JF Re...He was... but frankly I would rather have a realist than a neo-conservative, that believes that "deficits don't matter". We are headed for a train wreck, and Bush is driving the train. The Republican party, and the conservatives, and the federal government, have been hijacked by the radical neo's.
Frankly, if roles were reversed, and GW was president during the 90's under the conditions Bill had, GW might have very well spent far less. And if Bill were president now, he may or may not have spent more now. You are determining a persons beliefs by comparing different men under different circumstances. The real truth is that both probably would have spent similarily. Taxing would have been different though, as Bill passed one of the largest tax increases in our nations history. And, in all actuality, it was the right time to do it. The tax breaks, passed by GW also were done at the right time, as the nation was heading into recession. The question is, will GW, have the guts to raise taxes, once the economy gets healthy enough. That would be questionable, especially with his dad's experience. On the other hand, Gw won't run again, so maybe he will.
The article you posted was a good article, fair and balanced.
Second, the balanced budgets of the late 1990s removed the most popular argument for spending restraint. Before then, lawmakers could use the deficit as a reason to keep spending for popular programs in check. But when a tax-revenue boom first balanced the budget in 1998, the floodgates opened. Gloomy deficit reduction was replaced with a sunny "balanced budget liberalism" that funded colossal education, health and social spending increases with soaring tax revenues from an economy that, it seemed, would boom forever. Economic reality has since returned tax revenues to their historical levels, but it's too late: Both parties now measure their compassion by how much they spend on these popular programs. No one wants the thankless job of setting limits and saying no.
That is a fairly good synopsis of what happened in the late 90's. It wasn't actually Bill's fiscal austerity, but rather the economy grew out of the deficits. Secondly, the government started spending way too fast, such that the economy would grow fast enough to support those type of spending increases. GW had proposed a tax refund to get rid of the projected surpluses, so congress wouldn't increase spending so fast. What with the recession, and 9/11, along with homeland defense, the war, an even deeper recession, the budget quickly went south, along with any spending restraint.
We need look no farther than Western Europe, where politicians have promised to provide for all their citizens' needs in exchange for higher taxes and bigger government, to see the consequences of excessive spending and taxation. Western Europeans have incomes 40 percent below Americans and unemployment rates twice as high. They also lose 50 cents out of every dollar earned to taxes.
Instead of accelerating down that road to serfdom, lawmakers must learn how to win elections by methods other than promising federal spending. And they can do it in a positive way - emphasizing, for example, how letting families keep more or their own money would make housing, food, health insurance, retirement and their children's education more affordable.
Low taxes and a dynamic free market helped make America an economic superpower. Why let excessive government spending by shortsighted and undisciplined lawmakers threaten that status?
Bingo, the author is right on here. Low taxes and a dynamic free maret helped make America an economic superpower during the 80's and 90's, and could do it again. |
