The Simple Arithmetic of Republican Failure
Andrea Mitchell made a feeble attempt to cut through John McCain's doublespeak.
MITCHELL: You know, you've added up and you talked about some $300 billion in savings -- pork barrel savings. Independent experts say that your tax cuts would cost at least $100 billion more than you say and that the savings would not materialize. You know, we've seen over decades...MCCAIN: I disagree with the experts. I disagree. I disagree. I disagree with the experts.
MITCHELL: Well, let's say that there is a pork...
MCCAIN: I have experts of my own. I have many experts of my own who say that this will stimulate the economy, will create jobs and increase revenues over time.
And that's what we did in 1980 -- Ronald Reagan did when he came to office in 1981. We reduced taxes, we reduced regulation and we controlled spending.MITCHELL: But it did bust the deficit.
MCCAIN: And a key part of this is controlling spending.
MITCHELL: I mean, you are a deficit hawk.
MSNBC Live, April 16, 2008
John McCain is a "deficit hawk"? These days, that's about as accurate as saying Donald Trump is homeless. Let's cut through the nonsense and talk about real numbers.
Numbers tell a story. Especially over time. They compel us to focus on results -- success and failure. Over the short term, maybe a few years, numbers can be manipulated or give false signals. But not over decades, and not over a generation. The numbers over the past 30 years are not refutable. When it comes to creating jobs and managing the nation's finances, Democratic presidents demonstrate success while Republican presidents show failure.
Job Creation
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs
Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs
Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year
Government Spending
How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Democratic Average: $1.16
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Republican Average: $1.29
The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.
Increases in Government Debt
Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3
Democratic Total: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1
Republican Total: 4.3
The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.
Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8
Democratic Total: 1.3
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4
Republican Total: 3.0
Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House.
"The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes." USA Today, August 3, 2006
This subject warrants a separate article, but there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans' "Social Security Reform."
In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers' nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government's reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined "lockbox" to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that's taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.
Anyone who speaks of a crisis in Social Security is really talking about a problem that can be laid at the Republicans' doorstep. It's not class warfare, just simple arithmetic.
Sources:
Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB, On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget Revenues
Increases in Government Debt: OMB
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
David! Good show!
So easy, even the Chimp might be able to understand. I hope you don't mind me printing this out. I intend to keep copies in my car so I can rub Republicans noses in it like bad dogs caught peeing on the rug or violating the Constitution.
Thank you for one of the clearest expositions on financial performance indicators that I have ever read. I don't know whether blog posts are eligible for journalism awards. This one is a powerful argument that if they aren't they should be.
No thinking businessman would support Republican economic policies. Evaluate George’s performance as if he were a CEO:
For comparison, the previous CEO had done well – strong, sustained revenue (read: GDP) growth of 3.7%. The company had been hemorrhaging cash, but he turned it cash flow positive (read: in surplus) for four straight years.
Look at the balance sheet now. The company’s debt has grown from 5.7 trillion to 9.4 trillion! Just the interest on the added debt is $150 billion per year. Now, debt can be OK if it is invested to increase growth, but look at the Income Statement. With little or no growth expected this year, average revenue (read: GDP) growth will be 2.2%. That’s a $2 trillion shortfall vs. the 3.7% run rate.
Lower growth and more debt. Sounds like pricing problems. Aha! There was a big price (read: tax rate) cut. George cut prices on our Tiffany Brand – in a market everyone knows is non-price sensitive – and upped them on our Wal-Mart line – which has demonstrated price elasticity. Dumb!
Did this damage the market value of the company’s stock (read: currency)?
Jan 21, 2001: one US dollar is worth 1.07 Euros (one Euro buys $0.93)
Apr 21, 2008: one US dollar is worth 0.63 Euros (one Euro buys $1.60)
On any of these fronts, a Board would can the guy, and make sure his replacement doesn’t follow his disastrous policies.
Unfortunately, they'd also give a CEO like him a golden parachute!
I've got a Golden Parachute for Bush (recycled Bud)
I'd settle for steal (sic) handcuffs.
Republicans have always lived high off the hog, but it's always with borrowed money. Holds true for the middle manager in suburbia and the fnancier on Wall Street.
Republicans are anti-government but they have no trouble taking money from the tax-paying public to pay for war. They have no problem contracting out services which would be cheaper provided by the existing infrastructure. They have no problem spending money to buy influence so that they can benefit from laws in their favour. They have successfully undermined medicare and medicaid so that they can profit. If they gamble with mortgages that shouldn't have been made they want the government to bail them out. They are very good at serving their needs and to hell with everybody else. Keep that in mind in November.
They aren't anti government. They truly believe that the government is a good thing, as long as it's not helping the poor or uneducated!
Corporate welfare. Not individual welfare.
Reduce the size of government by transferring government functions to cronies.
etc.
etc.
Everything that needs to be dsaid is in mccain's own childish, stupid "I disagree, I disagree, I disagree with the experts!" This should tell anyone with a nickel's worth of brains that mccain is the WORST possible choice to vote for! This pompous idiot disagrees with the EXPERTS?!?!?!? THAT is the operative word! These people are EXPERTS!!! They KNOW what they are talking about, whereas mccain knows nothing about the economy by HIS OWN ADMISSION! His "experts" are no doubt the same as bushit's, they will say anything mcinsane wants to hear. The tax cuts the old fool wants to make permanent are cut to the wealthiest 1% and he wants a NEW ROUND OF EVEN BIGGER CUTS TO THE WEALTHIEST CORPORATIONS!!!!
Republicans BORROW and SPEND.
Democrats TAX and SPEND.
The SPENDING is the problem......stupid, wasteful spending.
Forced to take one of the two, I would choose TAX and SPEND. At least this way we would not be sinking so fast into the status of a second rate nation.
May I also point out that the less is usually spent during a Democratic administration than during a Republican administration.
I don't understand the point of this article.
Everyone knows that the purpose of the Republican party is to redistribute wealth upwards from the vast majority to a tiny elite.
Well the lies about the unemployment rate is one thing.
The real unemployment rates is about 12 % if you add in the people in jail that will be out this years it is closer to 18%. Those people will be unemployed right when they come out of jail.
This counts all unemployed no one is said to have stopped looking for work. What does Bush think they did after their unemployment checks ran out become homeless. According to the Bush adminstration there are fewer homeless. MAYBE THE UNEMPLOYED MOVED TO MEXICO TO GET WORK.
Cold Wars won by Democrat presidents: zero
Collecting the soft. low hanging fruits of winning the Cold War by a Democratic president: one
Democratic presidents dismantling the post Cold War military and gutting intelligence agencies in the lead up to 9/11: one
Enjoying the bounty of business innovation, the internet bubble, and a Republican Congress who shoved welfare reform down his throat and then claiming it was all his doing: one slick Willy and a boat load of dim wits on the left
Every President since Truman won the Cold War.
Reagan just happened to be in office at the time.
George H.W. Bush started the reduction of the military. Clinton's reductions were a fraction of Bush's.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Hmmmmmm.............
Soviet Union holds its own during the "Cold War", then gets caught up in a financially unsubstainable war in Afghanistan and collapses.
No more Soviet Union.
Reagan collects credit for the soft low hanging fruit of Communism's collapse.
" We'll see"
See movie " Charlie Wilson's war". Had we invested a few million dollars in schools for the children of Afghanistan in the 1980s there would have been no terrorist camps and no 911.
Charlie Wilson helped defeat the Russians in the snows of Afghanistan but then the United States abandoned the children to grow up and be schooled by terrorists.
Will Iraq turn into the same breeding ground for terror? We'll see.
Teach, the children well.
Please define "gutted". The reason that I'm asking you to do this is because my definition of gutted does NOT include creating the most technologically advanced military that the world has ever seen, while making it able to perform more with less men counts as a success, not a failure. By contrast, looking at the troops right now, I would have to say that bush has gutted them much more than Clinton ever did.
And as far as gutting the intelligence agencies..... Clinton knew more about 9/11 than bush did, because Clinton LISTENED to the intelligence agencies. The "gutting" of the agencies, such as occurred, actually began under raygun and continued under daddy bush, and was mostly done by the time Clinton too office...
Well, if it's not class warfare then it is simply plundering and pillaging by an elite minority of money launderers who call themselves Republicans, currently including people with titles like President and Vice President, and supported by Sycophants, Hangers On, CEOs, Wall Street Bankers, Oil Magnates, Talk Show Hosts, Newscasters, Columnists, Publishers, and many other people making much money than they are worth. Eisenhower warned us to beware of the military industrial complex, and now they own our ass. And they are spilling our blood all over the world like they were watering their garden, which is exactly what they are doing, watering their garden -- and it is a cash crop if ever there was one.
I have heard so many references to this site that I had to see for myself. The scary thing is that you people actually believe what you are writing.
And so, do you?
You ain't seen nothin' yet!
The bottom line is the Republicans can't see past their own greed.
If the vast majority of money is flowing primarily to their constituents in the top quintile of America's wealth holders, then all is good and anything - from war to vast increases in the nation's debt load - is both "good" in their eyes and sustainable.
They feel personal pain when they think of spending on anything else - even spending to divert the catastrophe that their greed threatens to bring upon us all.
Republicans are actually an affliction that man has been faced with for millennia, as is revealed by all of the cautionary tales in everything from the story of Jesus and the money lenders to Dicken's tale of Scrooge to Dr. Seuss' "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas".
Of course in our earnest attempts to find some good in all humans, we inevitably write such parables with a positive outcome; Jesus saves the money lenders, Scrooge sees the light, and the Grinch returns the tree.
Sometimes, however, you must face reality...
Wrong parable. Congress is spending like the Prodigal Son. They have stolen this country's entire future to feed their insatiable appetite. Not only have the spent every dime they've ever been given, they've borrowed as much money as they could possibly fool people into giving them.
Now we're all headed for sleeping with the pigs. The only question is whether or not when we come groveling to China, they'll greet us with a robe and a ring and a feast. My guess is no.
It completely misses the point to lay the blame for the disastrous policies of the last 7 years on the doors of Congress.
The Republican Party, by controlling both the presidency and both houses of Congress, was able to implement policies that have been disastrous for the U.S.
It is the GOP, not Congress, that deserves most of the blame for the economic nightmare facing us now.
We went from three years in a row of budget surpluses when we had a Democratic president, to an immediate turnaround under a Republican president with ideas of economics that resemble nothing more than witchcraft. We have been able to subsidise two wars and massive tax cuts for the super wealthy by assuming more debt than at any other time in our history.
If the Republican McCain is elected, there is no chance whatsoever that the budgetary nightmare will be turned around.
If either Democrat is elected, the country will still have to endure a painful period of recovery involving reinstating realistic economic policies while the country's infrastructure is rebuilt. During this time, we can expect constant Republican attacks on every measure designed to relieve the suffering they have caused.
Maybe if America wasn't ran by hustles and scams then we as Americans might know when we are being hustled and scamed by an UNNECESSARY Iraq war profiteering crime by no bid contracts that would be war crimes in themselves way back in a time when Americans were better educated and enlightened voters.
Criticizing Republicans for not creating enough jobs makes sense when you consider that the federal government is the nation's largest employer.
Nobody likes creating government jobs more than Dems do.
Except your boy George has increased federal employment more than any president since LBJ.
Isn't there a Republican out there that can read?
This article fails to mention WHY.
Why Repugs must spend more the Dems?
The answer is their economic policies do not work?
So to hide the fact that their economic policies....tricle down economics...does not work they go on spending binges.
SPENDING and not tax cuts has been how Repugs from Reagan to the Jr. Bush have gotten out of recessions. Or as Lloyd Benson put it in 1988,
"If you let me write $300,000,000,000.00 of hot checks a year I too could give you an illusion of prosperity."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
