|
Banned
|
Let us review where we have come from.....since the late 1980's, where we are now, and where the trends are leading us. The best way that I know to attempt this is to "follow the money", and the politics behind the state of the federal treasury "balance" sheet.....
This is relevant because it reflects on the record of the judgment of libertarians.
They seemed to have voted in a way that made the recent, tragic reversal possible. If that is true, how does that speak to their real concern for the future solvency of the US treasury, vs. thier ambitions to possess influence over government policy, the structure of government, and the areas that government holds and wields authority, and to what degree....
The US treasury debt data displayed below, supports my point that <b>the annual debt increase</b>, comprised of annual budget deficits, off-budget spending resolutions like the ones passed regularly by congress and signed by this president to fund war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan and for the Katrina disaster relief, as well as the borrowing....most years, of the entire sum of SSI surplus collections from combined worker and employer contributions (usually around $150 billion/year), <b>was $347 billion in the fiscal year ended 9/30/93:</b>
Quote:
<b>Total US Treasury debt, by year end:</b>
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655
|
......in 2000, the annual debt increase was reduced to below $18 billion:
Quote:
<b>Total US Treasury debt, by year end:</b>
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901
|
<b>GW Bush attracted the vote of both republicans and libertarians with this rhetoric, in response to the total reversal in US Treasury debt accumulation:</b>
Quote:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
......BUSH: Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our treasurey and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don't we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills. There is a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government -- the surplus is the government's money. That's not what I think. I think it's the hard-working people of America's money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. It's a difference of opinion. It's a difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself.........
|
Whether influenced primarily by the effect of the invincibility of youth, distrust of government, or a shortsighted desire for tax reduction over using the surplus to pay down the treasury debt and lower the annual interest expense weighing on the federal budget each year, libertarians and republicans voted to take back the money that they were being taxed....now:
Quote:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/di...ory_id=8058247
Libertarians
The neglected swing voters
Oct 19th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
<b>What's a true freedom-lover to do on polling day?</b>
.....That is easily enough libertarians to tip an election. And their votes are up for grabs. In 2000 George Bush won 72% of the libertarian vote, to Al Gore's 20%, by repeating the mantra “My opponent trusts government. I trust you.” But in 2004, after Mr Bush increased the size of government and curtailed some civil liberties as part of the war on terror, his margin dropped to 59%-38%. The swing was as sharp in congressional races, too. Going back further, libertarians backed George Bush senior by 74%-26% in 1988. But when he sought re-election in 1992, they split evenly between him, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. A group that can give the eccentric Mr Perot a third of its support must be really disgruntled.
When Republicans win elections, it is because they manage to pull together an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians.....
|
Quote:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberato...11-num-21.html
By James W. Harris
Libertarians: The Swing Vote in 2006 and 2008?
....... Further, these libertarian and libertarian-leaning voters are a particularly powerful demographic. They are, on average, younger, more affluent, and better-educated than other groups. A higher percentage of them vote, too...
|
The Bush administration began to manage the government in late Jan., 2001.
Their effort focused on cutting taxes and mailing rebate checks to taxpayers.
Even with the weight of the immediate effect of reduced revenue on the federal budget that was drafted in summer, 2000, and ended on 9/30/01, that included tax cuts that took place immediately, and the payout of $39 billion in tax rebate checks in summer, 2001, and because of a slowing in economic activity. the total federal debt grew only by $33 billion....
Quote:
<b>Total US Treasury debt, by year end:</b>
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886
|
Here is the background on how a reversal from a $347 billion debt increase in 1993 dollars, in 1993, <b>almost became a surplus</b> of nearly $50 billion in 2001 dollars, in 2001:
Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3019&sequence=1
The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
August 2001
Section 2 of 8
Recently enacted legislation and the continued sluggish behavior of the U.S. economy have reduced the projected federal budget surpluses for fiscal year 2001 and future years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the total budget surplus in fiscal year 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. Despite that drop, if the $153 billion surplus materializes in 2001, it will equal 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the second largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951.
With a smaller total surplus, CBO now projects a small on-budget deficit for this year. (The on-budget accounts exclude the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service.) If current tax and spending policies are maintained and the economy performs as CBO estimates, CBO projects small deficits or surpluses in on-budget accounts for the next four years; however, steadily increasing on-budget surpluses reemerge by the middle of the decade. The projected surpluses would allow all public debt that is available for redemption to be retired by 2010.
<b>The Budget Outlook</b>
For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Summary Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total. In 2010, the on-budget surplus reaches 1 percent of GDP, and the total surplus grows to 3 percent of GDP. Those estimates should be viewed cautiously, however, because future economic developments, technical estimating errors, and future legislative actions could produce substantial deviations.(1).....
....<b>The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16) is estimated to reduce revenues by $70 billion in 2001 and nearly $1.2 trillion over the 2002-2011 period.</b> That law changed numerous tax provisions, including establishing a 10 percent tax bracket, lowering income tax rates, increasing tax credits for children, repealing the estate tax, lessening the so-called marriage penalty, raising the limits on contributions to retirement accounts, and enhancing education incentives. In addition, the law increases outlays for refundable tax credits by $4 billion in 2001 and $88 billion between 2002 and 2011.......
|
....Most democrats in the house and in the senate voted against, or abstained from voting for what became <i>The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16)</i>
<b>Links to house and senate 2001 vote:</b>
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...00170#position
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml
(Democratic members names are displayed in italics...)
Mr. Bush and republicans in congress "stuck to their guns" with their tax cutting agenda. allowing nothing to interfere with it...they simply relegated debt increasing expenses that came along, but were unforeseen in 2001, to off-budget appropriations.... as recently as in his weekly radio address to the nation today, Mr. Bush still pushed to make temporary tax cuts permanent, and misled us or told us untruths about the rate the economy was growing and about the increasing rate of federal borrowing during the tenure of his presidency and his party's control of congress.
<b>The result is that, in just 6 years, the US federal trasury debt gtowth has reversed from a surplus and a total of $5,807 billion in 2001, to $8,506 billion or a total, 6 years increase of $2699 billion:</b>
Quote:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
|
Here's Mr. Bush, today:
Quote:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061028/dcsa001.html?.v=75
Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation
Saturday October 28, 10:06 am ET
......."So my administration and the Republican Congress enacted the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. We cut taxes for every American who pays income taxes. We doubled the child tax credit. We reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes on small business. We cut taxes on capital gains and dividends to promote investment and jobs. And to reward family businesses and farmers for a lifetime of hard work and savings, we put the death tax on the path to extinction.
Now the results of these tax cuts are in. The tax cuts we passed have left more than a trillion dollars in the hands of American workers, families, and small businesses, and you have used that money to fuel a strong and growing economy. Last year, our economy grew faster than any other major industrialized nation. <b>This week, we learned that our economy grew by 1.6 percent during the third quarter of this year.</b> As we expected, this rate is slower than in previous quarters. Yet the evidence still points to a vibrant economy that is providing more jobs and better wages for our workers and helping reduce the federal deficit...."
<b>***"host" notes: the "1.6 percent growth rate is an annual number, for the third quarter, it is actually figured as 0.4 percent....or one quarter of the annual growth rate.....</b>
"...Since August 2003, the American economy has created more than 6.6 million new jobs, including over 1.7 million jobs in the past 12 months alone. Real take-home wages are up by 2.2 percent over the past year, which means an extra $1,300 for the typical family of four with two wage earners. And the economic growth spurred by tax cuts has helped reduce the deficit. Tax revenues have soared as the economy has grown, allowing us to meet our goal of cutting the federal deficit in half -- three years ahead of schedule..."
<b>***"host" notes: The Bush administration refused to budget for estimated costs of war spending and Katrina relief, so the 2006 increase in federal debt is actullay higher than it was last year, but Bush could claim today that the annual deficit is lower than projected:
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23 = ($574 billion increase)
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50 = ($553 billion increase)
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 *******</b>
"All these signs point to one conclusion: Cutting your taxes worked. Unfortunately, the Democrats are still determined to raise your taxes, and if they gain control of the Congress, they can do so without lifting a finger. Under current law, many of the tax cuts we passed have to be renewed by Congress or they will expire. In other words, if Congress fails to act, your taxes will automatically go up. If Democrats take control of the House, the committee in charge of all tax legislation would be chaired by a Democrat who recently said he "cannot think of one" of our tax cuts that he would extend. And if there's no legislation to renew and extend the tax cuts, every tax rate will go back up to its old, higher level..........."
|
Quote:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
|
Quote:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
<b>Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding</b>
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71
|
Above is the data on the increasing cost....paid out of the annual federal budget for interest on the growing federal treasury debt. In the 2000 presidential debate, linked above, Mr. Bush projected a ten year, federal budget surplus of $4000 billion, and he proposed to return part of that surplus to US taxpayers, and republicans and many libertarians embraced Mr. Bush's proposals....
6 years later, we witness a $2699 increase in debt, instead. The rate of new debt is rising, not falling, and libertarians are backing away. Mr. Clinton came into office in 1993, and the 1993 federal debt increase was $347 billion. Clinton and democrats in congress, along with a small number of republicans, enacted a tax increase . Then, for 7 years, there were no changes to tax rates and total federal employment was actually reduced,....so, by 2001, if no new tax legislation had been enacted, the surplus at the end of fiscal year 9/30/01 would have been close to $50 billion
Our government, instead of finding itself several years into an effort to pay off the US treasury debt held by the public that was anticipated by Mr. Bush in 2000, is borrowing to pay the increasing interest bill on the rapidly accumulating debt, and that burden will rise as interest rates rise to attract even more borrows as the debt continues to rise and the quality of the debt (the risk premimum) pressures up the interest rate. Mr. Bush, sticking stubbornly to his plan to permanently legislate his temporary 2001 tax cuts, must resort to misleading statements to attempt justification of further choking off federal revenue, and thus increasing debt and the interest burden.
This is a good example of the purist "agenda first" mindset that I suspect many libertariians agree with:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seretogis
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...86#post2144286
Agreed. "Fiscal responsibility" to a Libertarian means the government not taking money from people in order to provide for others.....
......If Republicans (or Democrats) want to burn the house down around us, so be it. I and other Libertarian-minded people will be here to help rebuild it with the principles and values that we never sold out.
|
<b>The irony is that things weren't perfect, by any means, in fall 2000. The government was in a position then, to meet all of it's obligations and to begin paying down the then, $5674 billion treasury debt total. The situation then was ripe for gradual reform,</b> with a first priority on paying down the debt, and continuing to reduce the size of government...
<h3>The management that reversed the federal debt in just 7 years was not adequate in the view of a majority of libertarians and certainly not to republicans. By their 2000 and 2004 votes, they've put us in the crisis that we are in, now. The timeline of the treasury debt level is a non-partisan barometer of the outcome of the choices that voters made. Libertarians and republicans chose to take back the entire surplus that the democrats brought guided into existence. Republicans see no reason, even now, to reverse this course. Libertarians are reversing the vote that they made against the legacy that they will leave for their own children.... Our elders did not leave us with a massive burden of federal debt, or a government that did not "provide for others"..... I can't take the opinions of libertarians seriously....they've put their own agenda above any concern for the common good!</h3>
Last edited by host; 10-28-2006 at 01:19 PM..
|