Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Remember when deficits were evil?

posted at 5:10 pm on January 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

It seems like just a year or so ago that deficit spending was evil, irresponsible, and an attack on America’s future.  In fact, it was just a year ago, when Democrats and the media excoriated George Bush for cutting taxes to stimulate growth while increasing federal spending after 9/11 and during the war on terrorists.  Now, however, Democrats and the media cheer as Democrats demand a rate of deficit spending unlike anything seen since World War II:

The Congressional Budget Office released its latest budget forecast yesterday, and we now really do have red ink as far as the eye can see. Thanks to a 6.6% decline in revenues due to recession, a spending increase of some $500 billion or 19%, and assorted federal bailouts, the U.S. deficit for fiscal 2009 (ending September 30) will nearly triple to $1.19 trillion. That’s 8.3% of GDP, which CBO says “will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983.” It certainly blows away any deficit this decade, not to mention the Reagan years when smaller deficits were the media cause celebre.

But there’s more. None of that includes the new fiscal “stimulus” that President-elect Obama has promised to introduce upon taking office in two weeks. The details aren’t known, but Mr. Obama and Democrats have been talking about at least $800 billion, and probably $1 trillion, in new spending or various tax credits and reductions over two years. Toss that in and add more expected bailout cash, and if the economy stays slow the deficit could reach $1.8 trillion, or a gargantuan 12.5% of GDP. That 2006 Democratic vow to pass “pay as you go” budgets seems like a lifetime ago, which in political terms it was. …

Whether or not you think new spending will stimulate the economy, the one undeniable truth is that this money has to come from somewhere, which means that it is borrowed or taxed from the private economy. This spending blowout is all but guaranteeing huge future tax increases, and anyone who thinks only the rich will pay is living an illusion. Taxpayers need some new champions in Washington — and fast.

Part of this gets driven by panic.  A few years ago, Alan Greenspan famously criticized what he called “irrational exuberance” on Wall Street, causing a brief market downturn.  What we have now could be called “irrational despair,” the notion that this recession will be greater than anything ever seen since the Great Depression.  Barack Obama today offered the reversal of FDR in his speech, in which he seemed to say that the only thing we don’t have to fear is fear itself.

All of this hysteria goes to one purpose: to create a sense of panic that will make any government intervention seem rational and reasonable.  Instead of taking policy one step at a time, schemes and plans get made only to be eclipsed by even more grandiose schemes and plans without ever having tried anything else first.  The TARP plan was never even given the chance to work, thanks to a panicked Secretary of the Treasury who literally begged for its funding and then used the money to start nationalizing private enterprises.

What gets built in a panic will not get dismantled when the hysteria ends.  We are creating a baseline of expected government costs that the Wall Street Journal warns will endure as an expectation.  America saw this after FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.  Once Congress establishes a new level of confiscation and spending, it never reduces it — and only on occasion has kept it from growing.

Perhaps we have gone too long between recessions to understand how to handle them.  We had much worse economic prospects in the 1970s and had much less panic involved at the time.  We saw then what massive government intervention produced — inflation, stagnation, and regulatory paralysis.  Instead of drafting massive amounts of investment-capable capital out of the markets, we should be clearing the way for its use.  Let’s hope it doesn’t take another decade like the 1970s for people to remember that.

Update: King Banaian has more thoughts along these same lines, along with the numbers to back them up:

But I think much of this is hyperbole. Take for example “2 million out of work.” The context for this is a workforce over 140 million people. Through November, the 12 month percentage change in employment is a decline of 1.4%. (You can play with the data.) This doesn’t even match the 12-month percentage change in March 2002, hardly a period that called for the drama of this speech. Payroll employment declines of 2.5% or more have occured in both the 1974-75 and 1981-82 recessions. We may get to that level; I think that’s more likely than not some time in the next six months, at which point you will say “4 million out of work” rather than two. But let’s keep some perspective rather than dwell on “we could lose a generation of potential and promise.” That’s just bathos. Four million jobs lost sucks, but it’s not without recent precedent when the size of the economy is accounted for.

That same perspective is needed elsewhere. 2.8 million more people involuntarily in part-time work? Take a look at the data. 25% of them are workers age 16-24. We don’t have data before 1994 for the unemployment series that includes part-time workers who wish they were full time (known as U-6), and we know it’s higher than it has been since we’ve tracked the current series. But it was pretty high in 1994, also not a date when we thought the end of the world was nigh.

The lost GDP? From CBO’s budget outlook, it’s on a par, in percentage terms, with the 1974-75 recession. (See Figure 1 in the link on page 2.) Indeed, if you take that 8% gap and use Okun’s law, you’d estimate excess unemployment of 8/2.5 = 3.2% approximately. The CBO estimates the natural rate of unemployment to be 4.8%, so the expectation from that would be an average unemployment rate in 2009 of 8%. Again, not that far out of line from other recessions, and better than 1981-82.

8% has only a single digit.

Read it all, and quit weeping.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Taxpayers need some new champions in Washington — and fast.

We will soon find out what happens when 51% of people pay no taxes. The other 49% will need lube.

lorien1973 on January 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Yep. Deficit Spending is only evil when Booosh and those Wascally Wepublicans do it.

Obama’s new slogan: Running out of money? Don’t worry. We’ll print more!

kingsjester on January 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Obama: Era of Despair

faraway on January 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM

You forgot to mention the the panic is created and driven by the Dems and the media not just so they can take “advantage of a crisis”, but also to burn into Americans brains just how horrible the Bush years have been.

ChrisM on January 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Now it is just a chance to change! Ching Ching. Hear all that change!

Mr. Joe on January 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Obama has a plan, Obama is the man. Don’t you dare question him, he knows what he is doing. You should all be ashamed to even question his ideas. Take you lead from the NBC news.

Tommy_G on January 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Personally, I hope everyone remembers who sponsors this action and hold them responsible for the long-term damage they are doing to this country.

‘You can do anything in this world if you are prepared to take the consequences’ – W. Somerset Maugham

SeniorD on January 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM

And what happens when huge numbers in the middle class (a.k.a. “The Rich”) start declaring bankruptcy or getting jailed because they can no longer pay their tax bills? Will Bill Gates carry the economy alone?

aero on January 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Do you think The President Elect would bet his Federal Pension on the success of his “Stimulus Package”??

No??

PappaMac on January 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM

$400 billion deficit under Bush = fiscal ineptitude
$2 trillion deficit under Obama = fiscal genius

Chuck Schick on January 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Amazing how Hope and Change has been switched around to Fear and Despair. I’ve always figured that the Dems and the MSM would start talking about how much better the economy is doing once The One’s “stimulus” plan was passed, because then they could say, “Look how smart we are!” Now I’m not so sure.

Badger in KC on January 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Dems also promised the most ethical congress ever, yet are removing the term limit rules in Congress that would keep Charlie Rangel from holding onto his chairmanship on the banking committee. Yes, the Charlie Rangel that used 4 rent controlled apartments as his office and failed to report $75,000 in income.

This isn’t about what’s best for the country, it’s about creating a political oligarchy through fear and dependency.

PastorJon on January 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Can I run my personal finances this way? Please? It would make life so much easier if I could just live on fictional money –preferably fictional money that I can steal from people who work while I don’t. If I could live like the federal government does, I could respond to being broke by spending exponentially more money! Now wouldn’t that be preferable to eating Ramen soup and moving into a one-bedroom apartment?

aero on January 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM

“You forgot to mention the the panic is created and driven by the Dems and the media not just so they can take “advantage of a crisis”, but also to burn into Americans brains just how horrible the Bush years have been.”

The Obama years will be a total disaster. What will they say when the absolute bottom drops out – Ooooppss??? Elevator to hell. Like I kept saying before the election. I hope all the hopey changey schmucks lose their jobs and learn how to eat cardboard.

izoneguy on January 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Part of this gets driven by panic. A few years ago, Alan Greenspan famously criticized what he called “irrational exuberance” on Wall Street, causing a brief market downturn. What we have now could be called “irrational despair,” the notion that this recession will be greater than anything ever seen since the Great Depression. Barack Obama today offered the reversal of FDR in his speech, in which he seemed to say that the only thing we don’t have to fear is fear itself.

No sh*t.

I have been suggesting Barack shut the hell up for days. I’d glad to see someone else think about it.

You wonder whether he’s painting the skies excessively dark just to play hero.

drjohn on January 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM

What we have now could be called “irrational despair,” the notion that this recession will be greater than anything ever seen since the Great Depression.

That’s not irrational despair, particularly with the “solutions” we have so far been given. However, I agree that panicking and expanding government is the worst possible reaction.

This post from Michelle explains why I myself despair and have no, er, hope for the future. Unless the Republicans find their balls.

Buy Danish on January 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM

We will soon find out what happens when 51% of people pay no taxes. The other 49% will need lube.

lorien1973 on January 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Keep going…and about 5% only pay over 50% and the top 1% pay 25%…
I don’t have time to do the math, but I imagine that for every $1 given to the non-payers, the rest are increase by $2, and some by $4.
Still I don’t know how you give tax relief to someone who doesn’t pay taxes…they are already getting a free ride. Now I have to pay the people who use more resources per capita to keep using those resources.

right2bright on January 8, 2009 at 5:36 PM

They have to make it as bad as they can, so when we come out of it, it will look like a miracle…

right2bright on January 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Now it is just a chance to change! Ching Ching. Hear all that change!

Mr. Joe on January 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM

And we will be lucky to keep the change in out pockets!

grapeknutz on January 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM

We will soon find out what happens when 51% of people pay no taxes. The other 49% will need lube.

lorien1973 on January 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM

We can replace all the Obama lawn signs with “BOHICA” ones.

Laura in Maryland on January 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Where can a hard-working conservative go when this place folds up? Hopefully they speak English there…

freedom_nut on January 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM

By the way people, fall into line. These are not deficits; they are future patriotic mandatory donation opportunities. Why can’t you people get that!

Laura in Maryland on January 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Obama has a plan, Obama is the man. Don’t you dare question him, he knows what he is doing. You should all be ashamed to even question his ideas. Take you lead from the NBC news.

Tommy_G on January 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Questioning it would harm the plan so just do as he says.

the_nile on January 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Deficits were evil, but now the situation has changed…Obama always said he would analyze the particulars, then make a decision…just like the war, and Gitmo, and any other numerous things.
He will change his mind and be lauded as a genius for being able to not fulfill his campaign promises.
See, that is what has been wrong, candidates fulfilled there promises. If they would have broken them, they would have been honored.
The exception was when Bush senior said “Read my lips…no new taxes”, but he was evil.

right2bright on January 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Every time I see him sitting behind the desk,, I see Alfred E Newman.

JellyToast on January 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Am I crazy to remember way back when Hillary’s favorite thing to say was, “Let’s just all slow down and take a deep breath”? I’m pretty sure it had to do with Monica and Bill and impeachment and the hyperventilating that was going on. More and more, particularly at the breathtaking numbers, we need to go slowly, breathe into the paper bag, take it down a pitch, and not be suckered into making this a country none of us will recognize in 5 years. Heck, it’s starting to look a little strange already.

marybel on January 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Someone needs to print up some baby T-shirts and pass them out to all the hospitals to give to newborns. They should say something like:

My share of the Obama deficit: $7,000 and growing!

OR

Starting life $7K in debt. Thanks, Obama!

($7K based on $2 trillion debt divided by 300 million people.)

aero on January 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM

It seems like just a year or so ago that deficit spending was evil, irresponsible, and an attack on America’s future.

So, someone dig up the video clips of Obama bashing Bush over deficit spending.

Please.

pseudonominus on January 8, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Starting life $7K in debt. Thanks, Obama!

($7K based on $2 trillion debt divided by 300 million people.)

aero on January 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Get to printing; you’ll make a fortune (until Obama taxes it away from you).

Laura in Maryland on January 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM

This guy is really slick. he just keeps sticking it to you a little bit at a time until suddenly there you are, a full fledged citizen of the Socialist States of America and completely devoid of your individual liberties.

rplat on January 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM

…….. and this will all be perfectly explained to the American sheeple on 60 minutes, American Idol, on the cover of TIME, reported on by the NYTIMES, inserted into sitcoms and movies, and made fun of by the late night comics so every one understands the truth………..

………… it will, won’t it?

Seven Percent Solution on January 8, 2009 at 6:04 PM

That’s not irrational despair, particularly with the “solutions” we have so far been given. However, I agree that panicking and expanding government is the worst possible reaction.

This post from Michelle explains why I myself despair and have no, er, hope for the future. Unless the Republicans find their balls.

Buy Danish on January 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM

It’s scary , because there’s no logic in spending yourself out of debt and by taking on higher debt, and that would be in line with the UCLA paper.
But expansionist think stimulation debt is good , and more is better..

the_nile on January 8, 2009 at 6:04 PM

I just heard that John Kerry doesn’t like the stim package because… there aren’t enough government work programs.

Thus my despair level just increased.

Buy Danish on January 8, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Is there really any reason to pay taxes anymore? Does it really matter how much the Federal Government collects? They’ll spend money if they have it or not.

My tax assessment isn’t going to matter anyway and I could sure use it to spend, spend, spend!!

PappaMac on January 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM

More and more, particularly at the breathtaking numbers, we need to go slowly, breathe into the paper bag, take it down a pitch, and not be suckered into making this a country none of us will recognize in 5 years. Heck, it’s starting to look a little strange already.

marybel on January 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM

I hardly recognize it now, but I’m an old man.

Johan Klaus on January 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Don’t you just love Keynesian economics, AKA socialism.

Johan Klaus on January 8, 2009 at 6:26 PM

In a nutshell, we’re fucked.

GarandFan on January 8, 2009 at 6:42 PM

A little taste of the Obama view of Deficits past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnX8OfVLsK8

PappaMac on January 8, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Here is a quiz for any liberals out there. What is the next step in this series

1. Recession and inflation in the 1970s.
2. Loosening of capital in the 1980s and boom times.
3. Recession in the late 1990s and then 9/11.
4. Loosening of capital in 2000s and boom times.
5. Recession in the late 2000s.
6. ???????

C’mon, libtards. You can figure out the answer.

Mallard T. Drake on January 8, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Oh, here is another. The hits just keep coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqaWiI_sM0c&feature=related

PappaMac on January 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM

I understand that Obam plans on printing money so fast that the mint won’t be able to keep up so he’s planning on an internet serial number system so we can print our own.

Speakup on January 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Obama

Speakup on January 8, 2009 at 6:53 PM

After super inflation only the 100s and above will be worth more than what they cost to print.

Speakup on January 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Natural Axelrod is polling this stuff:

The Democratic senators, including Dick Durbin of Illinois and Tom Carper of Delaware, were given data showing that about half the poll’s respondents favored making huge investments that would expand government during a recession even if such measures result in a $1 trillion deficit.

About half? Yup, sounds like a consensus to me.

And from Axelrod himself:

“There’s an enormous appetite in this country for action,” he said. He declined to provide specifics about his polling and focus-group data.

Please, can the Republicans quit reitring and fight back!!

r keller on January 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Read it all, and quit weeping.

Are you kidding? Using government numbers to gauge how well the economy is foolish. Government numbers are meant to quell fear and keep elected official in office. Our debt to GDP ratio is ridiculous. The government uses hedonics to push out high GDP numbers. Our real GDP is lower than advertised and our debt is soon to be thrust back in our faces. The bond market is being driven by the Feds buying it back and speculators. Once the Fed starts trying to issue more bonds and finds out foreign central banks aren’t buying, speculators dump and the bond market pops. What then, who bails out the Fed? Then you throw on top of all that the “stimulus.” We are hosed.

Theworldisnotenough on January 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM

what a load.

rob verdi on January 8, 2009 at 7:04 PM

the Mother of all Earmarks! !

patrick neid on January 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Are you people really clueless enough to criticize President Obama’s efforts to clean up W’s epic mess?

You can’t make this stuff up!

benny shakar on January 8, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Finally, some perspective based on empirical data. Thank you King Banaian!

Now can someone get this in front of the news readers and talking heads?

juanito on January 8, 2009 at 11:48 PM

Are you people really clueless enough to criticize President Obama’s efforts to clean up W’s epic mess?

You can’t make this stuff up!

benny shakar on January 8, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Spend our way to prosperity? No, you certainly can’t make this stuff up. A New New Deal without a Depression. And it’s not like the Old New Deal did a lot of good, either. Idiotic. But, good Obamaton fodder. Keeps them rapt and giddy.

ddrintn on January 8, 2009 at 11:52 PM

I guess any tax cut is better than no tax cut, but some tax cuts are better than others. If the goal of tax cuts is to stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending, it seems that Obama’s latest tax cut scheme(essentially a $500 rebate spread over 52 weeks)is the worst option. The alternatives as I see them:

A) Cut supply-side tax rates: free up capital for investment, business expansion, hiring employees, etc. People also get to keep more of their earnings, which they can spend on consumer products. Best long-term solution.

B) Give out a “tax rebate” check in one lump sum. Not a great long term solution, but may give a one time bump to the economy since people might decide to go out and buy something big and shiny.

C) Give a “tax rebate” spread out over 52 weeks so that each person will see about $42 extra per month in their pay. As far as shaping behavior, I don’t see it. I doubt I’ll decide each month, “Hey, I’ve got an extra $42″ and go on a $42 shopping spree. It will just get lumped in with my pay and I probably won’t even notice it or consciously decide to go out and spend it.

Given these alternatives, why is Obama opting for what will probably be the least effective at boosting consumer spending? Even some Democrats in congress are balking and saying that a small “rebate” amount each month won’t affect spending behavior.

One last thing, John Kerry said he would rather the money not be given out as tax rebates, but spent on infrastructure. Interesting statement. This should be exhibit A that this rebate idea isn’t a tax cut, but rather a government spending program. It’s just a matter of where the spending goes: individuals or public works projects. A true tax cut involves people keeping more of the money that they earn. In other words, government never gets it to begin with. In this new definition, any government spending program can be justified as a “tax cut”. Increasing welfare benefits is really just a tax cut to those receiving welfare checks. Increasing education spending is just a tax cut to those with children in the public school system. Increasing corn subsidies is really a tax cut for farmers. It’s truly Orwellian language.
Sorry for the long post. This is my first time posting here . I will keep future posts much shorter.

JohnInCA on January 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM

Are you people really clueless enough to criticize President Obama’s efforts to clean up W’s epic mess?

You can’t make this stuff up!

benny shakar

But apparently you can, Benny. Keep clinging to your love for the big-eared freak and let us know how that’s working out for you in a couple of years.

SKYFOX on January 9, 2009 at 5:15 AM

I’m suffering cognitive dissonance. It’s the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

davo on January 9, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Contents of an Open Letter to my local Congresscritter:

Hi Ron!

I just read a brief essay relating to your colleague, Barney Frank (D-Pelosi Wing), one of two Members of Congress most responsible for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, going on record as saying

 “I have some difference because I think they may be doing too much tax-cutting and not enough direct spending from the standpoint of immediate job creation,”

How nice, a Representative of the Democrat Party, who has never ran a business and seems to think a Federal Government which has more failures than any success, wants to delete tax cuts.  What sort of collective amnesia permeates the Democrat Party?  Did not the economy flourish under tax cuts by John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush?  What part of the New Deal did anything but lead to WWII (records show the New Deal ‘… never drove unemployment lower than 20%’ source: Heritage Foundation) and only the war led to unemployment below 5%?  Do not the lessons from such economists like Smith, Sowell, Hayek, Feldstein make any headway to Congress?  Or perhaps, since every other war this country has endured was started by the Democrat Party,  the Party is preparing this country for another global war?  Who knows, but every war this country has become engaged has been started by a Democrat.

What ever the case, YOU, Congressman Kind, and your Party will be held responsible for the coming disaster.  YOU, and every other Democrat in the State House will share the blame for millions of good people losing their jobs and their livelihood while Congressional Neros fiddle.   YOU and your deceitful, dishonorable colleagues are STEALING my children’s and grandchildren’s future so your Party can transform this Country into a Balkanized, Socialist Heaven-on-Earth for the elites.

That is unless YOU grow some and say NO! to any more taxes, spending or ‘bailouts’.

Not that it will make any difference in Sodom-on-the-Potomac.

SeniorD on January 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Not that it matters, and not that the left will ever admit to this, but Dick Cheney has been vindicated:

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.

O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts.

Paul_in_NJ on January 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.