One certainly has to love all the hyperventilating going on in the wingnuttosphere over today’s revelation that the national debt climbed past $12 trillion.

Yes, that’s a very bad, scary, unsustainable number but it doesn’t tell anywhere near the whole story. Click on this image to see how increases to the national debt have grown and shrunk over the last half-century:
Shown another way:
And finally, I think this chart and explanation provides another valuable perspective:

Note the two huge mountains of increasing national debt in this picture. One began with the Reagan administration and went on for the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I presidencies. Then following 8 years of precipitous decrease in the rate of debt accumulation, the onset of the Bush II presidency was marked by another, even more precipitous increase in debt accumulation than was the Reagan presidency. In other words, where we have seen huge tax reductions for the wealthy we have concurrently seen huge increases in our national debt, with no compensatory rise (and even a slowing) of median income.
This whole teabagger-inspired, conveniently timed “concern” about debt and deficits is especially amusing because, compared to the loud screaming about it you hear today, it was crickets and tumbleweeds throughout the reign of Premier Bush and his enablers in Congress:

It’s more than a little odd to see Republicans rediscover their outrage about deficits, debt, and the burdens of future generations. It was, after all, George W. Bush who added $5 trillion to the debt, after inheriting a quarter-trillion-dollar surplus from the Clinton era, which generated exactly zero criticism from GOP members of Congress.

Indeed, the entire political dynamic of the debate is bizarre. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans supported two costly wars, and added every penny to the debt, becoming the first party in American history to finance military conflicts entirely on credit. These same GOP officials expanded Medicare and created No Child Left Behind, and made literally no effort to pay for either.

And after their policies helped create the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, making increased spending and deficits an absolute necessity, Republicans feel comfortable making demands about fiscal responsibility? Seriously?

Update: John Cole wants to know what the GOP’s plan for shrinking the debt might be:
“I would love to hear how the Republican plan for slashing the deficit and tackling the debt will work. I’m interested in how capital gains tax cuts, making the Bush cuts permanent, ending the ‘death tax,’ continuing the prescription drug plan while ignoring the rising costs of health care, permanent war in the Middle East and privatizing Social Security are going to bring our books back into the black. I’m all ears, guys.”

  1. Gherald says:

    There was a recession at the start of Bush's term, then he spent like crazy after 9/11. The 90s were a boom time, and don't forget the Republican Congress under Clinton.

    Essentially these charts illustrate a good argument for divided government. When only one party has power, they spend or cut taxes too much for their favored constituencies, whilst their opposition develops a Strange New Respect for fiscal restraint (which they immediately forget upon assuming power).

    As much as I despise the rancid state of the GOP these days, if they could manage to take back the House in 2010 it would probably be best for fiscal sanity, looking forward.

    • Metavirus says:

      \”There was a recession at the start of Bush's term, then he spent like crazy after 9/11 and cratered government revenue by passing fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the first time in American history during a time of war.\”  fixed! :)Although I see what you mean about divided government, the coin only flips one way in this case.  Increases in the debt have either gone down or remain level under Democratic Presidents and skyrocket under Republican ones.

      • Gherald says:

        Looking at Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton vs. Bush II and concluding that Republican presidents are the main problem is poor reasoning. First of all, Reagan's deficits were warranted and lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Secondly, the 90s under Clinton was a boom time. Thirdly, the government was divided under Clinton. All we can say definitively is that full Republican control (White House + both chambers) has been terrible.

        Regarding full Democratic control, looking at debt in eras before 1980 is of no relevance because of the rampant inflation. And looking at the last year is unhelpful because of the recession--though the way the stimulus was structured (laundry list of giveaways instead of payroll tax cuts) has not been encouraging. And health reform is looking more and more like a sheer coverage expansion that only makes the structural problems more difficult to deal with (see e.g. Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School here).

        Looking forward, modern Democrats will have a chance to show whether they're good stewards of the public purse. I'm pessimistic, but Republicans were so terrible under Bush that just about anything short of LBJ is going to look good by comparison.

        • Metavirus says:

          At least those crazy tax-n-spend liberals are actually making a serious effort to (a) make their health care plans deficit neutral and (b) actually listen to and respect the analysis of the CBO. Go back in time a few years and just imagine Bush or congressional Republicans even spend 1/4 of 1% of their time or energy on figuring out how to, you know, *pay* for No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D or, gasp, taking the CBO's estimates of the costs of the Afghaniraq clusterfucks seriously. … No, seriously … Imagine it.

          My take on the "full Republican control (White House both chambers) has been terrible [for the economy/debt]" thing is that Republicans have simply become blind ideologues (surprise!) that poorly understand what fiscal responsibility means. One of the core principles of fiscal responsibility is maintaining both the right level of Revenue and the right level of Expenses.

          All that Republicans are dedicated to is cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes (and cutting taxes). That's it. Nearly all of their whinging about cutting spending is just so much hot air for the teabaggers.

          When two multi-trillion dollar wars come along…….

          [crickets....]

          [tumbleweed...]

          Then, inevitably, "Let's do it! AND cut taxes!!!"

          And, most importantly, no pearl-clutching or pants-wetting over "But it's our CHILDREN (!!!) that must pay for these wars! Think about the CHILLLLDRENNN!!!!11!! (wolverines!) Also."

    • P.S. Your comment brings up an interesting observation. In all the talk over the years about "fiscal responsibility", have you ever heard a serious discussion of raising taxes (coupled with spending cuts) in order to pay off debt and decrease the deficit. It has to be two sides of a coin: Revenue minus Expenses. Republicans unfortunately simply hack at Revenue while blowing hot air about Expenses -- thereby giving us, e.g., a prescription drug benefit and two wars that were entirely unpaid for (i.e., dumped into the debt)

  2. schu says:

    The Republicans will never admit that they are responsible for today's problems, that is why they are out of power. Until they can gain some integrity and admit that their policies lead to today's problem and come up with some decent answers they will continue to lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors