An amusing moment in the SOTU address occurred when Obama said:
There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay.
The Republicans roared their agreement. It was the only real point in the speech when they showed genuine emotion. But then Obama continued:
With the deficit we inherited…
And the Democrats roared back, mocking the Republicans. (And I think there was an ad lib in the middle where Obama mentioned that this was an issue where there was bipartisan agreement.)
The Republicans deserve to be mocked. All of a sudden they're worried about big government and deficits. But it is ironic for the Democrats to do the mocking. They haven't exactly been pushing for balanced budgets or reduced spending over the last eight years.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 10 comments }
This was idiocy from the Democrats. The Democrats House has originated the spending and taxing bills for the last 2 years, and the Democrat Senate has been approving them …
The last eight years? Were they EVER for less spending? It's easy to criticize the Republicans for over spending (and they deserve it), but let's not kid ourselves that the alternative party is somehow less fanatical about wasteful spending either in the last eight years or in any period before or since.
Switching from republicans controlling spending to democrats is like escaping a fiery death only to drive off a cliff on the way to the hospital.
This is the absurdity we find ourselves in — both parties quilty and pretending the other party is more guilty, neither able to believably claim Constitutional excellence, just a less degree of suckiness.
Russ-
The irony is great for sure. However someone needs to call out Obama on this talking point. Obama voted for Tarp. Obama voted for the 2008 Stimulus. He voted for the Housing Bill and the Farm Bill. Shall we mention S-Chip and the Porkulus?
Is it me or is it a bit disingenuous to say you inherited a deficit built on a raft of spending programs that you voted for as a Senator?
That is what they call Hope and Change. Feel Better?
Not me.
Matt,
EXACTLY
For the past 2 months this has absolutely flabbergasted me. There's now this notion of how thoroughly everything will "change" now that Obama is in power. He didn't just fall from heaven. He's been helping to run the country for a while now… If you want to know what the future looks like, just look at his voting record. I imagine they may be fairly similar…
Not to worry, Obama will halve the deficit…after he triples it.
This is like Brad DeLong going from eating 10 cheeseburgers a day to 30, then going on a diet of 15 a day.
Let me be open about the fact that I'm a liberal, hence less inclined to fins certain types of spending "wasteful" than most of the folks reading this blog. Having said that, it does seem to me that "borrow and waste" well describes Rep governance in recent years. We shall see whether the Dems under Obama's leadership can achieve "balance and invest" or whether they backslide into the old "tax and spend" ways.
Ok the Republican deficit was 200B/13T or 1.5% of GDP at the end of 2006 when they surrendered control to the DEMS. Today it is roughly 11% of GDP and growing. Give me a break, the Reps HAVE A LOT TO STAND UP FOR. By a factor of at least 6 they have been better on the deficit. They were against the porkulus, the TARP and compared to now, have held the line on spending. The Reps rule was not perfect, but was a lot better than what we have now.
Orlando –
I agree. I think we have to realize that the political economy, such as it is, a 1.5% annual budget deficit is probably the equivalent of Full Employment.
It is not so big that it crowds out a tremendous amount of investment or be overly inflationary.
I would prefer zero, but what is perfect?
Another mitigating factor is that if the economy is growing at a 3% clip, and considering that inflation does eat away part of the deficit, and that means that as a % of GDP, the national debt will fall over time.
I am a huge enemy of measuring the debt or spending against GDP.
One has to ask, why does the increased productivity and wealth of a society raise the cost of governing it?
It should not. The idea that spending has to grow at the rate of nominal GDP is downright absurd.
A more productive private sector is not more expensive to govern. If anything the productivity growth in the private sector should bleed into the public sector and REDUCE the cost of governing.
Shouldn't face recognition technology and police cameras reduce the cost of policing our streets?
Should not the IT revolution have caused a wave of productivity in the public sector?
YES! IT SHOULD!
Why do we have so many more workers then?