The party of tax-and-spend, really?Written by Admin
- font size decrease font size increase font size
To the Editor:
It’s election trash talking time again, and one of the things that will come up will be the Republicans reminding everyone of the old saying that Democrats are the “party of tax-and-spend.” Then the next thing they bring up is that we need to be conservative with the public money, implying that Democrats are not.
Recent history says that this is not true. From Historical Tables, The Budget of the United States Government, comes the following quote: “… deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1 percent of GDP) in 1992.” And this is from a government publication.
So, what was the party in charge during those years? Not the tax-and-spend Democrats. It was guys like President Reagan and Bush running up the deficits. Let’s break it down. Reagan increased the debt 189 percent, George Bush (the elder) 55 percent, and George Bush (the younger), 86 percent.
How did the Democrats do? During Clinton’s presidency, the debt increased 37 percent and in the first two years of the Obama administration, the debt increased 35 percent … much to the screams of irresponsibility from the other side.
As to fiscal responsibility, what recent president was the first to post a balanced budget since 1957? Clinton. And who gave away the Clinton-era surplus and plunged the U.S. back into deficit spending? Bush.
So, which party has the better track record of being financially responsible?