|
The Federal budget is in the worst shape it has been in for 20 years. From surpluses
as far as the eye could see in 2000, we now face nothing but big deficits that
will become vastly larger when the baby boomers retire. Politicians trade charges
over who is responsible for this fiscal fiasco. If we ignore that cacophony and
just look at the numbers, what do they say about fiscal responsibility?
Surprisingly - given the traditional identification of Republicans with fiscal
conservatism - it turns out that Democratic presidents have behaved more fiscally
conservatively than Republicans. President Clinton receives top marks and President
George W. Bush is at the bottom of the class, by a big margin.
The chart above shows the average annual growth rate of revenues minus the
average growth rate of expenditures for each presidential term from Eisenhower
through G.W. Bush. Each term is delineated as the four years following the presidential
election year, except for the last, which includes only the first three of President
G.W. Bush's four years, ending in 2003.
The black bars represent terms in which revenues on average grew faster than
expenditures, so budget deficits were reduced. For example, in Clinton's second
term, the annual growth rate of revenues was more than five percent greater
than the average growth rate of spending, and the budget moved from deficit
into surplus. The top three of the six presidential terms "in the black" occurred
under Democrats, Clinton and Carter.
In marked contrast, five of the seven presidential terms that saw budgets move
deeper into the red were Republican terms. Surprisingly, perhaps, Ronald Reagan's
first term, in which taxes were cut steeply, does not stand out among these.
In fact, Reagan's two terms taken together did little to move the budget either
way. In the first Reagan term, the budget deteriorated moderately, in the second,
it improved moderately.
The presidential reign that stands out from all the rest is the current term
of George W. Bush. None of the other presidential terms shows revenues growing
even four percent slower than expenditures. In the first three years of the
Bush administration, revenues have grown more than nine percent slower than
expenditures.
With plans for further tax cuts (masked as savings incentives and God knows
what else), no end in sight to the costly adventure in Iraq, and an expensive,
yet deeply flawed new drug benefit for Medicare, it looks as though President
Bush will continue to plunge the government to new lows in fiscal responsibility.
|