Bush Is Passing the Blame Along: The Buck NEVER Stops at Bush

Bush Is Passing the Blame Along: The Buck NEVER Stops at Bush

Post by Agent Smi » Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:16:39

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/18/opinion/18KRUG.html?ex=1059501020&e...
=8c11629c74839b6b

July 18, 2003
Passing It Along
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here's another sentence in George Bush's State of the Union address that
wasn't true: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along
our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other
generations."

Mr. Bush's officials profess to see nothing wrong with the explosion of the
national debt on their watch, even though they now project an astonishing
$455 billion budget deficit this year and $475 billion next year. But even
the usual apologists (well, some of them) are starting to acknowledge the
administration's irresponsibility. Will they also face up to its
dishonesty?
It has been obvious all along, if you were willing to see it, that the
administration's claims to fiscal responsibility have rested on thoroughly
cooked books.

The numbers tell the tale. In its first budget, released in April 2001, the
administration projected a budget surplus of $334 billion for this year.
More tellingly, in its second budget, released in February 2002 - that is,
after the administration knew about the recession and Sept. 11 - it
projected a deficit of only $80 billion this year, and an almost balanced
budget next year. Just six months ago, it was projecting deficits of about
$300 billion this year and next.

There's no mystery about why the administration's budget projections have
borne so little resemblance to reality: realistic budget numbers would have
undermined the case for tax cuts. So budget analysts were pressured to
high-ball estimates of future revenues and low-ball estimates of future
expenditures. Any resemblance to the way the threat from Iraq was
exaggerated is no coincidence at all.

And just as some people argue that the war was justified even though it was
sold on false pretenses, some say that the biggest budget deficit in
history
is justified even though the administration got us here with cooked
numbers.

Some point out that Ronald Reagan ran even bigger deficits as a share of
G.D.P. But they hope people won't remember that in the face of those
deficits, Mr. Reagan raised taxes, reversing part of his initial tax cut.

Furthermore, this time huge deficits have emerged just a few years before
the baby boomers start retiring and placing huge demands on Social Security
and Medicare. The Social Security system is running a surplus right now, in
preparation for future demands; the rest of the federal government is
paying
one-third of its expenses with borrowed money. That's a record.

But haven't administration officials said they'll cut the deficit in half
by
2008? Yeah, right. I could explain in detail why that claim is nonsense,
but
in any case, why bother with what these people say? Remember, just 18
months
ago they said they'd more or less balance the budget by 2004. Unpoliticized
projections show a budget deficit of at least $300 billion a year as far as
the eye can see.

The last defense of the budget deficit is that it helps a depressed
economy - to which the answer is "yes, but." Yes, deficit spending
stimulates demand - but tax cuts for the rich, which have dominated the
administration's economic program, generate very little employment bang for
the deficit buck. Of the 2.6 million jobs the economy has lost under the
Bush administration, 2 million have been lost since the 2001 tax cut.

And yes, deficits are appropriate as a temporary measure when the economy
is
depressed - but these deficits aren't temporary (see above).

Still, do deficits matter? Some economists worry, with good reason, about
their long-run effect on economic growth. But I worry most about America's
fiscal credibility.

You see, a government that has a reputation for sound finance and honest
budgets can get away with running temporary deficits; if it lacks such a
reputation, it can't. Right now the U.S. government is running deficits
bigger, as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into
crisis.
The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating
from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order.

But Mr. Bush shows no inclination to deal with the budget deficit. On the
contrary, his administration continues to fudge the numbers and push for
ever more tax cuts. Eventually, markets will notice. And tarnished
credibility, along with a much-increased debt, is a problem that Mr. Bush
will pass along to other Congresses, other presidents and other
generations.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company