If Barone is so right that people are suddenly revolting against big government, large deficits, and all of that, why did the deficit as a proportion of GDP increase from 57.4% to 75.5% during Bush's 8 years and there was no outrage?
More to the point, that's the most for a two-term president since Reagan. Also, Bush faced a 13% debt-to-GDP ratio increase in one term. Also also, no Democratic president over the last 65 years has seen a debt:GDP ratio increase on their watch. The same can not be said of every Republican from Ford onward.
People aren't revolting against "large government" or "huge deficits." If they were that mad, they would've tea partied in the streets towards the end of H. W. Bush, who, along with Reagan, increased the debt: GDP ratio by over 30%. There are other factors in play, but I think it's pretty clear empirically that Republicans on the federal level do not manage the treasury well. Even Carter (Carter!) managed to reduce the ratio by a little more than 3%.
I have a feeling that we'll be hard-pressed to see such a reduction in Obama's first term, simply because of the magnitude of this recession, but all these Republican anti-debt arguments just never sit well with me. Mainly because they ignore lots and lots of facts.
Edit: And after finishing Brooks, another comment. He says Blue Dog Democrats want to constrain spending and all the other Dems are "tax and spend liberals." Yet Blue Dogs are generally weary of a public option, one of the most favorably-CBO scored item in the health reform bills, which definitively cuts the cost of the bill by billions. They aren't serious about containing costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Not sure he's arguing that public is suddenly concerned.
It could be that public wants: 1. lower deficits 2. tax cuts 3. more spending. Not easy to do, but that's what's usually promised in presidential elections.
Post a Comment