The DATA is absolutely correct (matter of simple historical record) and indisputable.
The data is the data, there is nothing for any sane and honest person to argue about that....
While the interpretation and the explanations for the facts of the data, "why and why not" are --- as are most topics related to economics and political science --- matters of hot dispute and contention.
I would NEVER say that there are not many valid arguments to consider (from *both* sides of the partisan wars), (mixed in with even more crap arguments I'd say. <GGG>)
However, (and this is but a tentative conclusion here...), I'd venture that a 48 year-long track record (for the post WW II era, the life times of the Baby Boomers mostly) is probably beginning to approach a long enough period that at least *some* conclusions should be considered to try to explain the historical record.
It would seem that more of the time in these periods the real federal deficits have increased at a rapid clip under GOP Presidencies... while either increasing at a smaller rate (or else actually being reduced) when the WH is in opposition hands.
Why?
Well... it could simply be that the tragic economic records left by Reagan and both Bushes have simply SKEWED the averages (for the 48 to 50 year period) so much that it's simply a problem with them (and not the "GOP"). Take their tragic 20 year span out of the historical record and the case for "GOP deficits" becomes statistically very much weaker.
Or, assuming a more 'positive' stance on the question... it could be that deficits (or surpluses) are mostly an *ancillary* thing.
And AFTER-EFFECT, a RESULTANT of other economic choices.
It has widely been argued that the post WW II "American Economic Miracle" is mostly a result of the rapid expansion of the American Middle Class --- a fairly new and radical thing on the world stage until America showed the way.
It could be that when the MIDDLE CLASS *grows* in wealth fast (a form of "Trickle UP" economic gestalt), then the American ECONOMY grows at it's fastest rates.
And... when the American economy grows fast, the rising tide 'lifts all boats', including FEDERAL REVENUES. (And so, the federal deficits are reduced / paid down during periods of fastest GNP growth rates!)
This would seem to be a fairly logical and commonsense sort of conclusion that, I imagine, most folks in both Parties could agree with:
A) FAST GNP growth results eventually in lower federal borrowing needs (and so the deficits and the national debt are reduced during these periods).
B) Keeping the Middle Class expanding and growing in wealth has been at the heart of the American post-WW II "Economic Miracle"... and is *still* the most important factor in keeping our economy strong and expanding. "Trickle UP".
It may simply be that some of the post WW II Dem Presidencies pursued policies that have benefited the American Middle Class more... not in a 'transfer payments' sort of paradigm but more in an "opportunity afforded" and "level playing field provided/enforced" kind of way.
And that that one simple factor explains some of the post WW II record on the federal deficits: "Trickle Down" may work... but "Trickle UP" simply works BETTER....
-------------------------------------
National Debt Down:
Real U.S. National Debt (measured against GNP) WENT DOWN under Kennedy/Johnson (-16.5%), slightly down under Nixon/Ford (-2.8%) & Carter's single four years (-3.2%)....
National Debt Up:
HUGELY INCREASED under Reagan/Bush (+20.5%), increased at an EVEN FASTER rate under H.W. Bush's single four years (+13.1%)....
Down:
Then WENT DOWN BIG again under Clinton (-8.8%)....
Up:
And UP BIG again under Bush the Younger (est. +10.8%).
en.wikipedia.org
It would seem that --- with a *48 year-long track record* to review (Presidents from 1960 through 2008)... some kind of evidential base is beginning to pile up... perhaps even a long-enough time span to draw a preliminary conclusion or two.... |
