Causes of the Deficit

According to the Heritage Foundation , “When the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011. Instead, Washington is set to run a cumulative $6.1 trillion deficit over that period. “ Let’s go with that.

They go on to break it down:

• Bush Tax cuts are responsible for $1.7 trillion, 14%

•Two recessions, two stock market crashes, and other economic/technical factors (33 percent)

• Other new spending (32 percent)
• Net interest on the debt (12 percent)
• The 2009 stimulus (6 percent)
• Other tax cuts (3 percent)

Would it not be fair then to assign Republicans responsibility for the 47% of the deficit caused by the tax cuts and the recessions? Of the remaining 53%, they also own some of the other new spending which is I guess is where The Heritage Foundation put the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Medicare Part-D, unfunded and  enacted under Bush. So let’s be generous and give the Republicans just 10% of the “Other new spending.” That still pushes them to 57% of the cause of the deficit, according to the Heritage Foundation.  That would make them responsible for more than half of the new expenditures to service the debt. Add that in and I have the Republicans according to the Heritage foundation owning about 2/3 of the deficits which appear to be the centerpiece of their campaign.

The single biggest growth factor in Federal spending is Healthcare, which has grown from 11% of GDP to over 18% of GDP in the last three decades.

The CBO projects Medicare spending at $7.7 trillion for the ten years ending 2022, about $770 Billion per year. Medicare spending in 2012 is projected at just over $500 Billion. Medicaid costs are also on the rise.

When Republicans talk about increased spending it is important to note that their Repeal Obamacare speechifying would enshrine the status quo on Healthcare.  Moreover, while Ryan proposes a radical restructuring of Medicare to transform it to a voucher system from the current “Government Insurance” model his budget calls for nearly the same amount if spending over the next ten years, literally a $10 Billion dollar difference against multi trillion dollar expenditures.

The real cuts are in Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. There Ryan proposes nearly 20% less spending and turning it over to the states, which means the folks in Mississippi and Texas and other states with horrific records on medical care for the poor, might has well starting checking into the place they'd like to spend the forever. These are draconian heartless cuts, required by Ryan’s plan to stimulate the economy by doubling down on the Bush tax cuts. 

******************************************************************************
Why is it that no one seems to take notice of the fact that the Bush Tax cuts are still in place in this jobless environment. Why would anyone think that extending them would accelerate job growth? Considering the poor record of job creation under Bush where is the historical empirical data that  tax cuts, especially those targeted on those who have more money than they could ever hope to spend, creates jobs?