As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.
This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.
So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?
I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):
So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.
But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:
Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)
Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)
So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).
Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.
The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.
In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.
Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.
Debt and GDP data
15 comments:
Oh, that's the blog entry you were talking about! Ah yes.
I believe you, but unfortunately I am drunk enough to believe most anything.
Thats our girl.
I don't know about the years before ~1980, but a lot of what you are talking about in the last 30 has to do with liberal socialism and the quandary of the 3%.
Year to year, the government is never cheaper. Spending in 1980 was $940 billion in 1980 and it has gone up every year to $5.2 trillion in 2008. (From here)
I know this is a simplified outlook and other factors (inflation) have to be taken into account, but it is fair to say that spending has gone up every year. This is probably your problem with the Republicans and their so called deficit hawks.
The difference between the two parties is really that Democrats come in and raise taxes for the things they want to pay for. It is the richest Americans paying 39% as opposed to 36% (amongst other things) that allowed the surplus under Clinton. It sure wasn't a ton of budget cuts.
I think what it comes down to is that the Republicans paint the Democrats as the party of "Tax & Spend" while the Republicans themselves are the party of "Spend and Tax a little less that the Democrats and worry about it later."
sorry, for some reason that link got wonky.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php
I got a topic for you. Nuclear weapons. Obviously North Korea’s missile test has got me thinking about the subject. Sure, in a perfect world, no one would have them. But lately I’m uncomfortable with the idea that some countries should be allowed to have them and some shouldn’t. Isn’t that asking a lot of the non-weapon-holding country, to have as their only security guarantee (if it can be called that) their neighbor's word? Imagine, what if… I don’t know… Australia, had weapons and we didn’t? We’d freak, right? And even though we get along with Australia, we don’t have a guarantee that we always will, so would we really be satisfied with them telling us, “Trust us?” Really? I mean, really? Sure, they probably wouldn’t bomb us, if they liked us. But who’s to predict whether we’d always be in their favor. We’d have no way to defend ourselves should they change their minds. And more importantly, no way to discourage them from messing with us in the first place.
So, that’s point A. Point B, I’m thinking about smaller-scale arms races, like gun control in urban centers. The bad guys get guns on the black market, and law-abiding citizens get them legally or not at all... would everyone be safer if they were armed? The NRA, rural, shotguns, hunting demographic would say... “Everyone’s got a gun and knows how to use it. We trust each other not to use them when they're not necessary, and to be ready and willing to use them when there is a real threat. Thus we're all safer for it.” Mix it all up, transfer the argument to nuclear weapons, and do you agree?
Point C, the drug war. John, you’ve just made the argument that drugs should be legal because people are going to do them anyway. So should nuclear weapons be legal? To all countries?
Go. And none of this answering only part of my question like last time. :( Harrumph.
Blame it on my reptilian brain, and its survival instinct, but I'm okay with being one of the few nations that has nuclear arms, or any other type of weapon. I don't think it's necessary to be fair or equal when it comes to the defense of our country.
Imagine the last twenty years if we were required (through some doctrine of fairness during times of peace) to give the Iraqis nuclear weapons. Remember, we were allies to them during some of Saddam Hussein's regime. And Afghanistan was an ally while they fought the Soviet Union. How about being fair with them and hooking them up with a few nuclear tipped cruise missiles?
Besides, we've proven to be relatively responsible wards of nuclear power, even having used them twice. No need to mention the few "broken arrow" situations, Weir... I know about them. But we've never had one accidentally go off or sent or sold it to terrorists.
Now, we HAVE lost a few (11 according to the Brookings Institute), and that is extremely distressing. But I still trust us more than I trust, for example, Jamaica. Besides, lost is not really the right word for it. More accurately, they were not recovered. Some of the reasons were: it was too dangerous or would involve likely loss of life; we were unable to retrieve the device, so no one could; the attempt to retrieve the device would divulge secret information, etc.
This topic did cause me to dig up some really interesting research though. Thanks Becky!
I can't compete with you and your research, Mike. I respect that you went to some actual effort there! Me, I was just trying for a mimimal-effort, philosophical argument (yes, the same ones I make fun of because they don't necessarily relate to reality). But, with that said, I do still want to pull apart one thing about your comment, which is: "I'm okay with being one of the few nations that has nuclear arms, or any other type of weapon." And my devil's advocate response would be, of course you're okay with it. But imagine if the tables were turned?
I'm fully with you on the practicalities of the situation. Yes, we have proven to be pretty responsible owners of nuclear weapons. And to give them away free and clear to anyone who asked wouldn't be responsible. In the end I guess we continue as we have been... but I'm just saying, I've got a little niggling question about how it is we know that in 50, 100, 1,000 years we won't be the irresponsible ones who should not have been left in charge of the nuclear weapons, if we decide to start a little somethin' somethin' and no one can stop us. I.e. we believe we are (key word, believe) we are the "good guys," so it's good that we have the weapons. But what if we become the bad guys? (Or already are?)
*stir, stir* :)
Becky,
Bit demanding aren't we?
OK, point A. I have discussed this with Joe at great length because it's one of the few issues where I am significantly to the left of him. I could write about a 15-page paper of my thoughts on the subject, but I'll just give the short version. I'm for getting rid of all nukes. I believe this for two reasons. First, the idea of being able to keep countries from getting nukes is fundamentally unsustainable. It would be like going back in time 250 years and trying to stop some countries from getting the musket. It's technology and, short of the end of civilization, that which has been learned cannot be unlearned. Hence I think our eventual choice is really all nuclear countries or no nuclear countries. Second, it's what we've already agreed to do! The part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty that gets all the press is the agreement that there would be no new nuclear weapon countries. But there is another part of the treaty that speaks to disarmament of current arsenals:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
Point B: I don't buy the NRA (and Ann Coulter btw) argument that more guns makes us safer. But, I still support an individual's right to own a gun. I just think that we need some better gun legislation and regulations. The Mexican government is rightfully annoyed with us because 90% of the guns (by some estimates) they are seizing from their drug cartels were purchased here. I think with some simple measures (e.g. mandatory waiting periods, background checks) we could significantly cut down on problems like that. The trouble is that anyone who wants to introduce tougher gun measures causes some groups to completely flip out. For example, even though consumer purchases were way down in November and December, gun sales were up significantly due to people worrying about Obama changing the gun laws.
Point C: Well, that isn't exactly what I said. The jist of my point on drugs was 1) it should be a personal decision and 2) the current laws aren't working anyway. To tie this into point B, we are currently annoyed with Mexico because most of the drugs authorities seize here originate from there. Right now we have a pretty strict policy on drugs and a pretty lax policy on guns, and I think that just the opposite is what's called for.
Yes, I am demanding. And? :) No, thanks to both you and Mike for such lengthy and thought-provoking responses!
John, I really like one thing you said--it's what I was trying to articulate but couldn't: "The idea of being able to keep countries from getting nukes is fundamentally unsustainable." I'm saying. We can't keep this up forever. We need to get things to a new equilibrium, either getting rid of all, or arming all. You and I went in opposite directions for the solution, but we share a fundamental argument.
However, I tend to think, and you've even said as much... that technology once learned by one will eventually be learned by many. It's knowledge--we'll never be able to kill it. It's out there. If we were to say to all the established governments and above-board entities that they need to toss that knowledge out the window, I wonder a couple things. First, would they? We kept samples of the bubonic plague, didn't we? For... a rainy day? It's our warring, distrustful nature. And then secondly, so even if everyone who's playing by the rules throws their nuke-knowledge out the window, I doubt the shadowy bad-guy entities would.
That's why I'm thinking, considering human nature... we have to go with arms for everybody.
I agree that nuclear disarmament is the best way to go, but I disagree that it's impossible to keep the genie in the bottle. The knowledge may be available. In fact, I could describe in great detail the working mechanics of a nuclear device. It's just not easy to build. And it takes a lot of money. And it takes a lot of time. And it takes a lot of experimenting. All of the materials are controlled substances, with the greatest levels of security. Then there's the fact that we have satellites searching all over the planet looking for the completely obvious and totally un-hideable bomb factories.
Yeah, no one gets the bomb without us knowing it, unless it's given to them under the table.
John...
"90% of the guns (by some estimates) they are seizing from their drug cartels were purchased here."
This stat is wrong. The deal is only about seventeen percent of all seized weapons were traceable. The rest were not sent back to the US because they had obvious markings from other countries (such as China, who apparently doesn't care about Mexican/US border relations... SHOCKING!) Only about half of those were traceable to the US. Nearly all of those traceable weapons traced to the US were sold directly from the manufacturer with permission from the state department directly to the Mexican military and police.
Virtually no privately owned weapons were traced back to the US.
And Becky... We're signatories to treaties banning development of biological agents for weaponization. We have samples of every known disease at the CDC in Atlanta, and probably other locations as well, so we can study them.
And I thought I (capital letters) was the conspiracy theorist!
:-)
I'll steal a couple quotes from the West Wing:
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"
(Those stats were verified by someone else, although they are, of course, politically slanted.)
And about a certain second amendment:
"We can't all just agree it's a stupid-ass amendment that was written before there were street lamps, much less police forces, and move on?"
Guns were important BACK THEN for individual protection and security, but it was a time that there were no telephones or 911 or police cars or, or, or...
If someone is breaking into your home on your farm (circa 1776) and the closest living person is miles away, you needed a gun for protection. But those days are long gone, and technology has eliminated the need for a common citizens need to own a gun.
On a much larger scale, M.A.D. has worked for a long time, but with advances in miniaturization it will not work forever. M.A.D. doesn't work with crazy people and a nuke the size of briefcase. And whoever said it was right, you can easily detect who is trying to build THE bomb. The requirements are easily noticed.
The bigger threat, IMO, is the dirty bomb that basically requires only a test tube and an M80.
No, we can't all just agree that it's a "stupid ass amendment". I think that's the problem here.
Regardless, what is the point of gun control? Is it to limit the total number of guns available to law abiding citizens, or to criminals? In the case of the law abiding citizen; why the need to limit their access to guns? In the case of the criminal; What makes you think that they will all of a sudden say "hey, robbing this store is illegal, but using a gun makes it REALLY illegal, so I better just leave the gun at home for this one"?
Now on to the statistics. Those are disputed. There is an article by John Steele in The Electronic Telegraph that reports British law enforcement under reports crime statistics by 20%.
This more recent report upholds that claim: http://tinyurl.com/5mypae
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3245966/Serious-violent-crime-under-reported-for-a-decade.html
Here's some more information cribbed from Gunowners.Org:
Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."
After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."
According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.
Aside from the Constitutional issues, and you can try for an amendment if that's your wish, there's the common sense issue. I'd be the first in line to vote for an amendment if there was an absolute and total guarantee that every gun held by police, military, hunter, or criminal in every country in the world were to be turned in and destroyed, along with any ability to manufacture any guns in the future.
That can't be done, though. And as such, I'm happier that I have the right to be on equal terms with all of those other gun holders. BTW, why do you put SO much trust in the police? Oh yeah, you're white.
Amusing coincidence. The new Economist arrived today with the cover title "a world without nuclear arms."
I find it conflicting that you would (or do) feel safer having a gun because the criminals have guns, while maintaining that the US can dictate nuclear policy to the world.
Right or wrong (and I believe wrong) N. Korea and Iran see the US as untrustworthy and as some type of enemy and have taken steps toward the production of Nukes to defend themselves (allegedly) and yet the US (and UN) feel that they can dictate to these (so called) terrorist and/or communist regimes.
But I don't see us coming to any sort of middle ground on the gun issue.
John, we need a new blog entry! Do you want a suggestion, 'cause I got one! I don't want to always be forcing my discussion topics on your blog, though, so I can keep quiet.
Post a Comment