RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Reich writes: "Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) says Senate Republicans will unanimously support a balanced-budget amendment, to be unveiled Wednesday as the core of the GOP's fiscal agenda."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



The Biggest Republican Lie

By Robert Reich,Robert Reich's Blog

13 February 10

 

enate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) says Senate Republicans will unanimously support a balanced-budget amendment, to be unveiled Wednesday as the core of the GOP's fiscal agenda. There's no chance of passage so why are Republicans pushing it now? "Just because something may not pass doesn't mean that the American people don't expect us to stand up and be counted for the things that we believe in," says McConnnell.

The more honest explanation is that a fight over a balanced-budget amendment could get the GOP back on the same page - reuniting Republican government-haters with the Party's fiscal conservatives. And it could change the subject away from  social issues - women's reproductive rights, immigration, gay marriage – that have split the Party and cost it many votes.

It also gives the Party something to be for, in contrast to the upcoming fights in which its members will be voting against compromises to avoid the next fiscal cliff, continue funding the government, and raising the debt ceiling.

Perhaps most importantly, it advances the Republican's biggest economic lie – that the budget deficit is "the transcendent issue of our time," in McConnell's words, and that balancing the budget will solve America's economic problems.

Big lies can do great damage in a democracy. This one could help Republicans in their coming showdowns. But it could keep the economy in first gear for years, right up through the 2014 midterm elections, maybe all the way to the next presidential election.

Perhaps this has occurred to McConnell and other Republicans.

Here's the truth: After the housing bubble burst, American consumers had to pull in their belts so tightly that consumption plummeted – which in turn fueled unemployment. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity in the U.S. No business can keep people employed without enough customers, and none will hire people back until consumers return.

That meant government had to step in as consumer of last resort – which it did, but not enough to make up for the gaping shortfall in consumer demand.

The result has been one of the most anemic recoveries on record. In the three years after the Great Recession ended, economic growth averaged only 2.2 percent per year. In the last quarter of 2012 the economy contracted. Almost no one believes it will grow much more than 2 percent this year.

In the wake of the previous ten recessions the U.S. economy grew twice as fast on average - 4.6 percent per year. It used to be that the deeper the recession, the faster the bounce back. The Great Depression bottomed out in 1933. In 1934, the economy grew more than 8 percent; in 1935, 8.2 percent; in 1936, almost 14 percent.

Not this time. Unemployment is still sky high. The current official rate of 7.9 percent doesn't include 8 million people (5.6 percent of the workforce) working part-time who'd rather be working full time. Nor those too discouraged even to look for work. The ratio of workers to non-workers in the adult population is lower than any time in the last thirty years – and that's hardly explained by boomer retirements.

Wages continue to drop because the only way many Americans can find (or keep) jobs is by settling for lower pay. Most new jobs created since the depth of the Great Recession pay less than the jobs that were lost. That's why the real median wage is now 8 percent below what it was in 2000

Republicans who say the budget deficit is responsible for this are living on another planet. Consumers still don't have the jobs and wages, nor ability to borrow, they had before the recession. So their belts are still tight. To make matters worse, the temporary cut in Social Security taxes ended January 1, subtracting an additional $1,000 from the typical American paycheck. Sales taxes are increasing in many states.

Under these circumstances, government deficits are not a problem. To the contrary, they're now essential. (Yes, we have to bring down the long-term deficit, but that's mostly a matter of reining in rising healthcare costs – which, incidentally, are beginning to slow.)

If Republicans paid attention they'd see how fast the deficit is already shrinking. It was 8.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2011. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts it will shrivel to 5.3 percent by the end of 2013 if we go over the fiscal cliff on March 1 - and some $85 billion is cut from this year's federal budget. Even if March's fiscal cliff is avoided, the CBO expects the deficit to shrink to 5.5 percent of the GDP, in light of deficit reduction already scheduled to occur.

This is not something to celebrate. It translates into a significant drop in demand, with nothing to pick up the slack.

Look what happened in the fourth quarter of 2012. The economy contracted, largely because of a precipitous drop in defense spending. That may have been an anomaly; no one expects the economy to contract in the first quarter of 2013. But you'd be foolish to rule out a recession later this year.

The budget deficit and cumulative debt are not the "transcendent issue of our time." The transcendent issue is jobs and wages. Cutting the budget deficit now will only result in higher unemployment, lower wages, and more suffering.


Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+93 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-13 12:06
I wonder if anyone in the mainstream media will look at the balanced budget bill as anything more than another item to keep score on. The pundits will all sit around their tables talking about this is something that people want and then they will look at idiotic polls where people are asked inane questions like "should we balance the budget" and report that 68% of Americans supporting a balanced budget means we should have one.

Just once, before they start polling, give us the implications of balancing a budget. Bring on a Republican and ask him/her to explain exactly how a balanced budget will result in higher pay for the low or stagnating pay person. How that will force the pizza shop to hire another pizza maker because now he will have more business? Just once, I would love it if they asked Paul Ryan to "show his work" just like we did in 4th grade when we were being taught arithmetic. Don't worry Paul, most Americans can still do basic math. In other words, if they want a balanced budget so bad, prove it. Tell me te story. I have asked this of numerous folks over the years. I all I ever hear is a lame equivalence to an individual paying bills.
 
 
+60 # AndreM5 2013-02-13 14:10
That dog won't hunt. There is no there there.

Progressives are not the best at catchy messaging but I heard the perfect, truthful bumper sticker yesterday:

"We don't have a budget deficit, we have a jobs deficit."

Put people back to work and the deficit disappears.

So what is stopping the recovery? McChinless' and Boner's commitment to wreck the economy so they can win an election.
 
 
+6 # jmac9 2013-02-14 14:53
Righto Andre

Republicans destroyed the economy with Bush-Cheney...a nd today they are the same nuts

Nothing has changed or will from Republicans...t hey just have billionaire corporate nuts to fund their TV ads to make them look like they are still alive...more like the 'living' dead.
 
 
+9 # Michael Lee Bugg 2013-02-15 19:45
Remember before the 2010 elections the Republicans said, "Elect us and we will create jobs," but the only job opening they tried to create was at the White House! The Republicans know that their true constituency is the top 2% of Americans who are doing rather well. They don't care how much the bottom 98% suffers as long as they think they can blame it on the Democrats, Obama in particular. They have wanted to gut all federal spending except for the military since most of that tax money goes to red states. They created these deficits and exaggerated fear of them to panic the poorly informed public into going along with deep cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security! The two biggest contributors to the federal and state budget deficits are Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts (the top marginal tax rate was 70% when Reagan started cutting taxes for the rich!) and the high unemployment. Get millions of unemployed and under paid Americans back to work and we would see the deficits shrink rapidly. The problems are: the rich are still using "free trade" to shamelessly export jobs to low wage countries; the banks are still not making loans to individuals and small businesses even if they show repayment ability; and technology is eliminating jobs faster than it is creating jobs! Until we find a way to deal with these three issues unemployment will remain high as will the deficits, which will give the Republicans reason to scream for more budget cuts!
 
 
+70 # fredboy 2013-02-13 12:28
Here in Collier County, Florida, visitors are gasping on the beachfront in front of the Ritz-Carlton. The reason: massive red tide along the beaches for more than five months! Yes, streaming, dangerous bacteria blooms with major health impacts. Neurotoxic. Also impacts respiration. Dead fish and other sea life. Gasping beach goers. The GOP county commission voted to NOT move back fertilizer that fuels the mess--thus creating THE BACTERIA COAST. Spread the word--it is dangerous here now.
 
 
+59 # jjj 2013-02-13 12:48
'The budget deficit and cumulative debt are not the "transcendent issue of our time." The transcendent issue is jobs and wages.'
In the sub-category of "The Economy" this might be a correct statement but in the big picture it is not. The transcendent issue of our time is whether we decide to continue or halt the destruction of our home- the planet earth.
 
 
+36 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-13 13:08
jjj,

When you apply the decription of transcendent you are absolutely correct. And in that light, any jobs created and wages uplifted must further the saving of earth foremost.
 
 
+44 # tbcrawford 2013-02-13 13:00
If military cuts actually do occur, personnel must be employed...War should not be our jobs program...how about infrastructure and renewable energy projects? Bases turned into technology campuses. Wages earned would encourage consumer spending including education. Energy projects would be a much needed investment in our national future as would education in one's personal future. Of course, we have to silence the endless rhetoric of fear and reduce the reckless massacre of civilians world wide. Do we still have a Peace Corps?
 
 
+23 # Sweet Pea 2013-02-13 14:42
This sounds like a very good idea.It worked during FDR's Presidency. However, we also started our huge industrial base at that time. We didn't buy imports we "made" it and bought it here. Now, we import almost everything, even our groceries. We have sent most of our industrial base go to other countries. We bought ourselves right out of jobs. The only people that are making money are those who have enough money to invest in foreign corporations.
 
 
+27 # sandyclaws 2013-02-13 15:57
It is time to make peace pay! All cuts to military spending should be applied to renewable energy projects and employment and if the private sector won't do it then the government should! The resultant power bills would probably be cheaper anyway. Maybe if the government started building renewable energy projects itself, that would scare the private sector into competition. The private sector has never moved in a new direction without the government being the driving force! Lots of technical folks in the military! This could be the snowball that saves our Nation!
 
 
+7 # mdhome 2013-02-14 11:51
Yes, something comparable to the Hoover damn and the TVA.
 
 
+50 # Erdajean 2013-02-13 13:13
The REAL "transcendent issue of our times" is the devaluation of humanity, and all life -- unless it can be shown to Make A Profit. For BIG Capital.

There is NOTHING in any GOP scheme for the human being who only wants the life afforded by our Creator -- and once upon a time, by our Constitution.
Our only place in this country is as servants for Big Capital. We are in this viper's grip and unless we strike back with a united force and a vengeance -- i.e., unless we free our country from the McConnells, Cantors, Ryans that SOMEHOW we have let keep us in their despicable coil, the strength that WAS America will leave us forever.
 
 
+16 # Robert B 2013-02-13 14:37
Nicely said.
 
 
+22 # Old Uncle Dave 2013-02-13 13:30
The transcendent issue of our time is the loss of Constitutional rights and the descent into a totalitarian police state.

Repeal the Patriot Act. Abolish DHS. Return to freedom.
 
 
-25 # wantrealdemocracy 2013-02-13 13:39
What ever lie the Republicans tell, they will have the support of our bipartisan President. It is not really bipartisan---th at term means there are two parties which have different agendas. This is not the case today. D = R and R = D. Both of these bunch of paid lackeys of the 1% favor 'austerity' which means the wars go on and the bankers get their bailout to continue. These two programs are the cause of our problems. If Obama would listen to the people he would end the wars, tax the rich, fully fund our domestic programs and protect the environment. (Don't hold your breath---it is bad for your health and Obama is, even if you don't think so, totally unwilling to listen to the people of this nation. We must do all we can to change the government and that surely means to stop trusting the Democrats. The Republicans are out front in what they want, the Democrats try to tell us that they really care about the 99%---BUT THEY DON'T.
 
 
+35 # flippancy 2013-02-13 14:24
There is only a minor equivalency bertween the parties. Granted conservative Democrats may be as evil as every Republican, but the only politicians on the side of the American people are all Democrats.

Liberals care about people, conservatives care about money, and as the Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Which makes every Republican evil.
 
 
-1 # engelbach 2013-02-13 17:43
Most of the Democrats, including Obama, are not "liberals."

And they care as much about money as the GOP does.

How can anyone forget their cowardly performance in backing GW Bush's two illegal wars?
 
 
+9 # randrjwr 2013-02-14 11:17
Quoting flippancy:
.....the only politicians on the side of the American people are all Democrats.


And there may be only 10 or so of those; Elizabeth Warren, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi come to mind. But let us not forget the champion--Berni e Sanders and he is an Independent!
 
 
0 # engelbach 2013-02-13 17:41
You don't deserve all the negative votes.

But on this blog criticism of Obama and the Democrats is considered heresy.

I agree with your entire post.

Labor Party 2016.
 
 
+17 # kyzipster 2013-02-14 07:45
I find RSN to be a great place to read intelligent criticism of Obama and the Democrats and I generally agree with most of it. They publish Chomsky, Bill Moyers and other critics regularly, one of the few places online that embraces this criticism.

'Thumbs down' are usually awarded to people who suggest that both parties are exactly the same in every way and insult other forum members trying to debate the undeniable differences. It's no more reality based than Fox News. Both parties are corrupt and corporate lobbying is out of control but the extremism of the GOP cannot be denied. They want to destroy SS, Medicare, and the entire social safety net. They want even more tax cuts while increasing military spending. The Dems won't save the day but at least they're holding back the extremism and occasionally they even do the right thing.
 
 
+3 # PGreen 2013-02-14 14:41
"The Republicans are out front in what they want"
This is the part I don't quite agree with. (Otherwise you have some good criticisms of Obama and the Democrats.) The Republican party isn't admitting that they favor an oligarchy in which wealthy (and some government) individuals maintain elite privileges, something like "neofeudalism," as Chris Hedges terms it. They don't admit that they support these individuals and their supporting institutions being above the law. The don't admit that they favor the forcible expansion of this system worldwide into a kind of empire. They don't admit that deception and distortion-- even destroying democracy-- will be employed to accomplish this end.
Of course many Democrats have this agenda as well, as you say. But neither side can sell it openly, and cannot be "out front" about it.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, there are some qualitative differences between the two parties (especially among individuals), but yours is a good reminder that Ds and Rs have disturbing similarities in their bottom line agenda.
 
 
+38 # flippancy 2013-02-13 14:21
Funny, Clinton actually had a balanced budget and Republicans screeched "It's oUR money" and passed budget destroying tax cuts.

Between Reagan and Bush it may be decades before we can ever have a balanced budget again, but the way to start is to make sure corporations pay their 35% taxes and the top marginal rates are restored to 74% where they belong.

Then expand the safety net drastically. Every dollar spent on the safety net brings in far more than a dollar while every dollar spent on high income tax cuts results in a loss of 68 cents.

Austerity is the game of the stupid, spending is and has always been the only way to fix depressions and recessions.
 
 
+10 # sandyclaws 2013-02-13 16:04
Great idea flippancy. I heard the multiplication factor for the government spending on things like infrastructure is 7 times the money spent by the government.
 
 
+23 # Robert B 2013-02-13 14:36
The Balanced Budget Amendment was a dumb idea when Bob Dole proposed it in the mid-'90s. Why do the Republicans keep on flogging these old, thoroughly discredited ideas? The same pig with different lipstick. These guys are hopeless. Are we going to get the Flag-Burning Amendment again?
 
 
-20 # MidwestTom 2013-02-13 14:36
The real "transcendent issue of our times" has nothing to do with economics, in fact it is almost of repeat of the dark ages; it is the battle to control the world. The Western world that this battle is and will be fought militarily, but the Muslims have openly stated that they intend to win by simply out reproducing everyone else, using violence only after they achieve majority status in a given state or region. They have no interest in saving the planet, or even their own lives. The cushy handouts available in Europe and the US are facilitating their rapid expansion (from 100,000 in the 1970 to over 5 million in 2005 in the US, approaching 20% in France and Germany, and over 30 in Belgium. Unless we wake up our granddaughters will be wearing Bourcha's.
 
 
-35 # Martintfre 2013-02-13 14:46
IF the government printing press was the solution no government would fail for economic reasons -- Krugman is a democrat big brother shill

//Perhaps most importantly, it advances the Republican's biggest economic lie – that the budget deficit is "the transcendent issue of our time," in McConnell's words, and that balancing the budget will solve America's economic problems.//

We have been here before. In 1920 Harding CUT GOvernment spending from 18 Billion to 6 and in 18 month the economy rebounded nicely AND
in 1931 Hoover/then far worse FDR BOOSTED government spending and the economy did not recover till after FDR's death 15 years later
 
 
+24 # engelbach 2013-02-13 17:51
Your history is sketchy and inaccurate, as is your understanding of economics.

Harding's cuts were to the military budget, and under conditions far different from those today.

http://my.firedoglake.com/captjjyossarian/2011/04/29/yes-president-warren-harding-cut-the-budget-the-military-budget/

Hoover presided over the most devastating economic meltdown in history. FDR's policies rescued the working class from starvation. When he lowered government spending in 1936-37 the recession deepened. And of course, government spending was never higher than during the War.

The dollar is the currency of choice for the wold's reserves. It's stronger than any other, and printing of new money takes place every day with a negligible effect on inflation. You cannot compare the U.S. with Greece or Spain.

And with interest rates near zero, this is the ideal time to borrow and invest in a jobs program.

Regardless of what you think of Krugman's politics, you have no argument better than his about the economy.
 
 
+10 # JCM 2013-02-13 18:21
Recovery did not last long for Hoover. Another economic contraction began near the end of Harding's presidency in 1923, while tax cuts were still underway. A third contraction followed in 1927 during the next presidential term. Many economists believe it was an expanding tax base that brought the expansion from 1921 to 1923. Hoover did not boost government spending and when FDR incresed spending the economy improved. Unfortunatly, FDR succumbed to to deficit hawks and things got worse after that. His second term was started with total control over Congress and the second new deal was put in place, improving the economy and unemployment, though still high. A rough but a resonably accurate summary.
 
 
+7 # pbbrodie 2013-02-13 20:18
You are such a complete joke.
You right this garbage so automatically that you forgot who wrote this article!
Why are you castigating Dr. Krugman?
Robert Reich wrote this.
 
 
+7 # tabonsell 2013-02-14 13:22
This is a classic example of distorting reality to make a point.

After the massive cuts in government spending in 1919-20 the economy went into the depression of 1920-21. It recovered because the American public, unable to buy much beyond basic necessities of survival during years of war, were loaded with cash, which they used to go on a spending spree to buy houses, furniture, appliances, automobiles and much more. The American public doesn't have a stash of cash now because of three decades of Reaganomics attacking the consuming class.

Hoover didn't boost government spending, he cut it in fiscal year 1932 and an ordinary depression became the Great Depression. FDR stopped the plunge by increasing spending.

And the economy recovered during FDR's lifetime. To wit: unemployment was 24.9% when Hoover left office; it was 9.9% in 1941 before we were involved in the war.

When Hoover left, the GDP was $56 Billion. In the summer of 1941 (fiscal year 1941 ended on June 30 when these figures apply) was $124 Billion. That amounts to a growth of more than 15% over the eight years. If we subtract the two years lost when FDR gave into right-wing whining and cut spending in 1937 the growth rate was better than 20% annually.
 
 
+9 # tabonsell 2013-02-14 13:35
By claiming the "economy did not recover till after FDR's death 15 years later" you must be relying on the right-wing's constant lie that WWII cured the depression.

OK. Let's look at that.

During the war more than 17 million Americans were in the military. Millions more were in civilian support roles. Those were government jobs, the type of jobs the right claims destroy economies.

During the war government spent massively, and it was deficit spending the right claims destroys the economy.

The top tax rate was 91%, and of course the right claims taxes destroy economies so they must be cut, cut, cut, and cut some more.

Lastly, government regulations were at their strongest ever with government setting wages and prices, dictating inventory and operating hours, Americans couldn't buy butter or sugar among other items and to get the allotted amount of gasoline (4 gallons a week) Americans had to have a coupon book.

It is pathetic how conservatives, in trying to deny credit for success to the left, end up arguing against their very own beliefs and come off as moronic.
 
 
+20 # sfrider 2013-02-13 14:51
A recession can be a boon for business owners. It gives them an excuse to lay off workers. Then as business conditions improve they can get those who remain to work harder, longer, faster in order to keep their jobs. It gives them an excuse to delay and reduce the size of raises. It allows them to hire new workers for less pay and benefits than they might otherwise have required. While gross revenues may be limited, all of this economizing on the cost of employees adds up to a temporary increase in productivity that increases profits. The recession may be bad for workers, but it can be good for business owners. I saw this happen in the company I worked for during the Bush 41 recession in 1990-1991. We had less employees and sales were pretty flat, but the company owner still managed to increase his profits 10%, by $1,000,000 that year. At that time, downsizing workforces became a management mantra. Since the beginning of the most recent recession, employment and wages are down, but business profits are up. You don't hear a lot of talk about downsizing now; it's all about "job creators". Republicans have become very savvy about tailoring language for positive effect. But does this explain anything about our national politics?
 
 
-36 # Martintfre 2013-02-13 15:01
Hey Perfessore.

If stimulas is such a marvie Idea and deficits and debts dont matter -- whey not abolish the income tax entirely and simply point Bernakies magical printing press at the treasury department leaving we the little people alone.

That way the government can have all the money it wants and we can spend ours as we want .. WIN WIN...

Right Dr Reich ??
 
 
0 # flippancy 2013-02-16 18:01
Quoting Martintfre:
Hey Perfessore.

If stimulas is such a marvie Idea and deficits and debts dont matter -- whey not abolish the income tax entirely and simply point Bernakies magical printing press at the treasury department leaving we the little people alone.

That way the government can have all the money it wants and we can spend ours as we want .. WIN WIN...

Right Dr Reich ??



Hooray for ignorance. Right?
 
 
+18 # teineitalia 2013-02-13 15:01
thank you, jjj, for your post.

I, too, believe that the "transcendent issue of our time" is the fact that we are poisoning the nest - our only home - in the name of profit and greed. The issues of climate change, extreme weather, global warming, oceans rising, red tides (as fredboy has rightly noted) are the critical and paramount issues, and if we don't address them quickly and decisively, it's game over for the planet.

An effort similar to putting a man on the moon- using the best and brightest and most innovative minds around the world- would not only address this issue, it would create jobs and clean up locales that may have become toxic due to our complacency and foolishness.
 
 
+12 # sandyclaws 2013-02-13 15:59
Bravo teineitalia!
 
 
+16 # Bob P 2013-02-13 15:32
If congressional pay was capped at ten times median worker income and bribery was made illegal again, I think congress would behave differently, maybe even for the better.
 
 
+15 # roger paul 2013-02-13 16:02
In in all likelihood the planet will be around for billions of years. However it will not be a planet that we would recognize. Of course the chances are good that we humans won't be around to recognize it anyway. Nor should we, after what we have done to our mother. Democrat, Republican, socialist, communist, capitalist, or whatever your political or religious belief....we are among the endangered species.
 
 
+14 # jjj 2013-02-13 16:43
Quoting roger paul:
In in all likelihood the planet will be around for billions of years. However it will not be a planet that we would recognize. Of course the chances are good that we humans won't be around to recognize it anyway. Nor should we, after what we have done to our mother. Democrat, Republican, socialist, communist, capitalist, or whatever your political or religious belief....we are among the endangered species.


And unfortunately we are taking down a lot of other species with us- more every day.
teieitalia- you are eloquent!
 
 
+5 # Vern Radul 2013-02-13 19:18
Neither party is interested in addressing climate change.

Long term planning is not a concern for either of them.

The time horizon for both of them is the next election.
 
 
+15 # engelbach 2013-02-13 17:38
The GOP always counts on the ignorance of the public -- and the impotence of the Democrats.

It's imperative that the Dems publicly proclaim why a balanced budget is not a necessity and why attempts to directly impose deficit reduction will harm the working class.

But I don't really expect them to. They've been less than aggressive in denouncing the voodoo economics of the GOP and pushing for investment that will rescue the economy.
 
 
+12 # tabonsell 2013-02-13 18:01
One of the most-ludicrous statements Rand Paul made in the Tea Party response to the State of the Union speech was:

"Our party is the party of growth, jobs and prosperity, and we will boldly lead on these issues." Facts say differently.

Since World War I, every Republican administration has trashed the economy. Eisenhower did it three times, Nixon twice and George Bush the Buffoon twice.

Since theGreat Depression Democratic administrations have done much better than GOP in Job creation. The one exception was Harry Truman who was in office when government spending was reduced about 60 percent, much of the economy shut down to switch from wartime production to peacetime production. About 8 million men were discharge from the military and several civilian wartime support jobs were eliminated. In spite of that Truman had a better job creation record that George Buffoon Bush.

Economic growth has always been better under Democrats than under GOP.

Prosperity is always better under Democrats than under GOP. I.E. poverty skyrockets under GOP, is reduced under Democrats. When Eisenhower left office poverty was 22.5 percent. When LBJ left it was 12%. Carter had poverty at 11.4% but it skyrocketed to 15.1% under Reagan and Daddy Bush. Clinton left a poverty rate of 11.3% to Buffoon Bush who shot it past 15% once again where it remains almost that high because the "party of prosperity' refuses to cooperate in lowering it.
 
 
+6 # tabonsell 2013-02-13 19:52
PS:

The time when Harry Truman suffered low job creation was the term he inherited on the death of FDR. But job growth came in at 1.7%; annually; much higher that the 0.17% of Buffoon Bush, the 0.9% of Eisenhower or the 0.6% of Pappy Bush, and slightly below the 2.2% of both Nixon and Reagan, the best of the GOPers.

In Truman's full term of 1949-52 his job creation averaged 3.5%.
 
 
-9 # Vern Radul 2013-02-13 19:08
The biggest republican lie is the same lie as the biggest democratic lie.

That they present anymore than a false choice and are not both invested in furthering that lie.
 
 
+15 # ghostperson 2013-02-13 20:10
Screw a balanced budget amendment, we have bigger fish to fry: JOBS! To the GOP I say, the last new idea you guys had was in the Ice Age. Why do you keep repeating issues that do not have traction in our current jobless recovery?
 
 
-1 # Allen 23 2013-02-13 21:21
It's time to face facts.

It was not the GOP which created a "Deficit Commission" stacked with anti-social program zealots. That was Obama.

It was not the GOP which appointed Wall Street Banksters as Chief of Staff in the White House. That was Obama.

It was not the GOP that passed new Free Trade Job Outsourcing with Columbia, Panama, and S. Korea - that was Obama.

It was not the GOP that has been secretly pushing for the Trans Pacific Partnership - a HUGE boon to the 1% and their corporations, that's all Obama.

It was not the GOP that appointed a Monsanto executive to the FDA - that was Obama.

It was Obama who publicly stated during the debates that, and I quote: "Corporate Taxes Are Too High".

It was Obama who publicly stated his Healthcare "Reform" (based on the Heritage Foundation's Reform Policy from the 90's) was basically the same as Romney's

Ready to wake up yet? Ready to stop buying into the BS shoveled on stage at the Kabuki Theater of the Absurd and realize that the GOP-DEMOCRAT "competition" is nothing more than farcical theater put on to keep the masses from realizing they are being royally screwed by the 1%?

Or shall we continue to lament how "Oh if only the Dems had the House" things would be different!

Let me know how the House GOP has forced Obama to continue pushing Free Trade Job Offshoring, creating Deficit Commissions to attack our social programs, appointing corporate / banksters to positions of power...
 
 
-10 # Vern Radul 2013-02-13 22:18
Returning the Democratic Party to the glory days of house and senate control that it had until Obama and the party were unable to convince enough people that their batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was the only way to go, is the only way to go. There is no other reasonable way to go.

Or so people are repeatedly assured by obama - sorry, I mean republican - sycophants.
 
 
+3 # Joy Arnold 2013-02-15 16:08
Doesn't this make it clear that the problem is our total reliance on a consumer economy that recognizes only profits for the few as its measure of success? Hence, we hear we cannot require a minimum, much less a living wage because businesses won't hire. They won't hire if they have to cut into their profits by paying employees a sufficient amount to support themselves and their families. And it is not only the industries that rely on minimum wage employees, but also those who pay skilled employees barely above that -- enough to not starve, not enough to save for what CEO's long ago ceased to need.
 
 
+3 # cherylpetro 2013-02-16 14:59
RepubLIEcans lie as easily as it is for them to take a breath! They hate fact checkers, because they make it up as they go along! Mitt Romney was NOT a "flip flopper," he was just a plain old LIAR!
 
 
-3 # Vern Radul 2013-02-16 15:47
Uncanny isn't it? They are a lot like democrats...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN