It’s finally time to stop believing Republicans when they say they’re the party of balanced budgets.
. President Barack Obama’s oversight of the deficit wasleaving “America’s future in the balance,” the Republican National Committee said in 2011. A year later, Senator Mitch McConnell said the federal debt was “the nation’s most serious long-term problem.” The debt was “killing our economy,” according to John Boehner in 2013, when he was the House speaker.
But once in office, Mr. Trump put forward some broad outlines for a tax reform package, signaling that he wants a variety of large cuts, regardless of whether they increase the deficit.
The Trump administration claimed that the proposed tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster economic growth. But past experience hasn’t borne that out, and it seems nearly impossible to find an economist who thinks it’s a viable theory.
None of this takes into account Mr. Trump’s plans for spending. In his first budget, he increased funding for the military and his border wall while still promising to eliminate the deficit in 10 years. Once again, economic growth was offered as the magic elixir, though the Congressional Budget Office thinks otherwise.
On cue, Mr. Ryan said President Trump’s budget was “right on target” even as he released a statement about it that criticized Mr. Obama’s “bloated budgets that never balance.”
This about-face is not new for the party of financial responsibility. President Ronald Reagan promised to balance the federal budget and then, while in office, pushed through tax cuts and military spending that more than doubled the national debt. President George W. Bush promised to pay down the debt only to sign tax cuts and defense increases that doubled it. Republicans have a pattern of caring deeply about government finances while out of power and then forgetting those concerns when they’re in control.
But this particular change of heart on federal debt follows years of using the fear of rising government costs to severely hamper Mr. Obama’s agenda. Republicans’ opposition to spending increases was part of how the 2009 stimulus package, passed to rescue a sinking economy, got whittled down from what would probably have been a more effective figure.
Republicans argued against speedy emergency funding when floods or hurricanes hit various parts of the country, delaying much-needed help, and tried to push Mr. Obama into bargains on spending cuts.
Republicans have shown their hand: They don’t care about the deficit or the debt.
http://app.nytimes.com/
. President Barack Obama’s oversight of the deficit wasleaving “America’s future in the balance,” the Republican National Committee said in 2011. A year later, Senator Mitch McConnell said the federal debt was “the nation’s most serious long-term problem.” The debt was “killing our economy,” according to John Boehner in 2013, when he was the House speaker.
But once in office, Mr. Trump put forward some broad outlines for a tax reform package, signaling that he wants a variety of large cuts, regardless of whether they increase the deficit.
The Trump administration claimed that the proposed tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster economic growth. But past experience hasn’t borne that out, and it seems nearly impossible to find an economist who thinks it’s a viable theory.
None of this takes into account Mr. Trump’s plans for spending. In his first budget, he increased funding for the military and his border wall while still promising to eliminate the deficit in 10 years. Once again, economic growth was offered as the magic elixir, though the Congressional Budget Office thinks otherwise.
On cue, Mr. Ryan said President Trump’s budget was “right on target” even as he released a statement about it that criticized Mr. Obama’s “bloated budgets that never balance.”
This about-face is not new for the party of financial responsibility. President Ronald Reagan promised to balance the federal budget and then, while in office, pushed through tax cuts and military spending that more than doubled the national debt. President George W. Bush promised to pay down the debt only to sign tax cuts and defense increases that doubled it. Republicans have a pattern of caring deeply about government finances while out of power and then forgetting those concerns when they’re in control.
But this particular change of heart on federal debt follows years of using the fear of rising government costs to severely hamper Mr. Obama’s agenda. Republicans’ opposition to spending increases was part of how the 2009 stimulus package, passed to rescue a sinking economy, got whittled down from what would probably have been a more effective figure.
Republicans argued against speedy emergency funding when floods or hurricanes hit various parts of the country, delaying much-needed help, and tried to push Mr. Obama into bargains on spending cuts.
Republicans have shown their hand: They don’t care about the deficit or the debt.
http://app.nytimes.com/
