“Mitt Romney is very concerned about budget deficits. Or at least that’s what he says; he likes to warn that President Obama’s deficits are leading us toward a “Greece-style collapse.”
So why is Mr. Romney offering a budget proposal that would lead to much larger debt and deficits than the corresponding proposal from the Obama administration?
Of course, Mr. Romney isn’t alone in his hypocrisy. In fact, all four significant Republican presidential candidates still standing are fiscal phonies. They issue apocalyptic warnings about the dangers of government debt and, in the name of deficit reduction, demand savage cuts in programs that protect the middle class and the poor. But then they propose squandering all the money thereby saved — and much, much more — on tax cuts for the rich.
And nobody should be surprised. It has been obvious all along, to anyone paying attention, that the politicians shouting loudest about deficits are actually using deficit hysteria as a cover story for their real agenda, which is top-down class warfare. To put it in Romneyesque terms, it’s all about finding an excuse to slash programs that help people who like to watch Nascar events, even while lavishing tax cuts on people who like to own Nascar teams.
O.K., let’s talk about the numbers.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently published an overview of the budget proposals of the four “major” Republican candidates and, in a separate report, examined the latest Obama budget. I am not, by the way, a big fan of the committee’s general role in our policy discourse; I think it has been pushing premature deficit reduction and diverting attention from the more immediately urgent task of reducing unemployment. But the group is honest and technically competent, so its evaluation provides a very useful reference point.
And here’s what it tells us: According to an “intermediate debt scenario,” the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better, roughly matching Mr. Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out that Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he’s really a spendthrift, too….”
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Dude thinks we need tax increases. Rep;ublicans want tax cuts because that’s the only way to hold back gov’t spending. Congress/Exec will spend tax revenues + whatever deficit they can get away with. Tax increases = more government spending and pressure on private sector.
WRONG! More or less tax collection does not affect wreckless D.C. spending.
Bush was the best “conservative” to triple the national debt.
Obama now takes the cake.
Not wrong. It would be better if the gov’t could curb spending. But that never happens. Holding back revenues creates some resistance to increased spending. Repubs resist growth of the government sector. Dems try to expand government activities. (generally)
stop paying over a trillion and a half or more on illegal’s using all public services while they hold their passports in hand while seeking them in emergency rooms and public hospitals,you wanna save another 2 or so trill, make it a law that any chick gettin nocked up before 18 wont get welfare all her life.fuck, that’s an instant 4-5 trill………hey krugman.GO FUCK YOURSELF
perhaps we should attack the real problem rather than the solutions to the perceived problems.
Krugman is an idiot. iBC is too good of a place for Krugman, Cronk.
Wood,
Why is Krugman an idiot? Talk me through that.
The Republican record on the deficit tells the whole story. Starting with Reagan, it’s always been ride deficits as far and fast as you can, and proclaim your fiscal conservatism when there’s a democratic in office.
Show me why the Republicans should be trusted on this issue, and I will gladly concede the point.
Here’s a second, more complicated question, however: According to modern monetary theory, deficits are necessary in a fiat currency situation. Not endlessly large ones, but some manageable amount, since, in effect, there are accounting identities between the public and private sector.
Spooks. Repair to your 9th grade civics class. Reagan had a DEMOCRAT Congress when the debt spiked precipitously.
Clinton had a REPUBLICAN Congress, when he was grasped by both arms and water-boarded into balancing the budget.
Bush had a REPUBLICAN Congress for the middle four years of his Presidency (the Senate was split his first 2 years) when he was in the middle of fighting a war. In his last two years, when the debt mushroomed, surprise, he had a DEMOCRAT Congress.
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of RINOs who love pork as much as the worst Dem, but the direction of the Democrat Party is ceaselessly STATIST. That means they LIVE to expand the state, and spend more through it.
Can you reall dispute that very evident fact? When, in the last 40 years, did the Democrats ever willingly shrink the State?
And don’t say Billy Clyde Clintoon, as I specifically said WILLINGLY.
______
___________
Spooky,
Krugman is an idiot because he is almost always wrong, and almost always pandering to the communists that read the NYT.
Krugster HATES deficits if Republicans are in power, but if the socialists are in, they can’t be big enough. His big beef, hilariously enough, is that the failed stimulus failed because it wasn’t big enough!
_____