"Just the Facts" on the National Debt
Can the days when Cats and Dogs start living together in harmony be far behind? We have allegedly conservative Republicans (right-wing crazies in the eyes of the MSM) spending like drunken sailors while liberal Democrats bemoan the growth of the deficit and national debt.
Frankly, I would love to see a substantial reduction in government spending (coupled with an equally substantial increase in defense spending - if we're going to fight and win the Global War on Terror, we'd better be prepared to pay for it). However, while some are getting their panties in a twist over the explosion of the national debt (my sister-in-law has on at least one occasion sent me a link to the latest "Debt Clock" as a reason - one of many, I assume - that she cannot support GWB), others are assembling facts that, in a systematic and dispassionate manner, demonstrate that the debt, while large and certainly something to be concerned about, is neither outrageous by historical standards (or in relation to most other western countries), nor is it growing in any appreciable manner.
Such a resource comes courtesy of The Skeptical Optimist. I invite y'all to go have a look - it's an interesting read - and it is, as advertised, "Just the Facts". I'd copy the graphics directly, but Mr. Conover put a great deal of work into this - and it would be unfair just to take his handiwork and move ahead. So, go see his site; you'll be glad you did (and a Hat Tip to our good friends at the Power Line for discovering this site).
Certainly, those on the left-side of the political spectrum will note that the modern icons of the right (Reagan and GWB) have all seen the debt increase during their tenures in the White House (with quite a bit of truth behind their statements, it must be said). However, I believe such a statement misses a key point that becomes obvious when one looks over the entire time history, which dates back to 1792.
Every time our nation was challenged or threatened, or whenever there was grave struggle that could reasonably be said to threaten our future, our nation was required to go into debt in order to mobilize the resources required to win. The first build-up of debt came during the Civil War. Lincoln felt it necessary to preserve the Union, even at the cost of a War Between the States. As we all know by now, wars are expensive - and they were just as expensive in the 1860's. After the Civil War, our debt dropped from a high approaching 30% of GDP to something approaching 10% - levels not to be seen after our entry into "The Great War", when our debt shot to nearly 40% of GDP (defeating the Kaiser is expensive work), only to drop back down during the Roaring 20's.
The Great Depression certainly looks like a debt-fiesta - but remember, debt in this manner is measured as a percentage of GDP. With 25% (or greater) unemployment, it suffices to say that it was not a banner period for our GDP - and then came World War II. The defeat of Nazism and Fascism required a deep commitment from our nation - and a subsequent explosion of our National Debt to over 120% of GDP. Certainly, FDR's New Deal programs were contributing to this debt explosion, but as the graph clearly indicates, with the end of the war so ended our debt growth.
The next time we would see a substantial growth in the National Debt, Ronald Reagan declared that The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire and needed not to be contained, but defeated. However, the defeat of Communism did not come on the cheap, either. Even with economic growth over 1982-1997 that was unprecedented at the time, our national debt grew from 38% of GDP to about 55% of GDP - only to bump again to about 65% of GDP with the simultaneous outbreak of the Gulf War and the 1990-1992 recession (debt up, GDP down). Our debt dropped to just under 60% of GDP by 2000 and seems to be inching up just a touch at present to a level that is lower than the debt of Japan, Italy and France, on par with Germany, and slightly higher than that of the UK.
Clearly, there is more of a correlation between the size (and scope) of the National Debt and the epic battles of our history than there is with the ideology of the President. Reagan and GWB have seen debt increases (I'm projecting a little for GWB, but no one I know thinks the debt will actually drop in the next couple of years). They also decided to take on the great challenges of their times (Reagan's was Communism, Bush 43's is Islamofascism). Compare and contrast that to some recent periods of debt stability or decline. During the 90's, the debt certainly came down. We also saw during this time the rise of Islamofascism and al Qaeda - a rise that continued unabated until September 11, 2001. During the 60's and 70's, we had a nice, stable debt level - we also fought to a draw in Korea and lost Vietnam.
Give me the debt increases, every time.
That said, I sincerely believe that GWB and the Republicans who control the entire federal government had best get spending under control. They probably have, at most, 2-years to do it. Otherwise, their own base (who was willing to give them a pass for the last 4-years largely because of 9/11) is likely to start to look elsewhere. All that is required is for some credible candidate to challenge the GOP from the right in 2008 on issues of government spending and immigration (Pat Buchanan, anyone?), suck-off say 7% of the conservative base that came out in record numbers in 2004, and we'll all be watching the inauguration of President Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 2009.
Heaven help us all if that happens.
Frankly, I would love to see a substantial reduction in government spending (coupled with an equally substantial increase in defense spending - if we're going to fight and win the Global War on Terror, we'd better be prepared to pay for it). However, while some are getting their panties in a twist over the explosion of the national debt (my sister-in-law has on at least one occasion sent me a link to the latest "Debt Clock" as a reason - one of many, I assume - that she cannot support GWB), others are assembling facts that, in a systematic and dispassionate manner, demonstrate that the debt, while large and certainly something to be concerned about, is neither outrageous by historical standards (or in relation to most other western countries), nor is it growing in any appreciable manner.
Such a resource comes courtesy of The Skeptical Optimist. I invite y'all to go have a look - it's an interesting read - and it is, as advertised, "Just the Facts". I'd copy the graphics directly, but Mr. Conover put a great deal of work into this - and it would be unfair just to take his handiwork and move ahead. So, go see his site; you'll be glad you did (and a Hat Tip to our good friends at the Power Line for discovering this site).
Certainly, those on the left-side of the political spectrum will note that the modern icons of the right (Reagan and GWB) have all seen the debt increase during their tenures in the White House (with quite a bit of truth behind their statements, it must be said). However, I believe such a statement misses a key point that becomes obvious when one looks over the entire time history, which dates back to 1792.
Every time our nation was challenged or threatened, or whenever there was grave struggle that could reasonably be said to threaten our future, our nation was required to go into debt in order to mobilize the resources required to win. The first build-up of debt came during the Civil War. Lincoln felt it necessary to preserve the Union, even at the cost of a War Between the States. As we all know by now, wars are expensive - and they were just as expensive in the 1860's. After the Civil War, our debt dropped from a high approaching 30% of GDP to something approaching 10% - levels not to be seen after our entry into "The Great War", when our debt shot to nearly 40% of GDP (defeating the Kaiser is expensive work), only to drop back down during the Roaring 20's.
The Great Depression certainly looks like a debt-fiesta - but remember, debt in this manner is measured as a percentage of GDP. With 25% (or greater) unemployment, it suffices to say that it was not a banner period for our GDP - and then came World War II. The defeat of Nazism and Fascism required a deep commitment from our nation - and a subsequent explosion of our National Debt to over 120% of GDP. Certainly, FDR's New Deal programs were contributing to this debt explosion, but as the graph clearly indicates, with the end of the war so ended our debt growth.
The next time we would see a substantial growth in the National Debt, Ronald Reagan declared that The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire and needed not to be contained, but defeated. However, the defeat of Communism did not come on the cheap, either. Even with economic growth over 1982-1997 that was unprecedented at the time, our national debt grew from 38% of GDP to about 55% of GDP - only to bump again to about 65% of GDP with the simultaneous outbreak of the Gulf War and the 1990-1992 recession (debt up, GDP down). Our debt dropped to just under 60% of GDP by 2000 and seems to be inching up just a touch at present to a level that is lower than the debt of Japan, Italy and France, on par with Germany, and slightly higher than that of the UK.
Clearly, there is more of a correlation between the size (and scope) of the National Debt and the epic battles of our history than there is with the ideology of the President. Reagan and GWB have seen debt increases (I'm projecting a little for GWB, but no one I know thinks the debt will actually drop in the next couple of years). They also decided to take on the great challenges of their times (Reagan's was Communism, Bush 43's is Islamofascism). Compare and contrast that to some recent periods of debt stability or decline. During the 90's, the debt certainly came down. We also saw during this time the rise of Islamofascism and al Qaeda - a rise that continued unabated until September 11, 2001. During the 60's and 70's, we had a nice, stable debt level - we also fought to a draw in Korea and lost Vietnam.
Give me the debt increases, every time.
That said, I sincerely believe that GWB and the Republicans who control the entire federal government had best get spending under control. They probably have, at most, 2-years to do it. Otherwise, their own base (who was willing to give them a pass for the last 4-years largely because of 9/11) is likely to start to look elsewhere. All that is required is for some credible candidate to challenge the GOP from the right in 2008 on issues of government spending and immigration (Pat Buchanan, anyone?), suck-off say 7% of the conservative base that came out in record numbers in 2004, and we'll all be watching the inauguration of President Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 2009.
Heaven help us all if that happens.
posted by Doc J | 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home