If Paul Krugman had written this, I would have said that it is a little harsh and over-the-top. But it's from Andrew Sullivan, who has finally woken up to the fact that Paul Krugman has been right all the time in his harsh judgments of Bush Administration economic policy:
Posted by DeLong at February 10, 2003 01:58 PM | Trackbackwww.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: ...BUSH'S ACHILLES HEEL: It's the economy, smarty-pants... the explosive rate of current government spending... the president's utter insouciance about how to pay for it... his latest budget removes any [excuse for giving him the benefit of the doubt]... worse than Reagan... ratcheting up discretionary spending... no signs whatever of adjusting to meet the hole he and the Republican Congress are putting in the national debt... illiterate flimflam.... But as the tables in the budget also showed, the tax cuts have also contributed significantly to the deficit - and they've barely taken effect yet... staggered that the budget does not contain any mention of the looming war. I guess you could make a semantic point about its not being inevitable - but not even as a possible contingency? Is that how an ordinary citizen plans his own budget?... an awful legacy in the making. In the first three years of Bush's presidency, Chapman notes, non-defense discretionary government spending will have gone up an inflation-adjusted 18 percent.... But what really bugs me is that the president doesn't seem to give a damn... he told us last year that deficits would be temporary... this year... well he didn't say anything... Even after the last two years of budget-busting recklessness, he's still proposing spending increases far higher than the rate of inflation.... DEBT BE DAMNED: Then again, he might say: I'm deliberately creating new deficits because they're the only long-term way to keep domestic spending under control. But what this amounts to is saying I'm going to spend your hard-earned money now in order to persuade other people to stop spending your hard-earned money later. What other people? You're the government, Mr President. And your party controls all of Congress. There's no way you can pass the buck for plunging the next generation into debt... while blaming someone else... So why the flim-flam?...
Andrew Sullivan tries to be fair and objective. He has long stated his displeasure with President Bush's protection of the steel industry and bribery of the farmers. My own theory is that the Bush administration will focus almost solely on the economy once the Iraqi situation is under control. That means the serious work will be done sometime in March after Saddam Hussein moves to a desert island. Is this conflict about oil per se? Nope, but we will probably enjoy the economic benefits of significantly lower oil prices.
Posted by: David Thomson on February 10, 2003 03:01 PMPaul Krugman was right? Didn't he support Al Gore for President?
According to the IPI, here were Bush and Gore spending increases and tax cut proposals in the 2000 campaign (10 year projections):
Bush tax cut: $1,437.8 billion.
Gore tax cut: $394.3 billion.
Bush spending increase: $196 billion (ho, ho, ho!)
Gore spending increase: $900 billion.
So Gore proposed a combined spending increase/tax cut, over 10 years, of $1.294 trillion. (Versus G.W. Bush's proposed tax cut/spending increase of $1.633 trillion.)
It's not like there was a substatial difference between Bush and Gore. They were both Big Government borrow-and-spenders.
But it's good to see that Andrew Sullivan finally realizes the truth about Bush (that he's a Big Government president). Harry Browne could have told Mr. Sullivan about that way before Bush was even elected.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on February 10, 2003 03:04 PMSo, still complaining about the EU's "stupidity pact" (SP) now?
The 3% limit has its advantages: it's clearly visible, there's national shame on print in the papers after Brussels says "not any more". The real problem with state indebtment is that it's a boring issue. The SP brought some national pizazz in there, and right now it would be good if someone in the US could shout out loudly "no more".
Posted by: Chris K on February 10, 2003 03:23 PMI hear a new skiing lodge has opened up in hell.....
According to the IPI
CBPP, among other people, priced Bush's campaign tax cuts at 2.1 trillion. Also, interestingly, apparently the 1.3 trillion cost was for 2002-2010, a nine year period; they left out a year to keep the costs down. I'm assuming the IPI number you're referring to is here. IPI apparently thinks that Bush's tax cuts (and estate tax repeal) "could raise the growth rate from 2.7 percent to 2.97 percent by 2010, boosting employment by almost 2 million jobs and the stock of U.S. capital by 6.8 percent above baseline levels." I have no idea how the tax cuts are supposed to increase the US *growth* rate by 10%; annual investment is about 1.6 trillion, and virtually the entire 2000 Bush tax cut has to be spent on investment for it to result even theoretically in that kind of gain.
It's not like there was a substatial difference between Bush and Gore.
Do you think Al Gore, who for 8 years was a member of an administration obsessed with cutting the deficit, would have refused to scale back his proposals in the face of mounting structural deficits?
Posted by: Jason McCullough on February 10, 2003 03:52 PMAh, I think this is what you're referring to, actually. God help us, they actually refer to "jobs created" in there.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on February 10, 2003 03:56 PMThere has been no substantive or stylistic difference between candidate Bush and President Bush. none. While Bush claimed that Gore would bust a hole in the budget with his reckless spending, on any given issue Bush steadfastly refused to acknowledge Gore was spending more and doing more than he was. Education? Bush's plan was better, Bush's plan would do more. Prescription Drugs? Bush's plan was better, Bush's plan would do more. Environment? Bush's plan was better, Bush's plan would do more. Military Spending? Bush's plan was better, Bush's plan would do more. Social Security? Bush's plan was better, Bush's plan would do more. In other words, praise spending discipline and limited government in the abstract (popular with the voters), but on any specific issue, endorse whatever is popular, no matter the budget cost (also popular with the voters). How did he make the numbers add up? He didn't. He was lying even then, though back then he had more enablers.
The key difference between Gore and Bush is that Gore was honest, and used honest numbers. And the bottom line was that of the 5.6 trillion projected surplus, Gore, using honest numbers, proposed using the entire Medicare and Social Security surplus to pay down the debt, along with a substantial chunk of the projected general fund surplus. The campaign cliche "Bush uses all the surplus for tax cuts, Gore uses it all for spending" was never true. The largest part (75%) of Gore's program was always paying down the debt, but some people didn't see it because they didn't *want* to see it, they *wanted* to be lied to, wanted to vote for the man who promised them a triple-fudge sundae while losing 20 pounds. Now they claim, absurdly, that there was no difference between the honest, disciplined Gore and the dishonest, profligate Bush, that they couldn't have known. They can claim that Bush hoodwinked them, but they don't have my sympathy.
Posted by: roublen vesseau on February 10, 2003 04:46 PMRoublen Vesseau says "The key difference between Gore and Bush is that Gore was honest, and used honest numbers."
Truer words were never spoken.
It's sad to see people like Mark Bahner claim that "It's not like there was a substatial difference between Bush and Gore. They were both Big Government borrow-and-spenders."
The United States has one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized nation. It has higher military costs and spends more on debt service. The net upshot is that it has aproximately the weakest social safety net of the industrialized countries and some of the weakest regulation and oversight.
We see the consequences of this policy everyday, from the Enron scandal and the Columbia disaster (both probably traceable to poor oversight) to a fraction of schools that are so grossly underfunded that they cannot teach. We see the consequences in an increasing number of patients denied basic medical treatment. We see it in rotting infrastructure, Superfund sites that go untreated, crowded courts that no longer dispense what we know as justice and a rampantly corrupt political system. These things are *only* tolerated in Third World countries!
There certainly is a difference between Gore and Bush. Gore was honest and used honest numbers. Bush is a pathological liar. And anyone who thinks that Harry Browne offers a solution is following a blind man into what would surely be the death of America.
Posted by: Charles Utwater II on February 10, 2003 05:39 PMAndrew Sullivan Today:
His budget contained the following piece of illiterate flimflam: "The budget would be in double digit deficit if had there never been a tax cut in 2001.
... snip
But as the tables in the budget also showed, the tax cuts have also contributed significantly to the deficit - and they've barely taken effect yet
... and the same Andrew Sullivan, October 2002
Perhaps Krugman's hatred of Bush's tax cut has blinded him to the fact that so far, it has clearly helped us avoid a deeper recession and, if expanded, could head off deflation as well.
And Andrew Sullivan has the nerve to challenge Krugman's intellectual honesty?
Puh-leese!
DT, your defense of Andrew is quite pathetic.
Posted by: Suresh Krishnamoorthy on February 10, 2003 05:40 PMJust to pick up on Suresh, when, DT, do you anticipate the situation in Iraq to be "under control?"
Do you believe the situation in Afghanistan is "under control?"
And putting aside the silly notion that Sullivan tries to be "fair and objective," all you've really pointed out is that anyone paying attention should have realized from the steel and farm bills that Bush is, quite simply, dishonest (Sully calls it flim-flam, but that's what he means; he just can't bring himself to call his hero dishonest) on matters fiscal.
Posted by: howard on February 10, 2003 06:01 PMBTW, Jason McCullough: it seems to me that the $1.6 trillion of annual investment is gross investment, whereas additions to capital stock are based on net investment. Couldn't an addition to investment of considerably less than the current annual level over a ten year period result in greater than 10% growth rate increase, assuming reasonably constant ICOR?
Err... not that I'm apologizing for the logic of Bush's tax cut increasing growth (which I don't think it'll do (net) one bit), but I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Julian Elson on February 10, 2003 06:25 PMDT is a fantasist, but Mark takes the prize for reconciling Gore's _record_ in balancing the budget with Bush's record of massive deficit, and still concluding, by magical reasoning, that if we had followed democratic procedures and installed Gore as President, he would have done worse. Hey, why screw around with reality when the ideological answers are so well known?
Folks, Gore is gone. Period. He 'lost' the election. I voted for him, wish he'd won, but it's been 2 years. Get past it The question is what are we gonna do with the crazy and dangerous president we have right now.
Posted by: vachon on February 10, 2003 06:42 PMVachon says "Get past it [Election 2000]"
Regrettably, I do not believe that it is possible. No one can "get over" the theft of democracy but by the restoration of it and the vigorous punishment of the thieves, lest they try again. Punishment requires exposure and exposure requires *not* getting over it.
Consider: The party of money has attacked the very roots of democracy half a dozen times over the last 150 years. In the Tilden-Hayes contest, they outright stole the presidency. In the 1930s, they recruited General Smedley Butler to mount a military coup. In the 1950s, McCarthyism was used to grab the Congress. In the 1970s, Watergate and Cointelpro. In the 1980s, Iran-Contra and associated crimes. In the 1990s, impeachment. And in 2000, the outright theft of the presidency. Again.
It attained a majority in the House and Senate in 1994 by massive violation of the election laws. That was the important point at issue in the Gingrich ethics case and in the Packwood diaries. It used its ownership of media properties to give millions of dollars in in-kind donations to candidates-- Republican candidates-- even as it concealed massive scandals involving those candidates. How many Americans would be so favorable toward the Republicans if they knew that Newt Gingrich was using credit cards to buy the services of prostitutes, that his replacement was involved in sadomasochistic sex, and that the current president is a deserter from the National Guard and an alcoholic who continues to drink?
It seized a seat on the Supreme Court by using William Rehnquist to drive out an honorable man, Justice Abe Fortas. Rehnquist lied in his examination by the Judiciary Committee. Clarence Thomas perjured himself onto the Court. The Solicitor General, Ted Olson lied under oath to the Judiciary Committee, as did judicial nominees Estrada, Pickering and Owen. These crimes were committed to gain power.
Again and again, the party of money has seized power by criminal means. Again and again the Democrats have betrayed their constituents and democracy itself by refusing to punish the guilty. At this point, who can call the government in Washington elected?
The Democrats in Washington think that if they can just win an election, if the Republicans just screw things up enough that people will push the lever for Democrats, they can fix everything.
They are wrong. Why is the budget in massive deficit? Because a dozen Democratic Senators sold out to George Bush. Why are we on the road to a senseless war? Because those same Senators and a few more sold out to George Bush. Why was Enron able to violate accounting rules so freely? Because of Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd, who threatened to defund the SEC. How, in fact, did we get the the point that money controls politics? Because in an elaborate charade, a number of Democrats have consistently voted against campaign finance reform. In other words, the Democratic Party has become incapable of punishing those guilty of debauching democracy because it has become guilty itself. This is a tragedy worthy of the lamentations of a Jeremiah, a Micah, an Amos.
I believe the American people will eventually conclude that the only way to fix the mess created by Election 2000 is to declare that the American Republic died on December 12th, 2000. They will not decide this gladly, not because they prefer this outcome, but from necessity. The enormity of the crimes committed by George Bush in seizing control of the American government must be exposed. The perpetrators must be punished. A historical record must be created so that the ears of the grandsons and greatgrandsons of the criminals blush red at the mention of the theft.
Otherwise, they will just do it again.
Posted by: Charles Utwater II on February 10, 2003 09:03 PMWar is peace
Tax cuts are more government spending
Hydrogen Power is nuclear plants.
Sharia is Faith based charity.
Ecology is logging.
Rabbits are ducks.
The recovery community is in charge.
The signified and the signifier are never the same.
"Monsters cannot be announced.
One cannot say: 'here are our monsters',
without immediately turning the monsters into pets."
Charles, well said.
i held my nose and voted for gore. i held my nose because i believed the stories about him - the invention of the internet, the love canal, the 'woodenness'... it took the tireless efforts of somerby to make me realize that i need not have held my nose. i should have voted for him proudly.
now i look at this republic and I am ashamed. I am ashamed that no democratic senator (except howard dean) has the courage of his convictions - not even hilary clinton. i am ashamed that our press corps is more interested in why kerry's father shot himself than in his ideas.
i am ashamed that george bush lied to us from day one and except for krugman and a couple of other folks, no one dared tell us he was lying.
i am disgusted that andrew sullivan, who fawned upon gwb all along now turns around and pretends that he was a deficit hawk all the time. sure he was.
he had the audacity to pretend he was krugman's equal in economics. he is a talking head, for crying out loud - he writes puff pieces about non-entities. we are now supposed to believe that he is some sort of economic genius just because he thinks now, after krugman has been saying it for the better part of 18 months, that the bush administration doesn't give a rodent's behind about anything except rewarding its cronies?
fair and balanced?
give me a break!
right now i am endorsing howard dean for president in 2004, simply because of his conviction in refusing to vote for the use of force.
that one vote is enough to get my vote.
Posted by: Suresh Krishnamoorthy on February 10, 2003 09:21 PMCharles, are you really bringing the Tilden-Hayes election, in 1876, into this?? What continuity does the Republican Party of 1876 have with that of 2000? I would argue for practically none. Back then, it was the Democrats who were suppressing the Black vote in the South, for one thing. Late nineteenth century politics involved enormous corruption on both sides, and to try to somehow use that example to attack Republicans today is simply ridiculous, even more ridiculous, for instance, than those Republicans today who try to smear the contemporary Democratic party with all the segregationist Dixiecrats who became Republicans.
Posted by: John on February 10, 2003 10:17 PMCharles, are you really bringing the Tilden-Hayes election, in 1876, into this?? What continuity does the Republican Party of 1876 have with that of 2000? I would argue for practically none. Back then, it was the Democrats who were suppressing the Black vote in the South, for one thing. Late nineteenth century politics involved enormous corruption on both sides, and to try to somehow use that example to attack Republicans today is simply ridiculous, even more ridiculous, for instance, than those Republicans today who try to smear the contemporary Democratic party with all the segregationist Dixiecrats who became Republicans.
Posted by: John on February 10, 2003 10:17 PMJohn says "Charles, are you really bringing the Tilden-Hayes election, in 1876, into this?? What continuity does the Republican Party of 1876 have with that of 2000?"
The theft of a presidential election connects the two, John. And one thing more: I specifically used the phrase "the party of money" because that is the line of continuity. Tilden represented a reform wing of the Democrats, while the Republican Party was becoming the agent of the Gilded Age. Hayes had refused to challenge the corruption that had begun to emerge under Grant. The Southern Democrats were, indeed, a bad batch-- but Tilden was not one of them. His biography is worth reading.
I quote Kevin Phillips here: "While historians agree that South Carolina and Louisiana may have legitimately gone for the GOP, eminent southern historian C. Vann Woodward years ago conclusively demonstrated that Democrat Tilden had actually won Florida and should have won the electoral vote by 188 to 181." http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/2/phillips-k.html
Theft is theft.
Posted by: Charles Utwater II on February 10, 2003 11:39 PMgood ol' Floridey
Posted by: xian on February 11, 2003 01:03 AMAll this yelling and screaming is a waste of time. The economy will dramatically improve after Saddam Hussein is removed from power. More importantly, there can be no economic recovery until this occurs. Anyone who tells you anything different---is a complete idiot! End of story.
Posted by: David Thomson on February 11, 2003 03:03 AMBTW, Jason McCullough: it seems to me that the $1.6 trillion of annual investment is gross investment, whereas additions to capital stock are based on net investment. Couldn't an addition to investment of considerably less than the current annual level over a ten year period result in greater than 10% growth rate increase, assuming reasonably constant ICOR?
Looking at the gross savings and investment table.....hmm, I don't see anything.
Still, I have difficulty with a 2% of GDP tax cut increasing GDP growth by 10%, from 2.7% to ~3%. Of course, it's a bit irrelevant, as if its deficit financed like we're actually getting right now, it's not going to have much of an effect on growth at all.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on February 11, 2003 03:30 AMWay off the subject, so I willingly submit to pruning. However, to all and sundry who have engaged in the discussion of election theft, dishonesty, the image imposed on Gore (perhaps his failure as a politician was allowing his opponent control of both images), I offer a sign of the times. Listening to a public radio broadcast over the weekend, there was a spot on anti-war music. One point made was that you can't hear anti-war songs on commercial radio now because buyers of radio time don't want to be associated with anything that could cause them trouble. Radio stations are sensoring themselves in their entertainment offerings -- makes me wonder about the news. I keep hearing Bush' plan refered to as a stimulus package, presumably because that is what the White House press release tells them to call it. Once you get control, kids, you've got control.
Posted by: K Harris on February 11, 2003 05:07 AMthe government lies, the press goes along, censors itself, a judge stops a march in new york, an attorney general stops a trial to prevent bin al shibh from testifying in open court, thousands detained after sept 11, held without trial for months and none charged, unlimited wiretaps on the government's say so...
like someone said: if the us ever turns fascist it will be because we voted it in.
we have voted this government in and it is flirting dangerously with outright fascism.
Posted by: Suresh Krishnamoorthy on February 11, 2003 06:25 AMAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH.
Now IRAQ is the economic stimulus package? Tell me this isn't happening. Tell me you don't seriously believe it, David. Really.
You can blame Saddam all you want, but he isn' t the one that has any say over the economy at all.
Bush has taken the economy exactly where he promised he would, if you read the numbers involved in his proposals, instead of listening to his weasel words about fuzzy math. Gore said it in 2000. Krugman has been saying it since Bush came out with proposals. They've been right all along.
Even Sullivan is coming around to the realization that this is what was going to happen, war or not.
Calling people who were proven right 'idiots' isn't exactly a decent stance on an argument.
Posted by: flanagan doe on February 11, 2003 07:21 AMThanks, everybody. About halfway through this thread, I realized that I had the wrong genre in mind: it's not political commentary, it's farce, and very amusing farce at that. The Tilden argument was a great punch line. LOL!
Posted by: JT on February 11, 2003 08:09 AMPoor Flanagan--you haven't yet realized that DT's postings are basically for entertainment value. True, one does have to call him on whatever outrageous gaffe du jour he happens to spout, but to get upset over it is to do your blood pressure and health no good at all.
Getting back to the original topic(ahem), it's time to ask what would be a sane alternative that would also be electable in 2004, and yes, I know the media and campaign financing have twisted the debate out of all reason--repealing the estate tax repeal might be doable, but unfortunately undoing the 2001 tax cuts will probably not be. So let's debate: is the Dems' current budget proposal a reasonable alternative, or should it go further. I'm no expert on public finances, so I'll let others talk but let's start thinking not what Bush is doing but what we're going to do (to paraphrase Mr. Grant in the Wilderness).
Posted by: andres on February 11, 2003 08:09 AMWell, just to play along with andres for a moment, a coherent democratic fiscal policy would look something like this: a.) restore the estate tax; b.) eliminate the remaining Bush 2001 cuts; c.) go ahead and provide businesses a tax write-off for dividends (the sane approach to this matter, not the insane bass-ackwards Bush approach); d.) cut some of the ridiculous expenditures Bush is proposing for the Defense Department; e.) restore Clintonian sanity to farm policy, and f.) provide a real, near-term stimulus along the lines the Dems have already proposed, meaning funds for the states, some form of bottom-up tax relief (whether it's a payroll tax holiday or something else), and increased funding for necessary infrastructure improvements in the interests of security.
Posted by: howard on February 11, 2003 08:55 AMBrad
Is there an email address for you on the site?
Anyone know where I can find that graph that was all over the net a month ago showing total taxes paid by income levels?
Posted by: joseppi on February 11, 2003 09:10 AMGood idea Andres. To win the argument you have to be in favor of something, not just opposed to what someone else proposes. Democrats should reinstate the estate tax, but otherwise avoid repealing Bush tax cuts. They should be in favor of tax reform that will make taxes more progressive but have a zero net overall effect. That will create demand-side immediate stimulus to the economy which will bring the deficits down. As part of the reform the payroll tax should be ended completely. It is only there to mislead people into thinking separate accounts are set aside for certain programs, which is not the case. The money from these programs should come from the income tax.
Posted by: Dan Jordan on February 11, 2003 09:27 AMRe: Iraq as a stimulus package. Doonesbury explains it all...
Posted by: contract3d on February 11, 2003 11:09 AMIs Greenspan staying? Today was the first time in a very long while he has openly crossed a sitting president. Deficits matter (he always has felt that way). Any tax cut now (unlike the first Shrub tax cut) needs PAYGO treatment. Stimulus is probably not needed right now. Dividend tax reform would be better aimed at corporations, rather than tax payers. Small business tax cuts are dwarfed in their impact by the good that getting Iraq behind us will do. That's just about the everything.
On the assumption that the tamping down of inflation expectations and the commitment of one and all to inflation control means the era of G7 inflation concerns is essentially over, that the lack of large investment flows to most of the emerging world means another crisis there is unlikely, that the stock bubble, now deflated, means the stock market won't be doing anything silly for a while, the prospect of huge deficits and unfunded liabilities might look to Greenspan like his final policy battle. Worth getting crossed up with a president.
Posted by: K Harris on February 11, 2003 11:09 AMI must have missed the Krugman columns where Krugman complained about government spending. I've only seen the ones dealing with tax cuts and social security reform (and the Bush-bashing ones, but that seems to be all of them).
As for the notion so prevalent in the comments that a Gore policy would have been a better choice: who are you kidding? If the problem is a long term problem, how is a program of (a) tax cuts (though smaller than the Bush tax cut) without significant stimulative effect, (b) expanded entitlements for seniors (without honest estimates of expense), and (c) rapidly increased discretionary spending across the board different from or better than the current policy?
Posted by: Thomas on February 11, 2003 12:28 PM"Now IRAQ is the economic stimulus package? Tell me this isn't happening. Tell me you don't seriously believe it, David. Really."
I most certainly believe that the resolution of the Iraqi crisis will indirectly act as a stimulus package. The current uncertainty is scaring the hell out of investors. And no, I’m not employing hyperbolic language. The added stability to oil prices alone will greatly help the economy. Furthermore, if we fail to soon push Saddam Hussein out of power---we will suffer a very serious recession. I am quite flabbergasted that you don’t seem to get it. Of course, I suspect that you would be saying the same thing if Al Gore was in the White House.
Jason McCullough writes, "CBPP, among other people, priced Bush's campaign tax cuts at 2.1 trillion."
OK, if one accepts the CBPP analysis, it includes the following:
1) $400 billion of extra interest on the federal debt, from failing to pay down the debt as quickly as would otherwise be the case. Well, since Gore proposed $1.294 trillion in combined higher spending and lower taxes (versus Bush's proposed $1.633 trillion)...then one would need to add approximately $320 billion of extra interest on the debt to Al Gore's proposals.
So now we have Bush at $2.033 trillion and Gore at $1.614 trillion.
2) $200 billion to fix the "flaw" in the AMT. I don't know enough about this to do anything more than ask why, if that is legitimate to add to Bush's proposal, why it isn't legitimate to add to Gore's proposal? (My guess is that it IS appropriate to add that $200 billion to Gore's proposal, too.)
Once again, I say that there wasn't much difference between what Bush and Gore proposed during their campaigns. Both proposed to cut taxes, and raise spending...even though both presumably knew that our government was trillions of dollars in debt.
"Do you think Al Gore, who for 8 years was a member of an administration..."
He was the Vice President. Big deal.
"...obsessed with cutting the deficit,..."
First off, a President doesn't either raise taxes, or spend money. The Congress does. So even if the Clinton Adminstration WAS "obsessed with cutting the deficit" it wouldn't make much difference. But more importantly, the President's degree of "obsession" (or even "interest") in cutting the national debt can be evaluated by: 1) his annual budget proposals, and 2) how many spending bills he vetoes (and how many tax increases he signs
Bill Clinton's annual proposed budgets were decent, regarding the debt. (As far as I know, most years the Congress passed a less balanced budget than Clinton proposed.) As far as vetoing new spending, Clinton almost *never* did that, to my knowledge. He did sign a bill to increase taxes...too much, he said, later. All in all, Cliton's record as a "deficit hawk" was neither spectacularly bad, nor spectacularly good.
"...would have refused to scale back his proposals in the face of mounting structural deficits?"
Getting back to Gore, I don't know what he would have done if he'd been elected President (or if he'd become President on Bill Clinton's removal from office, for lying to a grand jury). I think one would more properly look at Gore's record as a Senator, to try to figure that out.
Charles Utwater II writes, "It's sad to see people like Mark Bahner claim that 'It's not like there was a substatial difference between Bush and Gore. They were both Big Government borrow-and-spenders.'"
I'm sorry it pains you to see the truth, Mr. Utwater! But what I said was a *fact,* not a "claim."
Both Bush and Gore were Big Government borrow-and-spenders. They BOTH proposed to cut taxes AND increase spending...when the country was known to be over $5 TRILLION in debt. That's the definition of "borrow and spend"...that one proposes increased spending, and reduced taxes, when the country is in debt.
"The United States has one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized nation."
As compared to...Sweden? Germany? France? Not very impressive! A better way to evaluate the U.S. tax burden is to compare it to historical levels in the United States. The *overall* tax burden (including federal, state, and local taxes) is higher than it's ever been, in the entire history of the United States). And the FEDERAL tax burden is at least a factor of 4 higher than the average for the first 150 years of this country's existence (not counting years of major wars).
"It has higher military costs and spends more on debt service."
Again, compared to whom? Germany and France...who have used our military to protect them for half a century? U.S. military costs would be far less, if the U.S. government stopped using our money to protect people in other countries. (Has any Democrat actually proposed to "bring the boys back home"...besides back in the Vietnam days?)
"The net upshot is that it has aproximately the weakest social safety net of the industrialized countries..."
It's quite easy for a country to maintain a robust "social safety net" if the country doesn't have a large, relatively poor immigrant population arriving. From 1970 to 1990 (the latest numbers I can easily find), U.S. population increased by 48 million, of which 25 million were immigrants, or their children.
http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
Personally, I think it's more admirable to value the freedom of allowing poor people to immigrate to the U.S., than to slam the doors shut, and provide an extorted "safety net." Note the largest rates of immigration to the U.S. are from the following countries: Mexico, China, Phillipines, Soviet Unition, Vietnam, India. All much poorer than we are. Imagine how many would want to come if they didn't have to work?
http://www.fairus.org/html/042usins.htm
"...and some of the weakest regulation and oversight."
You mean our toilets should use even less water per flush (even if that means we need more flushes)? ;-)
"We see the consequences of this policy everyday, from the Enron scandal and the Columbia disaster (both probably traceable to poor oversight)..."
You attribute the Columbia disaster to "poor oversight" but appear to fail to realize that we're the ONLY industrialized country WITH a Columbia.
I'd say the Columbia disaster would have more certainly been avoided by not *having* a Space Shuttle program. (Which I don't think the U.S. government should have funded.) I could 100% guarantee you there would have been no disaster, if there had been no Columbia.
"These things are *only* tolerated in Third World countries!"
Funny how, if things are so bad in the U.S., one doesn't see large numbers of people LEAVING the U.S. I'd be interested to find out how many countries have a net immigration into that country, from the U.S. (i.e., a greater number of U.S. citizens emigrating to that country, than immigrating into the U.S. from that country).
I'll bet we have a net emigration with Costa Rica. Perhaps the Bahamas. I'll bet there are very few countries where there is a large net emigration from the U.S. to that country.
About post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:17 AMAbout post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:22 AMAbout post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:27 AMAbout post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:32 AMThis is all well and good, but isn't "worse than Reagan" a bit harsh?
Posted by: Brennan on March 21, 2003 11:36 AMAbout post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:37 AMAbout post-Saddam recovery. It appears to be a stroke of genius: create pre-war scare, then have a war, so the economy will recover from pre-war scare.
Unfortunately, our architects of foreign policy already plan more confrontation. It can be Iran, Syria or North Korea, but another pre-war scare is comming. Especially, North Korea (their nukes can reach California, blue state, so nothing to worry about).
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 11:43 AMScience fiction fans should note that this discussion experienced a time storm: a bunch of posts were blown back in time to February, while my post entered a time-whirlpool and emerged in many copies.
Posted by: Piotr Berman on March 21, 2003 01:35 PMAnd what's this about, "I'm also staggered that the budget does not contain any mention of the looming war."? Iran? Korea? Maybe a first strike on the Russian nuclear arsenal? What do these guys have in mind for us now?
Posted by: Ken D. on May 31, 2003 12:07 PMMost of the the discretionary spending increases were demanded by Sullivan to protect his panicked butt. Along with seed money to develop drugs to save his life .. a good cause. Not to mention seed money to develop the technology by which he makes his living. With my tax dollars, because at the time he was in England, hating that government.
Discretionary spending is only .. what 35% percent
of the budget, with half or more going to Sullivan's wars.
Tax cuts, Government debt. Christ!
Posted by: John Thullen on July 1, 2003 09:47 PMWell, heck, I've now experienced retroactive internet anger at Sullivan dating back to Feb. 11.
Feels pretty good, though!
Posted by: John Thullen on July 1, 2003 10:01 PM"Nope, but we will probably enjoy the economic benefits of significantly lower oil prices."
DT, why ever do you imagine that once Bush starts pumping Iraqi oil its price will go down dramatically?
First, the US isn't likely to do anything to lower oil prices. They are relying on oil to pay the enormous rebuilding costs in Iraq. Rebuilding costs will be *much* higher than any ongoing costs they've reported thus far, which are for our current military presence but don't begin to reflect the investment needed to rebuild the country. The easy assumption all along has been "the oil will pay for it," but wait until that bill is delivered to the American public. (I suggest we all revisit Bill Nordhaus on the likely real costs of war in Iraq.) If oil is going to pay for it, it's very much in the US economic interests that oil prices at least remain stable (if not rise). What's more, Mideast stability, which is after all sort of the point to this little adventure, is very much dependent on oil prices maintaining current levels for a while (actually, they too would like them to rise). Do you think Bush is going to put his Saudi friends (not to metnion his Texas friends) in a tighter bind than they are in already by forcing world oil prices dramatically lower? It's not as though he's really going to have the ability to do so anytime soon anyway, and certainly not next March when Iraq still won't be pumping all that much oil into the world market. No, the Saudis and Bush need oil prices to at least hold their current levels. Note that I'm not saying Bush will go so far as to take the chairmanship of OPEC and push prices up (although his vice president would take the job in a heartbeat), but there will be no rush whatsoever to force them lower.
And second, David, the price of oil is not much the problem with this economy, although natural gas is looking a little problematic but Iraq can't help us there. Oil prices are not all that high right now, in fact. Would we just as soon pay less to fill up? Sure, but lowering the cost of gasoline really won't unleash the tiger in our economic tank.
Methinks you drink too freely of the local Kool Aid.
