Over many decades, the Democratic party earned a reputation among voters for backing higher government spending and government programs over private-sector initiatives. Americans thus came to see the party as largely uninterested in fiscal restraint, especially the kind of restraint that would help keep taxes from rising. In contrast, Republicans have built their brand around fiscal conservatism — holding the line on taxes, spending, deficits, and debt.
But in recent years, Democratic politicians and their apologists have tried to peddle the notion that historical perceptions about the parties regarding fiscal matters are erroneous. According to the narrative now promoted by most party activists and often repeated in the mainstream press, despite perceptions, it’s actually the Democrats who are now the party of fiscal conservatism, because they’re willing to raise taxes. Republicans, it is contended, are now fiscally reckless on account of their taxophobia.
All of this depends on a definition of fiscal conservatism not shared by voters. To Democratic apologists, it is fiscally conservative to expand government, so long it’s paid for by tax increases. Unfortunately for them, the electorate does not see it that way. They want their elected leaders to be conservative in using their tax dollars, and conservative in asking for them too.
Advertisement
Still, the apologists for “fiscal conservatism, Democratic-style” press on. To make their case, they like to point to the Clinton presidency. During those years, the federal budget moved steadily from a position of large deficits toward one of balance and then, for the first time in decades, to small surpluses. Of course, when Democrats fondly cite the 1990s, they somehow conveniently forget to mention that, two years into the Clinton era, Republicans took over the branch of government — Congress — that is responsible for approving all federal spending. And, not coincidentally, from that point on, balancing the federal budget became the top public-policy priority for both the legislative and executive branches of government.
No matter. Democratic-party activists and their allies have convinced themselves of their own fiscal rectitude. Which is why so many of them seem now to be having a bit of an identity crisis. They desperately want to believe in their own moral superiority on fiscal matters. But their candidate in 2012, the incumbent president, has amassed the worst fiscal record of any president in American history.
The numbers speak for themselves. At the end of 2008, the federal government’s cumulative debt stood at $5.8 trillion. In 2009, the federal government ran its first-ever trillion-dollar deficit. And then did it again in 2010 and 2011. Over those three years, the government borrowed an additional $4.2 trillion. This year will be no better. The Congressional Budget Office expects another trillion-dollar deficit. During Obama’s four-year term, the federal government will have added nearly $5.5 trillion to the government’s cumulative debt total — nearly as much as was accumulated from 1789 to 2008!
Some defenders of the administration argue that it’s unfair to blame the president for debt accumulated in 2009 since he assumed office one-third of the way into the fiscal year. But the president proposed an $800 billion spending bill within a month of taking the oath of office, with the explicit purpose of increasing the 2009 deficit in the name of Keynesian stimulus. He also took numerous executive actions to push up the deficit in his first year, particularly through the use of bailout funds.
What’s an apologist for Democratic thrift to do, then, when faced with such unpleasant facts? Why blame Bush, of course! That’s essentially the argument that’s been made since the beginning of the Obama presidency and is being repeated again now that Mitt Romney is making President Obama’s dismal record on budgetary matters an issue on the campaign trail.
It won’t work. Such a deflection of blame requires voters to absolve the president of all responsibility because he supposedly inherited the entirety of the problem and has no control over it. This will never be convincing to voters, and shouldn’t be. Instead, the electorate rightly believes that it is the president’s job to set the agenda and establish priorities. He has four years in which to change the direction of unfavorable trends, if he wants to. It is hard to blame someone else for the status quo when you make no effort to change it. Based on his record, it is apparent to everyone at this point that the president isn’t interested in fiscal restraint, deficit reduction, or fiscal conservatism. Even as the budget outlook deteriorated, his priority was to expand governmental commitments.
The truth is that we are facing pronounced fiscal pressures for one reason: the unrelenting growth in entitlement spending. In 1972, the federal government spent 4.4 percent of GDP on the big three entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Today, spending on those programs totals 10.2 percent of GDP. That jump in spending alone — six percentage points of GDP — far exceeds the size of the defense budget.
For decades, the Democratic party has defined itself as the party of entitlements and has fought at nearly every stage to expand spending rather than control it. Indeed, it’s worth remembering that the last, best chance to reform Medicare occurred during the Clinton presidency, and President Clinton sabotaged the effort for political reasons. President Obama can’t be blamed for all this history. But he most definitely can be blamed for doing nothing to address the problem, and for making it much worse when he had the opportunity to make it better.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director atthe Officeof Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
wrong you moron, the most they expend it the most they try to their hands in my hard earned money, and I see all the bunch of bureacrats at the end going to have a nice pesion all the freebies and myself keep working beyond 75 yrs old just to survive!!!
You are right, as government expands people like you will have to work harder and longer for less. The problem that Mark is bringing up is that almost half the folks in this country are net takers, and so folks like you are just going ot have to work harder.
Or just give up and join the takers. That is where we are heading.
This column is a sad example of wishful thinking, and blind faith in the limp-wristed GOP establishment. The current republican leadership couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Boehner, McConnell and their boys will find a way to lose even this fight. Bet on it.
Not only that, but saying the GOP is fiscally conservative is laughable to begin with. The party "leaders" have no intention of stopping this train wreck. The dinosaur R's in DC are no better than the democrats, and they're as much to blame for this financial crisis as anyone else. We're steadily cleaning house.
No, the last, best chance to reform entitlements happened during the first six years of the Bush administration. But instead, Republicans expanded Medicare without addressing any underlying problems because they figured buying the senior vote is easier than selling America on fiscal restraint. Instead, Social Security was untouched because the Democrats waged an aggressive PR campaign and seniors threw tantrums.
People forget that Bush did propose to starting to reform Social Security. Some of our stalwart RINOS took it as a opportunity to stand apart from Bush. Grassely and McCain were 2 of them that stood out in my mind. After that I think our Brave Senators would threaten to impede the war on terror to give them sway to keep the quo status in Washington. So they lived down to the caricature of politicians.
When Democrats are in power, they institute Paygo; government has to be paid for or cut to meet existing revenues. When Republicans are in power, they drop Paygo; tax cuts don't have to be paid for, wars don't have to be paid for, new prescription drugs coverage doesn't have to be paid for.
So yes, the GOP is the party of fiscal irresponsibility. And why should that surprise anyone? Slashing top marginal rates for the rich translates to loss of revenue (and you also have to sweeten the deal with some middle income tax cuts). All this lost revenue has to be accomodated with spending cuts or borrowing. And cutting spending for the middle class in order to provide tax cuts for the rich is hugely unpopular. So you cut taxes now, borrow the money, blame the Democrats for the exploding debt, rebrand yourself as True Conservative Tea Party Rebels who Will Restore Fiscal Chastity, end up doing the exact same things as your predecessors because math is still math, lather, rinse repeat.
The definition of insanity is doing the exact same things over and over again while expecting different results. We had a Republican prez and a Republican Congress and we got to see exactly what the GOP priorities are and how it squares the circle when its ideological commitments run against the law of arithmetics. So long as these commitments stay the same and voters stubbornly refuse to support pure and obvious upward distribution of wealth at their own expense, there's no way the GOP can maintain fiscal responsibility.
Look, I try to forget the aughts as well. I totally undertand where you come from. Unfortunately, George W Bush, Iraq, Medicare Part D, tax cuts etc all did happe in Earth Reality. You might as well deal with it.
Btw, back in the earlly Bush years there were still some moderate Republicans who were concerned about budget deficits. Those old school conservatives were dismissed as "green-eyeshade, austerity wing of the party" because they overly concerned themselves with the "increases in the debt." This critique came from Congressman named Paul Ryan. But now Paul Ryan is a different sort of Republican. Before he was mostly concerned with tax cuts for the rich. Today he's mostly concerned with tax cuts for the rich. And he has a plan where he lays out all the goodies he's going to shower on the rich. And unlike those cowardly and irresponsible past Republicans, he's going to actually pay for hose tax cuts, because he's brave and tells the hard truth. So how is he going to do that? He'll cut middle class spending and tax deductions. Somewhere. To be detailed later. Really, just trust him on that. He'll keep you posted. At a more convenient time. Any day now.
Why not now? Because Ryan would get crucified. And if God forbid Romney gets elected, why won't he actually implement those Draconian spending cuts in tandem with tax cuts for rich? Because he would get crucified. Tax cuts across the board are always popular. Tax cuts for the rich are not popular. And tax cuts for rich that are financed by tax hikes and spending cuts for the middle class are political suicide (Captcha: foul smelling). QED.
MarkW he does get it partially correct. The R's have traded (unwisely in my mind) lower marginal tax rates at the top for fewer people paying taxes overall. While the lower top rate has led to growth we do have to weigh that against the fact that fewer and fewer people are paying any taxes and that partially offsets the growth.
The same people who aren't paying taxes are voting for more benefits, they are darn near 50% of the population, so we continue to race toward the cliff. The D's have played that expertly. The marginal rate will go up when the Bush tax cuts expire and the benefit costs will not go down. That anybody didn't see this coming is unfathomable to me and in that sense, the R's are just as responsible as the D's for the budget woe's.
The top 1% is getting richer while everyone else is stagnating. Your solution is to to increase taxation on the middle class and keep it low for the top 1%. Are you saying the middle class will get richer this way? It really makes no sense.
Btw do you care to substantiate your claims that tax cuts have magical powers that only apply to top earners but not to the middle class? Do you believe that the investment bankers who worked 100 hour weeks under Clinton were really just slacking off because the top tax rates were so high? What do you think happened under Bush? they started working 200 hour weeks?
Ariel, if you believe that the reason why the rich are getting richer, is because they aren't taxed enough, then no wonder you're stupid enough to be a liberalo.
No Mark, that's the argument I was opposing is that the non-rich would be better off if they were taxed more and the rich taxed less. If you're not going to address the argument, don't bother. You're just being a knee-jerk nuisance.
Why do you even bother commenting here? You're not making any arguments. Every one of your posts is "like any X, you just make/invent/attack Y because you're a Z".
