Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Dishonest About Deficits

James Cramer, co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer and self-confessed Democrat, wrote recently that "The economic policies pursued by this president have been a stunning empirical success." This view seems in stark contrast to the almost universal view of Democratic presidential hopefuls who have been unrelenting in their attacks against the Bush economic plan, calling it a "failure" at nearly every stump stop. But as we continue to grow out of the Clinton/Gore recession, as the unemployment rate continues to fall, as interest rates remain low, as inflation stays in check, and as the stock market booms, it will be increasingly difficult for Democratic presidential hopefuls to sell us on the "failed Bush economic plan." It's a thin soup indeed.

Since they can't point to the normal statistics of economic health, the Democrats have restored to scare-mongering about the deficit. Not a one clearly explains what the problem with deficits is or why balancing the federal budget is more important at the moment than bringing the national economy back to health. Instead, the deficit seems to be this evil bogeyman that Bush irresponsibly unleashed with his tax cuts. Voters would be forgiven for thinking that Democrats care more about the federal budget and the national economy.

But of course they don't. Don't believe the Democrats when they decry the evils of deficits--they are being dishonest. They are using this to assail the Bush tax cuts and to grasp at any way to spin the economy into a negative for the President.

For example, Howard Dean wants to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts saying "We can't afford them." And in classic Dean fashion he introduces the element of paranoia: "I think their [Republicans] principal motivation is to undo the pillars of the New Deal, particularly Medicare and Social Security, by making the budget deficit so big that those programs can't be sustained."

OK Howard, so what would you do to REDUCE the deficit?

Or you Dick Gephardt? You want to repeal "the budget-busting tax cuts," what would you do to tackle the deficit?

Or you John Kerry? You've complained that "In just over 1,000 days in office, George Bush has turned a $5 trillion surplus into record setting deficits," and that "We can cut the deficit in half in four years, give Americans access to the health care coverage they need, invests in education and homeland security without doing it on the backs of our elderly, children and families." Really? What's your plan?

Well it turns out that these folks are misleading Americans at best--lying at worst--about the deficit. The National Taxpayers Union & National Taxpayers Union Foundation just released a study that shows that if elected ALL of the 8 Democratic contenders would make the deficit WORSE if allow to enact their own policies.

That's right--whatever money they'd pour into the government's coffers by raising taxes would be spent and then some by their proposed federal programs. While the Bush tax cuts are projected to reduce 2004 revenues by $135 billion, the average spending increase proposed by the Democrats is $479 billion! That's right: even if they eliminated all of the tax cuts, they spend that revenue several times over.

Here is an excerpt from the press release:

"All the Presidential challengers have to varying degrees disparaged the current size of federal deficits," said study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Drew Johnson. "Yet, our examination of the candidates' spending promises reveals an inconvenient fact: the deficit potholes they're complaining about on the road to the White House would only deepen under their own policies."

The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal offered by the candidates. For actual legislation that the candidates have endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more.

It's easy for Democrats to talk down the economy and Bush bash without having to actually offer a better solution, but voters should demand better in November.