Originally published at AlterPolitics
The former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, is now rebuking the popular GOP Supply-Side talking point (as recently trumpeted by Mitch McConnell) that tax cuts increase revenues, and therefore help reduce deficits:
“They should follow the law and let [Bush's tax cuts] lapse,” Greenspan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Conversations with Judy Woodruff,” citing a need for the tax revenue to reduce the federal budget deficit. [...]
Greenspan, in a telephone conversation after his Bloomberg TV interview was taped, said his position is that all the expiring Bush tax cuts should end, for middle-class and high- income families alike.
Ending the cuts “probably will” slow growth, Greenspan, 84, said in the TV interview. The risk posed by inaction on the deficit is greater, he said.
“Unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook, we are going to have major problems,” said Greenspan, who led the U.S. central bank from 1987 to 2006. “I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward.”
Here, he more or less lays responsibility for the huge deficit problems we now face at the doorsteps of the Bush Administration:
Greenspan said reducing the deficit is “going to be far more difficult than anybody imagines” after “a decade of major increases in federal spending and major tax cuts.”
Ironic, this coming from the guy who foolhardily endorsed Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, thereby helping to lay the ground work for the massive deficit expansion.
Regardless, this will hopefully take some of the wind out of the GOP/Tea Party sails — these self-proclaimed ‘fiscal warriors’. After all, they have championed two grotesquely incompatible positions: debt reduction AND tax cuts.
Tax cuts have long been the cornerstone of the Republican platform due to their obvious political popularity. But the GOP has recently made debt reduction their ‘call to action’. After they bequeathed a tumultuous economic disaster to an incoming President Obama, the GOP knew he would be forced — as was called for by every credible economist in the world — to increase federal spending to keep the country from spiraling into a full blown depression. It gave the GOP a quick recipe for attack: “Obama is just another big spending ‘socialist’ Democrat, intent on creating runaway deficits”. They hoped to shift at least some of the blame for the staggering deficits they created onto him. Disingenuous?–obviously, but they knew their low-information (propaganda devouring) base would swallow it, hook, line and sinker, and they did.
But a week ago their credibility as self-proclaimed ‘deficit hawks’ was called into question by none other than Chris Wallace (their own mascot) on The Fox News Channel (their home field). And the ensuing fallout continues to reverberate across the main stream media and blogosphere.
The Washington Post recently posed the following question to the GOP:
The issue is whether the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended, adding another $678 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The tax cuts, it’s worth remembering, passed originally in 2001 with the argument that the surplus was so large that rates could be cut with budgetary room to spare. Now that the fiscal picture has deteriorated so badly, the questions remains: How are you going to pay the $678 billion? And if you don’t, how are you going to justify the added damage to an already grim fiscal outlook?
If the GOP hopes to have any chance at recasting themselves as ‘deficit hawks’ to anyone left of their wing-nut base, they will have to address this glaring contradiction. They cannot continue to defend tax cuts for the rich, and still claim they intend to be fiscally prudent next time around.



12 Comments

good post of a good idea for a good riddance.
Your wrong the “Voodoo economists” and their huge rt. wingnut cheering section still believe even after 30 yrs to the contrary that tax cuts for the wealthy promote growth and reduce the deficits. Yea, maybe in China where the wealthy have their cash stashed but sure as hell not in this country. The facts don’t matter to these people.
Thanks mac.
I agree seaglass, up to a point. I think the Left has done a horrific job at educating the public about the impact Reagan’s policies had on the national debt.
They more or less dropped the ball (just as they’ve done with George W. Bush — the whole ‘look forward not backward’ approach). They let the Right redefine Reagan’s legacy, based largely on lies. Before long it get so out of hand they began to name airports, buildings, and everything else after Reagan, and every Republican President now talks about Reagan as if he was the best thing to ever happen to us.
Had they kept hammering home the message of the staggering debt that Reganomics (Supply Side economics) left us, we probably wouldn’t have had to relive it under George W. Bush’s economic policies.
However, I tend to believe that the 28% (the base) won’t be convinced of anything outside of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. But the GOP seriously needs to win the middle to win elections these days. And I suspect the middle can be convinced to some degree that tax cuts do not increase revenues, if the message is repeated loudly and often.
This comment is even better than the post.
If I could recommend a comment, I would.
Thanks again mac. I think setting the record straight on Reagan is probably one of the Left’s most gargantuan mistakes. They’ve allowed the opposition to re-brand Ronald Reagan — one of their biggest failures on nearly every policy front — as some kind of conservative ‘messiah’.
If the Left had capitalized on Reagan’s failures — message-wise, I suspect the Republican Party would look very different, policy-wise, than the one we see today. They’d have been forced to find better ideas to promote.
absolutely. letting him pull all that “I’m too old and addled and sleepy to remember” crap and walk off without a kick in his ass was a dreadful error.
:)
What does “adding $678 billion to the deficit over the next decade” mean? Is what is meant “adding $678 billion to the debt over the next decade”? The debt and the deficit are different, but related, concepts. The deficit is calculated in 1 fiscal year and is equal to the shortfall of revenue versus expenditures. The debt is basically the accumulation of all past deficits.
Adding $678 billion to the deficit over the next decade means the deficit in fiscal year 11 would be $678 billion higher than the deficit in fiscal year 1.
Adding $678 billion to the debt means adding about $60 billion each fiscal year to the deficit, for a total at the end of the decade of something like $678 billion in debt. The $60 billion shortfall in year 1 is paid for by borrowing. So at the end of year 2 the debt is $60 billion from year 1, plus interest, and a new $60 billion more. At the end of year 3, the debt is the shortfall from year 1 and 2 years’ interest, plus the shortfall from year 2 and a year’s interest, plus a new $60 billion more. And so on. So at the end of 10 years there is approximately $678 billion more in debt than if the tax cuts were allowed to expire before the decade begins.
I understand that “adding $678 billion to the deficit over the next decade” is the WaPo’s expression or maybe Wallace’s.
Fair point. The terms are often used interchangeably in the media even though your distinction is correct. The WaPost may have been thinking of it as a sort of running deficit, over the next ten years — i.e. ‘Bush’s tax cuts for the rich are committing us to $678 billion in annual deficit accumulation over the next ten year period’.
Either way it’s a commitment to close to $700 billion in debt from supposed ‘deficit hawks’.
“The terms are often used interchangeably in the media.” Exactly.
The budget deficit is calculated in 1 fiscal year. Fiscal year 2010 ends 9/30/10. The deficit so far for 2010, with 3 months left in the fiscal year, has just passed $1 trillion.
The national debt, on the other hand, is on the order of $13 trillion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
A running, accumulating budget deficit becomes or is national debt.
You’re 100% correct. I’m in no way debating that fact.
This is where I’m guessing the media’s word choice gets muddled. For instance, the WaPost said this: “$678 billion to the deficit over the next decade.” — the fact it said ‘over the next decade’ give you an indication the editor knew the difference between deficit and debt.