The term "starve the beast" is attributed to one of Ronald Reagan's staffers in a Wall Street Journal article from 1985. It refers to cutting taxes on the wealthy in order to destroy the U.S. government, thus crippling it's ability to provide popular social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This philosophy is not fiscally responsible, though it's been the guiding principle for all of the conservative Republican administrations throughout my lifetime.
I was born in 1979 when we had very little national debt. The WWII generation had been good stewards of our economy. They learned the lessons of the Great Depression - only spending what they could afford, while building a society that was competitive. Since then, Republican administrations have applied for and promptly charged our national credit cards to the limit, leaving us and our children in peril. They hoped that our nation would eventually go bankrupt and leave all but the most-fortunate among us saddled with a national debt we could never repay.
That's the story of the dreaded 1980's. Growing up during the Reagan and Bush I presidencies, I stood helpless as I watched our national debt balloon into a huge threat to the country we love, as well as a massive political issue. As soon as a Democratic administration took power, I remember the Republicans campaigning on deficit reduction - they said we must stop government spending now! Luckily, President Clinton had the courage to stand up to them. Mr. Clinton shut down the government because he knew that debt reduction would take some time - and that debt reduction must happen hand-in-hand with economic growth. Rather than destroy our economy, Mr. Clinton stood with the working families in our country, and we eventually got a balanced budget and began paying off our national debt.
During the Bush II years, I saw irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy, unjustified wars, and the largest expansion of government in recent memory. As a result, our national debt exploded. All of the bullshit that the conservative Republicans spewed during the 1990's was a lie. It is now plain to see. As soon as they took control, they turned our serious debt problem into a grave catastrophe - and got us mired in two wars - and destroyed our economy.
...And now the tea-party crowd wants us to give them another shot. They want us to believe that conservatism is the true solution to our debt problem. Let us not forget history. This is a shameful political ploy. We must rebuild our economy first, and start to make the long-neglected necessary investments in our future. Only after that will we see real debt reduction.
I am a true champion of fiscal responsibility. As someone who was a powerless child when our nation's debt was amassed, I strongly resent past generations for leaving us in this position. Perhaps in the 1950s this was considered a "conservative" stance. But it is no longer. During my lifetime, the conservatives created the national debt as we know it - only a liberal president bothered to balance the budget. Let us not forget this. In the memorable words of The Who: "I get on my knees and pray that we don't get fooled again."
6 comments:
Overall I largely agree, but a few things:
First I don't quite have the "knight in shining armor" view of Clinton during the government shutdown. Saying that debt reduction then would have destroyed our economy is a bit of a stretch. This was not a feeble economy that was slowly being nursed back to health where any deviation could send us plummeting back into recession. In fact, as of Q4 1995, the economy had experienced real GDP growth in 19 straight quarters since the recession in '91. On balance, that's actually exactly the right time to implement spending reform - when things are going well and you don't have to. I saw that event then as I do now: a political game of chicken between Clinton and Gingrich which Clinton won. As a side note, there were a bunch of short-term budgets after the shutdown but the ultimate resolution didn't occur till April. And it involved neither side giving in: the economy was doing better than forecasted so the projected tax revenues were revised upwards and that closed the gap in the deficit. One of the rare political instances where the problem really did work itself out.
"They hoped that our nation would eventually go bankrupt and leave all but the most-fortunate among us saddled with a national debt we could never repay." - Come on now! This is the leftist equivalent of the right saying "Obama wants to destroy America!" It's nonsense. The actions someone takes are known and indisputable, but their intentions are not. Stick to criticizing the former, because the latter is usually just fear-mongering or name-calling.
As I read through this I instantly had going through my head how a Republican would respond to each of these points. I think that it comes down to a disparate view of history from 1980 - 2000. Simplifying extremely, here are the two versions:
Republicans - In 1980 Reagan took over and implemented necessary tax reforms. But since he had to deal with a Democratic Congress, in order to get those tax reforms through he needed to approve a lot of additional spending that he didn't really want. Bush came in and misguidedly raised taxes and was thrown out after one term. Then Clinton came into power and once people realized that he was just another free-spending leftist they overwhelmingly elected Republicans to take over both houses of Congress in 94. They were able to keep the spending in check and ushered in an era of unprecedented economic prosperity.
Democrats - In 1980 Reagan took over and although he preached smaller government he presided over the largest increase in government and the debt in history. Bush represented more of the same, and by 1992 the people had had enough and turned to Clinton. His moderate agenda of social reform, economic liberalization, and a balanced budget paved the way for the greatest economic expansion era in our history.
Both of these views can be supported by selectively looking at history. Notice how each party is able to take complete credit for the good times and blame all bad outcomes on actions from the other party.
I stopped at 2000 though, and I did this for a reason. 2000-2006 is the only time in the last 50 years where there has been both a Repub Cong and Pres. I don't understand how Republicans have a leg to stand on in blaming Dems for anything during this time(they certainly think everything is the Democrats fault now since they control both). I have yet to hear anyone provide a good explanation for why we saw massive debt expansion during this time. I usually just get a vague mumbling about "9/11 and two wars". I can get you the hard numbers, but I promise you that it doesn't even come close to explaining the deficit during these years. But my favorite explanation is "Bush came into power during a recession." So if it was ok to run a large deficit in 2000 and 2001 because of a recession, why is it suddenly a bad idea to do it in 2009? Oh, that's right, because it's not them doing it anymore it's the other party. This is a very valid point and I don't hear enough Democrats making it. Worse still, whenever they do make the point it's in the context of "during the Bush years" and people are just sick of hearing that. Bush is gone and unlike Cheney he prefers to keep his head down. They need to at least change the rhetoric to "during the last Republican-controlled Congress" because a lot of those Republicans are still there.
Thanks, John. Overall, I agree with your analysis, too, with a few caveats.
1. The Clinton Administration supported and passed deficit reduction reform legislation, albeit not the kind of drastic measures that were being proposed by Gingrich et all. History shows that Clinton's approach worked, though it's impossible to know what would've happened had we implemented what Gingrich and the Republicans wanted. My real conjecture from all of this, however, is that Gingrich and the Republicans wouldn't have passed their measures either if they were in power. Again, no way to be certain, but if you look at what they did once they took power in 2000, you find evidence that they would've raised the debt. That's actually kind of the point - conservatives always say they're against running massive debts when they're out of power. We see that today, and we saw that in the 1990s. I don't believe them - every time they get their hands on the government, they just create more debt. And we vote them out, and they blame everyone else and complain like hell. And the cycle continues, and our debt grows...
2. I agree that trying to determine someone's intentions is dangerous, and perhaps my language was a bit strong. But I'm just taking conservatives at their word. The guy that wrote the WSJ article is one of the brains behind "supply-side economics" (more commonly known as "trickle-down economics"), and he was the domestic policy advisor to Reagan, and a treasury official under Bush I. He's a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation (their tagline is "Conservative Policy and Research"), and worked for the libertarian Cato Institute in the early 1990s. From his 1985 WSJ article where he coined the term: "The idea is that if revenues are unilaterally reduced, this reduction will lead to a higher budget deficit, which will force legislators to enact spending cuts. Thus, using tax cuts to bring about spending cuts has been called 'starving the beast.'" The Economist defined it in a 2004 article at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2553322 (subscription required) as "American conservatives have sought to 'starve the beast', cutting the taxes that feed social spending." So while the language was harsh, the facts are correct, and the conservatives that created this term made no secret of their intentions.
3. I also generally agree with your talking-points analysis of history. The Republicans do try to blame the Democratic congress for spending during the 1980s. The fact is that Reagan had a veto pen, and so did Bush I and Bush II (who, as you acknowledge, was conveniently left out of those paragraphs). Either way, it proves my point that Republicans always blame everyone else for the deficits that are amassed on their watch. Reagan never shut down the government because of any out of control spending bills, in fact, both he and Bush II supported very irresponsible tax cuts ("starve the beast!"). And I really dislike the tone of your statement - "Notice how each party is able to take complete credit for the good times and blame all bad outcomes on actions from the other party." I mean, we could all just believe each side's talking points, say that the government is full of a bunch of irresponsible lunatics. and go home - but I think it's more nuanced than that.
4. Finally, I'd just like to call out what you wrote in the last comment - it needs to be repeated over-and-over, and I don't know why I'm not hearing it either -
"So if it was ok to run a large deficit in 2000 and 2001 because of a recession, why is it suddenly a bad idea to do it in 2009? Oh, that's right, because it's not them doing it anymore it's the other party. This is a very valid point and I don't hear enough Democrats making it."
Amen, brother John.
"I mean, we could all just believe each side's talking points, say that the government is full of a bunch of irresponsible lunatics, and go home - but I think it's more nuanced than that."
I don't. Politics is politics. The fact that we elect our leaders means that to stay in power a party will naturally tend to spin the facts to its own benefit. If citizens hang around with one side or the other, their views are eventually going to parallel that party's version of the facts. In effect, our political system actively encourages a splitting of history that makes it impossible for the two parties to engage in rational discourse.
You've got your MSNBC on one side, and your Fox News on the other. Both are equally guilty of choosing to be "right" first and fitting the facts to that conclusion later. And what happens when you allow those outlets to frame the national policy debates? You have Republican and Democratic constituents snarling at each other, calling each other idiots who are each out to destroy America either through willful injury or blind incompetence, and peppering their speech with smug phrases like "how much do you want to bet," "the sad fact is," and "once again."
Pointing fingers is easier than solving problems. That's why we do it so much.
Well, we certainly disagree. I believe that just because a media outlet such as Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or whoever says something doesn't necessarily make it true or untrue, regardless of "bias". And I believe it's productive to examine history ourselves, otherwise we won't learn anything. What I learned from my post is that just because someone calls themselves a fiscal conservative doesn't mean that they're fiscally responsible.
And I'm a little tired of the term "smug" being used to dismiss people outright. Webster defines it, as I believe you're using it, as and adjective meaning "highly self-satisfied". Wouldn't that mean that in your last post when you called "Republican and Democratic" constituents smug, you were in fact being rather smug yourself? Frankly, if someone's making an argument I listen to it, even if they're enjoying themselves while they're doing it.
So, it's OK to sit back and say that it's all spin, nobody's right, and you'd mostly be correct. However, when I said that I think there's more nuance to politics, I meant that there are real differences between parties, ideologies, and individual politicians. Not only do I think it's important to examine those differences, I actually enjoy it. And if that makes me smug in your opinion, so be it.
I would agree with the fact that it's important to look at the details of politicians' platforms and voting records, rather than making sweeping generalizations. You're right that it takes a lot more effort to find out those details and draw one's own conclusions. Since I don't always put in that effort I prefer to remove myself from arguments rather than engage when I'm uninformed (or informed based only on other people's interpretations of the facts). But you are trying to be conscientious and analyze the data for yourself, so I can't fault you for that.
Post a Comment