This supposed “analysis” tells us the following on the matter of President Obama’s response when questioned about the economy during his prime-time press conference last night…OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.Wow.
THE FACTS:
Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
After reading that excerpt from what reporter Calvin Woodward wrote (along with Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn), I have back up and tell you something (tempted to ask, “are you Freking kidding me?” – bad joke, I know…and don’t ask me what that “in Missouri” reference is supposed to be about).
For better or worse, I’ve worked on and maintained this blog for about four years. I’m not looking for applause or anything by pointing that out; the only reason I mention it is because, in the process of putting together over 4,000 posts (damn, that’s a lot of bloviating), I’ve read and seen a lot, and it’s hard for me to be shocked (the comments by Virginia Foxx on Matthew Shepard that I included in the Olbermann video last night qualify, though).
This AP “analysis,” though, shocks me also.
I’m not sure what it says about the AP that they can produce something like this, which pretends that the Republican congresses under Dubya from 2000-2006 never existed (have to put an asterisk next to ’02-’04, though, which was 50-49-1 because of Jim Jeffords’ switch from Republican to Independent - and speaking of Jeffords, I thought this was interesting in the "past is prologue" department). Does the AP really think that their audience is that STOO-PID to forget about how more than the first half of this decade saw this country laboring under the yoke of total Repug non-governance? Or are they that jaded and cynical to produce this column ignoring that history and think that it doesn’t matter?
Apparently, though, it is necessary for me to fill in that gap with the history that they, for whatever reason, chose to utterly ignore.
As noted from here…
In January 2007, when Representative Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, a dozen years of Republican control of Congress officially came to an end. What legacy did Republicans leave in terms of the budget process and budget policy? Three Congresses (104th, 105th, and 106th) worked under conditions of divided government, the last three (107th, 108th, 109th) primarily under unified Republican control of government.2Any of this starting to “ring a bell,” AP? And as noted here…
The beginning and the end of these two eras certainly seem different. In 1995 and 1996, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republicans tried to use the budget process to force their priorities on a defensive President Clinton. A dozen years later, Congress could not enact a budget resolution to guide appropriators, could not agree on restoring pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), could not pass 11 of 13 appropriations bills, and in the end, could not even enact an omnibus appropriations bill to fund agencies through the rest of the year. In the 1990s, Republican Congresses confronting a Democratic president were able to balance the budget. In the 2000s, Republican Congresses working with a Republican president saw fiscal discipline decline, earmarks and supplemental appropriations grow exponentially, and the deficits balloon.
…
(In 2001) Bush submitted a plan for $1.6 trillion in cuts over ten years including sharp reductions in income taxes, elimination of estate taxes, and other reductions. The House of Representatives wanted to move the tax cut package quickly, even before the budget resolution was adopted. Some of the most enthusiastic tax-cutters were talking about cuts as high as $2.2 trillion over ten years. With the size of the surplus, most Democrats felt that some tax cuts were appropriate and a consensus began to emerge among them for a figure of around $900 billion. Despite the narrow majority in the House, party discipline was so strong that Republicans had no difficulty in approving a huge tax cut.
…
Two years later, the attacks of September 11, a war in Afghanistan, a sagging economy and a return to budget deficits, all contributed to a changed political environment. Based on his tough stance against terrorism, Bush’s party recaptured the House and Senate setting the stage for another round of tax cuts in 2003. Republicans also made an important rule change by revising the way that the cost of tax bills was assessed. They adopted a system of “dynamic scoring” which projected future revenue gains based on tax cuts and made the revenue losses in the future appear smaller. Democrats argued that the system was bogus and designed to mislead taxpayers.
Bush originally wanted tax cuts in 2003 as large as $1.57 trillion, but focused primarily on a package of $726 billion with much of the revenue loss coming from a reduction of taxes on stock dividends. Despite Republican support, the size of the tax cuts continued to shrink as they made their way through the legislative process. With concerns about the economy, growing deficits, and increased military spending, Congress ultimately approved cuts of $350 billion over ten years.
…
(In the wake of Katrina, the war in Iraq, and Repug congressional antics primarily involving Tom DeLay), Democrats and the media talked about a culture of corruption surrounding the Congress. All this would contribute to the loss of both houses of Congress to the Democrats in the 2006 elections. But even before this, in 2005 and 2006, Bush’s budgets no longer set the agenda in Congress and Republicans proved more fractious. No budget resolution at all was enacted in 2006 making it three out of four years that Congress had failed to produce a budget resolution. Two of these were under unified party control.
Other problems had emerged with the congressional process under the Republican Party. Although the budget process still served as a key set of institutions supporting majority rule in the legislative process, it had become less of a tool for fiscal restraint under unified Republican control in the 2000s. During the 1990s, under both President Bush and President Clinton, budget procedures were critical in enacting major deficit reduction legislation. Once the budget was in surplus, Republicans appeared less interested in fiscal restraint. Congressional appropriators were under less constraint from the budget resolution, and earmarks for special state and local projects exploded. Republicans failed to extend some of the rules that had made it possible to balance the budget in the 1990s. Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, requiring offsets for tax cuts or spending increases, were allowed to expire in 2002. Republican critics feared that they would lead to tax increases to pay for new programs and labeled it “tax-as-you-go.”
Emergency provisions were used frequently after 2001. Billions and billions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror were passed under emergency provisions outside of the constraints of the budget process. The party of small government and balanced budgets had created a new prescription drug entitlement program in hopes of attracting support from senior citizens. Critics within the party despaired about their party’s budget record and said there was no longer even an attempt to disguise its record of expanding big government. Between 2001 and 2006, federal spending increased by 45 percent. The taste for bold conservative budgets, so apparent in 1995, seemed long gone.
And who benefitted from this fiscal profligacy (or, more precisely, who didn't)? As noted here from 2006…Even using inflation adjusted dollars, Republicans increased spending from $1.789 trillion in Fiscal Year 2000 to $2.247 trillion in Fiscal Year 2006. Republicans even increased spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product. In FY 2000, federal government spending accounted for 18.4% of GDP, but by FY 2006 that had risen to 20.3%. In Fiscal Year 2000, the government banked a surplus of $236 billion, but for (Fiscal Year) 2008, the Bush Administration project(ed) a mirror image deficit of $239 billion. During joint Republican control of the White House and Congress the deficit hit an all time record of $412 billion.
Since 2001, a wide range of domestic priorities have been shortchanged to make room for the President’s tax cuts. For example:Now I will not tell you that the Democrats are perfect either; the Farm Bill passed last year with no decrease in agribusiness subsidies during a time of high wheat prices (an incredibly rare bit of agreement between yours truly and Dubya), but there was plenty of other good in the legislation to offset that, IMHO.
College Affordability — Since 2001, the cost of attending a four-year public college increased $3,095 – a whopping 34 percent – while the share of these costs paid by Pell Grants has dropped from 42 percent to only 30 percent. Meanwhile, House Republicans froze the maximum Pell Grant for four straight years.
Healthcare Access — More than 46 million Americans are without health insurance – nearly seven million more than in 2000. Efforts to expand healthcare access through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) have lost 8 percent of their purchasing power compared to two years ago. Health professionals programs aimed at bringing more doctors and dentists to underserved communities were cut by 45 percent in actual dollars compared to 2005. Maternal and child healthcare grants lost 24 percent of their purchasing power compared to 2002.
Energy Independence — In 2002, we imported 58 percent of our oil. Last year, we imported 65 percent. Yet we invest only 1/5 of what we did 30 years ago under President Carter in the energy research that can help us break our dangerous addiction to foreign oil. Instead of making a substantial new investment in this research, Republicans handed billions of dollars of subsidies to big energy companies.
Worker Training — Seven million Americans remain unemployed — one million or 17 percent more than in 2001 – and more than 1.3 million Americans have been jobless for more than 26 weeks – nearly double the number in 2001. Yet, in real terms, Republicans have cut job training and employment service efforts by $1.3 billion in just two years.
Educational Opportunity — Record public school enrollments, stringent No Child Left Behind mandates, and continuing fiscal pressures are making it difficult for states to invest in schools. Yet, federal funding for No Child Left Behind fell almost $16.4 billion short of what was promised for 2007. For 2007, Republicans cut No Child Left Behind for the second year in a row – nearly $500 million below last year and $1.5 billion below two years ago.
Law Enforcement — September 11th showed that first responders, and particularly our nation’s law enforcement officers, are the first line of defense in case of a terrorist attack. Yet House Republicans have cut state and local law enforcement funding by 47 percent since 2001 – from roughly $4.5 billion to about $2.4 billion for 2007.
Veterans’ Healthcare — The VA has been unable to keep up with the increasing demand for veterans’ healthcare. In 1995, VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. In fiscal year 2006, the Department expects to treat more than twice that number – 5.4 million. In addition, many VA hospitals and facilities are old and in need of repair – improvements that could cost billions over the next five to ten years. Yet, House Republicans fell short by $1.2 billion in 2004 and $1 billion in 2005 of providing enough funding to maintain current services in the VA healthcare system.
Homeland Security Shortchanged – Despite substantial increases since September 11, 2001, America’s borders, ports and transit systems remain vulnerable to attack. Yet, inexplicably, Republicans have been underfunding – and even cutting – critical homeland security investments.
For example, President Bush and the Republican Congress cut funding for our nation’s first responders (in 2005). (That) year, House Republicans cut funding for our nation’s first responders by 32 percent compared to 2003 – from $5.97 billion to just $4.08 billion. Republicans have cut first responder funding even as a recent report – previously withheld from public view by the Bush administration – reveals that America’s firefighters still do not have the tools they need to respond to a terrorist attack. For example, this report shows that:
• Fire departments only have enough portable radios for 36 percent of emergency responders per shift.
• 28 percent of firefighters per shift do not have self-contained breathing apparatus and 34 percent of all self-contained breathing apparatus is at least 10 years old.
• Only ¼ of all fire departments can communicate with all of their partners who may respond to catastrophes, such as other nearby fire department, state emergency responders and Federal agencies with response duties.
(This is not) the time to be shortchanging homeland security investments. Yet that is exactly what happened under President Bush and the Republican Congress.
The war in Iraq - Despite significant increases in the Defense Department’s budget, the war in Iraq has left the U.S. Army’s readiness at its lowest level in decades. The degradation of Army readiness is directly due to the sustained troop deployments to Iraq and the pace of operations that has worn out equipment at an unusually fast rate. Unfortunately, the Administration’s use of supplemental appropriations to fund war operations has made the situation worse. The Administration often does not submit supplemental requests until well after the Army needs the funding to pay for ongoing operations. As a result, the Army is forced to delay certain activities, such as maintenance of equipment, until supplemental appropriations are approved.
Congressional Republicans have ended their stewardship (in '06) by failing to finish their work on a budget for this year, flawed as that budget may have been. As a result, the (110th) Congress (was) forced to pass a long-term joint funding resolution. Certainly, a Republican majority that walks away from this obligation forfeits its right to complain about any action that Democrats are forced to take on budget and appropriations bills next year to clean up their chaotic mess.
But this AP “hit piece” by Woodward and company is scurrilous all the same (there’s a vague remark about the Iraq War “draining federal coffers” for six years, but no other reference to the ’00-’06 congresses – and by the way, all prior presidents in this country until Ronald Reagan managed to either balance our budgets or provide a surplus during time of war).
And would that we had heard all of the big-media whining about “bipartisanship” when the current minority party was in charge – perhaps if we had, we would not be quite so engulfed in red ink from a Repug president and a congress who actually believed two wars could be financed by tax cuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment