January 23, 2011
— Geoff Uh-oh - looks like I'm an idiot, just after I accused Mr. Bookman of being one. He did correctly quote the federal civilian employment, and I screwed it up. I've struck out that portion of the post and added some more better paragraphs before it.
A Mr. Jay Bookman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution decided to try to edumacate the rabble by posing a little quiz to his readers. It's the sort of misleading article that will naturally go viral in the Kos/TPM/Olbermann community. He makes 3 points (I'll address 2), all supposedly crushing the GOP's rationale for reducing spending. At the end of his little Q&A post, he smugly declares: "I think thatÂ’s enough for today. Class dismissed."
Well, that sort of class explains why Johnny can't read and the Democrats are averaging more than a $ trillion/yr in deficit spending. For instance, one of his big points is that the GOP plan to reduce the federal civilian workforce by 15% is completely ridiculous. It will take us back to 1950 levels, and besides, federal civilian employment was almost at its peak when Reagan left office!
As you can see from his supporting table, however, Mr. Bookman is not telling the whole story. Federal employment actually peaked in 1968, under LBJ. Reagan essentially froze civilian employment at civilian agencies, which had increased by 50% under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and he restored some 100K civilian jobs at the DoD, which had lost 400K jobs since LBJ's administration.
Bookman also doesn't tell you that since Reagan's time, civilian employment at the DoD has dropped by another 450K, while civilian employment at other agencies has risen by another 200K. Cutting 15% of the jobs in civilian agencies will only take us back to 2001 employment levels. It is the DoD, which has already operating at 1950 civilian employee levels, that has been cut to the bone and will be hamstrung by another 15% loss. But I doubt that Mr. Bookman is truly concerned about the strength of the DoD - he'd prefer you to think that the domestic operations of the government will be crippled by draconian personnel cuts. It's just not true.
But Mr. Bookman is an idiot who can't even read the supporting table that he himself linked. Yup, he's quoting total federal employment (including military), not just civilian federal employment. In reality the 15% reduction will take us back to 2001 levels, not 1950. And the prize for highest level of Federal civilian employment actually goes to . . . . . Barack Obama for his outstanding effort of 1,357,000 employees in 2009!!
Mr. Bookman's observations on federal spending are similarly flawed not as obviously brain-damaged, but flawed nonetheless. He starts out like this:
| 1.) From fiscal 2001, when President Bush took office, to fiscal 2007, when Democrats took over the Senate and House of Representatives, total federal spending increased each year by an average of: | |
| A. 4.39 percent B. 5.35 percent | C. 6.57 percent D. 11.86 percent |
2.) From fiscal 2009, when President Obama took office, through fiscal 2011, when Republicans took over the House of Representatives, total federal spending increased each year by an average of: | |
| A. 4.39 percent B. 5.35 percent | C. 6.57 percent D. 11.86 percent |
Where the answers in bold are "correct." In case you're too Tea Partied out to get the point, he spells it out for you:
ThatÂ’s right. Between fiscal years 2009 and 2011, federal spending increased by an annual average of 4.39 percent. Between 2001 and 2007, it increased by an annual average of 6.57 percent.Well that certainly makes us look foolish, doesn't it? Here we've been advocating budget austerity, and it turns out that we were the big spenders all this time! Color me chagrined.
Except for a few minor points, that is. Such as:
- As I recall, we weren't actually happy with Bush's & Congress's spending from 2001 - 2007. In fact we were downright displeased. And in fact, the distrust generated during that period led to a popular movement known as......oh, yeah, the Tea Party, which has flogged the GOP into trying to cut spending. So, Mr. Bookman, the very people you're talking down to are the people who are one step ahead of you.
- When revenues are increasing, increasing spending isn't as irrational as when revenues are plummeting. The Bush era had its own recession to deal with, but the Bush team was able to create a revenue/spending situation with steadily decreasing deficits. The fact that the Dems didn't respond adequately to the realities of the current revenue situation is a huge black eye for that party and its philosophies.
- He's lying.
Note to Mr. Bookman: when you've bumped up spending by 29% in a two-year period, it's pretty easy to throttle back for a few years. When the lowest of your team's past and projected deficits is higher than the highest of your predecessor's, then maybe you should pipe down - talking about federal budgets may not be your best strategy. And when deficits average $280 billion (as during the Bush/GOP majority years), it's much easier to rationalize deficit spending w/o budget cuts than when they average $1.14 trillion (as in the years since). Not that we like rationalizing deficit spending at all.
Posted by: Geoff at
03:38 AM
| Comments (118)
Post contains 965 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: The Constipated Mathamatician at January 23, 2011 03:52 AM (dYKl3)
Posted by: Captain Obvious at January 23, 2011 04:05 AM (ExizH)
_____________
I worked it out in my head, with only 1/2 cup of coffee.... (the other half I spewed on my monitor)
Posted by: Captain Obvious at January 23, 2011 04:07 AM (ExizH)
LOL, the NYT of the South. This has been a left wing tool since the day it was founded. Never trust a single thing that this Dem PR rag says.
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2011 04:10 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Tami at January 23, 2011 04:11 AM (VuLos)
After only three, "I've answered like 12 questions."
Posted by: Obama White House Press Corps at January 23, 2011 04:12 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2011 04:15 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Tami at January 23, 2011 04:22 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: Moody's at January 23, 2011 04:26 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Asscheeks of Saturn at January 23, 2011 04:27 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: McLovin at January 23, 2011 04:28 AM (o+bH/)
Posted by: Asscheeks of Saturn at January 23, 2011 04:31 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: RNB at January 23, 2011 04:32 AM (WkjqG)
Posted by: just sayin' at January 23, 2011 04:35 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: Tim Geithner at January 23, 2011 04:38 AM (e9JZd)
Just noted that I misread the title on the federal civilian employment table, so I'm an idiot, not Bookman. Doesn't mean that his point is particularly valid, though. I've updated the post accordingly.
Sorry about that.
Posted by: geoff at January 23, 2011 04:40 AM (iurEa)
Posted by: Sock Puppy at January 23, 2011 04:40 AM (0LZTz)
I guess he has taught the Haitian men to 'Act like America's First Black President'.
I said a prayer for the women. I couldn't imagine the terror they have experienced this last year.
Posted by: momma at January 23, 2011 04:48 AM (penCf)
While not wanting to defend the Bush spending years, I would like to point out another sleight-of-hand that the libs like to use to blame Bush. TARP is always included as part of Bush's "budget". First off, it wasn't budgeted. Secondly, OBummer and Geithner were the ones that spent almost half of it. And third, most of it has been paid back anyway!
I've had these arguments with the libtards over at Daily Kooks to no avail.. facts are anathema to them are only to be avoided.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2011 04:48 AM (Do528)
Posted by: Andy at January 23, 2011 04:50 AM (veZ9n)
The "deficit" is accounting fraud. It's actually much worse. The national debt has increased by $3.55 trillion over the past two fiscal years while the alleged "deficit" was only $2.7 trillion.
The difference is not just the Soc Sec Trust Fund. It's also accounting shenanigans with student loans and Fannie and Freddie.
Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 23, 2011 04:56 AM (fLmW6)
Posted by: harleycowboy at January 23, 2011 04:57 AM (BGVHF)
Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 23, 2011 04:58 AM (fLmW6)
Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 23, 2011 05:00 AM (fLmW6)
Might want to do a little more updating, geoff. The strikethrough just leaves the point hanging from the prior paragraph.
I left it that way so that I could rewrite the paragraphs to continue to hammer at his analysis. Which I have now done.
Told you it was too early.
In my case it was too late.
Posted by: geoff at January 23, 2011 05:02 AM (iurEa)
Once again, accurately quoting progressives = Hate Speech.
They really hate to be quoted.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 23, 2011 05:02 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: AndyN at January 23, 2011 05:04 AM (ukfUE)
Posted by: MJ at January 23, 2011 05:06 AM (BKOsZ)
They really hate to be quoted.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 23, 2011 09:02 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: nickless at January 23, 2011 05:08 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 23, 2011 05:29 AM (tJjm/)
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 05:32 AM (7+pP9)
Feb 2009: Obama promises to cut budget deficit in half by the end of his term.
Remember this? Nobody else does, either.
The budget deficit has increased since Obama's term began.
Posted by: Sunday Soothsayer at January 23, 2011 05:35 AM (/AUF7)
'Maybe I'll come down. Maybe I won't.'
Classic.
Posted by: momma at January 23, 2011 09:31 AM (penCf)
THAT was hysterical!
"Don't fuck up my beer, now!"
Posted by: Tami at January 23, 2011 05:38 AM (VuLos)
It's a tactic to silence their political enemies. But it's more than that.
The Left is not used to being held accountable for their outrageous behavior. They're not used to being criticized and ridiculed.
Posted by: Sunday Soothsayer at January 23, 2011 05:39 AM (/AUF7)
Posted by: mrfixit at January 23, 2011 05:46 AM (X6YMj)
Look up Steve gets a DUI on a lawn mower.
Posted by: kidney at January 23, 2011 09:46 AM (ENRGu)
Damn. It is so funny though.
Posted by: momma at January 23, 2011 05:49 AM (penCf)
Posted by: dagny at January 23, 2011 05:59 AM (A7E3U)
1) As you note they either ignore 2007-8 or pretend the Republicans still controlled Congress.
2) They think Bush was some far rightwing paragon. So if Bush increased spending, conservativism also wants to increase spending.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 23, 2011 05:59 AM (bgcml)
It was fine until I ran into the glass wall... says the tennis court streaker with 1 million hits on YouTube
Posted by: momma at January 23, 2011 06:00 AM (penCf)
And in fact, the distrust generated during that period led to a popular movement known as......oh, yeah, the Tea Party, which has flogged the GOP into trying to cut spending. So, Mr. Bookman, the very people you're talking down to are the people who are one step ahead of you.
On the other side of that coin spent, when talking down the label, Tea Party movement supporters should be careful not to write off that very movement as if in the past tense, unwittingly enabling the taboo against exposing the specific usurping Bush-reformed establishment-power of Republican Progressive Elitists aka "bipartisan"-RINO centrists right of center (or by any other name).
Idea determines form. The existence of the so-called "Tea Party" agenda is founded on the platform of Fred's First Principles campaign, constitutional conservancy. Fred never "joined" the Tea Party bandwagon, and never smeared them, either.
Though masses and crowds may demand/desire one, we don't need a charismatic personality in order to function according to First Principles. We simply need to stand united, protected by the Constitution that we require apply to governing officials and all citizens equally under the law, while removing federally funded enslaving bells and whistles with surgical precision. Stick to minimalism when gone federally/state bankrupted in order to maintain the essence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Eliminate entire federal socialist/authoritarian bureaucracies and programmed mutant appendages. To cut spending, don't simply spend what is "saved" from one cut transferred upon another option to perpetuate the augmenting national debt.
Every constituent has legislators to hold personally/professionally accountable to CUT SPENDING NOW and function according to First Principles that requires elimination of power from the illegitimate PC authoritarian governing forces.
Fred Thompson's parting words of wisdom: the jury's still out whether or for how long the US constituents will care to perpetuate constitutional liberty, demanding that First Principles determine our governance.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 06:01 AM (H+LJc)
...........
Croc swallows cell phone. Now his belly is ringing.
...............
Posted by: momma at January 23, 2011 06:08 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 23, 2011 06:08 AM (yQWNf)
Police official Markus Mitloehner said Friday that the man is thought to be a local since he speaks the regional dialect _ with nary a trace of Obama's more professorial accent.
Ohfergodssake!
Posted by: Tami at January 23, 2011 06:11 AM (VuLos)
Math is not that hard. It is more difficult than being lied to. It is not nearly as difficult as paying that money back is going to be.
Posted by: MarkD at January 23, 2011 06:14 AM (0Jy1K)
Fixed it!
Posted by: kidney at January 23, 2011 06:15 AM (ENRGu)
On paper? How are decreasing deficits possible while taxes are temporarily lowered and federal spending increased. Bush made no spending cuts while he augmented the size of federal bureaucracies with new No Child Left Behind programs and the DHS monstrosity.
Don't ignore Paulson's international investment fraud that gutted global economic sensibility, panic inflamed congressional rape-rape TARP to cover their fraudulent administrative ass, and Bush's executive order granting autonomy to the cabinet office of the Treasury Secretary (another authoritarian Bush legacy to illegitimately "supersede" the Constitution's precedence).
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 06:16 AM (H+LJc)
Presidents have only two methods of affecting spending. The can approve or veto the spending bills authored by congress and they can make recommendations for bills that affect spending.
This is something that the MFM has badly educated the public on. Bush's problem was that he should have vetoed a lot of those spending bills and didn't.
Still spending has gone up under a logarithmic progression since the Dems got all three offices but don't expect the MFM to say that.
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2011 06:17 AM (M9Ie6)
How are decreasing deficits possible while taxes are temporarily lowered and federal spending increased.
Because lower taxes stimulate business activity, resulting in increased tax revenue.
It works every time it's tried.
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 06:22 AM (7+pP9)
It works every time it's tried.
Except when the government spending is greater than the increased tax revenues.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 06:23 AM (H+LJc)
Posted by: slatz at January 23, 2011 06:27 AM (BpwT4)
Except when the government spending is greater than the increased tax revenues.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 10:23 AM (H+LJc)
That started in 2007.Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 06:28 AM (7+pP9)
I'm noting that the basis for the flow was fraudulent.
And given Bush/Paulson utterly defrauding the international investment community, why would I place any confidence in numbers they produced on administrative performance paperwork?
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 06:29 AM (H+LJc)
And now there are people going around proposing actual, real, honest-to-goodness cuts?
And there are conservatives who back pasty, white, spineless males for our leaders in the all-out war that is coming?
Posted by: Jimmuy at January 23, 2011 06:34 AM (0yTk1)
Posted by: Randall Hoven at January 23, 2011 06:35 AM (zQupx)
My point remains that the Bush administrative records were reported/created by economic frauds of the highest order, as are Obama's.
My distrust is not stipulating that all Bush (or Obama) administrative figures were/are false; but that their validity requires independent research to determine the misleading effects of selective computations designed to reflect a rose hue. Or a red Hu.
And that's not going to happen.
So the "functionally bankrupt" house of cards remains intact via illusion.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 23, 2011 06:41 AM (H+LJc)
No, there was no tea party until the Koch Brothers said so, in late 2008.
But, nice try, Geoff.
Posted by: just another stupid knucklehead like you at January 23, 2011 06:53 AM (rS9Mt)
Posted by: curious at January 23, 2011 06:54 AM (p302b)
maverick muse:
The deficit (and spending) actually took off in 2008, the first budget crafted by the 2007 Democrat House majority.
From 2004 to 2007 the deficit was steadily reduced. If that rate of deficit reduction had been maintained, today we'd have a budget surplus.
Chart here.
I was not a fan of Bush's extravagant spending. His spending from 2001 to 2003 was inexcusable. But he and his fellow Republicans were definitely putting our fiscal house back in order from 2004 on. And Obama's spending makes Bush & Co. look like a bunch of Scrooges.
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 06:55 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2011 06:57 AM (M9Ie6)
No, there was no tea party until the Koch Brothers said so, in late 2008.
And erg dutifully reports the latest Democratic wish-meme.
Essentially, he's still got nothin'.
Posted by: nickless at January 23, 2011 06:59 AM (MMC8r)
My distrust is not stipulating that all Bush (or Obama) administrative figures were/are false; but that their validity requires independent research to determine the misleading effects of selective computations designed to reflect a rose hue. Or a red Hu.
And that's not going to happen.
The only way to make valid comparisons is to use the same data source, e.g. OMB or CBO. While the numbers themselves may not be 100% accurate, they do allow for valid comparisons to be made.
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 07:06 AM (7+pP9)
But Vic, they have successfully painted themselves are "fair and balanced" , the only news station telling you he "truth". If you haven't been carefully watching you would have thought, after this morning, that the republican party can barely put their socks on and that the democrats know what is best for the country. I mean they are bringing up the "we have to spend to keep the economy going or else we will repeat the 1930's" meme. The guy said what beck said the other day on the record in congress I think, that you keep repeating the message until it becomes a fact. They are succeeding beautifully.
Posted by: curious at January 23, 2011 07:11 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Typical Duplicious DemocRAT at January 23, 2011 07:15 AM (lItcj)
Posted by: curious at January 23, 2011 07:17 AM (p302b)
Bottom line for Geoff, and the rest of you cretin hypocrites: when you get your Repub president, it'll be back to sycophantic dick-suck, with not a worry about "the deficit."
Posted by: just another stupid knucklehead like you at January 23, 2011 07:19 AM (rS9Mt)
Posted by: Eurotrash Banks at January 23, 2011 07:24 AM (lItcj)
Posted by: curious at January 23, 2011 11:17 AM (p302b)
We'll do it....for half your oceans.
Posted by: Space Aliens at January 23, 2011 07:26 AM (lItcj)
Posted by: curious at January 23, 2011 07:28 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 11:06 AM (7+pP9)
Yes... use the same number sets! Really! Don't worry about the data itself!
Posted by: East Anglia Mathmatician at January 23, 2011 07:52 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: East Anglia Mathmatician at January 23, 2011 11:52 AM (AdK6a)
Heh. I don't think the budget numbers are that skewed.
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2011 08:03 AM (7+pP9)
- federal blue collar jobs have been virtually eliminated and replaced with full time contractor employees.
- a lot of white collar employees have been eliminated and replaced with full time contractor employees.
Some of this is similar to a private company going through a temp agency, a good choice when the workload does not justify the overhead of a permanent hire, though over the long term it costs more per hour if the job is essentially permanent.
Then there are the long-term contracts, some as long as fifty years, just to pare down the federal civil service rolls. Despite the big news lately that civil service types earn more than private sector, government contractors generally earn more than their civil service equivalents.
As suggested by Geoff, somebody decided during the Reagan years that civil service employees were a good metric for the cost of government. I would just assume look at the bottom line of total spending and quit chasing expensive red herrings.
Posted by: Druid at January 23, 2011 08:05 AM (RnujI)
"Don't Be an Asshole"
Posted by: kbdabear at January 23, 2011 08:23 AM (vdfwz)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at January 23, 2011 08:51 AM (HxFt0)
has anyone told erg that Geoff didn't post here during the Bush years?
I did used to be a rabid commenter here, back in the day. I remember the first time erg showed up - he was more interesting than most trolls then (even the moniker "egastularius" was more interesting than most trolls). But it's obvious that time has taken its toll, and he has regressed from discussion to a form of Tourette's.
Sad.
Posted by: geoff at January 23, 2011 09:11 AM (iurEa)
Unlike the witty poster above, I actually am Jay Bookman. And I'm glad to see Geoff corrected his mistake regarding total federal employment vs. total federal civilian .
Likewise, I should note that he is correct about peak civilian employment. The peak post-1950 federal employment was indeed 1968, at 2.29 million, rather than 1990, at 2.25 million. Not a big difference, but accuracy is accuracy.
However, that doesn't change the larger point: Federal employment -- at 2.1 million -- is about what it has been for the last 40 to 50 years, and the cuts recommended by House Republicans would bring us to the lowest levels since 1950, when we had barely half the population we have today. In other words, the conservative myth of a burgeoning federal bureaucracy is just that, a myth.
Now, why didn’t I include the years ‘08 and ‘09 in my questions?
Because as you can discover by reading my post, its intent was to
compare what an all-GOP government does with spending vs. what an
all-Democrat government does with spending. The years 2001-2007 and
2009-2011 lend themselves to such a comparison, and they tell us that Republicans increased spending faster than Democrats did.
The years ‘08-’09, however, featured divided control, and thus aren't relevant and can't be used in the comparison. Those years also are atypical regarding both revenue and spending because the government was attempting to respond to the greatest economic collapse in 80 years. As the post points out, the $1.3 trillion deficit in 2009 was for the most part caused by the $400 billion deficit that Bush himself predicted in submitting his budget that year, and by the fact that anticipated revenue of $3.7 trillion actually came in at $3.1 trillion. Together, that accounts for $1 billion of that deficit.
As to the Tea Parties, let's be honest, shall we? There were no Tea Parties and nothing close to Tea Parties as long as it
was Republicans doing the spending. To claim otherwise is nonsense and contradicted by history.
What discontent there might have been among conservatives was
largely squelched out of party loyalty to keep quiet.
Personally, I agree that we have to cut spending as well as increase revenue over the long haul in order to address the deficit. Both will be required. I also believe it's important not to pretend that one party or one side is holier than the other.
You, however, may disagree.
Posted by: Jay Bookman at January 23, 2011 09:15 AM (+QsuX)
Posted by: Jay Bookman at January 23, 2011 09:36 AM (+QsuX)
Personally, I agree that we have to cut spending as well as increase revenue over the long haul in order to address the deficit. Both will be required. I also believe it's important not to pretend that one party or one side is holier than the other.
You, however, may disagree.
You're still living under the influence of mythology. Complaints about "Bush Years" spending were legion on the right, and he was perceived by many as effectively a fiscal liberal. These were the people that went on to form the TEA Party - they essentially developed their ideas and contacts in response to Bush and the Republican Congress, and then organized around the increased spending and threats of increased taxes when Democrats took the purse strings in 2007.
Bush was perceived as trying to keep tax rates low, and increased taxes was the primary trigger to the Taxed Enough Already Party movement. You may have forgotten that.
Which is another point that commentators gloss over constantly and is really starting to piss me off - Congress controls the purse strings. The whole "Bush vs. Obama" thing is a red herring that allows people like you to abuse financial statistics with your tortured logic. The President suggests and can veto if the majority is not large enough - but Congress spends the money.
And when the Democrat Congress took over in 2007, they started spending like a drunken crack whore with a stolen checkbook. And your charts hide that. And that's dishonest, in the name of a "pure" comparison, which is BS anyway as in neither situation does one party have complete control, nor is either party monolithic in its fiscal beliefs.
Also, your figures don't seem to include Fannie/Freddie/GMAC and Student Loans, which is your sources' fault not yours.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 09:37 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 23, 2011 09:42 AM (tJjm/)
I don't see that Obama "throttled back" exactly. He is still accelerating, just not quite as fast as Bush, and much slower than Pelosi did from 2007-2009. If Bush took us to 70 mph, Pelosi took us to 100 mph, and Obama has now only taken us to 115.
Obama still has the pedal to the metal, but the economy just doesn't have the horsepower. He's grinding into overdrive, but the engine is pinging and smoke is coming out. He plans to hit the nitrous in 2012 (Obamacare kicks in, he gets his four more years, etc.), but the car can't take it, the unicorn highway never got finished, and the (tea party) cops are chasing him.
Posted by: bill at January 23, 2011 09:47 AM (VGEci)
If that were true, the trigger never would have been pulled, and the Tea Parties never created. Because Obama has cut taxes significantly -- lower taxes, remember, accounted for more than one-third of the '09 stimulus.
As to your point that Congress controls the purse strings, thanks for making my earlier point. Who controlled Congress for almost all of 2001-2007? Why yes, the Republicans did.
And no matter how much historical revisionism you indulge in, the fact remains that for the eight years in which George W. Bush oversaw a near-doubling of federal spending, while he converted a budget surplus into a string of big deficits, while he passed a major new social program in Medicare Part D without any effort to pay for it, the conservative movement went along meekly and for the most part quietly.
"The core of the Tea Parties began forming while the GOP was in control of Washington."
No. They didn't. They simply didn't.
The Tea Parties erupted only in 2009, after eight years under a free-spending Republican, and did so under a Democratic president who was cutting taxes.
Posted by: Jay Bookman at January 23, 2011 10:04 AM (+QsuX)
Rick Santelli had been doing those rants for a long time ... moral hazard had been talked about since the S&L crisis, and much more so after the Long Term Capital bailout in '98 (or so). Even Mark Hanes (CNBC) then complained that it was a bailout for the well heeled.
The Tea Party got momentum in response to when Freddie/Fannie corruption became evident, and unregulated derivative problems emerged from the shadows.
Even in 2005-2006 it was RINO's that thwarted Republican efforts to rein in Fannie/Freddie. Even Easy Al Greenspan said they were playing with fire. Reform made it out of committee on straight party lines, but it never came up for a vote because Fannie/Freddie lobbyists were able to buy off enough RINO's.
So efforts to compare selected time frames of Bush versus Obama really tells little about conservatives versus liberals.
Posted by: bill at January 23, 2011 10:05 AM (VGEci)
That is out and out bullshit.
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2011 10:31 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: slatz at January 23, 2011 10:43 AM (BpwT4)
Every movement begins at some point (individuals reach their breaking points) and becomes visible later on (enough of them join together to get noticed.) Just because liberals were screaming so loudly and publicly at Bush, doesn't mean conservatives weren't also screaming--we were simply drowned out.
The tea party movement isn't funded by anyone except ourselves and isn't lead by any single/group powerful entity(ies.) We're just citizens who are tired of being lied to and dismissed by our elected "representatives."
D's and R's are equally scrutinized although the D's usually just happen to be more often out of step with our core principles of fiscal conservatism and the accompanying lower taxation.
Blast away at the fact that some of us don't have an Ivy League "education" or a huge bank account to 'show for our efforts' --but DO understand this: We, for the most part: work for our living, pay our debts and taxes, exercise the same fiscal restraints which we advocate. We are made up of a cross-section of many demographics, united by desire for a type of governance which many politicians have promised but not delivered.
Posted by: Stillwater at January 23, 2011 10:45 AM (0GpN4)
<em>If that were true, the trigger never would have been pulled, and the Tea Parties never created. Because Obama has cut taxes significantly -- lower taxes, remember, accounted for more than one-third of the '09 stimulus.</em>
As Vic pointed out, that's an out-and-out falsehood... on two fronts. The first being that I said the THREAT of higher taxes was the impetus, thus the name TEA TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY. The left would probably suffer mass brain hemorrhages if they actually admitted that was an acronym and not just a reference to a caffeinated beverage. The latter being that Obama didn't cut taxes, first of all because he can't, he doesn't control the purse strings.
As I said, the punditry clings to that lie like a life preserver in a stormy sea because, in a way, it is, if your argument hinges on distracting from the work of Congress.
<em>As to your point that Congress controls the purse strings, thanks for making my earlier point. Who controlled Congress for almost all of 2001-2007? Why yes, the Republicans did.</em>
2001-2006. Not surprised you got that "wrong." Spending skyrocketed in 2007. Which is the point you've been trying to avoid so assiduously.
<em>And no matter how much historical revisionism you indulge in, </em>
The fact that YOU of all people would accuse ANYONE of "revisionism" after a performance like your article and your response completely discredits you as a serious member of the discussion.
You are simply parroting leftist dogma, in direct contradiction to the historical record. Rather like the college dean who promulgates speech codes and warns of the threat to speech of the "theocracy," or the Che-t-shirt-wearing street agitator who warns of the threat of violence form the right.
Oh, and by the way, the grass-roots conservative opposition to increased spending and the threat of increased taxation to pay for it was not "called" the TEA Party until later, and certainly wasn't centrally organized (but then the TEA Party still isn't, mainly) but it was in fact forming as early as 2004 (complaints about spending started earlier). I know this because that's when I got involved in it.
Just because you were ignorant and your industry wasn't interested in covering something doesn't mean it didn't happen, as much as you'd like to control the Memory Hole.
Ironically, you'd be right if you just asserted that public officials (elected or otherwise) have a predilection to spend other people's money without much thought or concern for the consequences. It's when you claim that Republicans are somehow worse at this than Democrats that you depart reality and enter the Twilight Zone.
I believe the correct internet meme to end this response with would be "Good Day, SIR!"
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 10:52 AM (bxiXv)
And at the time, budget SURPLUSES were being predicted for the foreseeable future. Bush even cited those predictions to justify his tax cuts.
As he put it in February 2001:
"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.
And we've never seen anything close to surpluses since then.
Oh, and btw, for the poster above, roughly 36 percent of the '09 Obama stimulus was comprised of tax cuts.
Posted by: Jay Bookman at January 23, 2011 10:53 AM (+QsuX)
Just to be snarky:
Bush's $600 'stimulus' wasn't enough to "buy a decent pair of earrings." but Obama's $400 (13 bucks at a time!) was teh awesome...
Posted by: Stillwater at January 23, 2011 10:59 AM (0GpN4)
Posted by: Cam Winston at January 23, 2011 02:40 PM (IirzJ)
No, trust me on this, lying comes more naturally to some people. Hell, some of 'em don't even know they're doing it, even when the story changes in mid-sentence they can't accept that they're lying, and will hysterically accuse you of lying for contradicting them, or even for pointing out when their story changed.
I only bother to engage in the discussion because I'm terminally bored, and it isn't healthy. On the other hand, allowing lies to promulgate isn't especially healthy, either.
People who lie bring stress into other peoples' lives. It's not polite.
If you're John Candy, I can respect you if you explain why you think it's okay for you to be that fat, heck, I don't care if you want to be that fat or if you have an endocrine problem. But when you start shouting that Rick Moranis is really fatter than you are, you've lost me.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 11:00 AM (bxiXv)
Sure, go ahead, laugh if you want to. I've seen your type before:
Flashy, making the scene, flaunting convention. Yeah, I know what you're
thinking. Well, let me give you a hint, junior. This is about that
kid's right to read a book without getting his mind warped! Or: maybe
that turns you on, Seinfeld; maybe that's how y'get your kicks. You and
your good-time buddies. Well I got a flash for ya, joy-boy: Party time
is over.
Posted by: Mr. Bookman at January 23, 2011 11:02 AM (TOfIP)
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 11:02 AM (bxiXv)
Come on, Jay, what happened at the end of 2000 and in late 2001 that might have affected the Federal budget? Also, 2003.
And how did the Clinton and Bush administrations differ as far as accounting for Federal debt? Why did that happen? What was the result, other than allowing reporters to engage in rank partisan dishonesty?
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 11:20 AM (bxiXv)
Beautiful. I love reading threads like this.
Posted by: Stillwater at January 23, 2011 03:14 PM (0GpN4)
I wish I loved them. But it's the same damned crap, over and over and over. It would be nice if they could come up with some *new* lies, or if I could be organized enough to save my old responses so I could just cut and paste.
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 11:21 AM (bxiXv)
DJIA end of session: 12,800.18
National unemployment rate for December 2006: 4.5%
2006 Federal Budget Deficit: $247.7 billion
Average GDP growth for 2006: 3.4%
Median Home Value in December 2006: $244,700 July 2010 $182,500
Average price for Regular Unleaded Gasoline December 2006: $2.30
Federal Debt as % of GDP 2006: 64.55 2008: 70.00 2009: 90.36 2010(projected): 94.27
Nonfarm employment in thousands Dec 2006: 137,000 July 2010: 130,242
In the 12 years of Republican Congress, average annual deficit: $104 billion
Posted by: always good to note at January 23, 2011 11:27 AM (S5YRY)
Posted by: slatz at January 23, 2011 11:31 AM (BpwT4)
Jesus H Christ. Is this Kent Brockman delusional or what.
Posted by: Druid at January 23, 2011 12:00 PM (RnujI)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at January 23, 2011 02:03 PM (8ybyr)
what these pricks want to pretend we are too fucking stupid to realize is .... a smaller percent increase of an ever increasing number = a BIG fucking NUMBER.
note to Jay..... you're a douche.
Posted by: j2 at January 23, 2011 02:40 PM (DCdSz)
Posted by: Professor Dave at January 23, 2011 04:57 PM (oQmFn)
Great article Ace!
Yeah, I agree with both of you slatz and iknowtheleft about Geitner screwing stuff up.
Posted by: Draki at January 23, 2011 06:01 PM (5Cbz0)
Got back to this a little late, I see. But for completeness:
In other words, the conservative myth of a burgeoning federal bureaucracy is just that, a myth.
Absolutely incorrect. Since you don't seem to want to delve into the supporting stats, lets just look at the overall federal civilian employment picture. Those levels were reasonably steady during the Bush years at 1.88 million (higher than Clinton's parting level by ~100K, largely due to an 80K increase in Homeland Security staffing). In the 2 years since Pelosi & Reid took control of Congress, 200K positions have been added. That's more than 5%/year.
Because as you can discover by reading my post, its intent was to compare what an all-GOP government does with spending vs. what an all-Democrat government does with spending.
And you don't seem to have taken my point, which was that even if the intervening years were completely anomalous (and not due to the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress), the fact that Obama increased spending from those levels is important. Your silly point is that despite the fact that Obama is spending at a level some 30+% higher than the Bush/GOP Congress, he's now only increasing spending by 4.4% a year. Right. And by presenting those numbers out of context, you are lying to the readers, and attempting to force them to a conclusion that is completely untrue.
What discontent there might have been among conservatives was largely squelched out of party loyalty to keep quiet.
Wrong. What discontent we had was buried by the avalanche of ridiculous assertions from the left, including Turkeygate, "Bush lied," Truthers, Halliburton, etc. We were on the defensive throughout his two terms, trying to set the record straight on all the imagined wrongs the Left could conjure. But there are many threads at this very blog where Bush & the GOP Congress's spending habits and domestic policies were criticized.
Why do you think there's a Tea Party at all, instead of just a stronger GOP contingent? Why did the Tea Party push its own candidates against GOP candidates? It's due to that very discontent that you seem unable to detect.
Actually, we were both wrong. It peaked in 1969, at 2.3 million.
In my case that was a typo.
Posted by: geoff at January 23, 2011 07:39 PM (iurEa)
Posted by: wholesale human hair at January 24, 2011 03:17 AM (QLQLC)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at January 25, 2011 03:22 PM (KMnNB)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2417 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: ef at January 23, 2011 03:45 AM (c7Pp2)