Ignoring deficit spending, Wash. Post's soon-to-be economics reporter asserted Bush "is pay[ing] for the war" with other cuts in budget
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Michael Fletcher asserted that President Bush "is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget." In fact, inflation-adjusted non-defense discretionary outlays have risen each year since Bush took office; Bush has actually paid for the war by deficit spending.
During an October 25 washingtonpost.com "Post Politics Hour" discussion, Washington Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher -- who will become the Post's national economics reporter beginning November 1 -- asserted: "I think President Bush does want us to pay for this war -- even if he didn't, we certainly are paying. But Bush is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget." In fact, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Historical Tables of the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, inflation-adjusted non-defense discretionary outlays have risen each year since Bush took office, to $407.8 billion in fiscal year 2006, up from $335.0 billion in fiscal 2001 under the Clinton administration (FY 2000 dollars). Thus, Bush has actually paid for the war, not by "cutting back elsewhere in the budget," but by deficit spending. As Media Matters for America has previously documented, Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion surplus for fiscal 2001 (which began October 1, 2000). According to the standardized budget, which includes adjustments such as cyclical fluctuations, the government has run a deficit in every fiscal year of Bush's presidency, including $318 billion in 2005 and $248 billion in 2006. Nevertheless, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during the first six years of his administration, a period in which the House was controlled by Republicans and during which the Senate was controlled by Republicans for all but 18 months.
An October 24 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that "George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ." The article cited the budget analysis of Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, who found that "[w]hen adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending ... shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush's first six year," higher than "the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged."
Later in the discussion, a questioner noted that Bush is funding the war by "putting it on the credit card," and asked Fletcher, "How can you have a balanced budget when the billions being spent to prosecute a war going into its fifth year are all off the books as emergency appropriations, with the notes held by foreign entities such as China?" Fletcher replied, "Maybe I'll be able to give you an intelligent answer once I've written about economics for a while."
From Fletcher's October 25 "Post Politics Hour" discussion:
Washington: Has any White House reporter ever asked the president if he would have supported the tax increases FDR put in place to support World War II? He seems so convinced that we shouldn't pay for this war; I would love to know if that's because one shouldn't increase taxes during wars, or if this particular conflict is different.
Michael Fletcher: I have never heard President Bush asked the question you raise. Despite what you say, I think President Bush does want us to pay for this war -- even if he didn't, we certainly are paying. But Bush is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget.
[...]
Salinas, Calif.: Hi Michael. In response to Washington: President Bush may say that he won't raise taxes to pay for the war, but we're paying for it just the same (with our children still paying for it and their children as well). The twisted thing is that he's handing us the tab in true baby-boomer fashion -- putting it on the credit card. How can you have a balanced budget when the billions being spent to prosecute a war going into its fifth year are all off the books as emergency appropriations, with the notes held by foreign entities such as China? Just asking.
Michael Fletcher: Maybe I'll be able to give you an intelligent answer once I've written about economics for a while. It's hard (for me, at least) to know what the impact of deficits are. I keep hearing they are bad, but we keep running them and (so far) interest rates remain low and the economy seems to hum (until lately, at least). But maybe it is like a house of cards that one day will collapse.
Bush made significant cuts in the federal budget, by eliminating the Departments of Truth, Integrity, and Accountability.
it's a myth that bush's tax cuts have produced jobs growth. as this link shows, the job creation rate during his administration has not even kept pace with population growth.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/weller_exceeding.html
A liberal think tank opposed to tax cuts, what a revelation?
So, do you think that higher taxes create jobs in the private sector?
Go back to the Clinton years, and compare the economy then, compared to now. It was much stronger. Not in all 8 years of his presidency, but for most of it, economy was soaring. I'm not naive enough to think that the President of the US is responsible for the economic gains of a nation as a whole, but GHW Bush economy = not great. Clinton = roaring economy, with a balanced budget and a surplus when he left office in the coffers. GW Bush = biggest spending President ever, wiped out the surplus, and never vetoed any spending bill that was sent across his desk by republicans.
I'll take the economy of the 90's over the one that is starting to tank today.
Yes!!, that economy back in the 90s was productive and gave all Americans a chance. Today its the rich and that is it . The rest of America suffers.
Mag,
It takes several years for specific tax cuts and policies to be thoroughly realized in the economy.....so much of Clinton's good economic news went to earlier tax cuts by Reagan and Bush, as well as the dot com explosion.
But you didn't answer my question in principle? Do higher taxes create private sector jobs?
actually poppy bush raised taxes, so there goes your theory.
It's no theory, it's economics - sorry if you don't grasp it.
how about grasping this. you just made a claim that the clinton job boom was due to reagan-bush tax cuts. i pointed out that poppy bush raised taxes. so call your argument whatever you want, it is incorrect.
Much of Clinton's economic success was due to the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush, and the dotcom revolution, those are the facts. You can dispute them all you want because it doesn't fit into your love of high taxes, well too bad.
Contribute more of your own $$ to Washington if your love affair with high taxation needs to be stoked......otherwise you are a hypocrite.
just calling something a "fact" does not make it so, especially when you introduce facts that contradict your argument. and i don't have a problem with the taxes i pay. i pay a nice chunk of income at the 25% rate. but thanks for trying to change the subject, as usual.
You want higher taxes, but you pay plenty? Raise them on someone else? Niiiiiiiiiice.
it's called the progressive tax system. it's been around as long as the income tax. it's the reason why a guy making $15,000 pays far less tax percentage wise than me. which i have no problem with. and if everyone paid, i would have no problem paying a little more. but again you are changing the subject away from what you originally said.
I have said it in two posts, I don't need to keep repeating it just because you don't believe it, that is your business. I stand by it. There has been no subject change, something you always haul out in desperation when your inconsistencies appear.......like higher taxes are good, but don't touch mine. We got it.
i always bring up subject change? look in the mirror. and i think i just said that i would be willing to pay more taxes? did you miss that? as for me believing something you call a "fact", you made an assertion that was contradicted by the evidence. you saying something does not make it true. poppy bush raised taxes. there goes your argument.
Can you be alittle more respectful and instead of saying "Poppy Bush" say Former President Bush? A former WWII veteran who was shot down deserves alittle more respect that that.
no. there's nothing wrong with saying poppy bush.
Who do you think you are? You want to be a pious scold why dont you get a job as a schoolmarm.
Sueeld some people like that poster are always Rude. Your heart is in the right place but ignoring him is the best advice. Plus whether people call Bush 1 "poppy" or " Forer President" is not really rude or disrespectful considering what we call his son.
I myself prefer 'Tweedledum and Tweedledumber'.
Just hope we don't end up with 'Tweedledumbest' aka Fred Thompson next.
doris makes her fiftieth promise to ignore me. funny how she's always popping in to call me names.
I know Doris, but I figured mefirst can not help it, afterall he was born with a "Silver foot in his mouth".
what did i say rude to either one of you? looks like you and doris are the ones looking for a fight, no?
I know I am not looking for a fight, I was just commenting from the great Ann Richards. Geez learn history and get thicker skin.
i know where the quote is from. i don't get your motivation in applying it to me. you two are attacking me. that's pretty obvious.
Just don't bring up Keith Olbermann and all will be well.
Signed, Poppy Bush of the CIA
Tommy. GHW did go back on his "read my lips" pledge and did sign into law targeted tax increases. The result was balanced budgets and a roaring economy down the road. So you're probably right that credit for the '90's economy doesn't totally belong to Slick Willy. The President usually gets too much blame when the economy is bad and too much credit when it is good.
Yeah, yeah, we always get that spin. Bottom line years of Raygun tax cutting for the rich, SUCK economy he raised taxes and it helped. Clinton raised taxes GREAT economy, Gump cut taxes on the rich, SUCK economy. In fact the stats show the economy consistantly performs better under Democratic administrations.
http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf
Higher taxes help the economy? How?
It would really depend on what the revenue is used for, wouldn't it?
Government does not create the wealth in this country. High taxes only punish job creators and entreprenuers. Until the government becomes better stewards of our money and stop wasting it on crappy pork and inefficiencies, then I oppose every tax hike in principle. It is the only way to force them into fiscal responsibility and halt the unnecessary spending. Give them more, they will spend more. Make them live within their means, they will do it.
Yeah sure. At least that is the propaganda you keep spewing. Excuse us if we dont accept YOUR take as the final say in the matter. ONLY workers directly create wealth that is basic economics. You however are sure willing to spew the idea that giving rich people money indirectly creates wealth and jobs. There is no reason the government cannot do this and it is without dispute it has in the past. Silicon chip, rural electrification, highway system?
Tommy,
I don't understand something about your position.
*Everybody* would like government to be more efficient and waste less money. And there are some interesting discussions to have around what the national budget priorities are.
But the real question is whether you have enough revenue to cover your expenses.
I happen to think that, absent emergency conditions (which does not describe our current state), the only prudent thing to do is to have a balanced budget.
We currently spend 13% of our budget on interest - some $244 billion. That money is totally wasted, and a considerable portion of it goes outside the US.
Fiscal responsibility is all about living within your means - being prudent with the money that you have to make sure you are taking care of your current responsibilities, and planning for the future.
When it comes down to it, people like you aren't for fiscal responsibility, they are just selfish people who don't want to pay their fair share to run the country. As long as you aren't fiscally impacted, it doesn't matter what happens to our children.
That, I submit, is un-american.
If families or individuals don't have enough revenue to cover their expenses, what is the first thing they do? They cut their expenses, they don't go out and beg the neighbors to give them more money. Granted, sometimes they get second jobs as a source of more income - but the expenditure side is always the first to be scrutinized.
Except.........except........for government, they look to increase revenue side first.
That is the inherent problem with spending somebody else's money, which is always easier to do.
Do what families do, cut expenses first - then ask for more money.
Taxes arent begging. They are the price we pay for a society as opposed to a large group of people living in the same geographic area. I repeat. Its like a town has a large central park where there are many delicious berries that grow. The town invested a large amount of money in horticulture, irrigation, paths, protection and the like to make them available and to KEEP them available. Those who pick the berries are expected to give one basket in five to maintain the park and berries. The tommys of this world are saying stop begging me for MY berries. I dont CARE that you invested in my ability to pick them they are MINE, MINE. Its sad really. Society has invested a whole lot of money for ALL people to be able to make money and live safe lives that costs money.
Stop the bleeding spending first, why you liberals have no problem with someone else wasting your money is mind-boggling? It's like untouchable for you. Well, fine - then spend your own money foolishly and recklessly, and leave the rest of us out.
See, and THAT'S the crux of your BS 'philosophy' - you think that any spending that doesn't benefit YOU directly is 'waste'.
"I mean, really, why should I care about helping out the Katrina people. They don't need those ATM cards cause they are just gonna spend the $ on drugs and booze, right? Ah, just let 'em ROT!"
THAT is basically what your 'philosophy' states. You ALWAYS assume the WORST about people and their intentions.
Strawman rant about disaster relief, not interested.
Everybody wants waste controlled. I am not that convinced it is as widespread as you say or that where it is widespread is where conservatives want it cut. Like corporate welfare and the Defense Dept doing so much R&D for hi tech. That said IT ISNT JUST YOUR MONEY. You guys want a free lunch. The POINT of that analogy, which I cribbed from Pete Singer, is that society has made a HUGE investment in your ability to make money along with everybody elses ability to make money and a SHARE of that is OWED back to society. You guys want the benifits while snivelliing about the COST. Its like you WANT electricity but dont want to pay for it.
Nobody is talking about not paying one's fair share, or no taxation, or defunding police or fire departments, or go back to gravel roads, or free lunch, or letting people die during a natural disaster because there isn't one dime for relief.......all those straw arguments are consistently trotted out when higher taxation is on the table.
Well, I don't play that game Solon, it is ridiculous and you know it. I am talking in principle, based on lawmakers who have historically had little regard for OUR money, they are poor stewards - look around at the needless waste and pork penned in for that constituency or another....it has to stop.
And by giving them MORE is no way to do it. Tell them the gravy train is done, dried up, live within your means, make the tough spending choices that don't suckup to lobbyist's demands and show the voters that you are as responsible and careful with OUR money, as your own.
Then, and only then, will I EVER vote for any tax increase. Until then it is CUT, CUT for me, sorry - it's called "toughlove".
We disagree.
That's right, just "Borrow and Spend" so our kids will have to foot the bill. How selfish of you.
Please show me where I advocate borrow and spend. Your post makes no sense where I am concerned.
i agree with you on waste. but what we are doing now is borrow and spend. just saying you are not in favor of it does not mean it's not happening.
I don't know how you can sanely say that Tommy when in the past six years the Repub's have wasted a projected multi-billion dollar surplus.
The only thing keeping Bush's economy afloat was the subprime mortgage market, and that balloon has popped.
Once again, show me where I am defending Bush's spending habits, he is the worst, along with his big Republican buddies.
You're confusing me with someone who supports Bush in that, sorry.
Solon,
To answer your "taxes aren't begging" mantra. When you live beyond your means and you ask for more money, that is begging. Therefore, higher taxation from a government that lives beyond it's means, that is begging.
Taxes ARENT begging THAT is a FACT. Our only argument is the amount of taxes not whether or not taxes at ALL are justified. Therefore calling taxes begging is disengenuous. YOU say the government is living beyond its means, and to some extent I agree that is why we are borrowing to pay for this useless war in Iraq. TAXES are necessary. It is up to US ALL not you alone to say what that amount is. Calling it begging is stupid.
What? Our argument is both - the amount of taxes, and their justification. Sorry you missed that.
Let me be very clear - when one lives beyond one's means in any fashion and asks someone else to help them out, you can call it begging, pleading, cajoling, pretty please, whatever you want to call it, I don't care.......it is begging.
In that context, asking for higher taxes because you can't manage your spending properly, is begging. Live with it.
LUDICROUS. Taxes ARENT BEGGING you OWE your fair share your only argument is how much that is. Calling taxes begging is stupid. You keep talking about a tax increase and arent taking into consideration that the same wealthy people that are being tagged for this increase have been getting DECREASES in their taxes over and over for DECADES. NOW we have a huge deficit based on WHAT WE GAVE BACK. Now we WERE living within our means if it wasnt for tha last big taxbreak that went mainly to these same people we WOULD be within our means, that is discounting the Iraq war. So lets go back to when we WERE living within our means by taking back at least from those who have gotten the majority of the last several tax cuts and take care of this debt. We pay too much in interest on the debt. What REALLY happened is we WERE living within our means and Bush gave a rent rebate to ONE tennant and started an expensive war with our nieghbors and now we are OWING HUGE AMOUNTS OF DEBT. The credit card payments are too high take that rent rebate back
No, we have a huge deficit because WE SPEND TOO MUCH!! Typical liberal reaction, amazing.
Tax cuts don't cause deficits, overspending does.
Accept it.
I will accept NO SUCH BS. I already linked to Bushs OWN tax cut proponent ADMITTING that tax cuts COST revenue. Only be denying reality itself can you claim that tax cuts dont contribute to the deficit YOU DEAL WITH IT.
Solon, Let me put it another way for you;
If you personally run up too much debt in your own life, is it because you don't have enough money to pay your bills, or because you spent more than you should?
Think about the answer, and you have your answer.
If I used to make 20$ an hour and I get cut back to 17$ an hour while the cost of living is rising then BOTH of those things have as much to do with going in debt as my spending habits. This is VERY simple.
Yeah, like that Frost family, right? They should have just sold their house if they needed the money for the medical stuff, right? Just cut dem damn expenses, right?
Having said that... why did Malkin and the rest of that bunch bring up how well-heeled Gramps was? Were they suggesting that they mooch off of him for the money IN ADDITION to selling their house?
Wow... brilliant idea there! Sure, they can just sell the house, cure the kids, and live in the sewer as a bonus. Oh, and pay back Gramps too in between dumpster dives. I'm sure they would have had lots of laughs over that one.
Off topic rant, not interested.
Of course not... never mind the fact that it is RELEVANT... just maybe not to YOUR standards.
Keep on compartmentalising...
"Government does not create the wealth in this country."
I did not assert that.
Would those 'inefficiencies' you speak of include Blackwater and all the other 'contractors' that are supposedly building a better Iraq (lol)? Or do you only pick and choose with particular emphasis on social programmes that benefit the country in the long run?
Taxes built the highway system, paid for rural electrification, the satellite system that makes telecommunication so efficient. Subsidized Bell Labs who invented the silicon chip. Do I need to go on? It is about how that money is spent. Government can absolutly stimulate the private economy WHEN that is what they are doing.
So you did read Bush's lips. What a revelation.
Tommy
The Bush tax increase in 1990 is actually what helped the economy in 1992 and beyond. Without it the government would have collapsed.
Sue,
All I have to say to you and your fellow liberals who only see positives from high taxation, and to keep the government from collapsing, is to march down to the IRS and write them a check - give them more, if you feel that strongly about it.
They will take your money I am sure.
Tommy, I can not believe you called Sueeld a Fellow "liberal". Now I like debating with Sueeld but she is far from a liberal.
Those who view higher taxation as a positive goal are liberals when it comes to taxes. In other areas, Sue may not be - you may be right. I like Sue as well, we disagree here.
Doris you are sweet .
Thank you Sueeld, but I still think you are a Republican in disguise ;-)
Tommy
all I am stating is that in the fall of 1990 our government was headed for disaster, without that tax increase Wall Street and would have lost all confidence. Our economy rebounded . In 1992 the economy started growing and did not stop until 2001. I do not always support Tax increases, but at that time they were necessary. I do support cutting back the Bush tax cut, we need to get our debt in order. If that is liberal then yes i am a liberal. I always thought of myself as a independent progressive who is critical of everyone. I never trust an party or politican or media member.Sorry, I do not know what is going on with my computer lets try this again
Tommy, all I am stating is that in the fall of 90 our govt was headed for disastter without that tax increase Wall St would have lost all confidence. Our economy rebounded. In 92 the economy started growing nad did not stop unti 2001. I do not always support tax increase but at that time they were necessary. I do support cutting back the Bush tax cut , we need to get our debt in order. If that is liberal yes I am a liberal. I always thought of myself as an independent progressive who is critical of everyone.
Sure we ought to give like charity so selfish people like YOU can avoid your public responsibilities. If you dont LIKE paying your fair share, which is a DEMOCRATIC decision we all get to make why dont YOU get out of our good country and let us get on with running it responsibly
We might just have to do that in order to keep the next five generations out of the fiscal hole no thanks of course to Tweedledumber's insane war.
Private contractors doing the governments work seems to be the way today.
In a rational time and government. The spending stimulates the private sector to support the governments aims with material and the infrastucture to support both the governments people and the private sectors people. Research both on the envirosocial aspects of our world, ideas and processes (Which flow into the private sector much to cheaply) produced by the government or with government monies. Quite often benifits come to our society and world this rarely happen from private sources.
The above was an answer to Tommy. How do taxes produce private jobs, it got lost.
1993 ... Republican prognosticators claimed that Clinton's economic package would cause irreparable harm, deficits as far as the eye could see ... and it resulted in the fact that there was a SURPLUS ...
3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Oh, "The Republican Congress" of 1995 was the one which really made this happen? (Despite the fact that the Repukes held the budget hostage, and had to cave to Clinton's package late in his presidency)
Well, that logic might fly ... but then it blasts the "Reagan created a great economy!" argument, because by the same logic, the Dems in Congress were the ones who did the right thing ...
That last response from Fletcher should be setting off alarms at the WaPo editor-in-chief's office. What the heck is this guy doing reporting on economics for a major newspaper?
I'm no economic expert, but I believe selling our financial soul to China to pay for war is not exactly going to work wonders for the US dollar. Does Fletcher honestly think that this kind of freewheeling is sustainable? We need tens of billions in foreign investment every month to make Bush's Middle East bloodbath possible. How is such an enormous debt supposed to keep us in a position of global economic superiority?
We are well on our way to becoming China's b***h under the rule of Bush.
Americans are paying for this war , and our children and grandchildren will for Bushs war and lies.
A little visual aide, from C&L.
I see Michael Fletcher has decided to take a vacation before he assumes his new post ... a vacation from reality.
The WP is wrong.
The war is being paid for with Iraqi oil revenues as the neocons promised.
Right??
"But Bush is generally against tax increases as he believes they stifle economic growth. So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget."
Well, at least it's comforting to know that we've got a war and a foreign country in misery to show for our national debt tripling in 6 years and borrowing more foreign money than all previous administrations combined, instead of all those unnecessary budget items. Plus, we get to enjoy all these benefits of that economic growth now.
Nothing spurs economic growth like massive debt. Paying off the Chinese gives us incentive to work!
I really don't get the fear that Cons have of taxes. You must pay for government spending somehow, and one way is with taxes. If the gov't spends more, they must recoup somehow. There is no other way. With Clinton we had an incredible economy with reasonable taxes. With Bush we have MORE spending. Deficit spending.
OK, Repub genii, please tell me what the difference is between being taxed $8,000 per man, woman and child in the US for this castrof*ck, and owing $8,000 somehow in the future? We all know that it will take a common sense president (read Democrat or hopefully an Independent) to resolve it.
You don't want taxes, yet you are OK with spending FAR more on college/universities, FAR more on gas, FAR more on healthcare. Oh, that rascal Bill Clinton and his booming economy, low gas prices, and rational taxes and spending. I'd rather be taxed now instead of surprised later.
Who's stupid idea was to "cut the wealthy's taxes and spend more"? How would this play out in a real business? No CEO or COO or CFF would say that spending more but taking in less was a good thing... unless it was understood that a smarter president would have to step in and fix their mess. Right?
And another thing: this "Clinton inherited" and "Bush inherited" crap has got to stop. If the Reagonites would have said "this will take x years to fulfill" then I'd agree. But they had to wait many years for Cinton to take office, then say Ahah! This is our work! Get real.
The Cons have this belief that they should ONLY pay taxes when they DIRECTLY benefit ONLY them and no-one else. Quite myopic but that basically sums it up.
The inherited economy theory breaks down pretty badly under scrutiny. How exactly is it that the "Reagan Miracle" was so miraculous that it seemed to stop working somewhere in the middle of Bush 1's term only to wake back up and start working again for Clinton?
Because Sean Hannity says so!!
Hey's paying for the War with tax cuts that have led the the highest generated revenues in United State's History. Now Pelosi needs to figure out how to cut the $2.9 trillion budget.
More delusions from a hiveminder without ANY sense of what he is talking about. The highest POPULATION ever in the US means the highest revenue. It also leads to higher government COSTS. Tax cuts do not even PAY FOR THEMSELVES much less lead to higher revenue. You can keep repeating the hivemind propaganda in the vain hope it will magically come true but WE dont live on Planet Wingnut and HERE they WONT magically become true.
paying for the war with tax cuts? Can you say Non-Sequitur? I think you need to figure out why you can't think for yourself... oh wait, you can't, sucks to be you!!
"So his idea is to pay for the war by cutting back elsewhere in the budget."
If his tax cuts are paying for the war then how come the national debt has soared from around $5.5 trillion in 1995 to well over $7 trillion today (using 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation)?
DTrain and Robrob, don't ask so many questions. Rush LImbaugh tells his monkeys every day that cutting taxes on billionaires causes them to take all of their money out of investments and start hiring people they didn't even need before the tax cuts.
Apparently, people employ other people in order to lose money.Just leave it at that.