A Concise History of Bush's Fiscal Mismanagement


The Bush administration has been a nightmare for fiscal conservatives.  Bush inherited a great fiscal situation - a budget surplus and slowing growth of total debt outstanding.  However, Bush refused to continue the trend, instead opting to return to the reckless and discredited fiscal policies of Reagan.  As a result, the US federal situation is far worse now than it was six years ago.  In other words, fiscal conservatives have every reason to be angry with the last six years of Republican leadership.

First, and perhaps most importantly, this graph highlights the last 40 years of US debt growth.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Let the graph sink in for a minute because it explains a very simple truth: over the last 25 years, Democrats have a proven track record of handling the nation's finances with maturity.  The Republicans have a track record of handling the nation's finances with pure recklessness.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Bush administration has demonstrated they don't have any control of the deficit.  Consider the following information from The Bureau of Public Debt:

In 2002, total debt outstanding increased from $5.807 trillion to $6.228 trillion, or $421 billion.



In 2003, total debt outstanding increased from $6.228 trillion to $6.783 trillion, or $555 billion.



In 2004,  total debt outstanding increased from $6.783 trillion to $7.379 trillion, or $596 billion.

In 2005, yet total debt outstanding increased from $7.379 trillion to $7.932 trillion or $553 billion.

So far in 2006, total debt outstanding has increased from $7.932 to $8.527 trillion, or $595 billion.

Despite the administration's claims they will halve the budget deficit by 2008, the Treasury continues to issue over $550 billion dollars of new debt every year.  That means the deficit is not under control in any way.

The primary reason for this continual issuing a large amount of debt is simple: government expenditures have increased far faster than government revenues.  According to the Congressional Budget Office government revenues were 19.8% of GDP in 2001 and 17.5% in 2005.  Over the same period, government expenditures increased from 18.5% to 20.1%.  The primary drop in government receipts occurred in individual income taxes, which were $994 (9.9% of GDP) billion in 2001 and $927 (7.5% of GDP) billion in 2005.  Over the same period, discretionary spending increased from $649 (6.5% of GDP) billion to $967 billion (7.9% of GDP).

The numbers above are simple:  Bush's policies have returned the US to the Reagan policy of deficit spending.  That means Bush's tax cuts are in fact tax deferrals; at some time the US will have to pay for the debt it has issued.  In essence, we are borrowing today hoping for a growth rate high enough to pay for the debt we have issued.  However, Bush's growth rate is on par with the last 25 years of growth.  That means we're not getting more bang for the buck.  Instead, we are getting one big fiscal headache.


Bonddad September 18, 2006 - 7:45am
( categories: Economics )

"NEW YORK, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Treasuries fell on Monday as data showing a sharp decline in foreign buying of U.S. securities hit a market already selling off in sympathy with falling euro zone government bonds.

Net flows of capital into the United States fell to a much smaller-than-expected $32.9 billion in July, less than half of the nation's trade deficit in that month."

Might this be because of inflation fears?

__________________________________________
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur.

Petronius September 18, 2006 - 9:38am

Difficult to summarize and generalize the issue. Inflation, like the raising of interest rates by the Fed. Reserve, takes time to work through the economy. The rates of inflation that impact ordinary mortals are reported in such a way that commodity inflation (oil, copper, plastics and resins, et.al.) has slight impact on the consciousness of we the consumer. It is reported in a slow and incremental fashion. You have to look to the underlying commodites for a richer picture. Warren Buffet and other smarty-pants use the Purchasing Manager's Index for clues about actual inflationary trends (and blips). This month's PURCHASING Magazine shows that the parabolic rise of zinc, copper, and a host of other raw materials has slowed and levelled-out. That does not mean a "cooling" indicates a downtrend from this point in time. But, again, the figures are framed by the government based on the 1990s revisions in CPI/PPI and DO NOT reflect the rises we all watch in awe in: house prices, medical and health care, tuition of all types, etc. We are fed the usual: computers and HDtv's (down in price), food (a few % points max. increase), and other close-to-home, daily-need consumables. Try to buy a house today and compare that increase in outlay (and huge monthly payments for the next 30 years) to how much more we are paying for a gallon of milk. Based on milk price increases, we are lulled into agreeing that "inflation must be in check".
Whether investors in Treasury bonds are looking at inflation or the overall state of other economic indicators is impossible to determine with one month's reported figures. A look at the Agonist Front Page and the debt acceleration graph would be reason enough for me, were I a Chinese central banker, to diversify somewhat aggressively.

vonbahr September 18, 2006 - 3:57pm

Won't the Fed need to raise interest rates in order to allow Fed Treasuries to rise to attract more foreign money? Of course, with geopolitical factors dominating, increased interest rates at virtually any level might not attract enough foreign central bank purchases to balance the books. This development portends an ominous situation looking forward to next year for the economy.

VizierVic September 18, 2006 - 10:22am

Ths news excerpt (from: Marketwatch, Sept 18 @ 3 pm Eastern time) says legions although one month is certainly not a trend. What IF the global powers did take a walk away from buying US debt financing?
------------------------------
3:10P Treasurys end lower on capital inflows worries ($TNX)
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Treasurys prices closed lower Monday, after the benchmark 10-year note yield struck its highest level in a month, undermined by an unexpected plunge in capital inflows into the U.S. The Treasury Department said capital flows skidded to $32.9 billion in July, the smallest inflow since May 2005. "The TIC data (on foreign inflows) were sort of the main influence," said Michael Wallace, a strategist at research firm Action Economics. "The capital inflows were not even really half of the (trade) deficit." The benchmark 10-year Treasury note closed down 5/32 at 100-16/32 with a yield ($TNX) of 4.811%.
------------------------------------------

vonbahr September 18, 2006 - 3:38pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.