Trump epitomizes the GOP’s fiscal irresponsibility, hypocrisy

CFRB1Remember what the economy was like back in January 2009?

The stock market was in the middle of an historic collapse, on the way to losing roughly half its value, and an astounding 800,000 jobs would disappear that month alone. The construction industry in particular had been gutted, especially here in Georgia, and to stop the worst recession in 80 years from becoming an actual depression, incoming President Barack Obama had proposed a major economic stimulus package to Congress.

In addition to $288 billion in tax cuts inserted in an effort at compromise with Republicans, Obama’s proposal included $105 billion in infrastructure spending to put laid-off construction workers back on the job. Republicans hated it. They condemned it, they fought it, they ridiculed it as a waste of taxpayers money that would do nothing but increase the deficit. It was, they told us, a matter of principle.

In the end, the stimulus passed into law, but it did so without a single GOP vote in the House and with only three GOP votes in the Senate. According to later analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the package saved several million American jobs and prevented a much deeper disaster.

It is now 2016. Today, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is proposing an infrastructure program that would dwarf that proposed by Obama and summarily rejected by Republicans back in 2009. In fact, Trump’s infrastructure proposal would cost at least five times more than the Obama plan. At more than $550 billion, the Trump plan is also more than double the size of the infrastructure program proposed by Hillary Clinton.

And how would he finance that spending? Through deficit spending. Or as Trump put it, “we’ll get a fund.”

So cup your hand to your ear — what do you hear? Do you hear the sound of Republicans howling about big government and the dangers of deficit spending, as they did in 2009? No, oddly, you do not. You hear the sound of them NOT howling. You hear many of them applauding and cheering. What was anathema under Obama at a time of the nation’s greatest economic peril in four generations suddenly becomes acceptable now, when it is five times as expensive and proposed by a Republican.

It’s hard to imagine a more stark example of putting partisan politics above national interests. But wait, there’s more …

perdue-make-america-great-300x248Some of the loudest applause and cheers for Trump are coming from U.S. Sen. David Perdue of Georgia. After Trump’s economic speech Monday in Detroit, where he reiterated his infrastructure proposal, Perdue lauded the GOP nominee, embracing his “bold vision” and his plan to “deliver results through lower taxes, less regulation, and solving our debt crisis.”

Note that last part about “solving our debt crisis.” In addition to a half-trillion-dollar infrastructure program, Trump has proposed huge tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich, and also promises to significantly increase spending on the military and expand entitlement programs. Yet Perdue still wants the people of Georgia to believe that his man Mr. Trump is some champion of deficit reduction.

Take a look at this analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is dedicated to debt reduction and to putting the country on “a sustainable fiscal course”. It compares the financial impact of tax and spending proposals by Hillary Clinton and Trump through late June, which means that it doesn’t yet include Trump’s infrastructure spending or the vague revisions in his tax plan announced Monday.

Nonetheless, it gives you a pretty good idea of what’s afoot:

crfb

Over the next decade, Clinton’s plans on both the revenue and spending sides would increase the national debt by $250 billion. Trump’s plans would increase the debt by $11.5 trillion, or 46 times as much as Clinton. (The same numbers drive the chart posted at the top of this blog.)

So please, Sen. Perdue, spare us the posturing as some dedicated anti-deficit crusader. Spare us the hack act in which you pretend to be the “outsider” willing to utter the truths that the insiders dare not speak.  None of it’s true. The candidate whom you champion would lead us to the very fiscal disaster that you claim to fear the most, yet it doesn’t bother you in the least.

Reader Comments 0

543 comments
C_Casselberry
C_Casselberry

The man who "tells it like it" and isn't "politically correct" is always needing someone to explain "what he really meant". 

And where's Tiny D mansplaining for his sad sack republiCON party?

13Directors
13Directors

Cup your hand and you hear practically nothing from Trump supporters because anything to do with economics flies right over their heads. I get it and I understand why, but this has got to change, otherwise, these folks are going to drive us all over a very steep cliff. 

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

oh lort.

that trickle down ain't sellin' - the trickle down scam is d-e-a-d

even to bubba

and the milennials just laugh them out of the room

It's like watching Willie Loman

so sad, such pathos

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

Trump week so far in 140 characters, dumped by fifty, six economic advisers named Steve, and 2nd amendment assassination joke. OK Stay tuned

Kamchak
Kamchak

Zika, 'borshun, and little Sexyboots SHEETZ!

Kamchak
Kamchak

Art Laffer?

He's the guy who went on CNBC in mid 2006 and stated:

-"The United States economy has never been in better shape!"

-"Monetary policy is spectacular!"

-"This economy...is working beautifully!"

'Nuff said.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@Kamchak 

His curve is just math.

His views?  They appear to be somewhat less reliable... 

;-)

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@Hedley_Lammar @Nick_Danger @Kamchak 

True in certain senses. 

In most cases, a higher price discourages demand.  But not always!  For instance, if Apple priced their product the same as the cheaper guys, I suspect their demand might actually drop - they would no longer be perceived as a "prestige" item. 

That aside, generally, if taxes are too low, revenues will be low. But in certain cases, if lower taxes bring in more taxable income, that can increase revenue.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@Nick_Danger @Kamchak


Laffer and just about everyone else thought the economy was doing fine in 2006. Very, very few people thought we were about to have a housing bubble meltdown. 

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@Nick_Danger @Kamchak Math that makes certain assumptions.


One being that if tax rates are high production will drop and no one will work.


He ASSUMES this. 


That isnt math.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

For those who have been Jonesing for the latest Donald gaffe, wait no more!

DaltonbywayofBickley
DaltonbywayofBickley

@Nick_Danger But, the way he phrased it was clear. It envisioned a scenario where Hillary is elected and appointing SCOTUS justices. "Nothing you can do, folks" Then he says, "Maybe the 2nd Amendment people could do something. I don't know."

StraightNoChaser
StraightNoChaser

Why the shock over Trump's second amendment comment?  I forewarned that they took away his script and teleprompter today. 

BuckeyeGa
BuckeyeGa

@SNC,

I missed that comment..sad thatTrump needs a leash

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Nick Danger,


I left you a note way down below on the Laffer curve. I appreciate you recognizing the truth of the Laffer curve. It is, as you stated, something that anyone with a working knowledge of economics doesn't dispute.  

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@Hedley_Lammar @Doom Classical liberal


Wrong again. Clearly, you are another prog who simply doesn't understand basic economics. Please show us empirically where the Laffer curve is wrong. Hint- the problem is that you don't even understand what the Laffer curve is to begin with. Nick Danger does. You don't. Read his comment way down below and you'll get it. 

CherokeeCounty
CherokeeCounty

@Doom Classical liberal

In certain situations.


The problem with Republican orthodoxy is that they think that any reduction of taxes in any situation will always increase revenue.


Patently untrue.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@CherokeeCounty @Doom Classical liberal


Correct. All the Laffer curve does is state that there is a point at which high tax rates are counterproductive and that there is a point where low tax rates are counter productive as far as bringing in revenue. 


And an automatic reduction or elimination of a particular tax doesn't automatically mean tax revenues go up. Depends on the tax, the rate, etc. Lotta different factors to look at. 


You get it, Nick gets it, Hedley?- he's still too dogmatic to get it. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

@Hedley_Lammar @Doom Classical liberal @CherokeeCounty


What is it that your brain can't seem to comprehend, sir? 


The curve simply states that at different points that tax rates bring in more or less revenue. 


Too high a rate is counterproductive- the recently failed French supertax is a case in point. 


Conversely, if we had a 5% marginal tax rate I don't think anyone is going to argue that its going to bring in as much or more tax revenue as a 20% marginal tax rate.


What is it that your little noggin still isn't understanding? 

Paul42
Paul42

@Hedley_Lammar

I had a neighbor whose four-year-old son would recite "e equals m c squared.  That's the theory of wellatibity."

People got a laugh out of that, too.

Paul42
Paul42

@Doom Classical liberal

Poof!  Another rabbit hole.

Told you the trolling was getting better.

(Hedley:  are you really that bored to fall in?)


Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@Doom Classical liberal 

Yeah, my work involves knowledge of demand and pricing (setting a price is functionally the same as setting a tax rate).  Obviously, you have some knowledge of that, as well.

Laffer is an economist who applied demand curves to tax rates - a good idea.  However, his work has often been misinterpreted to mean "lowering taxes increases revenues," when that is an unusual case. 

McGarnagle
McGarnagle

@Donnie_Pinko

He didn't mean it. Its like the crying baby. He loves the sound of crying babies. As long as the baby is healthy is all that matters.

BuckeyeGa
BuckeyeGa

@Donnie pinko,

horrible comment..he can't help himself from going off the rails

BuckeyeGa
BuckeyeGa

@Paul,

He was kind of on the rails during his last two speeches..that lasted all of two days

Paul42
Paul42

@Donnie_Pinko

Mr. Trump, in light of the recent law enforcement officer shootings in Dallas and elsewhere, are you advocating a further escalation of second amendment remedies?""