EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
If You Want More Debt Vote Republican
One of the most successful deceits of the past thirty years is that Republicans are the party of "fiscal discipline." In fact, Republicans are the party of fiscal wreckage. Simply put, Republicans love deficits and debt. They have buried the country with them. They expand them with orgiastic fervor every time they get the chance. Until we come to grips with this simple truth we will never gain control of our fiscal destiny.
In 1980 the national debt stood at $1 trillion. Over the prior 204 years, the nation paid for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the build-out of an entire continent, the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, and the better part of the Cold War. And through all that, we still only borrowed $1 trillion.
But over the next 12 years of relative peace and prosperity, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would quadruple the national debt, to $4 trillion. They did it by dramatically lowering taxes on the wealthy and furiously expanding government spending. This isn't even economics, it's arithmetic: bring in less income while spending more money, and the result is debt. Mountains of it.
Bill Clinton reversed the Republicans' destructive formula, raising taxes on the rich and cutting spending to 17.4% of GDP, a level not seen in 30 years. The result was the longest economic expansion in American history. More than 20 million jobs were created, another record, while the stock market tripled. Most importantly, Clinton produced the first budget surpluses since 1969, handing George W. Bush a $140 billion surplus.
Bush immediately returned to the tried-and-true deficit producing policies of Reagan and his father. He lowered taxes on the wealthy through a $1.6 trillion giveaway in which 50% of the gains went to the top 1% of income earners, his "base" as he called them. And he expanded spending to 20% of GDP by initiating two wars, lying to pass a $600 billion giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, and more.
Again, bring in less income, spend more, and the result is debt. Under Bush's catastrophic economic stewardship, the national debt more than doubled, from $5.6 trillion to over $12 trillion while producing the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
A Republican has occupied the White House for 26 of the past 40 years. Not once in any of those years has any Republican president mustered a single balanced budget. So, the fact that Republicans love deficits and debt and expand them whenever they get the chance is not an ideological or political construct. It is the empirical, manifest conclusion of their own policies and actions. Those are the facts.
Less well understood is why this is so. But like the record itself, it is important that Americans know why it is that Republicans love debt. The reasons are two-fold and straightforward.
The first and most important reason Republicans love debt is that they make more money when there's more debt outstanding. The wealthy, after all, are lenders. They would prefer everybody-governments, companies, individuals-be up to their eyeballs in debt. That way they can charge everybody obscenely high rates of interest, as they do the desperately poor who use payday lending facilities with interest rates in the hundreds of percent a year.
The wealthy will collect almost $4 trillion in interest payments in the U.S. this year-27% of the entire $15 trillion GDP going to pay interest! And that's a time of extreme slack in the economy. As the economy recovers and demand for borrowed money increases, rates will rise. Imagine the obscene interest the country will be forced to pay on its $14 trillion national debt when the U.S. government itself becomes a payday borrower!
Which points to the second reason Republicans love debt. At some point it becomes so onerous it will bankrupt the government. This will make it impossible for the government to carry out its essential functions. It will have to sell off assets to its creditors, just as it is doing now, to raise money.
The same wealthy interests who caused the nation to go bankrupt will then buy up public resources at pennies on the dollar. That's how foreclosure sales work. They will then sell the services from those resources back to the public at monopoly rates. We see this around the country where thousands of cities and dozens of states are already selling off essential assets in exchange for a one-time infusion of cash.
Arizona selling off its state-house. Michigan selling the bridge to Canada. States across the country selling their toll-roads, airports, prisons, water systems, parks, even police and fire departments. School districts selling their schools in the guise of making them "charters" when in fact, they are franchised corporate education providers: McSchools.
Privatization of everything is the goal, with no public sector. You can do it when you have bankrupted the government. This is Republican nirvana: the rich paying essentially no taxes; extracting trillions of dollars in interest payments from captive, maxed-out borrowers, public and private; and owning all the public resources (in addition to all of the private resources which they already own). How much better can it get?
The second advantage of bankrupting the government (at least from the vantage of Republicans), is regulatory. It leaves no institutional force in society capable of standing up to the concentrated power of big capital.
This is what made the recent financial meltdown possible: regulation had been gutted, allowing the predators to run amok through the economy. It is what enabled the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico: little or no regulation on the oil companies.
What Republicans want in the private sphere is untrammeled dominion over desperate workers. In the public sphere, they want the ability to cow the government to do its bidding and to transfer all governmental operations to private hands. Bankrupting the government through onerous debts is the surest way to do both, for who, then, can stand up for the interests of the public? Or for democracy, for that matter?
Republicans have gotten so good at drowning the country in debt they even baked it into Obama's administration. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, almost ninety percent of Obama's deficits are due to policies and events initiated by George W. Bush: massive tax cuts for the rich; two unendable wars; and-once again-the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Without these albatrosses Obama's budget would be almost in balance.
Republicans want nothing to do with policies that actually reduce deficits. If they did, they would have mustered more than a façade of concern over the past 40 years. But they haven't. And the most insufferable part of it all is their unctuous posturing about "fiscal discipline." It's like Heidi Fleiss posing as a model of moral probity, all the better to sucker more two-faced Johns into her bordello.
It was Cicero, in 45 B.C., who laid out the simplest formula in history for understanding such matters. They are the two most powerful words in political forensics: "Qui Bono?" Who benefits? When we answer this question and look at their record, we learn everything we need to know about Republicans and debt. All the rest of the posing is a sham. It's a shame the Democrats don't have the backbone to call this truth for what it is.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


93 Comments so far
Show AllThe national debt goes up regardless of who's in power. Which party has or ever will reduce war spending and tax cuts for the wealthy?
Read the article above.
"Bill Clinton reversed the Republicans' destructive formula, raising taxes on the rich and cutting spending to 17.4% of GDP..."
this is the lamest apology for Democrats I have ever seen. The author would have you believe that the presidency is the entire function of government. Reagan had plenty of help from Tip O'Neill's Democratic majority, just as Clinton was essentially forced to do what he did by Newt Gingrich's Republican majority.
Only a fool would believe the thrust of this article. The question is: What does a party do when they have solid control of both the executive and legislative branches? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Obama, Pelosi and Reid - no substantial reversal of tax policy or military budgets.
And as for the putrescent assumption that the wars are "unendable" - I leave it to you, reader, to choose which bridge you'd like to purchase from me.
Oh! and one more thing - Bill Clinton's hallowed 17.4% budget, down from his predecessors' 20%, amounts to absolutely zilch when you take into account the rise in GDP. And that great expansion during the 90s benefited who, exactly?
When the country is eating out of garbage cans, the sophistry of Democratic apologists will be cold comfort, indeed.
"Reagan had plenty of help from Tip O'Neill's Democratic majority" The Senate was in Republican hands when 'the deed was done' O'Neill was in the house, leading the opposition.
"Clinton was essentially forced to do what he did by Newt Gingrich's Republican majority" what was that? raise taxes?
"Only a fool would believe the thrust of this article." Call me a fool, but it matches the America I lived through. Its popular in CD to claim no difference in the parties, but on the subject of debt there's just no comparison. Hate Clinton for a variety of reasons, but not for the debt.
The unitary executive has been around for awhile, and the government pretty much reflects what that guy wants. That was doubly true for Reagan. Ironically, Reagan stumped as a fiscal conservative, and pointed repeatedly at Carters $0.8 trillion national debt as a national scandal, something he would definitely do something about. He did something about it, alright.
What about the Democrats in Congress who helped Reagan? It's all bi-partisan. Admit it and grow up. Where's a good Republican or Democrat when you need one anymore? Right, saying loudly and then caving in. We'd never get Civil Rights with those kinds of fools.
I make no apologies for anyone. Maxpayne's question was in part:
"Which party has or ever will reduce... tax cuts for the wealthy?"
The answer to that question is right in the article.
"Bill Clinton reversed the Republicans' destructive formula, raising taxes on the rich..."
I just get the feeling sometimes that commenters don't even bother to read the articles.
maxpayne's comment was so stupid it wasn't really worth responding to. Its like, hey, look at me! I slept through the last 30 years!
So where's Obama on deficit reduction and what's he cutting to "reduce the deficit"? Think twice before you call a comment "stupid".
Sorry, it was impolite. Hoover cut the federal budget, turning a deep recession into the Great Depression. You don't cut federal investment when private investment has already been spooked, unless you like seeing people unemployed. As FDR showed, instead you tax the h*ll out of the rich, and use it putting people to work, until the private sector has recovered from its fear.
But the lesson of Hoover is, at this point, academic. By every objective measure, we're about to relive that lesson in the next few years. The budget deficit will be trimmed, taxes will go down, and this new Great Recession will turn into a new Great Depression. But I think, by then, an exhausted public will OK the Tea Partier call to just gas the homeless, so problem solved.
"Sorry, it was impolite."
A disagreement is not impolite.
"Hoover cut the federal budget, turning a deep recession into the Great Depression. You don't cut federal investment when private investment has already been spooked, unless you like seeing people unemployed."
Tell that to your boss Obama who's making himself worse than Hoover.
"As FDR showed, instead you tax the h*ll out of the rich, and use it putting people to work, until the private sector has recovered from its fear. "
It's too bad that your party in Congress is too busy trying to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Where's the party of FDR? In the twilight zone !
"But the lesson of Hoover is, at this point, academic. By every objective measure, we're about to relive that lesson in the next few years. The budget deficit will be trimmed, taxes will go down, and this new Great Recession will turn into a new Great Depression. But I think, by then, an exhausted public will OK the Tea Partier call to just gas the homeless, so problem solved."
Most of that has already happened for the last decade and more. Who's learning the lessons of Hoover? Not Washington.
Exactly right. Clinton steered the Democrats away from the policies of FDR and they have been stupidly running to the right ever since.
Obama is Hoover II and he is steering the US straight into World Depression II.
Also the usual reporting on how balanced the Clinton budgets were never mention the over 2 trillion unaccounted for by the Pentagon reported by Rumsfield the day before 9/11.
It is interesting that Rumsfeld of all people would report that for his inherent war craze throughout his entire life. That fact alone would make it harder to disprove that 9/11 was an insider's job after all. He would never expect most of the American people to catch on to that and connect the dots.
Yes, "Inside job" does not have to mean anything but "let it happen"
It now has occurred to me that this was perfect timing since they knew a major hit was coming according to the presidential briefings so this is a "limited hangout" to suggest "we want to curb the war machine that Clinton mismanaged" so that the next day it is Total War.
Then on 9/12 they forget the war profiteers corruption who are all in with Bush and the 2.3 trillion went missing on Clinton's watch who is always buddy buddy with the Bush Gang.
The presidents are in a club.
Amen!
Who had a majority in Congress and the WH when Glass-Segall was repealed? WH when NAFTA enacted? Who continued Bush's Banker Welfare program?
You wish to destroy the USA and it's citizens(90%), then vote R or D.
Freeman sez: "This is what made the recent financial meltdown possible: regulation had been gutted, allowing the predators to run amok through the economy."
***
Well noted, glenn.
Mr. Freeman's Freudian slip is showing with this sentence tucked into an otherwise uninterrupted anti-Republican screed. And note his passive verb construction, in which regulation "had been" gutted rather than "Clinton 'signed' the repeal of Glass-Steagall."
gnken
Yes Clinton signed it because it was a political Blackmale for Clinton because of the scandle involving Monica Lewinski as well the R's had control of the House and the Dems had the Senate but not 60 seats. Check your historical facts
I did say who? Funny what a Bush can do with fifty votes and what the D's cannot do with sixty.
Where is the historical fact that Clinton was Blackmailed?
Are you claiming sixty D Senators could not stop a Repeal or a passage? Hogwash!
Who has been declaring and funding all these criminal wars and the largest military budget in the history of world?
For the last two years, the Democrats have not really had 60 votes in the Senate. Liberman has never been reliable, nor has Ben Nelson. And when Kennedy died, his Republican replacement was someone who vacilates - also not reliable. In fact, about a dozen Democrats are really Republicans (I am thinking specifically )of Evan Bayh, who always ran as a Democrat but governed as a Republican).
Without at least 60 votes, the Democrats cannot beat the system, even when they want to.
They certainly can stop passage or repeal with 50 votes or are they not as smart as Repugs?
They aren't as greedy, selfish, or as willing to sell the entire country out for money.
If you recall, the republicans threatened to kill off the filibuster entirely, it was called the "nuclear option" when the dems tried to keep them from shoving even more shit down our throats. The real problem is that the dems weren't smart enough to change the rules when the session started, so they stuck themselves with this idiocy where one shit headed senator can stop everything just by saying so. And so this arcane, idiotic rule that is now just being used as an obstruction tactic by the righties.
They don't CARE how much damage they do to the rest of us, in fact, it's pretty much been the whole idea since Watergate. They didn't like being caught and held to a standard of honesty so they set about to make us all pay for it. Unfortunately, the dems never got the point that this was war. So the rest of us have to pay and pay while the righties steal everything that isn't nailed down and pry up those things which are and THEN steal them.
The dems don't suck as human beings, and that is their problem when they are up against the psychos on the other side. And those psychos DO suck as human beings, which is WHY they are screwing us all ON PURPOSE.
I see your point of view.
It is a conventional wisdom, but does not hold true when one looks at many of the details.
Who is declaring and funding the criminal wars.
Who has passed surveillence laws.
An Unconstitutional Mandate.
Who is promoting Tar Sands, Nuclear Energy, "Clean Coal", Deepwater Drilling?
New Nuclear Weapons?
Who was in power when the economy was gutted with Repeal of Glass- Seagall and NAFTA?
gnken1 sez: "Check your historical facts"
***
The only "historical fact" I cited was that Clinton signed into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley, if you prefer).
Your assertion of blackmail does not obviate its accuracy.
Reagan/Thatcher showed that the only voters 'who mattered' were the suburban swing voters. Clinton/Blair focus-grouped these people, and found them to be pretty small-minded, small-time selfish, TV watchers, and susceptible to rightwing propaganda, like that GOP was 'fiscal conservative'. Everyone moved right to accomodate this apparent 'shift' in the public, including Clinton. In Clinton's defense, deregulation of WallStreet happened at the end of his shift, responsibility for monitoring its effects fell to Bush, as it had to. Anger at Clinton for gutting Glass-Steagall should not serve as an excuse for Bush's spending 6 years with regulatory blinders on while WallStreet held an orgy of greed. That's a long time to NOT see an $8 trillion housing bubble get inflated.
Clinton enabled Bush without the gutting of Glass -Seagall Bush would would not have been able to ignore what was happening.
He who pays the piper gets to call the tune.
who is paying both R and D pipers?
Without a mass, concentrated movement by many citizens, red and blue, we are in for centuries of a New Dark Age.
Unfortunately, this isn't going to be read by any Republicans or Tea Party members at this point. Somehow we need to get this information out strongly over the next two years. We need to hammer it home before the next election or it is all over.
What is "all over" if we don't "hammer it home before the next election?" Hammering this theme home is certain to result in less power for the left, not more, and it certainly would not reduce support for the Republicans. How could it? What difference do you think it could possibly make if Republicans or Tea Party members read this article?
Why would we want to be promoting a right wing theme over the next 2 years about the deficit? That is obviously a manufactured issue - bait for suckers, like all of the right wing "issues."
TA12:56 ------
Yes Peace and Prosperity are more important than deficit reduction.
True peace would definitely reduce the deficits and prosperity for all would too. Think of it as hitting 3 birds with one stone.
By the way, apologies to any bird lovers out there in advance but I hope you understand what I was saying. Thanks.
The last Republican administration to submit a balanced budget to congress was Eisenhower and he was branded a communist by the McCarthyite Republicans.
And the last democratic administration to do so balanced said budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in the worst way.
Actually, he was branded a Communist by Robert Welch, the head of the John Birch Society. The McCarthyites felt that everyone in the State Department was a Communist.
Mr. Freeman says: Qui Bono? It is sure not the average American citizen, but it is the MIC and the Republican War Party and the Democratic War Party who keep voting for spending billions and billions of $ for the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the 700 military bases around the world, and he conveniently leaves out the Gorilla in the economic room. To paraphrase Mr. Freeman: until we come to grips with this simple truth, that both parties are war parties, we will never regain control of our fiscal destiny.
Is it just about fiscal destiny?
Let's stop talking about wars in terms of money.
Let's talk about the pain and suffering, the tragedies and deaths.
And the lies that war mongers tell to justify their actions.
That might win some votes.
You seem to remember the prescient words of the immortal George W. Bush:
"Money.............trumps peace."
"One of the most successful deceits of the past thirty years is that Republicans are the party of "fiscal discipline."
Wholeheartedly agree.
And if I may add: One of the most successful deceits of the past thirty years is that Democrats are the party of "social discipline."
And neither of these evil parties has complete dibs on either--far from it.
What, exactly, is "social discipline"?
Admittedly it sounds a bit creepy... what I meant was that democrats have this false public image of siding with and/or protection the People, on the side of what's morally right (e.g. civil rights, women's/workers rights, etc.) At least that how I viewed them at least. They've always claimed the moral ground since the 60's.
Now we know they're just as murderous and criminal as republicans ever were. Instead of just us white crackas' bombing and stealing, the dems have cunningly co-oped gays, blacks, latinos and women into the same evilness. So, in my opinion, they're worse than republicans. Gee, now we can use everyone to kill & steal for us while "blending them" into the full benefits of Capitalism...oops, I meant SOCIETY :) (And the republicans secretly lick their chops and plan more war)
Perhaps that clears it up, it not perhaps someone else can do a better job than I. Or maybe these are my thoughts alone. But thats how I see it.
I think you are trying to mix oil and water here. The Democrats have been instrumental in passing legislation that helped the middle class and poor since the 1930s, not just the 1960s.
The composition of the volunteer Army has nothing to do with that.
Oil and water.
How will K Street make out if Republicans take control (sic) of CONgress this week?
How will K Street make out if Democrats retain control (sic) of CONgress this week?
—30—
I would never, NEVER vote for those wicked Republicans-- the Party of Cain!
Thank God there's an alternative: the good old Party of Judas.
OS: Well said, and there is no "lesser" evil to choose from between the R and D.
Well said and humerous to boot!! :)
....humorous....
RichM; The elephant in the room; well said. Tony
Another election season article with the Democratic primary campaign theme: "They are worse than us". The Democrats don't even bother to offer solutions that they won't fulfill.
- Freeman selectively focuses on the tax cuts "on the rich" that increased our national debt so he could omit mentioning Obama's tax cuts. All the tax cuts increased our national debt, including Obama's. By the way, Bush's tax cuts were passed by a Senate in which the Republicans only had 50 seats. Twelve Democrat Senators joined in supporting the bill as it pass 62-38. The Senate Democrats not only didn't fight the legislation (e.g, filibuster), they joined in to help it pass.
- Freeman blames "Bush's unendable wars" for the deficit. The authorization giving Bush authorization to attack Iraq was passed by the Senate 77-23. Democrats were pounding the same war drums. Obama only pulled some troops out of Iraq because Bush signed a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq calling for troop reductions. Meanwhile Obama maintains the occupation and scaled up the war in Afghanistan.
Freeman's article is just another in a series of Democratic party misleading pitches to get voters to vote for them. Vote Green and build a party.
Yes, it is the Democrats and their apologists who "don't have the backbone to call this truth for what it is" - although I don't think it is a lack of "backbone" - it is more a matter of disguising the truth about themselves and about the political and social reality and misleading people. The deception starts with the replacement of the the word "capitalist" with the word "Republican." That way we will be mired in an absurd petty partisan debate and unable to see what is happening.
We are being led to think about all of this a certain way - if all of the problems can be blamed on Republicans, well then we have an "alternative" - we can vote Democratic. And when that doesn't work, we can make up fairy tales about their lack of "backbone" and so on, or tell ourselves that "we live in a center-right nation" and wring our hands and remain in utter confusion and paralysis. Who benefits from that? Why, the people who are doing pretty well all in all, those who pose as friends to the working class while they benefit from the system and ease their conscience and fool us with pretensions of being in some sort of opposition.
Yes, the Republicans lie, but so do the Democrats. They lie by not using the word capitalist and laying the blame for the social problems where it belongs - after all, they will tell us "not all capitalists are bad" (all Republicans are bad, though, we are to believe) and "capitalism has done good things" (although Republicans never have, we are to believe.) If Republicans are bad because they are doing the bidding of the capitalists, as the author says, then why can we not blame the capitalists - the people who are financing and controlling the Republicans?
Yes, we should ask "who benefits?" Who benefits by confusing and paralyzing us? The faction of the ruling class, and their sycophants and apologists, aligned with the Democratic party.
If Democrats - our overlords dressed in peasants' clothing to deceive us - were telling the truth, the article would read like this:
The first and most important reason capitalists love debt is that they make more money when there's more debt outstanding. The wealthy, after all, are lenders. They would prefer everybody - governments, companies, individuals - be up to their eyeballs in debt. That way they can charge everybody obscenely high rates of interest, as they do the desperately poor who use payday lending facilities with interest rates in the hundreds of percent a year.
Which points to the second reason capitalists love debt. At some point it becomes so onerous it will bankrupt the government. This will make it impossible for the government to carry out its essential functions. It will have to sell off assets to its creditors, just as it is doing now, to raise money.
Privatization of everything is the goal, with no public sector. You can do it when you have bankrupted the government. This is capitalist nirvana: the rich paying essentially no taxes; extracting trillions of dollars in interest payments from captive, maxed-out borrowers, public and private; and owning all the public resources (in addition to all of the private resources which they already own). How much better can it get?
The second advantage of bankrupting the government (at least from the vantage of capitalists), is regulatory. It leaves no institutional force in society capable of standing up to the concentrated power of big capital.
What capitalists want in the private sphere is untrammeled dominion over desperate workers. In the public sphere, they want the ability to cow the government to do its bidding and to transfer all governmental operations to private hands. Bankrupting the government through onerous debts is the surest way to do both, for who, then, can stand up for the interests of the public? Or for democracy, for that matter?
Capitalists want nothing to do with policies that actually reduce deficits.
Who benefits? When we answer this question and look at their record, we learn everything we need to know about capitalists and debt.
Brilliant TA, and while I agree with everything you write, I would point out that the Capitalists have the tiger by the tail and are dimly aware of that fact- they just can't help themselves.
This is all the result of the pattern logic of the System, one with a moral code that reads: "If I don't do it, someone else will and it may as well be me that makes a buck on the deal."
Ovens don't make ice cubes and freezers can't warm up dinner...