Bush and the Budget: Life in the Balance

TYLER, TOO

By Gus Tyler

Published January 24, 2003, issue of January 24, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Are federal budget deficits good or bad? It all depends.

This question is evoked by what is happening in Washington right now, i.e., the federal deficit is growing by the billions. When President Clinton left office, the budget was pretty much in balance. Indeed, it was one of the few moments in the long history of the United States that this was true. George Washington was “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” He was also the first president to run up a sizable deficit in the federal account. His successors did not do much better. Against that historic background, the Clinton achievement is worthy of note. Equally noteworthy, for opposite reasons, is the present and projected deficits under the Bush administration.

In one respect, a parallel policy of running deficits as a way to stimulate the economy was used by Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal days of the 1930s and is being used by Bush today. They both incurred mounting debt as a way to bring the economy back to its feet.

But there was (and is) a dramatic difference in how they used the money they were borrowing by the billions. Roosevelt used the borrowed money to put extra bucks in the pockets of working people; Bush has incurred mounting debt to lift the income of the wealthiest in the land at the expense of everyone else.

Let’s be specific. When Roosevelt came into office in 1932, he borrowed heavily to underwrite projects that would give people jobs. The projects were called “public works,” like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which put jobless people to work to preserve and to promote forest lands. Young people were enrolled in the National Youth Administration to conduct surveys to see what homes needed modernization and where homes were needed for the homeless. People were put to work on the Tennessee Valley Authority to tame the rivers that were constantly overrunning their shores and to turn the area into a beautiful nature preserve, a place for hunting and fishing, while, at the same time, harnessing the waters to generate electricity to provide energy for the Rural Electrification Administration. And more and more. The millions who were put to work became active consumers, thereby putting others to work.

Bush has done just the opposite. Instead of using the government to underwrite projects that directly put people to work, he has enacted a tax cut whose chief beneficiaries are a slim top sliver of the nation’s richest. That cut has cost and is costing Uncle Sam billions of dollars. This gift to the economic elite has left a deep, deep hole in the federal budget and forced Bush to fill the void with borrowed money.

Put plainly, the difference between Roosevelt and Bush is that Roosevelt borrowed to give money to millions of working people while Bush has borrowed money and is borrowing more money to give billions to billionaires.

In Bush’s mind, enriching the richest should be good for everybody because Bush, like President Reagan, believes that the rich will put their newfound wealth to work to provide jobs. But they didn’t, because they were not about to produce products when there was little or no market for their wares because of rising unemployment and declining wages. The result was catastrophic. When Reagan came in, the national debt was a trillion dollars, and when, eight years later, he left office, the national debt had tripled to $3 trillion.

Of the Bourbons, it is said that they never learned anything and they never forgot anything. Perhaps the same can be said of our recent Republican rulers.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Could Spider-Man be Jewish? Andrew Garfield thinks so.
  • Most tasteless video ever? A new video shows Jesus Christ dying at Auschwitz.
  • "It’s the smell that hits me first — musty, almost sweet, emanating from the green felt that cradles each piece of silver cutlery in its own place." Only one week left to submit! Tell us the story of your family's Jewish heirloom.
  • Mazel tov to Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky!
  • If it's true, it's pretty terrifying news.
  • “My mom went to cook at the White House and all I got was this tiny piece of leftover raspberry ganache."
  • Planning on catching "Fading Gigolo" this weekend? Read our review.
  • A new initiative will spend $300 million a year towards strengthening Israel's relationship with the Diaspora. http://jd.fo/q3Iaj Is this money spent wisely?
  • Lusia Horowitz left pre-state Israel to fight fascism in Spain — and wound up being captured by the Nazis and sent to die at Auschwitz. Share her remarkable story — told in her letters.
  • Vered Guttman doesn't usually get nervous about cooking for 20 people, even for Passover. But last night was a bit different. She was cooking for the Obamas at the White House Seder.
  • A grumpy Jewish grandfather is wary of his granddaughter's celebrating Easter with the in-laws. But the Seesaw says it might just make her appreciate Judaism more. What do you think?
  • “Twist and Shout.” “Under the Boardwalk.” “Brown-Eyed Girl.” What do these great songs have in common? A forgotten Jewish songwriter. We tracked him down.
  • What can we learn from tragedies like the rampage in suburban Kansas City? For one thing, we must keep our eyes on the real threats that we as Jews face.
  • When is a legume not necessarily a legume? Philologos has the answer.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.