Bushonomics: Deficit City

by Tula Connell, Oct 12, 2006

New data out today show the U.S. trade deficit worsened dramatically, to a record $69.9 billion shortfall in August, according to a Commerce Department report. The trade deficit, which climbed by 2.7 percent over the July deficit, pushed the shortfall with China to an all-time high, says Bloomberg News.

In 2005, the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a staggering $201 billion, a record that will be shattered in 2006. A rapidly growing trade deficit pushes workers out of higher-wage jobs and into low-wage positions in non-trade-related service industries.

Bushonomics isn’t looking too hot when it comes to the national deficit, either. As the Center for American Progress reports today, when Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a yearly budget surplus of $284 billion from the Clinton administration. At the time, Bush

predicted a $516 billion surplus for fiscal year 2006. Yesterday, the Bush administration announced that, in 2006, the federal government ran a deficit of $248 billion, missing its projection by $764 billion. President Bush considered this a smashing success. In a speech yesterday, Bush said the numbers were “proof that pro-growth economic policies work” and an example of “sound fiscal policies here in Washington.” Although the deficit declined from $318 billion last year, “the long-term outlook remains bleak.”

Despite recent statements by Bush administration apologists, the federal deficit is not decreasing. If Bush implements his economic agenda—including making his tax cuts permanent for the wealthy—”deficits will total nearly $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.”

Under Bush, 80 percent of America’s workers aren’t making any more money now than they were five years ago despite nearly five years of economic expansion. So much for “trickle down.”

Under Bush, the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly passed tax cuts for the wealthy—a $70 billion tax cut for the rich this year alone.

Under Bush, the poverty rate climbed to 12.6 percent in 2005, the last year for which data are available, from 11.3 percent in 2000.

Under Bush, the number of those without health insurance rose from 45.3 million in 2004 to 46.6 million in 2005. The rate of uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. This rate is higher than all but two years (1997 and 1998) since the data series began in 1987.

The list goes on. But if you’re still undecided how to vote in the coming elections, Bonddad at Daily Kos analyzes the records of presidents over the past 25 years to determine which administrations have created the most effective government with the soundest fiscal policy. His conclusion: Among Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr., only one president has controlled spending and limited government growth: Clinton.

In short: Fiscal conservatives should vote Democratic.