Skip to main content

Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer

Insightful historians likely will someday argue that George W. Bush oversaw the most disastrous administration in American history.

More evidence to support that claim came over the weekend from Washington Post reporter Lori Montgomery. In a piece titled "Running in the Red: How the U.S., on the Road to Surplus, Detoured to Massive Debt," Montgomery shows how choices made shortly after Bush took office turned the Clinton surpluses into record deficits.

Montgomery provides perhaps the most concise description yet of the events that led to an economic calamity in which we still are mired. And many Americans remain clueless about how we got here.

Writes Montgomery:

Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

It didn't have to happen, Montgomery reports. In fact, this is a classic self-inflicted wound, one that happened because Americans did not know how to deal with prosperity. Bill Clinton left an economy that was so strong the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the U.S. could pay off all its debts within a decade. A rational, informed electorate would have given the 2000 presidential election to Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, in a landslide. But enough Americans inexplicably voted Republican to make the election close, and GOP chicanery carried the day in Florida, ushering Bush into the White House.

Were Americans tired of peace and prosperity under Clinton? Apparently they were, and Bush quickly set the nation on a new course:

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

Montgomery's article might be the single most important piece of political reporting in the past 10 years. It shows that Republicans who try to blame the burgeoning debt on Democrats and President Barack Obama are . . . well, full of feces. But how many Americans will read the article? How many will grasp what it means?

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.

Montgomery should be applauded for a tough, hard hitting article. But she is being much too kind to Bush here. She lays $1.7 trillion in new debt at Obama's feet, while putting $7 trillion of new debt under Bush. But almost all of the Obama-era choices were an attempt to jump-start an economy drowning in the Great Bush Recession. That means the blame for almost all of the $8.7 trillion in new debt should fall on Bush.

How do we get out of this mess? Montgomery says that new tax revenue must be part of the equation. But with House Speaker John Boehner calling new taxes a "non-starter," that means Americans probably lack the political will to get their economic house in order:

As Congress prepares this week to launch a high-stakes battle over whether to raise the legal limit on borrowing, the analyses offer a clearer view of the drivers of the debt — and of the difficulty of re-balancing the budget without new tax revenue.

Even former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who played a pivotal role in pushing the Bush tax cuts, now admits they probably were ill advised:

“Nobody would have thought that all these things would have happened after you cut taxes,” Domenici said. “That you’d have two wars and not pay for them. That you’d have another recession. A huge extravaganza of expenditures” for the military and homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “You would pause before you did it, if you knew.”

So why are Congressional Republican intent on making the Bush tax cuts permanent--even though "CBO forecasts are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever," according to Montgomery?

No one seems to have an answer for that one.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry But Clinton's Economy Was Not Strong. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    katiec, kurt, Virginia mom, SJerseyIndy

    Now there's no question he balanced the federal budget and if that balance had been mostly maintained, it would've set the country up for indefinitely secure Social Security and more.

    But the economy was a collection of Reaganomic bubbles that would've eventually burst even without the Bush era extremes. Even calculated right after he left, the bottom 99% of Americans gained no net worth at all. Housing was an especially large bubble, already having passed 100-year peaks around the time of the impeachment.

    Much of the Clinton era activity was the creation of the infrastructure for outsourcing and automation.

    You can't sustain a middle class when you keep wealth gushing up to the top and deport your economy. Doesn't matter which party governs that way.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue May 03, 2011 at 09:43:05 AM PDT

  •  thanks for diary... (0+ / 0-)

    you can't blame this on Clinton ...

    The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts.

    The President needs to get us back to Clinton era tax rates to increase the country's revenue.

  •  Not an answer, but a guess: (0+ / 0-)

    Because they now have the cover of a President willing to "compromise" with them on their being made permanent instead of having to pass a simple extension when both Houses were under Dem control.

    The "compromise" makes "the deal" more likely.

    More and Better Democrats

    by SJerseyIndy on Tue May 03, 2011 at 11:13:30 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site