An Honest Republican On The Failure Of Republican Economic Policies

June 12, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Bruce Bartlett, who has been an adviser to Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Ron Paul, and Jack Kemp, debunks the Voodoo Economics now practiced by Republicans. He began by showing that Americans are right when “43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.”

The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.

In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.

The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.

As for tax cuts over the past decade:

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.

However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.

Bartlett concluded:

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.

Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.

Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.

Andrew Sullivan, another conservative who now debunks the lunacy of those who have taken over the conservative movement, commented:

When you check reality, rather than the alternate universe constantly created by Fox News and an amnesiac press, you find that Bush had a chance to pay off all our national debt before we hit the financial crisis – giving the US enormous flexibility in intervening to ameliorate the recession. Instead, we had to find money for a stimulus in a cupboard stripped bare – its contents largely given away, by an act of choice. I’m tired of being told we cannot blame Bush for our current predicament. We can and should blame him for most of it – and remind people that Romney’s policies: more tax cuts, more defense spending are identical. With one difference: Bush pledged never “to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.”

Mitt Romney has no qualms about doing that very thing. And he will, if he is given the chance.

 

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Economy, George Bush, Mitt Romney. Tags: , , , , . 6 Comments »

Private Sector Jobs Increase More When Democrats Are In Office

May 8, 2012 — Ron Chusid

I’ve posted numerous analyses showing that the economy has done significantly better under Democrats than Republicans. The data is clear that if you want a shot to make more money or want to improve stock market returns, vote Democratic.  Today Bloomberg has analyzed the data to also show that if you want more private sector jobs, vote Democratic.

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans.

For example, lets compare Obama and Bush:

Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama’s inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month.

Here’s data on a few other former presidents:

On a monthly basis, Democrat Bill Clinton averaged 217,000 new private-sector jobs. Democrat Jimmy Carter had an average of 188,000, followed by Republican Ronald Reagan’s 153,000, according to Labor Department data.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Economy, George Bush, Ronald Reagan. Tags: , , , . 4 Comments »

Bill Clinton On Obama vs. Romney As Commander In Chief

April 27, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, National Security, Terrorism. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

No Surprise: Republicans Moving To Far Right While Democrats Moving Towards Middle

February 4, 2012 — Ron Chusid

The Republican Party has moved to the far right in recent years–far to the right of Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan–while the Democrats have moved towards the middle. The voteview blog has analyzed recent presidents and the result is exactly what we already knew:

Our findings here echo those discussed in a prior post that Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats to the left in the contemporary period. Indeed, as seen below, President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II, while President George W. Bush was the most conservative president in the post-war era.

On the other hand, in many ways Obama has had success at passing liberal polices in some areas where other Democratic presidents have failed. This success might be partially because of his moderation, and that a more liberal Democrat might have had fewer successes.

Posted in Barack Obama, Barry Goldwater, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan. Tags: , , , , . 12 Comments »

Support For Republicans And Tea Party Falling After Debt Ceiling Debate

August 9, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Over the past couple of weeks the Republicans, and the incredibly clueless members of the Tea Party movement which are dominating the party, have brought the United States close to defaulting  upon the debt that George Bush and the Republicans are primarily responsible for running up.  Their irresponsible actions have led to the downgrading of the United States by Standard and Poor’s and a major drop in the stock market (which fortunately showed signs of recovery today).  The Tea Party has reached new levels of irresponsibility, first in desiring that the United States default, and secondly in immediately blaming Democrats for the consequences of their actions after the downgrading.

It does not look like the right wingers are fooling very many people. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey showed that the result of the debate over the debt ceiling was a fall in support for the Republicans:

The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the tea party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found.

Just 33 percent of Americans approve of the Republican Party, while 59 percent disapprove in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday. That’s a net negative 10-percentage-point shift from less than a month ago, when 41 percent of those surveyed by CNN said they had a favorable view of the GOP while 55 percent had an unfavorable one.

At the same time, Democrats’ numbers have improved slightly, with approval and disapproval each at 47 percent. In July, 45 percent approved and 49 percent disapproved, a net 4-point positive change.

The tea party movement fares slightly worse than the GOP and has its most dismal ratings since CNN began asking about the movement in polls in January 2010. Thirty-one percent said they see it favorably while 51 percent see it unfavorably. In July, those numbers were 37 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

Of those surveyed, just 41 percent say they think the House member in their district should be reelected — the lowest ever — while 49 percent said the member does not deserve another term. A year ago, 52 percent supported reelection of their representatives while 42 percent opposed it.

The last time the Republicans polled so unfavorably in this survey was in 1998 after the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Polls, Republicans. Tags: , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Liberal Response To The Attacks On Obama From The Left

August 8, 2011 — Ron Chusid

I don’t agree with Obama on everything and there is certainly plenty of room to criticize Barack Obama from the left, but I frequently wonder whether some of his critics from the left are paying any attention to what he is actually saying or dong. There was a lot of excitement from some segments of the left  over the weekend from this op-ed by Drew Weston. Weston’s op-ed had two critical flaws.  First, he concentrated on Obama’s rhetoric rather than his actual actions.  Second, while his criticism was based upon things he argues Obama should have said, quite frequently Obama has actually said very similar things. Andrew Spung pointed out numerous examples. In seeing that Weston was unaware of so many of Obama’s public statements,  Steve Benen speculates that “Maybe the professor missed those speeches; maybe he didn’t check.”

There might be room for improvement in the manner by which Obama gets his message out, but we must also keep in mind the obstacles he faces from Fox, right wing talk radio, and conservative dominance over much of the mainstream media. Obama’s position as president and his strategy of pushing to move beyond partisan gridlock limits his ability to engage in harsher rhetoric which some on the left expect. This role is better filled by supporters on the left who do not have the constraints which Obama has.  It would be far more effective if leftists such as Weston and Paul Krugman used their energy to make the liberal case for Obama’s policies, and point out those liberal statements which Weston ignored, rather than making specious attacks. Instead they sometimes even utilize remarkable mental gymnastics to argue that Obama is as conservative as George Bush.

Weston, and many Obama critics from the left, fail to recognize the difference between the president and other political leaders. The president, who must govern within the realities of what is politically achievable, cannot be as dogmatic about  principle as a Senator on one of the extremes of his party. Liberals with buyer’s remorse fail to recognize that any other president would be limited by similar constraints as Obama.As Jonathan Chait wrote:

Westen’s op-ed rests upon a model of American politics in which the president in the not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen’s telling, every known impediment to legislative progress — special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion — are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama’s failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.

Westen locates Obama’s inexplicable failure to properly use his storytelling power in some deep-rooted aversion to conflict. He fails to explain why every president of the postwar era has compromised, reversed, or endured the total failure of his domestic agenda. Yes, even George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan infuriated their supporters by routinely watering down their agenda or supporting legislation utterly betraying them, and making rhetorical concessions to the opposition. (Ronald Reagan boasted of increasing agriculture subsidies and called for making the rich pay “their fair share” as part of a tax reform that did in fact increase the tax burden on the rich; Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” and ended welfare as an entitlement; etc., etc.)

Chait proceeded to note multiple factual errors in Weston’s attack.  Others disagreeing with Weston, such as Kevin Drum, point out that Obama does have a compelling story–even if not the exact story which they want told:

The problem isn’t that Obama didn’t have a story. He did, and he told it pretty well. His story was one about the dysfunctional partisanship destroying Washington and how to move beyond it. You might not like that story, but it was there. And while it obviously didn’t succeed in moving the needle on partisanship, it did allow Obama to produce a pretty decent set of legislative achievements. As much as two years of anti-conservative stemwinders would have thrilled me, I doubt they would have produced anywhere near as much.

Andrew Sullivan further described the differences between Obama’s approach and those who desire a more confrontational approach:

What Westen seems to have wanted was the Democratic version of George W. Bush, contemptuous of his opponents, ruthless in his often unconstitutional determination to get his agenda through, divisive and polarizing. But Obama would not have won election on those grounds and did not have a mandate for that. He was elected as a moderate Democrat, prepared to engage any pragmatic solution to obvious problems, while not splitting an already polarized country even further.

That he has tried to do, against an opposition party that decided to double down on polarization, on politics as warfare, on politics as a game, and bereft of any ideas except taking us back to before the New Deal. What has to be defeated is not just their agenda, but their modus operandi. Only by patiently out-lasting and out-arguing them will Obama be able to do this. And it says a lot about the utopian left that they do not see the wisdom and responsibility of this strategy.

It is unprovable whether a more confrontational approach would have achieved more, but I doubt it. Some on the left think that Obama would be more effective if he utilized the same strategies which we protested when used by George Bush. Perhaps, but the cessation of such conduct is an important reason why I voted for Barack Obama.

Posted in Blogs & Social Media, Economy, George Bush. Tags: , , , , . 10 Comments »

NPR Reports on Bipartisan Opposition to Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board

July 12, 2011 — Ron Chusid

NPR’s Morning Edition reported on the opposition to the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) from Republicans and a growing number of Democrats. The problems with the IPAB in the Senate version of the Affordable Care Act were one of the reasons that the original House version of the bill was preferable. Some House Democrats who never supported this structure of the IPAB which eventually passed are now supporting repeal of the board.

Morning Edition reports that Republicans have been attacking the IPAB with their usual hyperbole while Democrats have had more reasoned criticism:

Democrats don’t use such hyperbole, but more than half a dozen have signed on as cosponsors of a bill that would repeal the board. And many more, particularly Democrats in the House, never supported creating the board in the first place.

What the law actually calls for is a board of 15 health experts, to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Their task is to make recommendations for ways to reduce Medicare payments without cutting benefits or increasing costs to Medicare beneficiaries.

That’s not much different from an existing panel of expert Medicare advisers, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC. Except for one thing. Congress is free to ignore MedPAC’s recommendations. And it does, routinely.

That won’t be the case with the new IPAB. Its recommendations will take effect unless both houses of Congress override them with a two-thirds vote. Republicans – and more than a few Democrats – find that excessive.

“Even if the Congress could muster up, both the House and the Senate, a two-thirds vote, which is virtually impossible, but in the remote possibility that we could; we would have to find cuts somewhere else other than what they recommended in the Medicare program, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus.

Jay Rockefeller, who supports the IPAB, argues:

You want to have the Gail Wilenskys…and the Bruce Vladecks,” he said, referring to former heads of the agency that runs Medicare. “People who have broad health care policy experience making those decisions.”

Yes, listen to Gail Wilensky and Bruce Vladeck. Both oppose the IPAB as structured in the Senate version of the Affordable Care Act which became law:

Both Wilensky and Vladeck – the former a Republican and the latter a Democrat — think the IPAB is a bad idea.

Wilensky, who oversaw Medicare for the first President Bush, says she’s sympathetic to Congress’s desire to insulate itself from the lobbying onslaught. But she worries that the board is limited to looking only at payments to health providers, which she says “could fundamentally alter the incentives involved in physicians and providers participating in Medicare.”

In other words, it could end up driving Medicare payments so low that providers will simply leave the program, or else go bankrupt if they can’t.

Vladeck, meanwhile, who headed Medicare under President Clinton, has a different problem with the board. He worries that eventually the lobbyists who are now so influential with members of Congress will become equally influential with the unelected members of the board.

“In the short term, it might theoretically work,” he said. But the history with other independent regulatory agencies, like the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board is that over time “the regulated industries tend to capture them; and they tend to do more to protect the regulated industries than they do to protect consumers.”

The reality is that nobody knows for sure what the IPAB will do, which is why their decisions should at very least be subject to an up or down vote by Congress. An unelected board should not be able to  make major decisions regarding a program as important as Medicare without the approval of our elected representatives.

Related:  Opposition Growing To Medicare Payment Board

Posted in Congress, Health Care. Tags: , , . No Comments »

Quote of the Day

June 10, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Congressman Weiner reportedly called Bill Clinton to apologize for his behavior. After Bill suggested that Weiner also call Hillary, Weiner said, ‘Don’t worry, I sent her a text.’” –Conan O’Brien

Posted in Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Humor and Satire, Television. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Debt or Default?

May 25, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Here is a poll demonstrating how low-information voters are misled by Republican misinformation–Poll: More Americans fear higher national debt than default.

The impact of right wing propaganda becomes even more severe when the Republican Party, which has been responsible for running up the bulk of the deficit, now uses the issue to promote themselves. Recent history demostrates that we cannot trust Republicans with our money.

David Weigel notes that Bill Clinton has suggested that maybe we should default for a couple of days because most people don’t know what will happen. Weigel concludes:

…a plurality of voters have no idea what the hell is going on. The information failure on the debt limit has been… well, not surprising, but ranking pretty high on the Obama administration’s Parade of PR Failures. Part of the failure is reality-based. It’s theoretically possible, as Pat Toomey has pointed out, to hit the debt ceiling and start stripping the rest of the government for cash — selling off parks, selling Gold, holding up Social Security payments. That would force a crisis that would probably shift public opinion pretty quickly. Not enough people are worried about that, though, so the GOP has plenty of leverage.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Congress, Economy, Polls, Republicans. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Boost For Obama In Polls After Bin Laden Killed–And Why It Could Last

May 3, 2011 — Ron Chusid

The first polls show a bump in Barack Obama’s approval following the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Washington Post shows overall approval up to 56 percent, up nine points from April. There were also increases in other areas of the poll which were relevant to this news, such as a career high 69 percent on handling of terrorism. CNN also showed increased approval on the handling of terrorism but less of an increase in overall approval.

These results were widely expected but, as I noted yesterday, there is disagreement as to whether there will be long-term political benefits for Obama. One recent analogous situation was with George H. W. Bush  who defeated Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. Bush appeared unbeatable after the first Gulf War, but wound up losing, largely due to a weak economy. This does provide warning that if the economy does not rebound further Barack Obama could be in trouble, with many voters likely to vote for the party which created the economic crisis as opposed to voting for an incumbent.

There are also major differences between Bush and Obama. George H.W. Bush had a great military victory, but it was still a response to the invasion of another country. In contrast, Obama’s victory was over someone who had attacked the United States and was still seen as a threat to our country. George H.W. Bush beat soldiers who turned out to be unprepared to fight a major power but did not remove Saddam. The killing of bin Laden represents a more dramatic victory for Obama. Further victories over al Qaeda will further strengthen his position.

Whether this will all matter in 2012 depends upon how well the Democrats do in reshaping the political discussion. This victory represents a graphic demonstration that Democratic ideas on handling terrorism have been more successful than Republican ideas. Congressional Republicans blocked Bill Clinton’s attempts to fight al Qaeda. When the Clinton Administration passed on their plans for fighting al Qaeda to second Bush administration, the Bush administration ignored the plans. Even worse, George Bush ignored warnings of the 9/11 attack. In contrast, Bill Clinton’s government took the warnings of the planned Millennium terrorist attack seriously and prevented the attack.

After 9/11, George Bush continued to mishandle the efforts against al Qaeda. He used the attack as an excuse to attack Iraq, while failing to pay sufficient attention to Afghanistan. Bush had an excellent opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora but failed to execute an effective attack. Bush mocked John Kerry for discussing the importance of intelligence and police work, as well as military action, in fighting terrorism. Repeatedly we have found that Kerry was right and Bush was wrong as it has been intelligence work and police action, not war or torture, which has provided us with the most significant accomplishments. Barack Obama continued with this approach and accomplished our greatest victory to date over al Qaeda.

Despite the overall failure of Republican ideas, as compared to Democratic ideas, on fighting terrorism, Republicans have claimed a superiority on national security issues. The killing of bin Laden, following repeated failings by Republicans in handling terrorism, provides evidence to the contrary. Republicans did not hesitate to play politics with terrorism after 9/11, and Democrats now must be willing to present their case. While a Republican such as George H. W. Bush had limited upside potential from a military victory, there is far more potential for Democrats to increase their support.

Another common Republican argument has been that Barack Obama has not been up to the job of being president. While the argument has been counter to reality all along, this demonstrates that Barack Obama is quite capable of handling the 3:00 a.m. call, or any other challenges of the presidency. Suddenly the 2008 candidate whose inexperience was an obstacle is now the most experienced of all the potential candidates in carrying out the duties of Commander in Chief.

There is another comparison to consider besides that of the first Gulf War. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was doomed after the failure of a raid to free the hostages in Iran. Success by Obama could very well have the opposite effect.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Iraq, John Kerry, National Security, Politics, Polls, Republicans, Terrorism. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »
« Older posts «
»