The September 7 edition of Time magazine features a brief article up front on "A Brief History of the U.S. Deficit." Writer Claire Suddath claims that the quadrupling of the deficit under Obama is somehow a good news/bad news story:
The good news is that the Obama Administration has scaled back its estimate of this year's budget deficit to an estimated $1.58 trillion (down from $1.84 trillion in May). The bad news is that this is by far the largest budget shortfall in U.S. history — nearly $900 billion more than last year's deficit — and it accounts for 11.2% of GDP, the largest percentage since 1945.
But the "brief history" really goes off the tracks when Suddath recycles every liberal Time magazine myth about fiscal policy in the last two decades of the 20th century:
President Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policies — tax cuts combined with substantial increases in Cold War-era defense spending — led to a string of deficits that averaged $206 billion a year between 1983 and 1992. An economic boom and increased tax revenue under President Bill Clinton reversed the trend, and in 1998 the U.S. notched its first budget surplus in nearly 20 years.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
In the Reagan-Bush years, liberal reporters constantly suggested a partisan spin over fiscal fact: they claimed deficits were caused solely by Republican tax cuts and defense hikes – and completely omitted out the large domestic-spending increases coming from the Democratic spenders in the House majority. When the budget goes into balance in the Clinton years, Time makes no mention of the Republican balanced-budget pushers in the House majority. Fiscal policy is caused by presidents alone in their history book.
The online version of the Suddath article sounds a little less partisan -- the print version is different -- but it still strains the facts:
The balanced-budget acts of 1990 and 1997 helped reverse this unprecedented level of peacetime spending, and in 1998 the U.S. recorded its first budget surplus in nearly 20 years.
But when Suddath claims deficits averaged $206 billion from 1983 to 1992, she neglects to mention that Reagan's last three budgets had lower deficit numbers ($149.8 billion in fiscal 1987, $155.2 in fiscal 1988, and $152.5 in fiscal 1989) than after the supposedly deficit-cutting Bush budget deal of 1990 (deficits went up to $269.5 in fiscal 1991, and $290.2 in fiscal 1992.) Federal outlays went up faster than tax revenues.
To put all that in perspective, Reagan's last three annual budgets had lower deficits than some of the monthly deficits in fiscal 2009.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Time once again demonstrates "selective memory syndrome"!
September 3, 2009 - 13:46 ET by goldenthroat"An economic boom and increased tax revenue under President Bill Clinton reversed the trend, and in 1998 the U.S. notched its first budget surplus in nearly 20 years."
Yeah - it's because the Republicans took charge in 1994 and refused to allow Slick Willy the ability to spend recklessly like the demoncrats are doing now!
Who does TIME think they're kidding? It's a condition that a college professor of mine used to call "diahrea of the mind".
News mags like TIME wonder why their subscriptions are dropping like passes at a Detroit Lions game! How much more stupidity can they demonstrate?
"Who am us, anyway?" - Firesign Theatre
Who do they think they're
September 3, 2009 - 14:08 ET by mattmWho do they think they're fooling?
Anyone they can get ahold of at an indoctrinable age.
Reagan lowered the deficit
September 3, 2009 - 11:35 ET by mattmReagan lowered the deficit as a percentage of the overall budget.
Bush I's spending caps are responsible for the shrinking deficits of the 90's.
Clinton benefitted from a Republican Congress that kept his spendthrift tendencies in check.
W spent too much, but he also didn't get much help from his own party - still, his tax cuts turned around the weak economy he inherited from BJ.
BHO is doing his best to make Clinton look like a right-winger. One has to wonder if part of his "fundamental change" to America includes destroying it as an economic power.
Of course Uhbama wants to
September 3, 2009 - 11:40 ET by HockeyKidOf course Uhbama wants to destroy us as an economic power. It's all part of his "we are the world" vision--the U.S. is bad, and must be demonstrated to be no better than any other country. He's deranged.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Sad. Time magazine did
September 3, 2009 - 11:38 ET by buddycSad.
Time magazine did everything it could to attack Newt and the Republican Congress for demanding a balanced budget. Remember the "Grinch" cover? Remember how 3% increases were cuts? Now this magazine wants to give Clinton credit for a balanced budget?
I would have thought it only possible in California where I have lived and watched this for 35 years.
Welcome to California America.
Claire Suddath
September 3, 2009 - 11:54 ET by NotFondOfLibsI don't know claire suddath nor do I care to, but I will not be buying and/or reading Time magazine as long as she writes this kind of propaganda. Her parsing of words about deficits is strictly partisan journalism. Since when is any government entitled to run a surplus.
A product of the public school system...
September 3, 2009 - 11:58 ET by P. Aaron...there's a math problem here: $200 billion and $1.5 Trillion are significantly different.
But the press (and congress) seems to be the least informed sector of the populace.
Reagan's tax cuts.. did what?
September 3, 2009 - 12:13 ET by Gary HallWell, this isn't exactly the beginning of the story here:
no no no.. it didn't lead to that.
What must be addressed first, is that his policies --
(;~> gary
not to mention the end of
September 3, 2009 - 12:48 ET by mattmnot to mention the end of the Cold War, with the U.S. and the West being the victors....which really pisses off Leftoids.
Tax Cuts V Stimulus
September 3, 2009 - 12:32 ET by JDWAt this point in time government has spent 10% of the stimulus while 3.5M jobs have been lost. Their goal was to create and protect jobs. Should they be spending more?
We realize businesses create employment yet considering all of the new regulations and taxes, how will that ever happen? How will we reduce debt if government does nothing more than spend? The $11+T of national debt equates to about 80% of GDP, how long until it becomes 100%?
Think about how Reagan's tax cuts affected our GDP.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Will Time be fair?
September 3, 2009 - 12:52 ET by Mica the MagnificentWhen Obamacare is defeated, I want Time magazine to have an upside-down Ted Kennedy on the cover with the headline:
"Ted's self-proclaimed life's work rejected by Americans."
Awwwww.
Overturning the Reagan
September 3, 2009 - 12:53 ET by Six String SpiffOverturning the Reagan Era...
Let's see now...
Good work ethic? Gone
Self responsibility? Gone
Prosperity? Gone
Political decency? Gone
Surplus? WAY GONE
National Security? Only used for political points/Gone
Experience needed to be POTUS? None
Alienate foreign allies? Check
Befriend known criminal leaders? Check
Revise History? Check
Yeah I'd say it's been overturned.
The point of Reaganomics
September 3, 2009 - 13:09 ET by KC MulvilleThe power of "Reaganomics" was not how it affected the government. It's how it reduced the burden on the private sector. Once freed from the tax burden, the private sector took off. That's why you can't measure the success of Reagan's economic policy simply by the deficit or surplus. You still have a responsibility to keep the budget within balance, but the income of the government is secondary to the income of the private sector.
That's also why Obamanomics is such a disaster. Reagan diverted money from government so it could stay active in the private sector. But with Obama, the private sector isn't gaining anything. Quite the contrary, the money is going in the wrong direction. It's going towards government, away from where it could do some good.
There never was a surplus....
September 3, 2009 - 14:00 ET by Robert17http://www.craigstei...
PASS IT ON.
All you have to do is
September 3, 2009 - 16:11 ET by fitzfongAll you have to do is compare a Reagan-era copy with a current copy to see that TIME's business policy mirrors That One's economic policy...with similar results: higher taxes, more spending, yet delivering less "service" to fewer people. So their opinion really matters.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best