economic improvement and job creation.
47
One of the right wing assaults against President Obama is that he is not a businessman. Well, neither was President Eisenhower, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Reagan, President George H.W.Bush, President Clinton. Then we get to President George W. Bush. He was a businessman, and they all failed and when he and "his" party had total control of the government they showed us what successful businessmen they were. So I don't think being a businessman really equates to being a good President. And I certainly think President Obama is a good President. Number 2 or 3 in my 66 years anyway.
2
What I always find remarkable is that the vast majority of people in the "party of personal responsibility" — now that I think of it, most Democrats as well — don't seem to grasp that deficits (and the accumulated national debt) represent money that's already been spent, covered by borrowed money.
In other words when politicians yammer about how terrible taxes are and blather about cutting the deficit, then proceed to enact policies guaranteed to increase the deficit, they are actively indicating a preference for not paying debts.
Personal responsibility, my eye.
In other words when politicians yammer about how terrible taxes are and blather about cutting the deficit, then proceed to enact policies guaranteed to increase the deficit, they are actively indicating a preference for not paying debts.
Personal responsibility, my eye.
47
As a lifelong Eisenhower Republican, I have been truly flummox for 35 years that this charade of Supply Economics has not been discredi5ted a long time ago. George H.W. Bush was right in calling this "Voodoo Economics."
When politicians call for additional tax cuts now and also advocate balancing the budget, one be sure that this politician is either totally misinformed on economic matters or is a total fraud. This is fantasy has been sold and bought by many. However, this fantasy can't continue forever. Then what? A deep hole was dug the past 35 years and the bill has been sent to later generations. This truly is the biggest risk to our country.......Economic Fraud!
When politicians call for additional tax cuts now and also advocate balancing the budget, one be sure that this politician is either totally misinformed on economic matters or is a total fraud. This is fantasy has been sold and bought by many. However, this fantasy can't continue forever. Then what? A deep hole was dug the past 35 years and the bill has been sent to later generations. This truly is the biggest risk to our country.......Economic Fraud!
4
Here are a few suggestions for the two self-styled musketeers of the GOP, Ryan and McConnell bent on wrecking what's left of our shredded safety net. Want to " fix" Social Security? Forget about benefit cuts, just eliminate the caps. Problem solved. Budget deficits? Return to the Clinton rates which produced surpluses, and eliminate outrages like the "carried interest" tax preference that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay taxes at rates half that of the middle class, and oil companies to pay nothing. And why exactly should dividends, or capital gains income which require no work have preferred tax treatment over wages and salaries? How about going back to policies that reward work, not Wall Street casino speculators?
4
Mr. Lofgren mentions his time under Ronald Reagen with David Stockman as the Head of the OMB. I might also add that the historical record indicates - and Mr Stockman confirmed in his famous revelations nearly 30 years ago- that the Republican desire to cut taxes is driven by a desire to cut out social spending.....period. Creating high deficits by reducing taxes allows them to continue with the end is nigh talk to stoke fear in the rank and file. The high deficit that they create is intended to act as a cudgel to prod the voters into thinking that they need to cut out their social safety net to save the country from ruin. It is a politically cynical ploy, not intended to help anyone but a small section of the population. The rank and file Republican voter has been hoodwinked and unfortunately it might be too late to do anything about the mess. The 2020 Census is 4 years away and only a thorough cleansing of gerrymandered legislative districts will allow the American majority to finally have its say.
4
I found it strange and a bit funny that the first thing out of Cruz's mouth was a rant against lobbyists. Lobbyists go to Capitol Hill with the interest of their clients in mind, primarily to advance their chances of profiting from lower taxes and fewer regulations. For the most part, lobbyists goals and the goals of Republicans are one and the same.
And let us not forget that the Fox mediator asked a question which incorrectly identified the 2008 fiscal meltdown as having happened on Obama's watch. Obama didn't take office until 2009, yet Fox still pedals this fantasy. That's why you hear whoops, yells and catcall whistles every time one of these candidates makes ridiculous claims about Republican fiscal responsibility. They've been very successful at deceiving their constituents.
And let us not forget that the Fox mediator asked a question which incorrectly identified the 2008 fiscal meltdown as having happened on Obama's watch. Obama didn't take office until 2009, yet Fox still pedals this fantasy. That's why you hear whoops, yells and catcall whistles every time one of these candidates makes ridiculous claims about Republican fiscal responsibility. They've been very successful at deceiving their constituents.
11
Tax capital gains exactly like earned income but give every individual a $100k exemption each year. Raise the cap on social security tax to $250k earned income. The result would be No more deficit. No problem finding money for higher ed and infrastructure. No more social security shortfalls. I can dream, can't I?
4
Finally the truth: cutting taxes for the rich won't reduce the debt but will raise it. Finally out of the mouth of babes and fools, sometimes truth can be found. Point in issue: Donald Trump says that in order to recoup the losses in income of middle class workers and loss of revenue from loopholes created for the rich, we should levy a tariff of at least 45% on goods brought back to this country by the perpetrators of the fraud -- the wealthiest multinational corporations and the "one percent."
19
It's not just cutting taxes for the rich, it's cutting taxes for anyone without a plan to pay for the tax cuts. Democrats have also played the game where they promise tax cuts to the middle class without offering corresponding spending cuts.
The problem with this thought is that once again I, the little guy, will be paying a higher tax, this time on the refrigerator coming from Mexico. My costs go up and theirs don't.
1
Love the article. While Paul Krugman has been saying essentially the same thing for many years now, it provides the big picture of debt/deficit history since Reagan.
The "magic asterisk" (unspecified spending cuts that would help balance the budget) mentioned in this article has always been the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, while of course keeping the taxes tied to those for their own uses. Republicans can't come out and say that because it would be widely unpopular with their own base. But that has been a conservative dream for decades.
The "magic asterisk" (unspecified spending cuts that would help balance the budget) mentioned in this article has always been the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, while of course keeping the taxes tied to those for their own uses. Republicans can't come out and say that because it would be widely unpopular with their own base. But that has been a conservative dream for decades.
73
The Fed Deficit doesn't matter.
Except when it comes to entitlements and spending on the poor. That's when the Fed Deficit does matter, and that's why it's part of the national conversation. Not to reduce spending or increase taxes per say. But to reduce spending on the less fortunate.
And this isn't unique to the GOP. Witness the WaPo editorial page always in anguish over the Fed Deficit - of course, this is how the WaPo demonstrates their bonafides in being "serious", by taking it out on the ides of the less fortunate. And the Dem establishment buys into this for the most part; they don't feel they're serious unless they sell out their constituency (not their banking constituency, but the constituency that voted them, primarily the less fortunate). Witness Obama and Dem willingness to adopt Sequestration as their negotiating strategy.
The Fed Deficit is just an artifact of how much surplus has been hoovered up by the rich and needs to be recycled via bond purchases because it isn't being recycled into the economy via taxes. If the surplus wasn't recycled, our economy would shrink.
One would think the DoD would pipe up and identify this artifact for what it is. But the DoD knows that if entitlements lose, that they win more. So better for them to be quiet on the issue.
Except when it comes to entitlements and spending on the poor. That's when the Fed Deficit does matter, and that's why it's part of the national conversation. Not to reduce spending or increase taxes per say. But to reduce spending on the less fortunate.
And this isn't unique to the GOP. Witness the WaPo editorial page always in anguish over the Fed Deficit - of course, this is how the WaPo demonstrates their bonafides in being "serious", by taking it out on the ides of the less fortunate. And the Dem establishment buys into this for the most part; they don't feel they're serious unless they sell out their constituency (not their banking constituency, but the constituency that voted them, primarily the less fortunate). Witness Obama and Dem willingness to adopt Sequestration as their negotiating strategy.
The Fed Deficit is just an artifact of how much surplus has been hoovered up by the rich and needs to be recycled via bond purchases because it isn't being recycled into the economy via taxes. If the surplus wasn't recycled, our economy would shrink.
One would think the DoD would pipe up and identify this artifact for what it is. But the DoD knows that if entitlements lose, that they win more. So better for them to be quiet on the issue.
2
Mr. Lofgren correctly points out the hypocrisy of the Republican presidential hopefuls regarding their budget proposals. Unfortunately, the article gives the impression that at all times deficit reduction is the highest priority. However, there are times when federal deficit spending is in the best interest of the country. When the economy is faltering because the private sector does not provide sufficient demand to support the economy, the federal government is wise to borrow for increased investment in valuable projects to boost demand. For instance, the large deficits of the stimulus package to repair the economy after the 2008 Great Recession were justified. It would have probably been more effective if it were larger and provided more vigorous economic expansion. The deficits can then be repaid when the economy is overheated. Increased taxes and budget surpluses at such times can help temper inflationary pressures.
.
The problem with the Republican presidential hopefuls is not only their hypocrisy regarding budget deficits, but their failure to understand the government’s role in supporting the economy. I suspect some have bought (or been bought) into the notion that reducing government spending while supporting tax breaks for the top few percent to support the trickle down of wealth to the rest of us is always the best solution. However, it is hard to believe( that as Mr. Trump would say) that they are all that “stupid’.
.
The problem with the Republican presidential hopefuls is not only their hypocrisy regarding budget deficits, but their failure to understand the government’s role in supporting the economy. I suspect some have bought (or been bought) into the notion that reducing government spending while supporting tax breaks for the top few percent to support the trickle down of wealth to the rest of us is always the best solution. However, it is hard to believe( that as Mr. Trump would say) that they are all that “stupid’.
6
With the hope that there are some open-minded readers, I offer up the following considerations. You could verify on the OMB website Summary Budget Table S-1 that federal receipts = 18.7% of GDP. Outlays = 21.3% of GDP and the annual deficit is 2.5% of GDP. It is a reasonable and necessary discussion to consider ways to increase the federal tax receipts side of the equation by increasing the economy. Private enterprise is still the largest slice of that pie. TreasuryDirect.gov will confirm that the interest that we pay on the cumulative and growing federal debt in 2015 was $402 billion. That will explode if interest rates rise, in which case we must anticipate much less in the way of income support payments by the federal government.
I would love to know the percentage of NYT editorial writers who have risked their fortunes to invest in a business that has to be profitable to meet payrolls, pay benefits and invest internally to survive? The putative "intellectual conservatives" who are routinely castigated here live in the alternative universe in which higher tax rates would shut them down.
I would love to know the percentage of NYT editorial writers who have risked their fortunes to invest in a business that has to be profitable to meet payrolls, pay benefits and invest internally to survive? The putative "intellectual conservatives" who are routinely castigated here live in the alternative universe in which higher tax rates would shut them down.
In the general election, the Democratic nominee needs to take a page out of the Bill Clinton playbook and boil this down into a one or two (or at most three) sentence soundbite that encapsulates this clearly for an obviously intellectually-challenged voting populace. "For the last 40 years, Republican tax policies have reduced growth and increased the deficit, while Democratic tax policies have increased growth and reduced the deficit." Don't get any more complicated than that, and repeat, repeat, repeat ad infinitum. If this kind of simplistic talk can work for Karl Rove, it can work for Bernie or Hillery as well once we are in the general election.
9
It is mind boggling and completely irrational that people who will probably get the most affected by GOP voodoo economics are the most fervent supporters of the proponents of these policies. My wife and friends tell me that as an independent centrist leaving in the east coast and making a decent living I should worry less about the prospects of having one of these candidates elected since I would be better off. Now that would be rational...
2
Thank you for this common sense article, Mr. Lofgren, but I think your use of Mr. Johnson's quote might be giving your former colleagues too much credit. The willful distortion of the fiscal record by the Republican party doesn't seem based on "hope," but on the reality that elections are increasingly driven by money, and our elected officials are ever more beholden to their corporate masters. This, too, seems a common-sense observation, but one which the Republicans have taken great pains to obfuscate. The recession of 2008, which saw trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money transferred to corporate coffers in the form of bailouts, was a result of this fiscal policy, in the form of deregulation. Yet the Republicans spun this disaster into hyped "budget deficit" anxiety, which as Mr. Lofgren's article points out, is disingenuous. This amounted to cover for the robbery of trillions of dollars in broad daylight. The common sense analysis of this and other Republican fiscal rhetoric suggests that their motive is protection of capitalist interests, not "hope." The incentive for protecting these interests will end only when we get money out of politics.
5
The US economy is far from solid. When our biggest international trade partners have trouble so do we. Locally, how is the NYT doing financially? Also, the country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent. This figure is more a reflection of our workforce activity than the unemployment rate. Starting with the next President we should find a better way to calculate the unemployment rate which presently doesn't count the people who gave up looking for work because there aren't any jobs for them. For those who are participating in the workforce there is what is called Wage Stagnation. Real Earnings have not increased for a number of years. The deficit has nothing to do with hypocrisy; it is real and dangerously high.
There is absolutely no reason to have live audiences at the debates and have the color guard come out and sing the national anthem. This is not entertainment like a football game. The reason for debates is to see who is most knowledgeable about domestic and foreign policy. Not who can get the loudest cheers from the crowd because they say something outrageous, is totally false but the crowd like it anyway.
The crowd is a distraction and candidates like Rubio use it as a distraction to pivot and avoid answering the question. He's so good at it the moderator forgets what the original question was. The moderators should be armed with the facts but they never are. Again, this isn't about entertainment. This is about running for President of the United States.
The crowd is a distraction and candidates like Rubio use it as a distraction to pivot and avoid answering the question. He's so good at it the moderator forgets what the original question was. The moderators should be armed with the facts but they never are. Again, this isn't about entertainment. This is about running for President of the United States.
7
Republicans often speak of the budget and budget deficits in terms of a family gathered about the kitchen table, trying to figure out how to pay its bills while at the same time providing for its daily needs. Their response would be very much like the head of the house -- after tallying up all of the bills and trying to decide which should be paid first in order of priority -- suddenly announcing that he/she is going to quit their current job and take one that pays significantly less money. That doesn't make sense, does it. Well, it also doesn't make sense to cut taxes in the face of large deficits. How are we to pay out debits with less revenues? Balanced budget resolutions likewise don't make much sense when it comes to running a country. When you have a balanced budget, what do you in the case of national emergencies, e.g., devastating floods, hurricanes, forest fires, or unanticipated conflicts? Does one then say, "sorry, we don't have the money to address those problem?". The Republican economic plan, which is based on trickle down economics, is a fraud.
13
We use fiat currency. Nothing wrong with this. But why is it that nobody seems to understand that the Federal government is the issuer of this currency and everyone else is a user? Our government has almost unlimited power to create dollars and they've also the power to destroy those dollars through taxation. What everyone should be focused on is the stability of our currency, economic growth, inflation and employment - not the size of the national debt. The debt is merely an accounting tool used to balance the books. Stop issuing dollars through overly stringent fiscal policy, start running large surpluses and watch what happens to our economy. Or start thinking of the debt as something else - national savings. It's the other side of the books.
2
Reagan raised the debt ceiling a still record 17 times.
Bush 1 raised the debt ceiling 4 times.
Bush the war criminal raised it 7 times.
Combined they raised the debt ceiling 28 times in 240 months, on average, every 8.6 months.
In the combined 180 months of Clinton and Obama the debt ceiling has been raised 7 times, on average, every 25 months.
And, much of the spending under President Obama has been to pay for:
Boy George's two unfunded tax cuts for the 1%.
Boy George's two unfunded, disastrous wars.
Boy George's unfunded trillion dollar wet kiss to Big Pharma, Medicare Part D.
Bush 1 raised the debt ceiling 4 times.
Bush the war criminal raised it 7 times.
Combined they raised the debt ceiling 28 times in 240 months, on average, every 8.6 months.
In the combined 180 months of Clinton and Obama the debt ceiling has been raised 7 times, on average, every 25 months.
And, much of the spending under President Obama has been to pay for:
Boy George's two unfunded tax cuts for the 1%.
Boy George's two unfunded, disastrous wars.
Boy George's unfunded trillion dollar wet kiss to Big Pharma, Medicare Part D.
8
The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to GDP, which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes.
The deficit under Obama has decreased year on year compared to where it was when Bush left when it was 10% of GDP. Now it´s 2% of GDP. In fact, it has been shrinking at the fastest rate since WW2 de-mobilization when the national debt was 100% of the economy, and it would be even more if the GOP stopped deliberately blocking/hampering deficit reducing initiatives such as cap and trade, the dream act, closing tax loop-holes, and Obamacare.
The deficit under Obama has decreased year on year compared to where it was when Bush left when it was 10% of GDP. Now it´s 2% of GDP. In fact, it has been shrinking at the fastest rate since WW2 de-mobilization when the national debt was 100% of the economy, and it would be even more if the GOP stopped deliberately blocking/hampering deficit reducing initiatives such as cap and trade, the dream act, closing tax loop-holes, and Obamacare.
99
We've heard all this time after time, and we'll hear it all again many more times before the elections. But those determined to vote Republican will refuse to believe, understand, or remember it. (I personally know several with ears permanently reddened by having fingers stuck in them so forcefully for so long.)
So make an idiot-proof infographic out of it. Have progressive superpacs buy space in Guns 'n Ammo and time on Fox news and keep it under their noses.
Somehow we've got to make the low info voter understand that the $2 a year in tax savings the Republican plans will give him aren't worth the deficit increases that will occur because those same plans that give him $2 give $20,000,000 to the Koches and the Waltons.
So make an idiot-proof infographic out of it. Have progressive superpacs buy space in Guns 'n Ammo and time on Fox news and keep it under their noses.
Somehow we've got to make the low info voter understand that the $2 a year in tax savings the Republican plans will give him aren't worth the deficit increases that will occur because those same plans that give him $2 give $20,000,000 to the Koches and the Waltons.
3
"In 1990, when the deficit hit almost 4 percent of gross domestic product..."
Let's see. After the deficit hit 4 percent the US economy had one of the greatest periods of growth and lowest unemployment in recent history.
"By 1998, when the budget was finally balanced..."
Then two years after "the budget was finally balanced" the economy went into recession.
Fact 1: As a currency issuer the Federal Govt cannot run out of money. It can always pay any amount of debt denominated in its own currency. It could pay off the entire US debt tomorrow or anytime it wants to. It can sustain any level of deficit indefinitely and without difficulty.
Fact 2: Federal Govt deficit = non-government sector surplus, to the penny. Setting the foreign sector aside for the moment, the only way the private sector (that's you and me) can net save is by the Fed Gov going into deficit. It also means that the only way the Fed budget can be in surplus is by the non-gov sector being in deficit. Hence the 2001 recession.
Let's see. After the deficit hit 4 percent the US economy had one of the greatest periods of growth and lowest unemployment in recent history.
"By 1998, when the budget was finally balanced..."
Then two years after "the budget was finally balanced" the economy went into recession.
Fact 1: As a currency issuer the Federal Govt cannot run out of money. It can always pay any amount of debt denominated in its own currency. It could pay off the entire US debt tomorrow or anytime it wants to. It can sustain any level of deficit indefinitely and without difficulty.
Fact 2: Federal Govt deficit = non-government sector surplus, to the penny. Setting the foreign sector aside for the moment, the only way the private sector (that's you and me) can net save is by the Fed Gov going into deficit. It also means that the only way the Fed budget can be in surplus is by the non-gov sector being in deficit. Hence the 2001 recession.
1
Lying and blaming others is easy. Fantasy is easy. Truth and responsibility and accountability are much more difficult because they require integrity, something sadly lacking in politicians, particularly the GOP. Pandering to the 1% and business does not solve our problems. Rebuilding the middle class and creating an environment of well paying jobs is critical or our country will continue sinking into oblivion.
3
When will Americans finally catch on that Republican concern about debt and deficits is a sham? Modern Republicans aren't interested in balancing the budget or eliminating the national debt; they're interested in shrinking government. Making the debt and the deficit out to be a big deal is just leverage to get big spending cuts. In other words, Republicans NEED debt and deficits to advance their anti-government agenda.
Any doubt on this score should have been resolved in 2000. Back then, the federal government was running a surplus sufficient that the debt would have been paid off in a few years. But rather than celebrate the arrival of conservative Nirvana, candidate George Bush promised to cut taxes instead of using the surplus to pay off the national debt.
Very shortly we were once again running up deficits and debt, and Republicans went right on calling for massive spending cuts.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Any doubt on this score should have been resolved in 2000. Back then, the federal government was running a surplus sufficient that the debt would have been paid off in a few years. But rather than celebrate the arrival of conservative Nirvana, candidate George Bush promised to cut taxes instead of using the surplus to pay off the national debt.
Very shortly we were once again running up deficits and debt, and Republicans went right on calling for massive spending cuts.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
6
"Hypocrisy" has become possibly the most popular and descriptive word used in all articles, broadcasts and comments in discussions concerning campaigning for this presidential election.
Often, esoteric nuances are attributed to the correct understanding of this word. This is not at all necessary or in fact beneficial to the correct meaning of "hypocrisy".
To properly deconstruct "hypocrisy", one only needs to form a mind picture of the following.
Hypocrisy : noun. The stinking, sludge like substance emanating from the vile, open orifice of republican candidates during waking hours often more than once per day. The candidate usually isn't even sitting sitting while discharging said disgusting effluent.
Often, esoteric nuances are attributed to the correct understanding of this word. This is not at all necessary or in fact beneficial to the correct meaning of "hypocrisy".
To properly deconstruct "hypocrisy", one only needs to form a mind picture of the following.
Hypocrisy : noun. The stinking, sludge like substance emanating from the vile, open orifice of republican candidates during waking hours often more than once per day. The candidate usually isn't even sitting sitting while discharging said disgusting effluent.
2
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more & more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. The only other place money flows into the private sector is from foreign trade if our trade balance is positive.
8. Thus to get the new money we need in 2., if we have a negative trade balance (as we have had since 1976), we need a substantial deficit.
9. If not enough money flows into the private sector, people borrow money from banks. You can see this clearly in recent history. In the late 90's the deficit was reduced culminating in the Clinton surpluses. This was followed by the Bush deficits which were too small to counteract the huge negative trade balances. Except for a brief period in 2003, money poured out of the private sector. Private debt exploded.
10. Since banks lend out much more than they have, this puts great stress on the banking system. Eventually it fails. People want money in liquid form like dollars, and the banks do not have enough. This is called a financial crisis. It happened in 1929 and in 2008. We were saved from a real depression in 2008 by the FED pouring money into the banking system, but it wasn't pretty.
It's just arithmetic.
2. As the economy grows it needs more & more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED,
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. The only other place money flows into the private sector is from foreign trade if our trade balance is positive.
8. Thus to get the new money we need in 2., if we have a negative trade balance (as we have had since 1976), we need a substantial deficit.
9. If not enough money flows into the private sector, people borrow money from banks. You can see this clearly in recent history. In the late 90's the deficit was reduced culminating in the Clinton surpluses. This was followed by the Bush deficits which were too small to counteract the huge negative trade balances. Except for a brief period in 2003, money poured out of the private sector. Private debt exploded.
10. Since banks lend out much more than they have, this puts great stress on the banking system. Eventually it fails. People want money in liquid form like dollars, and the banks do not have enough. This is called a financial crisis. It happened in 1929 and in 2008. We were saved from a real depression in 2008 by the FED pouring money into the banking system, but it wasn't pretty.
It's just arithmetic.
3
The Republican plans to deal with the deficit are terrible--except when compared to Liberal plans. Liberal ideas for what to do with our economy can best be described loosely as "Krugman-omics"--also known as "Shampoo Economics"--(borrow, print, spend, repeat).
Liberals live in a world where deficits and debt simply do not matter--where government spending is good, especially when it's used to feather the nests of their constituents--the poor, minorities, academia, unions, non-profits and public employees. For Liberals, spending is power. The more of our national wealth they can shift into the pockets of the non-productive, the more votes they garner, and the more control they have over all of our lives. And if they can confiscate the money they need from our economic movers and shakers, so much the better--although barring that, they're happy to borrow, print and otherwise spend. The truth is, we have a government we cannot afford. Any talk of debt reduction is illegitimate without finding smart ways to reduce the size and reach of our federal government.
If you want to know what an ideal Liberal economy would look like--we pretty much have it now. Obama and his friends in congress have taken us from a 10 trillion dollar debt--to 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. Funny...all Liberals can talk about is how much he's reduced our deficit.
Question: after two terms in office, couldn't he find a single program to cut--other than the military?
Liberals live in a world where deficits and debt simply do not matter--where government spending is good, especially when it's used to feather the nests of their constituents--the poor, minorities, academia, unions, non-profits and public employees. For Liberals, spending is power. The more of our national wealth they can shift into the pockets of the non-productive, the more votes they garner, and the more control they have over all of our lives. And if they can confiscate the money they need from our economic movers and shakers, so much the better--although barring that, they're happy to borrow, print and otherwise spend. The truth is, we have a government we cannot afford. Any talk of debt reduction is illegitimate without finding smart ways to reduce the size and reach of our federal government.
If you want to know what an ideal Liberal economy would look like--we pretty much have it now. Obama and his friends in congress have taken us from a 10 trillion dollar debt--to 20 trillion by the time he leaves office. Funny...all Liberals can talk about is how much he's reduced our deficit.
Question: after two terms in office, couldn't he find a single program to cut--other than the military?
1
The Republicans portray themselves as the fiscally responsible party while doing fiscally irresponsible things this because it works. It's dishonest and disingenuous but politically effective.
However, at the end of the day it's we the voters who put these people into office. The politicians certainly bear some of the responsibility but if more voters were informed and held the politicians accountable then there wouldn't be a problem.
However, at the end of the day it's we the voters who put these people into office. The politicians certainly bear some of the responsibility but if more voters were informed and held the politicians accountable then there wouldn't be a problem.
90
For the record, the Obama admiistration inherited a budget deficit of about 1350 billion when he took office. He will leave office with a budget deficit under 500 billion.
6
Mr. Lofgren may have penned this op-ed earlier and based its premise on an assumption that debt and the deficit were going to be major topics of conversation on Thursday; but such was not the case – very little was mentioned about either by anyone.
It’s kind of entertaining to read so often from critics that Republican tax proposals award higher tax breaks to the “wealthy”, by which they usually mean high-earners. The truth is that these are largely the people who PAY federal income taxes, so it shouldn’t be astonishing that in any plan that calls for tax cuts they’d get outsized benefits. The real criticism is taking less from Americans to fund a voracious, never-satisfied government.
Reducing taxes, of course, without reducing spending IS a great way of increasing the deficit. Not surprising that Republicans don’t stop with tax reduction but balance it with spending reduction, as well. But there remain many who believe that once we start spending at a certain level it must be a natural law that we can never spend LESS.
Then, President Obama, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton before him, eviscerated our military. Not too surprising that Rubio and others stress the by-now-typical chore of needing to rebuild it by Republicans after seeing it decimated by Democrats. Nobody should be surprised by this and it’s almost universally supported by Republicans and even a few Democrats.
Mr. Lofgren may have worked for Republicans, but he surely didn’t take much away from them.
It’s kind of entertaining to read so often from critics that Republican tax proposals award higher tax breaks to the “wealthy”, by which they usually mean high-earners. The truth is that these are largely the people who PAY federal income taxes, so it shouldn’t be astonishing that in any plan that calls for tax cuts they’d get outsized benefits. The real criticism is taking less from Americans to fund a voracious, never-satisfied government.
Reducing taxes, of course, without reducing spending IS a great way of increasing the deficit. Not surprising that Republicans don’t stop with tax reduction but balance it with spending reduction, as well. But there remain many who believe that once we start spending at a certain level it must be a natural law that we can never spend LESS.
Then, President Obama, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton before him, eviscerated our military. Not too surprising that Rubio and others stress the by-now-typical chore of needing to rebuild it by Republicans after seeing it decimated by Democrats. Nobody should be surprised by this and it’s almost universally supported by Republicans and even a few Democrats.
Mr. Lofgren may have worked for Republicans, but he surely didn’t take much away from them.
1
You are so full of it the reality of your thinking boggles the mind. There is not one single Republican policy, dating to President Nixon, that you can trot out as having benefited the USA. President Carter "decimated" the military? We had just come out of a twelve year period of non-declared war which cost the nation billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. And yet somehow the President, who does not write checks, "decimated" the military. And how on earth you extend that to Presidents Clinton and Obama especially is baffling. We spend more and more on Defense every year and are less and less safe as a result of the exorbitant expenditures on this corporate welfare. Face it, the only non-war economic expansion in the history of the USA came under President Clinton because the Republican Congress was too busy worried about blow jobs in the White House to do anything to get in the way. The tax policy under President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton had our nation on a recovery basis and the truck was completely driven into the ditch by President George W. Bush and "his" Congress. Admit it man, your party is the party of tax less and spend way more and is a total failure on each and every front.
4
One way that the Bush tax cuts favored the wealthy is that Bush cut taxes on dividends and capital gains so that these forms of income are taxed at a lower rate than wage income.
About half the capital gain income is received by the top .1%.
The US loses about 160 B /year by not taxing dividends and capital gains as ordinary income.
The US loses about 43 B / by not taxing unrealized capital gains at death.
This loss of income is made up by increasing the taxes of the ordinary person whose income is mainly from wages.
Please don't respond that the dividend and capital gain income is NOT the govt.'s money.
Neither is the wage income the govt.'s money.
The only reason to give preferences to dividend and cap gain income is to give a tax break to the rich.
About half the capital gain income is received by the top .1%.
The US loses about 160 B /year by not taxing dividends and capital gains as ordinary income.
The US loses about 43 B / by not taxing unrealized capital gains at death.
This loss of income is made up by increasing the taxes of the ordinary person whose income is mainly from wages.
Please don't respond that the dividend and capital gain income is NOT the govt.'s money.
Neither is the wage income the govt.'s money.
The only reason to give preferences to dividend and cap gain income is to give a tax break to the rich.
5
Republicans do not balance tax cuts with spending cuts. That is false.
Republicans have routinely expanded the size of the federal government.
A military budget that is now well over 700 million; and greater than the next 8 nation's military expenditures COMBINED, is hardly an eviseration. In fact, Mr. Obama has increased spending for several military programs.
Your comments are as factually baseless as so much of the Republican rhetoric.
Republicans have routinely expanded the size of the federal government.
A military budget that is now well over 700 million; and greater than the next 8 nation's military expenditures COMBINED, is hardly an eviseration. In fact, Mr. Obama has increased spending for several military programs.
Your comments are as factually baseless as so much of the Republican rhetoric.
2
Last night, Ted Cruz was boasting about how his version of trickle-down tax cut fairy dust plan has been formally blessed by Arthur Laffer, the discredited Ronald Reagan 'economist' and godfather of trickle-down malpractice, fraud and economic violence that has been shattering the nation for 35 years.
Nothing bankrupts entire countries and entire middle-classes like the right-wing 0.1% tax cut corn syrup that the Grand Old Plantation party preaches with blind religious fervor.
You can't create better snake oil than Republican mathematical, intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Down Is Up: GOP 2016
Nothing bankrupts entire countries and entire middle-classes like the right-wing 0.1% tax cut corn syrup that the Grand Old Plantation party preaches with blind religious fervor.
You can't create better snake oil than Republican mathematical, intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Down Is Up: GOP 2016
87
Neighborhood conservatives said that when they won the 1+ billion Powerball the first thing they'd do would be to get their taxes on it is close to zero as possible.
When I suggested that even if taxes took 40% they'd still have more money than God, so why not pay taxes that help out state and federal budgets, they said "I'll give to charity instead."
They remind me of little kids who assume that everything around them--roads, bridges, fire fighters, retired teachers on a pension, and so on--just simply exist, no source of revenue required.
How the heck could America's infrastructure and public services be funded by private piecemeal contributions to a patchwork of charities, with no contribution required from the 1%?
When I suggested that even if taxes took 40% they'd still have more money than God, so why not pay taxes that help out state and federal budgets, they said "I'll give to charity instead."
They remind me of little kids who assume that everything around them--roads, bridges, fire fighters, retired teachers on a pension, and so on--just simply exist, no source of revenue required.
How the heck could America's infrastructure and public services be funded by private piecemeal contributions to a patchwork of charities, with no contribution required from the 1%?
18
"this ritual denunciation of deficits and out-of-control spending is a fraud"
As a party, as a part of government that know full well, they have as a group decided to commit this fraud.
And they get away with it.
I am not sure which is the worse, that so many are so willing to defraud the country, or that they can.
Certainly it is reported often enough, as here.
Many simply won't believe it, even when told, despite vast evidence. Why?
I think it goes to the debased nature of our politics. Lies are so much expected that all evidence is simply disregarded.
The only cure for it now that it is this bad is to put real sanctions on lies. I can't imagine that really happening. I don't see a way out, until actual collapse.
Governments in the past have gotten themselves in such a political dead end that collapse is the only out. Before our present Constitution we had a national government that collapsed in dysfunction.
It looks like we've done it again.
As a party, as a part of government that know full well, they have as a group decided to commit this fraud.
And they get away with it.
I am not sure which is the worse, that so many are so willing to defraud the country, or that they can.
Certainly it is reported often enough, as here.
Many simply won't believe it, even when told, despite vast evidence. Why?
I think it goes to the debased nature of our politics. Lies are so much expected that all evidence is simply disregarded.
The only cure for it now that it is this bad is to put real sanctions on lies. I can't imagine that really happening. I don't see a way out, until actual collapse.
Governments in the past have gotten themselves in such a political dead end that collapse is the only out. Before our present Constitution we had a national government that collapsed in dysfunction.
It looks like we've done it again.
19
The end game is to eliminate entitlements altogether, so first you must starve the beast by cutting taxes. Then, when all those groovy job creators don't actually create jobs but instead buy six homes in the Hamptons and make sure they all have a dozen $10,000 toilet seats, the next step is to admit that entitlements must be cut. It's the old "our hands are tied" argument. Republicans have done essentially the same thing with the Affordable Care Act. Hamstring it in every way they can and then declare it a failure.
I keep thinking the average American will eventually catch on, and op/eds like this will surely help, but the Republican fear-and-anger noise machine is formidable. And let's admit it, while we're being honest, that a lot of Americans who will go to the polls in November are not all that bright.
I keep thinking the average American will eventually catch on, and op/eds like this will surely help, but the Republican fear-and-anger noise machine is formidable. And let's admit it, while we're being honest, that a lot of Americans who will go to the polls in November are not all that bright.
378
The average American is too busy on Facebook, their Smart phones and Netflixs to catch on.
2
"And you can keep your own doctor" - Obama care.
Come on. The government either a) lies or b) doesn't know what the impact will be of anything they promise.
The parties are both hypocritical. It's why America in general - on both sides - have lost faith in government.
Come on. The government either a) lies or b) doesn't know what the impact will be of anything they promise.
The parties are both hypocritical. It's why America in general - on both sides - have lost faith in government.
3
I kept my own doctor. How about you?
A very small percentage may not have been able to keep their doctor but what's the Republican alternative?
Since Nixon, health care inflation has been greater than regular inflation. 2014 had the lowest health inflation in 50 years.
But we pay 50% more for health care than other industrialized countries, with health care no better and often worse. And the other countries have universal coverage.
We rank number 27 for infant mortality and Alabama ranks the same as Botswana for infant mortality.
Shouldn't we be embarrassed?
A very small percentage may not have been able to keep their doctor but what's the Republican alternative?
Since Nixon, health care inflation has been greater than regular inflation. 2014 had the lowest health inflation in 50 years.
But we pay 50% more for health care than other industrialized countries, with health care no better and often worse. And the other countries have universal coverage.
We rank number 27 for infant mortality and Alabama ranks the same as Botswana for infant mortality.
Shouldn't we be embarrassed?
Unfortunately, "keeping your own doctor" is a health insurer's choice to make. The insurance companies set the rules. The ACA was structured, to placate the GOP, to keep the insurers in the driver's seat. We, the public, will only get choice when we end our present health care system and institute universal coverage.
1
So that one statement by President Obama justifies 35 years of lying by the Republican Party about taxes and the budget? Please!
1
Rubio's sponsor, Brahman, supports Marco for a reason. Braman invests $1 and gets more in return if Rubio is elected. Now that is real budgetering!
10
Mr. Lofgren overlooks the revenue increasing part of the Republican plan.
Government employees will be expected to hold bake sales to replace the money lost from these tax cuts.
Government employees will be expected to hold bake sales to replace the money lost from these tax cuts.
16
"Government employees will be expected to hold bake sales"....What government employees? One of the best kept secrets of the 2008 recession is that may thousands of government employees at both the Federal and State level lost their jobs and have not been replaced. In fact today there are significantly fewer Federal employees per thousand population than there was in 1950. And now that many of the Government offices are under budgeted and under staffed Republicans like to crow that the Federal Government doesn't work. Well duh. If you have been fortunate enough to be able to travel to other countries you soon begin realize that slashing the Government budget is pushing us down the path to becoming a third world country.
4
The GOP party is now completely dependent upon deceit for an election strategy. It's hard to sell a century of fiscal incompetence and mismanagement and then claim you're the fiscally responsible party, when your actual record is a continuing disaster for everyone but those at the top of the income/wealth pyramid. So the lying, and the efforts at media control through propaganda, just becomes even more brazen a la Trump.
22
These are the people who voted unanimously against Bill Clinton's tax increase which helped us to budget surpluses and a roaring economy, which was then squandered when Bush stole his way into the White House and was helped by the Republican controlled Congress.
22
The roaring economy of the late 90's was supported by a huge increase in private debt which ultimately led to the disaster of 2008.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-... shows what happened. In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. You can see the red area shrink up towards the x-axis. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced so the blue are shrinks down. Then the blue area goes below the x-axis. Money begins to flow out of the private sector into the green, out of the country. In about 1998, the red area goes above the x-axis. Money is now flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. The blue is way down. Money is rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration starts, and we have deficits again. The red goes below the axis. But now the green gets really big. Our trade deficit is really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits are not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flows out of the private sector.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, regulation of speculation was weak, etc., but the decreases in the deficits in the 90's played a strong role.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you-cannot-consider-the-... shows what happened. In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. You can see the red area shrink up towards the x-axis. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced so the blue are shrinks down. Then the blue area goes below the x-axis. Money begins to flow out of the private sector into the green, out of the country. In about 1998, the red area goes above the x-axis. Money is now flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. The blue is way down. Money is rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration starts, and we have deficits again. The red goes below the axis. But now the green gets really big. Our trade deficit is really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits are not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flows out of the private sector.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, regulation of speculation was weak, etc., but the decreases in the deficits in the 90's played a strong role.
Y'all know why Paul Ryan, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Trump, the Koch guys, et.al. hate Obama and the rest of the non-megawealthy, thinking majority so much?
Because they're angry that he hasn't taken his rightful place sharecropping on their plantations yet.
And they won't be happy until all the rest of us are their peons and indebted for life to their company stores.
Because they're angry that he hasn't taken his rightful place sharecropping on their plantations yet.
And they won't be happy until all the rest of us are their peons and indebted for life to their company stores.
42
Next to Mitt Romney he's as phony as they come.
And what irks me more than anything is that the moderators just let him go on with that garbage as if its fact. They never challenge him on what he is saying. Neither do any of the mainstream media coverage tell him he's full of it just like this article does.
And what irks me more than anything is that the moderators just let him go on with that garbage as if its fact. They never challenge him on what he is saying. Neither do any of the mainstream media coverage tell him he's full of it just like this article does.
23
Republicans have been wrecking America's fiscal house for decades. We already know who the adults are in the room, and none of them have an (R) next to their names.
21
Thank you, Mr. Lofgren, and congratulations for being a recovering alcoholic. I hope and millions like you don't fall off the wagon. This excerpt from a Politico article about President Obama's successes in the last seven years explains perfectly why the democracy-destroying money masters behind today's republican/libertarian/tea party operatives want to get rid of America's Affordable Health Care Act, "Health care is still getting more expensive, but since 2010, the growth rate has slowed so drastically that the Congressional Budget Office has slashed its projection for government health spending in 2020 by $175 billion. That’s enough to fund the Navy for a year, or the EPA for two decades. As one spokesperson said, “if these results continue, they’ll fundamentally change the fiscal trajectory of the country."
Thank You, President Obama!
Thank You, President Obama!
25
I'm SO sorry, Mr. Logren - I meant thanks for being a recovering "REPUBLICAN".
7
Insurance premiums have been rising a twice the rate of inflation for a couple of decades now. The ACA actually put a cap on these increases. The GOP never tells you about that. They also don't ever mention that the ACA is in fact a tax program. The SC said so. It is helping to mitigate the overspending by the GOP House. If you think you were not paying for uninsured people who used the emergency room for their medical care, your are stupid. Your state, federal and local taxes have always helped pay for the uninsured. Your insurance company also raised your premiums to cover the cost shifting the hospitals do to help cover those who can not pay. Eighteen million people who were a burden on the medical care system, are now covered. Half of them are Republicans, who love the ACA, but hate Obamacare. Figure that one out. Couldn't possibly be just racism, right?
The irony is that the Congress fought hard against President Nixon to establish its own budget control machinery--budget committes in both the House and Senate, joint annual congressional budgets, and the inependent Congressional Budet Office. The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was adopted by 2/3 votes in both houses over President Nixon's veto in 1974.
Ironically, seven years later, it was Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's innovative use of the budget reconciliation procedure provided in the Budget Act that made the ''magic asterisk'' possible.
The Reagan Administration proposed spending and tax legislation through reconciliation that the Congress adopted as law, with tax cuts that were never matched by spending cuts.
The deficit and debt tripled during the Reagan term, with Reagan somehow still lionized by some as a great fiscal conservative. There was brief revival of responsible congressional budgeting (''pay as you go'') during the Clinton administration, but we have seen little of it since President G.W. Bush employed waivers of the Budget Act to enact two rounds of major tax cuts through reconciliation.
Ironically, seven years later, it was Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's innovative use of the budget reconciliation procedure provided in the Budget Act that made the ''magic asterisk'' possible.
The Reagan Administration proposed spending and tax legislation through reconciliation that the Congress adopted as law, with tax cuts that were never matched by spending cuts.
The deficit and debt tripled during the Reagan term, with Reagan somehow still lionized by some as a great fiscal conservative. There was brief revival of responsible congressional budgeting (''pay as you go'') during the Clinton administration, but we have seen little of it since President G.W. Bush employed waivers of the Budget Act to enact two rounds of major tax cuts through reconciliation.
75
Two major tax cuts and two major wars which he magically kept off the books. This is the house that George W. built.
4
The so called "budget crisis" was created by the GOP in the form of:
1. Income tax cuts.
2. Capital gains tax cuts.
3. Unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind)
4. Unfunded Medicare Part D
5. Unfunded two wars.
6. "Borrowing" from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
7. Cutting of various fees.
In all of the above, they do not want to pay back #6 above. As they created a "budget" and "deficit" crisis. They have told the lie so many times, now it sounds like the truth.
They do not want to eliminate the salary cap to Social Security; they want to get rid of Social Security. They do not want the government to control drug prices, as they want to bankrupt Medicare. They do not believe in Medicaid or Veteran's health acre; as they are "socialism".
They do not want any form of federal regulation, so they want to dump agencies to save money; like the EPA, NRC, etc. They also want to get rid of the Departments of Education, HUD, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae; etc. Anything that protects consumers, the environment or the lives of people.
But, they will pay for war, subsidize industry, subsidize Wall Street and subsidize the wealthy.
And all along, spout hypocrisy about a budget deficit that their children and grand children will inherit. Not that the Democrats have been frugal, but the GOP has been horrible in how they handle revenue and spending.
The GOP can start fixing the "deficit" by raising taxes and paying back what they "borrowed".
1. Income tax cuts.
2. Capital gains tax cuts.
3. Unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind)
4. Unfunded Medicare Part D
5. Unfunded two wars.
6. "Borrowing" from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
7. Cutting of various fees.
In all of the above, they do not want to pay back #6 above. As they created a "budget" and "deficit" crisis. They have told the lie so many times, now it sounds like the truth.
They do not want to eliminate the salary cap to Social Security; they want to get rid of Social Security. They do not want the government to control drug prices, as they want to bankrupt Medicare. They do not believe in Medicaid or Veteran's health acre; as they are "socialism".
They do not want any form of federal regulation, so they want to dump agencies to save money; like the EPA, NRC, etc. They also want to get rid of the Departments of Education, HUD, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae; etc. Anything that protects consumers, the environment or the lives of people.
But, they will pay for war, subsidize industry, subsidize Wall Street and subsidize the wealthy.
And all along, spout hypocrisy about a budget deficit that their children and grand children will inherit. Not that the Democrats have been frugal, but the GOP has been horrible in how they handle revenue and spending.
The GOP can start fixing the "deficit" by raising taxes and paying back what they "borrowed".
103
Mr. Rubio (and I believe all incumbents pr professional politicians) offers just more of the same that has totally bankrupted our nation and created a government rife with corruption.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
Mr, Lofgren, you leave out how these folks plan to pay for the vast increase in tax cuts and military spending.
Nobody dared touch the 3rd rail of politics, Medicare and Social Security, but you know damn well that these programs are at the heart of any new budget. They drool at the prospect of making seniors manage portfolios maintained by their Wall Street budgets, and they salivate at the prospect of voucherizing Medicare. Once a voucher, always a voucher which would lose value over time, costing seniors oodles of out of pocket costs.
Thus is the GOP mantra. The attack what they see as a problem but only provide a hint of the solution. Any savvy follower of economic policy knows that you can only get so much blood out of a turnip. We are down to the last option--"entitlement" programs--to be raided to fund the wealthy.
As a recovering Republican myself (converted 15 years ago), I believe in fiscal prudence, not fiscal magic. Budgets with asterisks are alien for most to understand. But I've also come to believe that gross inequality by rewarding the haves and stealing more from the have-nots is immoral.
Thanks for this article---but it could have been a lot stronger.
Nobody dared touch the 3rd rail of politics, Medicare and Social Security, but you know damn well that these programs are at the heart of any new budget. They drool at the prospect of making seniors manage portfolios maintained by their Wall Street budgets, and they salivate at the prospect of voucherizing Medicare. Once a voucher, always a voucher which would lose value over time, costing seniors oodles of out of pocket costs.
Thus is the GOP mantra. The attack what they see as a problem but only provide a hint of the solution. Any savvy follower of economic policy knows that you can only get so much blood out of a turnip. We are down to the last option--"entitlement" programs--to be raided to fund the wealthy.
As a recovering Republican myself (converted 15 years ago), I believe in fiscal prudence, not fiscal magic. Budgets with asterisks are alien for most to understand. But I've also come to believe that gross inequality by rewarding the haves and stealing more from the have-nots is immoral.
Thanks for this article---but it could have been a lot stronger.
113
Erratum: "They drool at the prospect of making seniors manage portfolios maintained by their Wall Street BUDDIES"
13
By their spouses. Who arrange nice loans when they are running for election.
1
Paul Krugman’s column of March 4, 2005
gives perspective on Republican con game to slash Social Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
"The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to 'starve the beast.'
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue 'incredibly positive news' because it would 'put a straitjacket' on federal spending…."
gives perspective on Republican con game to slash Social Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html
"The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to 'starve the beast.'
Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.
So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.
But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.
In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue 'incredibly positive news' because it would 'put a straitjacket' on federal spending…."
24
I recall in 2003 that Bush neocons argued the impending Iraq war would be quick (a few mths) and the cost est. of $50-60 billion would be covered by plentiful Iraqi oil. After a year as unbudgeted costs mounted Cheney countered press enquiries about it with his famous "deficits didn´t matter" quip. Costs turned out to be 3 trillion and counting ... spectacularly irresponsible!
1
Thank you! To users of Facebook and other social media. Please share this with you friends. Add a sentence or two before the link, to encourage people to click through. My question to Mike Lofgren however, though I do thank him for reaching the conclusion that many of us reached back in Reagan's time is: what took you so long?!
31
What took him so long is that he is a republican. There is something wrong with their brains.
You're missing the last part, Mr. Lofgren. Run up massive deficits, declare the federal budget unsustainable, and use that "fact" to cut Social Security and Medicaire. You see, in the good old days, Republicans just wanted to make rich people richer. Now they want to make rich people richer by making poor people poorer.
137
Yes, Andrew, and PRIVATIZE OUR GOVERNMENT SERVICES, paid for over the years with OUR hard-earned tax dollars for PRIVATE PROFIT. Money goes straight to the top and they outsource OUR government jobs. Unamerican.
9
Here is a guide to understanding budgets in the modern Republican Party:
1-Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge. Dick Cheney famously said deficits do not matter, but they mattered as soon as President Obama came to office.
2-Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be one of the concerns of Republicans, yet the last Republican to submit a balanced budget was Dwight D Eisenhower. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder & Dubya never balanced a budget.
3-Tax cuts for the wealthy and big business do not count in Republicanland. These serve the mythical economics of supply side which has never been shown to work as described by Republicans. There is always money for tax expenditures when they serve the Republican base, but never money to fix public infrastructure or provide services to ordinary taxpayers.
4-Unnecessary Defense Spending also does not count. This is especially true if directed to private contractors that contribute heavily to Republican candidates & organizations or buy unnecessary weapons systems that will profit Defense Contractors. This is how Reagan wasted Billions on the B-1 Bomber that Carter cancelled as unnecessary. Or how we have Billion Dollar Bombers (B-2) that can be damaged by being rained upon.
5-Just like the other policy areas they claim to be good at - they are not. Republicans claim to be better at Defense and National Security, but 9-11 happened on George W Bush's watch. They claim economics, but Wall Street does better under Democrats.
1-Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge. Dick Cheney famously said deficits do not matter, but they mattered as soon as President Obama came to office.
2-Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be one of the concerns of Republicans, yet the last Republican to submit a balanced budget was Dwight D Eisenhower. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder & Dubya never balanced a budget.
3-Tax cuts for the wealthy and big business do not count in Republicanland. These serve the mythical economics of supply side which has never been shown to work as described by Republicans. There is always money for tax expenditures when they serve the Republican base, but never money to fix public infrastructure or provide services to ordinary taxpayers.
4-Unnecessary Defense Spending also does not count. This is especially true if directed to private contractors that contribute heavily to Republican candidates & organizations or buy unnecessary weapons systems that will profit Defense Contractors. This is how Reagan wasted Billions on the B-1 Bomber that Carter cancelled as unnecessary. Or how we have Billion Dollar Bombers (B-2) that can be damaged by being rained upon.
5-Just like the other policy areas they claim to be good at - they are not. Republicans claim to be better at Defense and National Security, but 9-11 happened on George W Bush's watch. They claim economics, but Wall Street does better under Democrats.
131
1. The budget was balanced because of a tech boom led by Y2K. Once that passed, the economy tanked and W. was left with a recession. Don;t believe me, see what the stock market did in 2000, the last year of Clinton
2. I'll take Rubios $4 trillion addition to he debt over Sanders $18 trillion
3. Obama had a perfectly good bipartisan plan - Simpson-Boles. Obama ignored it
4. DEMS always want to raise taxes. Its never enough. They do it a little at a time. When I moved to PA the State Income tax was just under 3% Rendell raised it to 3.07% Now Wolf wants 3.70% plus several other "small" taxes such as the sales tax to 7.25% from 6% All of this extra money will simply pay off unions who have negotiated bloated pension and health benefits
2. I'll take Rubios $4 trillion addition to he debt over Sanders $18 trillion
3. Obama had a perfectly good bipartisan plan - Simpson-Boles. Obama ignored it
4. DEMS always want to raise taxes. Its never enough. They do it a little at a time. When I moved to PA the State Income tax was just under 3% Rendell raised it to 3.07% Now Wolf wants 3.70% plus several other "small" taxes such as the sales tax to 7.25% from 6% All of this extra money will simply pay off unions who have negotiated bloated pension and health benefits
1
The majority of GOP members of the Simpson-Bowles Committee did NOT support the committee's recommendations.
Simpson-Bowles was badly flawed because SB wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for a debt neither program caused.
That remains the GOP program today.
Simpson-Bowles was badly flawed because SB wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for a debt neither program caused.
That remains the GOP program today.
26
If you would read the details of Sanders' plan 100% of his proposals are paid for, some thru taxes on the rich, some thru spending reductions in other areas, some thru simple replacement of payments by individuals to private insurance companies with payments to Medicare (and a reduction in the amount paid at the same time). On the other hand 100% of Rubio's (and all of the GOP candidates') plans are paid for with debt. As is the custom in recent GOP administrations, tax cuts require no offset, Pentagon spending is always good, and social spending, even social spending that people have been paying into is always bad.
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a free society. If the GOPers and the rich don't want to pay them, fine, let them leave.
Taxes are the price we pay to live in a free society. If the GOPers and the rich don't want to pay them, fine, let them leave.
11
Services have to be paid for, hence we need to pay taxes. SB was not ignored by Obama, first and foremost, it was rejected by the GOP. There has been hardly any willingness by the GOP to compromise - see sequestration which cost us all billions. The old GOP argument of Democrats always growing the government is untrue - today we have many fewer government workers serving ever more people in an increasingly crowded America. The question what kind of government would you like - if it is the kine that provides good roads, schools, clean water, safe food...all conditions for innovation,wealth generatioon, and hence peace...when we need to pay taxes. Its the American way, I argue!
6
Republican voodoo has only been debunking itself for thirty-five years, now, along with the ridiculous fantasy that Republicans are competent fiscal managers. They are there to create deficits, undermine government, and cut taxes for the 1%, nothing else. Ridicule is the appropriate response to Rubio and the rest of the clown car economic idiocy.
48
As usual, the Republicans commenting here deliberately conflate the National Debt and the annual budget Deficit and pretend they don't understand how it works to make political points.
As long as there is a deficit the National Debt will increase. Bush came in to a surplus, but left Obama a $1.4 trillion ANNUAL deficit. Obama has cut that by 2/3 but it is STILL a deficit and therefore the debt must increase.
Cutting taxes makes it worse.
JFK's tax cuts are often touted but remember: He cut the top rate from 91% to 70%, and it's now 39%. That ship sailed 50+ years ago.
As long as there is a deficit the National Debt will increase. Bush came in to a surplus, but left Obama a $1.4 trillion ANNUAL deficit. Obama has cut that by 2/3 but it is STILL a deficit and therefore the debt must increase.
Cutting taxes makes it worse.
JFK's tax cuts are often touted but remember: He cut the top rate from 91% to 70%, and it's now 39%. That ship sailed 50+ years ago.
63
Trying to get a Republican to accept a fact is not going to work.
2
What I heard last night were promises to cut taxes to the bone or eliminate them all together, at the same time reducing the debt, waging war around the globe, creating millions of new, high paying jobs, providing education and training for 50 year old men, and building bridges and roads all across America.
If I were a millionaire or the head of a major corporation or a Fox News viewer, what's not to like? As for the rest of us, sounds like we're on our own out here.
If I were a millionaire or the head of a major corporation or a Fox News viewer, what's not to like? As for the rest of us, sounds like we're on our own out here.
199
WOW - what a terrific article. Thank you Mr. Lofgren for writing this. It should be broadcast far & wide across all media platforms.
51
It should be on Fox all the time, 24/7, for months. Of course it won't. Truth doesn't sell.
1
As long as it works on the rubes, facts and math are for egghead liberals.
22
I think Paul Krugman has an ally here.
5
Thank you Congressan Lofgren. It should not surprise you that the average American does not have this information. Their "information" sources do not tell them. It is not just Fox News; it is every news channel, many newspapers and most of the mainstream media that sugar coat the information in favor of Republican talking points. Even "liberal" MSNBC that has not been mostly liberal for years. So people are left believing the most bizarre things - be it Obama's place of birth, the Planned Parenthood videos (no matter how many times debunked), the increased deficit; and my favorite told to me by someone who tries to be educated - that we have an unemployment rate over 90%. I was so incredulous the do not remember the exact number. Then their is Cruz saying the huge number of people out of the "work force". He neglected to mention that those numbers included retired people, those on disabilities, etc. Every news cast that I watched also failed to mention this tiny fact. Manipulating numbers. All statistics can be manipulated with just a bit of information left to the imagination.
15
"Why hasn’t the public caught on?" is the key phrase. Given the lack of financial literacy by the general public in their own finances (kitchen table), what else would one expect? Republican politicians promise a chicken in every pot (tax cuts), to be paid for by spending cuts (which rarely happen), tax reform (which never happens) and if there are spending cuts, they fall on everyone other than the 1%. Close examination of the Rubio plan (the only detailed plan) shows you can fool most of the people most of the time by presenting a plan that won't work. Just like Kansas, Nebraska, Louisiana and Wisconsin, the rise in long term debt created by Republican policies is ignored by the public.
92
How gullible do you have to believe to buy into these voodoo economic assumptions?
The GOP is no longer a political party, but rather a scary religious cult attempting to replicate Jesus's loaves and fishes miracle. And these crack pots have never been able to pull it, precisely because it cannot be pulled off. You cannot give huge tax breaks to people, especially rich people who hoard their money in offshore tax havens, or invest it overseas, and expect them to pay for themselves.
Just say no to voodoo economics.
The GOP is no longer a political party, but rather a scary religious cult attempting to replicate Jesus's loaves and fishes miracle. And these crack pots have never been able to pull it, precisely because it cannot be pulled off. You cannot give huge tax breaks to people, especially rich people who hoard their money in offshore tax havens, or invest it overseas, and expect them to pay for themselves.
Just say no to voodoo economics.
276
Superb essay. Fox News should be forced to read this every morning to their viewership before they start promoting their right-wing propaganda.
325
Won't happen. I work with two of the most intelligent guys I ever met. One's an astroengineer and the other is a mechanical engineer. Fox gives them the info. to reinforce their views and their hatred for Obama or anything else they want to believe. Fox is telling their audience what their audience wants to hear.
There have been seven studies done on the knowledge of what media sources viewers get their news from. Fox viewers came in last in everyone. Even Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience outperformed them handily. I have every study too.
There have been seven studies done on the knowledge of what media sources viewers get their news from. Fox viewers came in last in everyone. Even Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience outperformed them handily. I have every study too.
1
This is where you are mistaken. Fox News is selling a product - it is not there to say things that won't be popular to its audience. For that matter - all news organizations are selling a product and they all must balance ethics with bottom line. Fox just chooses an extreme because of its audience.
2
Mr. Lofgren has pulled back the curtain on the real story behind our perennial deficits. I hope he follows this by telling the public how the corporations and the super-rich get to rig the system to make themselves even richer. That story would reveal how lobbyists are permitted to write the key Congressional bills in exchange for large campaign donations and the promise of lucrative jobs after our representatives leave Congress.
190
It isn't just the federal law that is written by lobbyists. Local and state legislators are heavily lobbied by the Koch funded ALEC. These laws are anti-government, anti-business regulation (unless it revolves around abortion medical "rules.")
3
What does this piece accomplish? Republicans won't reduce our national debt? OK, whatever. Is our national debt bad? This candidate thought so:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,”
“That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.
So how did Mr. Responsible/Patriotic do when he not only became president but had a Democratic House and Senate to push his agenda? Our national debt today is $18 trillion. Or to put that in perspective, each tax payer is in hoc for $157,820. So please Mr. Lofgren. I'm not sure what personal crisis led you to pen this attack on your old party. But don't blame Reagan, and don't blame Republicans.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,”
“That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.
So how did Mr. Responsible/Patriotic do when he not only became president but had a Democratic House and Senate to push his agenda? Our national debt today is $18 trillion. Or to put that in perspective, each tax payer is in hoc for $157,820. So please Mr. Lofgren. I'm not sure what personal crisis led you to pen this attack on your old party. But don't blame Reagan, and don't blame Republicans.
5
Um, Reagan tripled the debt and G.W. Bush doubled the debt, both by cutting taxes and increasing spending.
In the final months of the G.W. Bush presidency, the deficit increased by nearly $1 trillion, according to CBO reports published in January of 2008 and January of 2009.
Under Obama, the deficit has been reduced by 2/3 and the debt increased by 57%. These are figures you can confirm for yourself at www.budget.gov and www.cbo.gov
Lofgren is not attacking Republicans on any personal basis, he is simply citing the facts available to anyone who cares to look.
In the final months of the G.W. Bush presidency, the deficit increased by nearly $1 trillion, according to CBO reports published in January of 2008 and January of 2009.
Under Obama, the deficit has been reduced by 2/3 and the debt increased by 57%. These are figures you can confirm for yourself at www.budget.gov and www.cbo.gov
Lofgren is not attacking Republicans on any personal basis, he is simply citing the facts available to anyone who cares to look.
25
Ever hear of the recent Great Recession where tax receipts plunged and millions lost their jobs just as President Obama was sworn in? Regardless the point is he is done with his service and all the GOP candidates will make it much worse. Please read the op ed again.
10
MFW - If you review budget charts, you'll see that in terms of deficits and debts as a percent of GDP (which is the only fair measure), since WWII there have only been two periods of significant deficit reduction -- Bill Clinton's administration and the latter half of the Obama administration, after the huge TARP outlays necessitated by the Bush recession. The picture on debt reduction is even starker. After reducing the debt/GDP ratio continually after WWII, the U.S. only saw it spike up again under Reagan (AFTER Carter) and the Bushes. Only under Clinton and Obama did it begin to turn the corner.
IMO, it is divided government that is the elixer. I agree with the author that if Republicans control both houses and the presidency, it will be a fiscal disaster.
IMO, it is divided government that is the elixer. I agree with the author that if Republicans control both houses and the presidency, it will be a fiscal disaster.
8
>
What is your point?
Hypocrisy is the currency of politics. Hypocrisy is to politics what blood is to the body.
Pointing it out is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.
“Let us begin by setting aside the facts, for they do not affect the matter at hand.”
J.J Rousseau
What is your point?
Hypocrisy is the currency of politics. Hypocrisy is to politics what blood is to the body.
Pointing it out is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.
“Let us begin by setting aside the facts, for they do not affect the matter at hand.”
J.J Rousseau
3
What is YOUR point JJ? Anarchy? Maybe we should all throw our hands up and commit suicide? Why even try? Your cynicism is disgusting
3
Yes! "Why hasn’t the public caught on?" Excellent article revealing the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans. Because no one wants to pay taxes, the little guy doesn't recognize that a tax cut means very little to him in terms of fiscal gain, when it means much more to significantly higher income status people, who experience considerable gain. The reason why tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, unless it is already at or near max, is that it actually takes money out of the system and lessens demand. The few dollars gained by the little guy will be spent for sure, but the many dollars that flow to the higher income people will not be. The little guy doesn't understand this and is hoodwinked by the snake salesman every time. We expect our representatives to know better, and of course they do, as Mr. Lofgren displays by presenting an understanding of long standing, but the Republican Party also knows what sells best and use this deception for their own personal gain at the expense of the country. The Republican Party couches all of this in fiscal policy terms equivalent to kitchen table economics without any reference to monetary policy, so the little guy comes up thinking that balancing the budget is the straw that stirs the drink, all the while their own budget is never in any moment balanced in the actual. In fiscal terms, the country needs a washing machine. Instead of buying one on credit, it is going to the laundromat and will wind up spending far more.
306
Rich people do not spend their money? That is a fallacy. They require less of their over-all income to pay for basics but they certainly DO spend on extra luxury items, on big houses (or several big houses), on fancy cars and boats. All those things do provide at least some jobs and money circulating in the economy. And rich people invest. They have to -- you can't just have bags of cash laying around. The money they INVEST in the stock market ALSO goes into the economy, providing loans and keeping businesses going.
One problem some people have is that they imagine rich people are sort of like Scrooge McDuck -- that they are keeping "wealth" in bags of gold, laying around their lairs. But of course, that is ridiculous. It doesn't remotely work like that.
Now: if the question is "do the rich pay their fair share of taxes, given all their privileges"....then I agree, the answer is "no". There have been far too many tax cuts aimed at people who earn over $200K (yes, that is rich....albeit at the low end of rich) and people who earn over $1mill are getting away with absurdly low rates. YES, even though they pay a big share of the tax burden, it STILL is not enough to reflect how much of the wealth they have.
BTW: the idea that "all Republicans are RICH" and all Democrats are poor or working class....that's about 70 years out of date, if it ever was true. Most Republicans today are working class, and most Dems are wealthy (and most wealthy people are Democrats!).
One problem some people have is that they imagine rich people are sort of like Scrooge McDuck -- that they are keeping "wealth" in bags of gold, laying around their lairs. But of course, that is ridiculous. It doesn't remotely work like that.
Now: if the question is "do the rich pay their fair share of taxes, given all their privileges"....then I agree, the answer is "no". There have been far too many tax cuts aimed at people who earn over $200K (yes, that is rich....albeit at the low end of rich) and people who earn over $1mill are getting away with absurdly low rates. YES, even though they pay a big share of the tax burden, it STILL is not enough to reflect how much of the wealth they have.
BTW: the idea that "all Republicans are RICH" and all Democrats are poor or working class....that's about 70 years out of date, if it ever was true. Most Republicans today are working class, and most Dems are wealthy (and most wealthy people are Democrats!).
It's been obvious since Reagan that the GOP's goal is to eliminate taxes for the wealthy.
The 1% vote their interests, but anyone else is either a masochist or a sadist.
The 1% vote their interests, but anyone else is either a masochist or a sadist.
60
Taxes should be at a level that allows the government to pay for what it spends. End of the story. Republicans are just trying to buy votes every time and they do not care if it puts the government in a position where it is unable to pay for public goods. Republicans just want to cut taxes and government while not solving anything.
57
John, the other side of coin says that government should only spend what the current tax revenue can pay for. Both Democrats and Republicans promote deficit spending that favors their own agenda, and gains them support (and votes).
1
Republicans definitely use tax cuts to appease their constituents, who resent paying taxes for the welfare state (that they typically get little or nothing from). However, GOP tax cuts have only resulted in placing more burdens on states and local governments. My Federal taxes are roughly the same over the years -- but my LOCAL tax burden has increased enormously. I pay far more in local taxes (especially property tax) than I do to the Federal government.
However: we have had 7 years of a left-leaning Democratic Administration. So where is the balanced budget? where is the big savings? where are the fairer tax codes that make the wealthiest pay their fair share of the burden? where is the transparency we were promised? Most of all: where is my check for $2500 in savings from the implementation of Obamacare? -- which, BTW, I get absolutely nothing one cent from....no assistance, no subsidy, no exchange, NOTHING.
You can scream & bray about the Republicans, but frankly the Democrats do nothing whatsoever differently. They simply promise different things to different people -- instead of "lower taxes", they promise "free college" or Canadian-style single payer health care -- and in fact, they never deliver on anything.
However: we have had 7 years of a left-leaning Democratic Administration. So where is the balanced budget? where is the big savings? where are the fairer tax codes that make the wealthiest pay their fair share of the burden? where is the transparency we were promised? Most of all: where is my check for $2500 in savings from the implementation of Obamacare? -- which, BTW, I get absolutely nothing one cent from....no assistance, no subsidy, no exchange, NOTHING.
You can scream & bray about the Republicans, but frankly the Democrats do nothing whatsoever differently. They simply promise different things to different people -- instead of "lower taxes", they promise "free college" or Canadian-style single payer health care -- and in fact, they never deliver on anything.
1
"Taxes should be at a level that allows the government to pay for what it spends"
Read my comments above to seen what has ALWAYS happened when we have done what you suggest. It has always been disastrous.
Read my comments above to seen what has ALWAYS happened when we have done what you suggest. It has always been disastrous.
2
Republicans who claim to want balanced budgets and a smaller national debt tend to have no idea that timing matters.
Austerity can turn a recession into a depression; stimulus can turn a recession into a recovery.
The best time to work on debt reduction is when our economy is doing well and growing, not when we're in a slump.
But to most Republicans, all of this is far too counter-intuitive to believe, so they promote counterproductive policies instead.
Austerity can turn a recession into a depression; stimulus can turn a recession into a recovery.
The best time to work on debt reduction is when our economy is doing well and growing, not when we're in a slump.
But to most Republicans, all of this is far too counter-intuitive to believe, so they promote counterproductive policies instead.
72
"The best time to work on debt reduction is when our economy is doing well and growing, not when we're in a slump."
There have NEVER been a good time to work on debt reduction. EVERY time we have significantly reduced the debt (>10%) even during booms, we have fallen into a real depression. This has happened six times.
There have NEVER been a good time to work on debt reduction. EVERY time we have significantly reduced the debt (>10%) even during booms, we have fallen into a real depression. This has happened six times.
3
Unfortunately, The Republicans talk about debt because it resonates with the average American who misunderstands the terminology, conflating it with their own personal finances. The only way out is leadership from those politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, who value the truth over distortions, the country over personal power.
38
Nicely done. A scathingly accurate assessment of the current state of Republican fiscal hypocrisy. They only hate deficits when they are not the cause of them. It's alway give-aways to the rich, sold as economic opportunity for everyone, which actually increase income inequality and end up stifling economic growth, because the rich don't spend as much per capita, and are more prone to sheltering assets offshore.
90
"They only hate deficits when they are not the cause of them."
Or, when they are the cause of them but a Democrat is in power.
Or, when they are the cause of them but a Democrat is in power.
1
I agree with Mr. Lofgren's summary of four decades of Republican voodoo economics. The GOP uses budget deficits that they largely created when in power to criticize Democratic presidents, who have largely tried to govern responsibly and progressively. While responsibility for our distorted federal agenda ultimately comes down to those politicians who prioritize their power and short-term approval over the needs of US citizens, we should also not forget unelected individuals who nonetheless often set the GOP agenda: several billionaires, the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, ALEC, and other regressive greed-mongers.
76
I think the GOP think that the deficit under President Obama is the hypocrisy.
I know it is hard for the Times to understand but many lower knowledge folk like us are not really all that into deficit spending.
I know it is hard for the Times to understand but many lower knowledge folk like us are not really all that into deficit spending.
1
It's not a question of fancy knowledge. It's a question of plain common sense.
You cannot chop taxes and crank up military budgets and lower the debt or the deficit.
Further, it is in simple terms not true that under President Obama, the government's gotten bigger: it has shrunk.
It's not true that annual deficits have gotten bigger: they have dropped by more than half.
It's true that the number amount of the Federal debt has gone up--but measured against the economy, it has gone down.
And much of the money you are upset by? That's because the previous administration a) handed the wealthiest about $1 TRILLION in tax cuts, and b) spent about $2 TRILLION (and counting) on a war we did not need, without so much as putting that money on the books.
Sorry, but the prob is that the policies Rubio and the guys are talkng about are simple, crazy violations of basic common sense. They aren't tricky at all, and they're based on a theory that has NEVER yet come true: hand rich people more money, and they will create more jobs.
It doesn't happen.
You cannot chop taxes and crank up military budgets and lower the debt or the deficit.
Further, it is in simple terms not true that under President Obama, the government's gotten bigger: it has shrunk.
It's not true that annual deficits have gotten bigger: they have dropped by more than half.
It's true that the number amount of the Federal debt has gone up--but measured against the economy, it has gone down.
And much of the money you are upset by? That's because the previous administration a) handed the wealthiest about $1 TRILLION in tax cuts, and b) spent about $2 TRILLION (and counting) on a war we did not need, without so much as putting that money on the books.
Sorry, but the prob is that the policies Rubio and the guys are talkng about are simple, crazy violations of basic common sense. They aren't tricky at all, and they're based on a theory that has NEVER yet come true: hand rich people more money, and they will create more jobs.
It doesn't happen.
254
It used to be that "I'm just a hick country lawyer" meant "watch your wallet" because the dumb act was just that- an act. Now, people take pride in not understanding something and facts and information "backfire" reinforcing ignorance.
32
Jimmy
Please read the article for the information it provides, given that it's provided by someone, unlike either of us, who has participated in the economic history he describes.
Secondly, the information Mr. Lofgren presents can be validated.
We can all benefit our communities by critically analyzing available information.
Do we believe it because it's what we want to hear or do we believe it because it can be validated by multiple independent sources - in other words, sources independent of a particular political perspective or prejudice?
Please read the article for the information it provides, given that it's provided by someone, unlike either of us, who has participated in the economic history he describes.
Secondly, the information Mr. Lofgren presents can be validated.
We can all benefit our communities by critically analyzing available information.
Do we believe it because it's what we want to hear or do we believe it because it can be validated by multiple independent sources - in other words, sources independent of a particular political perspective or prejudice?
43
Campaigning is very different from crafting a budget. In campaigns, taxes and deficits are evils and spending for favored purposes of the party is unlimited. If campaign agendas were enacted at budget time there would be unlimited appropriations, no taxes and no deficit. Of course, this is impossible. In campaigns you spell out your ideals. In the budget you deal with reality. Never the twain shall meet.
3
I am pretty sure the twain met and had a baby when George W. Bush's tax cuts were enacted.
It is true that all politicians make promises they cannot possible keep if elected. Republican candidates are promising the moon and a pony to every voter. Unfortunately, Republicans in the House will work hard to make a Republican president keep his promise. If recent history holds, Republicans in the house would fight to one-up any tax cutting proposal by a Republican president. Just ask John Boehner.
It is true that all politicians make promises they cannot possible keep if elected. Republican candidates are promising the moon and a pony to every voter. Unfortunately, Republicans in the House will work hard to make a Republican president keep his promise. If recent history holds, Republicans in the house would fight to one-up any tax cutting proposal by a Republican president. Just ask John Boehner.
30
I for one am heartily sick of seeing this sort of insanty shrigged off as, "Oh, well, it's just pillow talk."
Beyond the fact that the name for this is "lying," I'd pont you at Kansas, Louisiana, et al: these morons mean it.
Beyond the fact that the name for this is "lying," I'd pont you at Kansas, Louisiana, et al: these morons mean it.
147
Robert, to Kansas and Louisiana, add Wisconsin.
12
Remember how the press fawned over Ryan's plan which was totally unworkable.