A dishonest debate about the debt

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial today dreading what it called the "Obama Downgrade", referring to risk that the United States might lose the AAA credit rating on its debt. As always, it's the hypocrisy and blatant partisan angling that bothers me about such articles. A fair article would share blame for out of control spending between all of the last 4 presidents; each has contributed to the growth of entitlement spending which now threatens to overwhelm the budget. More particularly, policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Party (which controlled all of government for a large part of both Bush terms) exacerbated the debt and deficit problems of the nation in dramatic ways. This is nicely demonstrated by the chart the WSJ provides for its editorial, although you won't see it framed in quite this way.





The 10-year cost of the GOP-passed Medicare Part D act? $1 trillion. The 10 year cost of the "Obamacare" act? $1 trillion. The cost since 2003 of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Over $1 trillion. The 2008 Bush stimulus package (in the form of tax rebates) cost $160 billion. The 2009 Obama $787 billion stimulus (ARRA) bill included nearly $300 billion in tax breaks, on top of the 10 year $3.5 trillion cost of the extended Bush tax cuts.

To put it in better perspective, look at this table (found here):

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

During the Clinton years (not shown above) the national debt increased from $4 trillion to the $5.67 trillion baseline in 2000, a 40% increase. Between 2000 and 2008, a time of average economic growth with the exception of the tech bust and brief recession of 2001, the debt increased 78%. From 2008-2011(in the midst of an economic crisis that caused a steep drop in tax revenues) we've seen a 40% increase, which brings us to $14,342,954,633,916.41. Of all of this deficit spending, the Republican Party has objected to $1.7 trillion of it and spearheaded the other $7 trillion itself.

Comments

  1. talonzachariasMarch 3, 2022 at 10:27 PM

    The Best Slot Machine Games - JTM Hub
    Play 부천 출장마사지 The Best Slot Machine Games in 2021 - 창원 출장안마 Online Slots at JTM Hub. Get the best game 대구광역 출장안마 experience on your mobile or tablet 안산 출장안마 at the best 경상남도 출장샵 online

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kantian deontology vs. Mills utilitarianism in medical science

It’s a seemingly simple concept: evaluate an act to decide whether it is a moral act or an immoral act. Without difficulty we accept that the answer is one of degrees - some acts are deeply immoral, others are inspirationally moral. But what does it mean to be moral? When we judge an act, which specific element are we judging? Should we attend to the motive of the act? To its outcome? To the deftness with which it is executed? These are the questions that John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant grappled with in defining theories of morality. Kant, writing earlier, proposed the theory that the motive of an act is the only basis upon which its morality can be judged, and further that morality can only be achieved when the motive is duty. A moral act is one executed in dutiful adherence to a personal moral law, and motivated only by duty and not by desire or inclination. The moral law must not be particular or specific to the circumstances of the act; Kant’s formulations of his theory, known
Read more

Tropes and truths about true tax rates

Image
(Fair warning, extremely long post follows) I t's an old standby of election politics that taxes are too high. No one gets elected promising to raise taxes, and no politician would even risk saying that the current tax rates are generally fair. Questions about details generally get limited play because they aren't easily reduced to soundbites. Do we pay more than people in other developed countries? The federal income tax is progressive, but does that reflect the real burden of taxes in the U.S.? Are our corporate tax rates uncompetitive and likely to drive business elsewhere? Bruce Bartlett is a former tax policy advisor for the Reagan and Bush administrations and a former senior staff member for Congressmen Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. Since May he's been a regular columnist for the New York Times Economix blog, and he recently wrote two interesting posts regarding the comparative burden of taxes in the United States. Here is the first, and here is the second. He addre
Read more

Official surveillance and the illusion of privacy

The United States intelligence community confidently explains to the American people that we face a world of unprecedented threats; that the modern tools of warfare are mobile phones, laptops, Facebook profiles and Internet chat rooms. To protect us they need access to every data element generated or touched by a potential terrorist or enemy actor. Any attempt to block their efforts to fully penetrate the datasphere is characterized as aiding the enemy, or at least making America more vulnerable. But arguments in support of the surveillance state suffer from critical weaknesses of sorts philosophical, political, technical, legal and operational. We hardly need to establish that the principle of government “total information awareness” is flawed in each area in order to determine that it is deeply contrary to the interests of society. And this contrariness is ultimately the crucial point: ubiquitous monitoring itself damages society by weakening our defenses, degrading public trust in
Read more

John V Jackson and the hazards of being a Wikimedian

Image
It's an obligation of anyone with a serious interest in Wikimedia and its projects to listen closely and receptively to serious and thoughtful criticism. The years have brought us an enormous amount of that kind of feedback, many of it deeply beneficial to the English Wikipedia and its methods. But as we all know, Wikipedia draws more than its fair share of trolls, ax grinders, crusaders, cranks and crazies. To the last man (or woman), they all categorically reject such labels. But like Justice Stewart, we know them when we see them. It's always a risk, getting involved in the Wikimedia movement under your real name. Vicious critics with twisted motives might post a blog calling you a psychopath that becomes the first or second Google result for your name. Maybe they'll do a little digging, take an uneducated guess at what you do for a living, and suggest you should be fired - even tweeting at your employer that they should investigate your "worrying character traits
Read more

47 Percent Myth Revisited

Image
I've heard a lot about this supposed dichotomy between takers and payers in the United States, usually with an implicit or explicit assumption about how the "two halves" vote. But I haven't seen any reference to data that suggests in detail whether it's in fact true that the recipients of federal tax largess principally vote for Democrats. I suspect it isn't, especially if you include all federal spending and not just entitlements. Reliably Republican enclaves such as Wyoming, South Carolina, Alaska, Texas etc. are among the largest per capita recipients of federal money; if people were truly voting in favor of the spigot faced their way, you might expect to see them turn away from those making the most noise about radically slashing the budget. Here's a great graphic about voting and spending patterns, with federal spending aggregated:  If you exclude all non-entitlement spending, I'm still not convinced (due to the complete lack of compelling
Read more