I am in your debt

I just read  "The Halliburton Agenda", documenting the history of the company and their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR). I didn't realize how far back the relationship went between these contractors and the federal government. KBR grew in stature and prominence under LBJ starting with an over-priced dam project in Texas, military bases all over the place, Vietnam support facilities and NASA's Mission Control station in Houston. They fell on hard times after the cold war but re-surged when Clinton sent troops into Bosnia to support the UN peacekeepers. As we all know, in today's world Halliburton and KBR are inextricably linked to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My interest was piqued by a few paragraphs in one of the last chapters of the book, describing how in the 80's and 90's Cheney and Rumsfeld worked in unison to slash the defense budget. This got me thinking about a comparison between defense spending, and spending in general under Republican and Democratic administrations. So I did a bit of research.

Today's Republicans like to hammer Obama about how he and the Democrats will spend America into oblivion. Despite the massive spending and borrowing over the Bush years, this argument still resonates. The battle for the hearts and minds of the voters is the identification of the Republican brand with fiscal conservatism.

When confronted with the failed fiscal performance of the previous 8 years, Republicans do everything but take responsibility. I watch the talking head shows a lot, probably too much, and one Republican talking point is resonating lately: Whatever the cause of our fiscal mess, it is not the fault of Republicans. It is Democrats who love to spend! It is the Democratic Congress!  ....and now in order to rescue the government, and our collective futures, we should allow lawmakers to cut Medicare and Social Security. I'm calling bullshit on this!

Some facts are in order:

In the '70s the Republican Party began its love affair with supply-side economics. Despite tax-cut rhetoric, (that is now party mantra) the true size of government is measured by spending. To cut taxes and keep spending, as Bush did, is not fiscally conservative, it is simply dishonest. The argument that Republicans are either the party committed to smaller government or to balanced budgets is complete fallacy. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are lying about this every time they appear on TV.

Looking over more than forty years of data available from OMB and the CBO, through twenty-four years of Republican leadership and sixteen years of Democrat leadership, the overall size of the federal government, as measured by total spending, has remained nearly constant at 20% of GDP.

During this period there has been the growth of mandatory spending programs (primarily Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) which have risen from 5.6% of GDP to 10.6% of GDP, and a 44% decline in discretionary spending (which is mainly defense and domestic spending).

• The biggest decline in discretionary spending came under Nixon as defense spending dropped significantly with the Vietnam War winding down. 
• Discretionary spending declined significantly under Clinton and modestly under Reagan.
• Under Jimmy Carter, overall discretionary spending was relatively flat (defense spending rose a bit, domestic spending fell). 
• Discretionary spending rose as a percentage of GDP under Ford and George W. Bush.

So that's all a bit dry and a bit muddled, but here's the zinger:

Discretionary domestic spending, declined under Carter and Clinton, while it rose under both Bush presidents.

The data on the public debt is clearer. The Republican Party's embrace of Friedman economic theory brought with it an acceptance of deficit spending and increased debt as "the price of growth", even if over the long-term the growth never led to a balanced budget.

• Fiscal deficits soared during the Reagan presidency, as tax cuts were implemented without reductions in federal spending. 
• The public debt doubled as a percentage of GDP during the Reagan-Bush years.
• During the Clinton years, shrinking deficits and ultimately budget surpluses contributed to a decline in public debt.
• Under George W. Bush, new tax cuts combined with war spending contributed to a renewed increase in the national debt.

Faced with the evidence that Republican presidents have left deficits and debt in their wake, supporters now insist that deficits are the fault of Congress, and particularly Congressional Democrats. But here again, the data tells a different story. Despite the desire to pin the fiscal mess on Congress, the primary driver of fiscal outcomes is the recommended administration budget.

The evidence shows that the fiscal culprits are NOT the over-spending Democrats. Congressional over-spending during years when Democrats controlled the government averaged 0.4%-0.6%. During years when Republicans controlled the government overspending averaged 2.3%-4.6%.

No doubt campaigning Republicans will continue to push the tax and spend attacks on Obama and attempt to link all Democrats to this falsehood. But the fact is that both parties spend. The difference is whether they pay for their spending, or borrow the money and postpone the pain.

Now, as the day of reckoning is coming closer and our fiscal obligations are weighing heavier, the dishonesty of the Republican leadership, when discussing the budget over the past quarter century, should be discussed openly and honesty. Because, all politics aside, it's time to fix the problem.

I often receive forwarded emails expressing conservative America's dislike for Obama, his policies, or Democrats in general. Many of those emails are fearful and built on false premises. What I'm presenting here is a story told by a review of the facts. Look it up yourself. For decades, most of my adult life, Republican politicians have lied about their fiscal stewardship and steered us into one disaster after another, all the while enriching themselves and their fat-cat contributors. The hypocrisy of it is self-evident and increasingly disturbing. There appears to be no moral or ethical compass in place to guide the Republican party. They are driven by outside interests. Those interests are not mine and they're not yours.