Let’s have a discussion based on data and reality rather than economic theories. I have my theories, you have yours, and we probably all believe in portions of the theories of many economists, though it is nearly impossible to see many economic theories in pure practice due to all the external factors at play.

Since taking power, the party and administration of no personal responsibility has continually blamed the Bush administration while doing nothing to fix the real fiscal problems because (okay, one economics theory reference) “in the long run we’re all dead anyway” or whatever their reasons are. However, do not get me wrong here this is not a pro-Republican, anti-Democrat post, it is a “the problem with the federal government” post.

For purposes of simplicity, we’ll use data since 1980, though federal deficits have grown continually since 1970, with the exception of the Clinton years, who at least did bring us some fiscal sanity (the lack of which was probably Reagan’s greatest shortfall).

Since 2005 tax receipts have never been higher. Though there is some year to year variance, the fact is the federal government has never received as much annual tax revenue in any single year as it has each year since 2005. Meanwhile, since 2002, the deficit has increased annually. Therefore, Bush ran continual deficits that have been continued by the Obama administration, despite both have annual tax receipts higher than any other President in history. However, rather than balancing the budget with two years of a Democrat-controlled congress, President Obama only exaggerated the problem. With nearly the same annual revenues as in 2005 (revenues in trillions: 2005: $2.154, 2009: 2.105, 2010: 2.163) when federal expenditures were $2.472 trillion, the Obama budget led to federal expenditures of $3.518 trillion in 2009 and $3.456 trillion in 2010, or 42% and 40% more than in 2005 (source: The White House Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016).

DeficitsNow this does not mean Bush was a patron saint either. Although he had significantly higher revenues from 2006-2008, he continued to run a budget deficit. Additionally, as I said before, Reagan was not exactly fiscally responsible, rather Clinton set a better example (how often are you going to say that?).

However, if the past two years did not concern you, what is coming most definitely should. Again, per the White House Office of Management and Budget:

This government is drunk with spending which will destroy our country’s future. In your personal finances, if since 2002 you had spent between 6%-40% more than your income and put the rest on a credit card, where would you be? Would you keep spending money? This is the current state of our country. We cannot “spend money to keep from going bankrupt”, as Vice President Biden has proclaimed. However, every President’s actions for the past several decades have also espoused this nonsensical concept. Presidents from both parties are most definitely to blame, even the Republican’s sacred cow Ronald Reagan.

The time has come in this country to cut spending dramatically. We have already begun to see the effects of printing more and more money to cover these deficits. A prime example is the price of gasoline. Crude oil prices are pegged to the dollar. As the dollar is devalued by increasing supply, our dollars buy less.

The leaders of this country must have courage to take unpopular stances, because they are the right thing to do, much like Governors Walker and Christie. Social Security, Defense, and all federal handout programs cannot be protected. Salaries and benefits must be cut, as they have been overall in the private sector.

If we do not change, food may be the only currency of value left in this country.

By the way, this post was only about deficits. We didn’t even get into the national debt, which is even a bigger problem.

Comments