Hey, remember that time we went to war with the army we had---not the army we might want or wish to have at a later time

Kennedy School of Government at Harvard places the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done with "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."  Yep, the smartest thing George Bush ever did was invade Iraq.

So how does a very fiscally responsible, very conservative administration embark on such policy?  Easy answer.  They told the public that the war would cost $50 billion and "go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003.

That it would largely pay for itself  "from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment…”  -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 27, 2003.

That Iraq was a country that could "really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."-- Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003.

It would be a "cakewalk."  That's what we were told.  That's what we were led to believe.  Nothing they told us turned out to be true.  Every bit of it was a lie told by madmen with a psychopathic hunger for war.  Yet the one thing we can never ever do in America is call the people who instituted this policy fiscally irresponsible and big government spenders.  Oh no, that label is solely reserved for Democrats or people who oppose the Very Serious, Very Fiscally Prudent, Very Conservative GOP.  That's just how it is.

When Adding Over $1 Trillion of New Spending Wasn't a Problem

Shortly after being reelected Speaker of the House, John Boehner told his chamber that an anchor of debt was destroying America.

The American Dream is in peril so long as its namesake is weighed down by this anchor of debt.  Break its hold, and we begin to set our economy free.  Jobs will come home.  Confidence will come back. 

Sure debt isn't anything to brag about.  But how did we get our debt?  When Republicans took full reign of power in 2001, there was a huge budget surplus with a federal debt of just over $5 trillion.  When George W. Bush left office, he had created a $1.4 trillion deficit and more than doubled the nation's debt to $11.3 trillion.  And during that time, John Boehner and his caucus never said one single word.  In fact all they did was pass unfunded bill after unfunded bill never once worrying about what it would do for future policy makers.  And certainly John Boehner and his fiscal fraud caucus never said one word about an anchor of debt imperiling the nation.  Want proof?

As you can see, there is a huge uptick in government spending right up until 2009. Those are the George Bush years.  The years when spending huge amounts of money, while cutting revenue, waging two unfunded wars and raising not one single penny to pay for anything was considered Super Patriotic.  Tough Guys governed us then.  They called themselves Fiscal Conservatives and any dissent against their Super Patriotic Spending was considered treasonous.  They spent like drunken sailors.  And they are the same people telling us today that spending is out of control and an anchor of debt is destroying our FREEDOM.

But now, now that spending has actually leveled off and shrunk as in the case last year, it's a huge problem that is all Obama's fault.  Except there's one problem with that.  It was the Republicans led by George Bush that added over $1 trillion of new spending in 7 years time.  Barack Obama did not set baseline spending at $3.5 trillion.  The GOP did.

Since Barack Obama has been president, spending as increased by 1.4% the slowest spending increase in 50 years.  Now that Republicans are no longer in power they once again get to pretend to be fiscal hawks that want to set this country Free. Free of the debt and fiscal disorder they created but don't want anyone to actually stop and think how we got in this shape in the first place.

*Update:

BP indirectly makes a good point in the comments section.  John Boehner once again weeps like a little sissy girl after being sworn in as Speaker.  This wouldn't be such a big deal if he wasn't leader of the political party that prides itself as being the epitome of gun toting manly men that want to bomb every country with a name they can't spell.  So here ya go all you tough-talking super macho endless war loving Republicans.  This is the guy you have to go to if you want something...he's your MAN...

hahahahahahhahahahahahha

GOP Is Begging for Earmarks

Who could have predicted this?  Oh yeah, me.

Via Politico:

In a letter to Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, 65 House Republican freshmen — or roughly three-quarters of the class — asked that the House consider a miscellaneous tariff bill jampacked with special provisions to suspend duties on various foreign goods, even though it runs counter to the earmark ban Republicans campaigned on in 2010 and instituted when they took power.

Naturally, Republicans are trying to claim their request to have specially itemized funds for the districts are not earmarks.

Reed and others acknowledge that these special breaks look like earmarks but argue they shouldn’t be treated that way.

“As conservatives, we appreciate these concerns. However, we believe it is an error to view duty suspension bills in that manner,” the freshmen, led by Reed, wrote. “Therefore we urge you to work with the Ways and Means Committee to take swift action to move forward and complete MTB legislation as soon as possible in 2012 to prevent a tax on U.S. manufacturing and save U.S. jobs.”

Just because it looks like an earmark, walks like an earmark, and quacks like an earmark doesn't make it an earmark now does it?  Of course not.  These are Patriot Projects!  Don't ask questions.  Just do as we say.  Everything we do is absolutely because we are Real Americans wanting to protect this country from enemies.

My Dearest Digby, I Must Disagree

Digby is an icon when it comes to political blogging.  She's a pioneer and will be remembered as one of the greatest political philosophers of our day.  Lord knows I've stolen plenty from her.  It's safe to say that everyone who came after her did so because of her.  So it's with all due respect that I must disagree with her about Dem messaging, or I guess you could called it political posturing.

My contention?  A new WaPo/ABC News poll that shows President Obama leading Mittens in every category except for one: Who voters think will do better at handling the budget deficit.  This one area sends chilling concerns Digby's way.  And mine as well but maybe to a lesser extent.  To counter this she suggests Dems need to start talking about how spending money on people during a recession is actually good.  It seems Dems are too busy trying to portray themselves as Slashers and Cutters for fear of being painted as a big liberal spender.  True enough.  But I think trying to convince voters that spending money right now is futile, especially this late in the recession game.

It would be time better spent reminding voters-- despite all their fancy rhetoric about fiscal stewardship-- of just how fiscally irresponsible Republican administrations are once they get into power.  Remind voters that President Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion budget deficit from the Republicans.  And that he has SLASHED the deficit to almost below a trillion for the first time since George Bush.  It really won't take much convincing on this issue at all.  Voters know what the economy was like and what he left for Obama to fix.  Reminding how bad it was is honesty at its best.

Time is better spent reminding voters that it was George Bush's tax cuts that turned Clinton's budget surplus into a huge budget deficit.  It's better spent reminding voters that not one single piece of legislation from Bush's Republican Administration was paid for-- not one single bill was funded, not one.  Remind them that it was the Republicans who slashed government revenue and then invaded two countries and instituted Endless War without raising one single penny to pay for any of it.  And that it was President Obama who ended the war in Iraq saving us billions every month, refocused are attention to the people responsible for 9/11-- killing bin Laden and formed a coalition with our allies that removed Gaddafi from power.  These are all worthy remembrances.

It's much easier to remind voters that George Bush doubled our federal debt while in office and since then his policies are accountable for $7 trillion worth of federal debt-- That's 50% of our total federal debt just from George Bush. Trying to convince people that spending is okay right now because of the recession is so 2009.  We've moved beyond that conversation, for the worse I agree.  But it's gone and not returning.  Reminding voters, instead, that Republican rhetoric has never matched their governance, that it has never matched their legacy and that today's economic troubles were inherited from them is the better conversation to have with voters.

What, in the history of modern Republican Rule-- since Reagan--- can Republicans use as their example of small government conservatism where they slashed deficits, paid down the debt, shrunk government and created jobs can they point to as an example?  There's our conversation to have.  Their empty rhetoric must be portrayed to voters daily.  I do disagree Digby, there is a better message.

Iraq Over So Soon? What Republicans Told Us Then Versus What They Are Saying Now

Since 2001, Congress has allocated $1.3 trillion to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Well over half of that, more than $806 billion, has been directly allocated for the nearly 9-year war in Iraq. Those figures don't even begin to scratch the surface of how much Bush's Endless War Program has cost this great country, however.

By far, the steepest price this country has paid for the wars is the more than 5,000 dead and the more than 35,000 wounded.

Aside from the thousands dead and $1.3 trillion allocated, there are other costs that go unnoticed but are still very much incurred.  There is the cost of caring for veterans once they return.  The cost of rebuilding a diminished and tired military.  The cost of borrowing billions to finance the war.  And the cost on the home front of rising prices due to the instability of an endless war program.  Considering all that, the costs quickly surpass the $3 trillion mark.

That's a dang ton of money.  But it's not enough say Republicans.  They want more war, a longer occupation and a larger debt financed for no other reason than the thrill of seeing war on teevee.

Let's consider this, though.  Republicans told us the war in Iraq would be over in a matter of weeks.  Republicans told us it would be a cakewalk.  They told us it would cost at most $50-$60 billion.  Nothing they told us turned out to be true.  Nearly a decade later, easily over $1 trillion already spent and they are scoffing at ending the war.  Consider all that, and then also consider they are saying ending the war by year's end constitutes a "failure."  There can't be anything more deranged than that.

Pick Your Socialist Liberal

President A

• Increased taxes 11 different times.
• Increased government spending by 103%.
• Increased Social Security solvency by $160 billion.
• Raised debt ceiling 18 times.
• Tripled the national debt.
• Grew federal public sector payroll by 61,000 employees.
• Armed, funded and aided Saddam Hussein.
• Armed, funded and aided bin Laden.

President B

• Cut taxes twice.
• Increased government spending by 71%.
• Raised debt ceiling 19 times.
• Created largest budget deficit in history upon leaving office at $1.29 trillion
• More than doubled the national debt.
• Grew federal public sector jobs by 50,000 employees.
• Created the largest federal expansion into a national education system in American history effectively centralized all primary educational institutions and eroded local control.
• Redistributed over $1 trillion of American tax payer wealth to foreign countries to wage endless war, build roads, schools, bridges, mosques, and other infrastructure as well as to pay for and train national police forces and military personnel.
• Instituted 8 tax payer funded takeovers of private industry including, but not limited to, the takeover of 234 private banks-- all with tax payer money, TARP. By far the largest federal expansion into the American free market economy ever.

President C

• Instituted $787 billion "stimulus bill" to revive the American economy. Tax payer money spent on tax payers and on American soil rather than in foreign countries.
• Signed $330 billion payroll tax cut.
• Followed through with $80 billion auto industry bailout setup under previous administration's TARP.
• Increased spending by 16%.
• Raised debt ceiling 2 times.
• Every policy instituted was either paid for or deficit neutral.
• Expanded health insurance to 32 million Americans.
• Forced banks to successfully repay TARP to ensure minimal costs of the program.
• Shrunk public sector jobs by over 200,000 employees.
• Repealed DADT.

Could have also easily titled this post as "Which Is More Fiscally Responsible?"

Republicans Had No Qualms About Adding to the Deficit to Rebuild Iraq

A very good pickup from Think Progress...

After George Bush invaded and blew up Iraq, we had to fix it. In the words of Bush's then Secretary of State, former General Colin Powell, if you break Iraq, "you buy it."  And buy it we did.

To date the American tax payer has footed at least $44.6 billion to build roads, schools, mosques, and other infrastructure in Iraq.  Bush and the GOP did not raise one penny to pay for any of it.  In fact, they never, ever, one single time complained about spending money in Iraq where we've spent over a trillion dollars.  Therefore, every single penny for reconstruction, just like for the war, has been added to the national debt.

Last week when a natural disaster struck the east coast and did billions in damages, Republicans decided to channel their make-believe fiscal conservative side and suggested that any money for disaster relief (i.e., money for our own people to be spent on our own soil) has to be offset with cuts from somewhere else.  Truth be told, this year alone any time federal disaster relief has been promised to aid in reconstruction efforts, Republicans have insisted all of it must be offset with cuts to other areas.  Prudent fiscal conservatives they are.

When Republicans were in charge of this country and were in a prime position to hold true to their self-proclaimed fiscal conservative values, they never one single time paid for anything.  Everything they did was added to the national debt including reconstructing foreign countries.  In addition, they never one time tried to hold up funds to reconstruct Iraq and routinely called anyone who dare question it unpatriotic.  But when it comes to spending money here at home on our own people for natural disaster relief, Republicans would rather spend that money on an Iraqi.

On what planet does any of that make sense?

Boehner Knows Tabs

fiscal conservatism at work

Next to being a habitual crybaby, Speaker John Boehner is known throughout DC as a hardcore drinker. And one of the things you learn after decades of bar hopping and being a Member of Congress, is how to run a tab.  Roll Call reports Boehner loves the idea of other people paying for his "official duties."

Boehner now receives a monthly $2,083.33 direct payment for expenses, according to the most recent expenditure reports from the Clerk of the House. Because the total of the expense payment is the same each month, it is apparently not reimbursement for individual itemized expenses.

Boehner’s office offered no details about how his monthly check is spent. Spokesman Michael Steel would only say, “This money is used in appropriate ways for expenses related to his official duties.”

Because Boehner has increased his personnel thus increasing his payroll, has increased his own personal paycheck, and more than doubled his unspecified monthly expenses check he gets to be labeled a fiscal conservative by the media.  Boehner is the only Member of the House who receives a direct check for expenses.  He's a total fiscal conservative no doubt about it.

Lest We Forget Mitch Daniels Never Once Cared About Deficits or Paying Bills

WaPo has a completely laughable profile of Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana and his perceived attention to fiscal responsibility.

Daniels presided as George W. Bush's budget director for the first half of Bush's first term.  This begs the attention of anyone who was alive at that time as to how someone can take the largest surplus ever and turn it into chronic deficits and still be treated by the media as a fiscal hawk.

To be certain, let's look at Daniels' fiscal reality.  The Bush tax cuts, which Daniels trumpeted as the greatest budget solvent in American history, robbed the federal government of at least $5 trillion in revenue in Bush's 8 years.

Now Republicans see less government revenue not as a bad thing but as a form of smaller taxes and less money for the government to spend on minorities and poor people.  So a loss of $5 trillion over 8 years is no big deal to them.

But those 8 years were full of endless war where Bush invaded two countries without raising a single penny to pay for them.  Plus it was an era of huge government expansion.  Republicans legislated the largest expansion of Medicare ever, again without a single penny to pay for it-- adding nearly a trillion more dollars to the deficit in 10 years.  By the time Bush left office, he had increased spending by 60%, ran up a $1.4 trillion deficit, doubled the national debt and grew government larger than any president since FDR.

All of this came at the blessing of Mitch Daniels, who never complained one single time about debts when Bush was in power and who has been wrong about every single federal fiscal policy he has ever spoken of.  Needless to say, while chest thumping how great war with Iraq would be, Daniels opined the whole Glorious endeavor would only cost about $60 billion with a few billion more for an occupation.  Wow was he wrong.  So wrong that that alone should be enough to laugh him off the stage.  The opposite is happening, however.  He's viewed stringently as a very serious debt slashing Republican who must be allowed to still give advice on fiscal matters, just so long as we don't bring up his track record on fiscal matters.

*Update:

A reader emails me that Daniels' past could also be chalked up as something else in the GOP's history that never happened.  Indeed it could.

A Spending Problem Republicans are Addicted To

Speaker Boehner's spending problem comments are only half right. Last week he stated the U.S. doesn't have a revenue problem but a spending problem. That's partially true. It's both to be precise. While federal revenues are decreasing we keep spending more and more.  It's kind of insane to keep doing that.  There has to come a time when you want to balance the two problems and bring both under control.

What the Speaker and his Republican Party don't want you to know is that they love spending just as much as they love slashing revenue.

Source: Historical Tables

The two biggest spenders are the fiscal conservatives, Reagan and George W. Bush.

That's not to say Democrats are great fiscal crusaders.  It's just to point out the people who claim to be fiscally conservative, deficit slashing hawks are actually not at all what they proclaim.  Dems may love to increase spending just as well, but at least they aren't campaigning all over the country on lies.  Nor are they now wanting everyone to believe that after decades of fiscal insanity caused primarily by their policies they are now concerned with the budget, the national debt and with the trillion dollar deficit they created. It's actually the GOP trying to pull that off.

Even as a percent of GDP, there is absolutely no track record of Republicans ever being concerned with a spending problem in relation to not enough revenue.

This is clearly an addiction Rush Limbaugh would be proud of.

Somewhere There Has to be a Contradiction (*Updated)

Image via Wikipedia

When Republican Senator David Vitter isn't busy humping prostitutes, he poses as a very Serious deficit slashing Republican for some extra spending money.

The problem is, in addition to how fiscally irresponsible it is to pay a prostitute for sex when you have a wife that would do it for free, Vitter also has a long track record of being anything but a deficit slashing Republican.

He gleefully voted, twice, for Bush's tax cuts-- the largest contributor to the deficit. He voted yes for Bush's completely unfunded trillion dollar expansion to Medicare, which, as you might have guessed, adds to the deficit.  Vitter also saw absolutely nothing wrong with waging two wars without paying for them.  But now that Republicans are not in charge, we all are supposed to pretend that Vitter has always been an upstanding Christian that cares deeply about fiscal stewardship.

What's amazing, though.  In this era of 24/7 news coverage, where there are millions of cameras, cell phones, the Internet, YouTube, and a plethora of images reminding us of how fiscally irresponsible David Vitter and his Republican cohorts were just a very short time ago, the media never bothers to take two seconds to realize everything the GOP is saying now is the complete opposite of how they govern.

It's pretty bad this day and age that someone like David Vitter still gets portrayed in the media as well as in his Republican circles as a moral values, Christian conservative fiscal hawk.  It's fraudulence to say the least.

*Update:

Reader JS writes in to challenge my paying a hooker is fiscally irresponsible claim.

"I vehemently disagree with you suggesting Vitter is acting fiscally irresponsible for paying a prostitute for sex when he has a wife.  You obviously haven't followed the Vitter scandal at all.

He paid a prostitute to dress him up in a diaper and treat him like a baby.  I'm sure that's not something his wife would do.  Therefore, since his wife wouldn't bottle feed him while wearing an adult diaper, he had to pay someone else to do it.  Don't know what world you live in but that's not fiscally irresponsible.  Maybe a bad choice in fetishes but not when it comes to monetary policy since he wasn't getting that service at home for free like your post alluded."

I stand corrected.

But I Can't Feed on the Powerless When My Cup's Already Overfilled

One thing is for certain, the GOP won't go hungry any time soon. The real question is will there be any room left for tea?

WE All Would be remiss if we didn't mention the Patriotic fact the GOP rode to power in the House of Representatives on the myth that they had learned their lesson from days gone by.  Early indications are the GOP learned it didn't spend near enough.  They seemed poised not to make the same mistake twice three times.

To lead the House financial services committee Republicans chose Rep. Spencer "Big Bank" Bachus from Alabama.  Mr. Bachus is no stranger to big spending.  He loves pork spending.  He voted for TARP twice-- a big tea bagger no no.  He voted for the unfunded trillion dollar expansion to Medicare.  He voted for the very popular and successful Cash for Clunkers, another tea bagger groining shot.  And he firmly believes tax cuts do not have to be offset or paid for.  Remember, in Republican circles, Bahcus is a "numbers guy."  So we all should take a big sigh of relief.

To chair the House Appropriations Committee Republicans selected Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky.  Rogers is best known in his home district by his hometown newspaper's nickname of the "Prince of Pork."  He's requested almost a trillion dollars in pork in the last five years alone.  135 earmarked projects in just the last two years!  As if that's not enough to solidify his fiscal conservatism, Rogers directed some $17 million in pork money to an airport in his district that really doesn't exist.  $17 million for an airport to nowhere?  Wheee!

Now remember, don't ever bring any of this up.  This is the New and Improved GOP.  They are fighting a Revolution! in this country to save us from the evil islamoterroristfascistliberals.  If we mention the past, we are only proving that we are not Serious and Patriotic Americans.  My goodness, it's not like it wasn't just two years ago the Republicans turned over to the new Democratic administration a $1.4 trillion deficit.  Ancient history people.  Get with the program.

Pork Report is In and Republicans Top the Charts Again

The 2010 Citizen's Against Government Waste Pig Book is out and it's full of wonderful tidbits of perfectly sane fiscal conservatism.

Four of the top five pork states are states that voted for John McCain in 2008 including Sarah Palin's very own Alaska.  In other words, these are the states where the voters despise pork spending remember. Six of the top ten are red states also.

Since Democrats took over Congress in 2007, pork spending has dropped dramatically.  It rose every year Republicans had complete control over government.

This year was the lowest total number of pork projects in almost a decade.  But remember Democrats are evil liberal spenders.  If you leave out the actual real data that's a true statement.

Tea Bagger Caucus Requested Over $1 Billion in Earmarks, This Session Alone!

The very brave and Patriotic Super American Freedom Fighting House Caucus, also known as the Tea Bagger Caucus to us layman, requested over $1 billion in pork funding just this session of Congress.

In the grand sum of things, $1 billion is but a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. But the tea baggers are the people who claim to be the crusaders of small government and fiscal conservatism.  And their loudest rallying cry?  An end to pork spending.

Here's how all this will turn out.  Since the tea bagger caucus is Republican the rank and file tea baggers won't care at all that their politburo is doing the exact opposite of what they claim to support.  Soon, though, a Republican, probably via Fox News, will blast a report that shows Democrats have spent billions on earmarks and tea baggers will pretend to be fiscally concerned and irate about wasteful spending.

CBO Says Dem Energy Reform Will Reduce Deficit, Repubs Get to Remain Fiscal Hawks

It seems here lately that Republicans are engulfed with their fantasy that they care about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. Put aside the fact that Republican George Bush inherited a surplus-- the largest ever to be exact-- and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And put aside the fact that every single one of Republican Bush's major accomplishments (if you can call them that) increased the deficit by leaps and bounds (the largest contributor being Bush's tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind and the huge Republican expansion of Medicare that was completely unfunded).  Let's leave that alone for the moment.

Lately the GOP has talked feverishly about their concern for long term debt and short term deficits.  Just yesterday I wrote about Rep. John Shimkus and his statements that he can only consider legislation that cuts spending in other areas and/or reduces the deficit and debt.  This is routine language by Republicans these days.  They really, truly think they are the fiscally responsible people.  Again, don't mention their past, just leave it aside for the moment.

Given their grave concerns for cutting spending and reducing the deficit, one would think they would gladly vote for legislation that does just that.  That's too much sanity, however.  Instead of supporting HCR that was the largest deficit reducer in modern American history, Republicans opposed it and offered an alternative plan that actually added to the deficit.  Genius I know.  But these are our fiscal conservatives.  They are the Serious fiscal hawks that truly care about our financial situation.  Just ask them, they will tell you.

So given today's news that Democratic energy reform would cut the deficit by $19 billion and increase revenues by $750 billion over a ten year period, one again would think these Great Patriotic fiscal hawks would be all over it.  In a sane, realistic world, yes.  But not in the Republican Fantasy World.  They will oppose it en masse, say it doesn't do enough to cut spending and reduce the deficit.  They will get branded by the media as fiscal hawks and get to enjoy endless amounts of coverage where they blast trillion dollar deficits and outlandish spending.  Don't bring up their past or their record of never reducing spending or the deficit.  Don't bring up their record of only increasing the deficit and debt.  And don't dare bring up anything about any alternatives they might suggest beyond talking points about their fiscal conservatism.  Doing any of that only proves that you are a liberal and not a Serious fiscal hawk.

Republican Rep Slams Government Spending With Tax Payer Funded Mailer

Most times Republicans make it way too easy. There's really no thought that has to go into making this look stupid. With nearly every issue the GOP claims to stand for-- moral values, fiscal responsibility, tough guyism, it's all the same-- there's nothing in their past, present or future to suggest they ever live up to their self proclaimed principles.

Oklahoma Congresswoman, Mary Fallin, sends out tax payer funded mailer to bash government spending.  Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?  To Republicans it does.  The Oklahoma Citizen picks up the story:

First thing's first - this whole thing, this card, the printing, the design, the mailing was all paid for by you and me. Our tax dollars that Fallin wants to cut paid for this mailing. The MASSIVE government spending that Fallin says we must end - was just used to mail out God only knows how many of these things to Oklahomans.

Is that the kind of fiscal responsibility that Mary Fallin represents? Cut spending except for her spending, cut taxes except for the taxes that pay for her stuff, and outline policies for "prosperity" that can only be done from a Federal office that she is vacating.

As with all things Tea Bagger or Republican, they are not against government spending.  They are only against government spending money on items that don't go directly to them.  On matters as convenient as her largest campaign donor receiving millions of dollars from the government she fully supports.  But here's how this one will go.  Fallin will get portrayed by the very liberal media as a staunch small government conservative only trying to do her part in reining in the government.  Mark my word, that's exactly how her charade will continue.

Big Spenders vs Even Bigger Spenders

A repeated assertion made by Chris on this blog - and made many other liberal(1) diarists on other liberal blogs - is that despite claims of fiscal stewardship, the Republican Party has a horrible record during the modern periods when they have held the majority.

My reaction: I agree. With apologies to Churchill, no one should pretend that Republicans have been perfect or even good. Indeed, it could be said that Republicans demonstrate the worst form of spending discipline except the form practiced by Democrats.

The purpose of this diary is to give legs to that position and demonstrate that by any reasonable measure the Democrats are worse on spending than Republicans.

It is important to mention up front that I maintain that the primary responsibility for federal spending - as a matter of process and in practice - is held by the Congress and not the executive. This is not to argue that a president has no role or responsibility, but rather that the legislative actions play a far greater role in determining the condition of our ledgers. From the budget resolution, to revenue policy to the annual appropriations, and perhaps most critically regarding mandatory spending, the Congressional power is supreme. This analysis and argumentation is built upon that premise(2).

My source data comes from the Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits, 1789–2015 on the OMB website. It's a downloadable excel file.

For this review, I've chosen to examine the outcomes from 1953 forward. I've chosen 1953 because in that year the GOP took over the House and Senate after a period of Democratic control, so it's a fresh start. And prior to 1953, the presence of other political parties (see Strom Thurmond, Independent Democrat) confuses the apples to apples comparison and we'd have other distortions. In any case, as you'll see it doesn't really matter how far back we go since it's the more recent years driving this cart of irresponsibility. But I am happy to extend the analysis if anyone cares to make the case that I should have chosen a different starting point. And what we are looking for is a good data set for each party of unified control of Congress in the modern day.

After downloading the file and removing all rows prior to 1953, we are left with three data sets for each year. The on budget, the off budget and the combined (total) budget. One could make a case for using the on budget data only, since that reflects the annual spending choices made by Congress. Or one could also argue that including mandatory spending is more responsible since not the act of not changing a program's trajectory is as much a decision as the annual outlays - either way laws are being passed. Given the manner in which the Congress has operated, I think going with the total budget is more honest and reflects the true degree of profligation relative to receipts and obligations. But I'll run the numbers both ways and people can draw their own conclusions from them. And I am including the estimate for FY2010 since we are already 3/4th through it.

My next action is to calculate the percent of surplus or deficit in a given year for both data sets. This is simply the supply or deficit column over the outlays column. This percent can be described as being the level of spending that is out of balance in the case of a deficit. Doing a year by year calculation gives us weighted numbers in that year's since we all know that a billion dollar deficit in 1953 is much more important that that same value today. But being almost 10% out of balance translates in any age.

Then, we need to assign the party of leadership in each year. The data doesn't line up 100% because the annual budget runs October 1 through September 31, while the Congress runs on a biennial schedule that begins in the January of the even numbered years. Nevertheless, I will consistently use the party in power at the start of the fiscal year (October) for that fiscal year's decision making(3). And in practice even if a majority switch does happen, the major planning tends to be forward looking and not towards the current year's policies with respect to spending, but we can keep an eye on these transition years to see if it matters. For example, the 2006 elections resulted in Democratic majorities in both chambers starting in January 2007. But I assign FY2007 responsibility to the GOP because the budget for the year was passed in 2006 and several of the annual spending bills were passed that year as well. The balance of the FY2007 levels were set by a continuing resolution that largely carried over the FY2006 levels. Again, if there is a major objection to this rough justice workout of this alignment and adoption of my analysis hinges on it, I can break spending down in those transition years. Please just be sincere in your willingness to accept the outcomes before asking me to do it. :)

Next we need only add an if function that checks that the majority party in both chambers is the same in order to give us a sortable variable. As it turns out, since the election of 1953, both chambers of Congress have been not unified for only 7 years (FY82-87 & FY02). Which leaves the GOP with 13 years of full Congressional authority and the Democrats with 38 such years.

Now we are left to compare the percentages we calculated during the periods of GOP control vs periods of Democrat control. First things first: all 5 of the 5 worst years came during unified Congressional control of the Democrats (in order 2010 est., 2009, 1992, 1991, 1976). You'll notice that the current year's estimate is included. If you think that is unfair, have no fear since the 6th worst year is also the Democrat controlled year of 1993. In fact, of the worst ten years, the Democrats held full sway in 8 of them. Only the GOP years of 2003 & 2004 crack the list at #7 and 9, respectively. Further, of the worst 20 years, 17 were run by Democrats (2005 comes in at #19 for the GOP) and they held control in all but 4 years of worst quarter century of responsibility (2006 comes in right at #25 for the GOP). You may click on the sheet above to download the file with the calculation columns already entered.

If you average the GOP held percents of balance, you get -3.6% and you want to remove 1954&1955, leaving only the most recent 11 (FY96-07) GOP years, you still get -4.0% as the figure. If you do the same for the entire period going back to the early 1950s for the Democrats you get -10.8%.. If you only include the same number of total years (13) as we included for the GOP, you get -19.3% and if you use only the most recent 11 years, you get -20.6%.

So depending on how you want to frame this, it's either 3.6% in the red for the average GOP controlled year over the last half century and 10.6% negative for the Democrats or it's 4% red for the GOP during the very recent period while it was a about 20% negative for the current majority. Let me clear: Democrats have spent at least three times as many proportional deficit dollars while in charge of Congress as the Republicans have since 1953.

Everything else aside, I believe this is why it is critical for the GOP to regain control of at least one Congressional body this November. As it happens, at -18.9% the years of divided Congressional control still are better than keeping it in the hands of Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid.

Let me conclude this diary by thanking Chris and the Fold Blog for giving the opportunity to make my arguments in a more salient and visually appreciably manner.

Notes:

1. I generally dislike the labels liberal and conservative and in a later post I'll expand on my reasons why as well as propose some new ways to describe political thought that is more relevant in today's dynamic reality.
2. I recognize that many will dispute the primacy of Congress in setting spending and the budget. It's something I feel strongly about, so it's also on a short list of future post topics. Let me add here though that while the executive may have strong influence regarding the distribution of the total spending - where it goes - it's the 302(b) allocation totals by Congress that sets the top line numbers. And hey just for fun for you Fold footnote readers, if you pull the two Bush years out of the Democratic controlled Congressional total, you still get 16.7% in the red.
3. I recognize that there are a few factors that keep my analysis from being perfect. The lack of lining up of the periods, although not a factor in the most irresponsible years, is certainly one. So too is that you simply can't control for things such as a 9/11 type event or the sort of fiscal meltdown that began in 2008/2009. Plus this analysis ignores revenue policy. Even a Congress that spent 'responsibly' could run massive deficits if it didn't collect tax dollars responsibly. For example, a Congress which actually cut spending by 5% but also reduced tax revenue by 10% would look worse than a Congress which increased spending by 20% but also increased taxes by the same amount. Would that second one be more responsible? That's debatable. But they would for certain be bigger spenders, which is the title and focus of this diary.