Is the GOP Fiscally Conservative?

*an opinion piece by CTC Panelist Rio Veradonir

As usual, debt is a central issue in the election.  The debt has grown under Obama.  In that sense, it might be good strategy for Romney to push this topic.  However, let's take a closer look at the facts.

Romney/Ryan have proposed large tax cuts across the board.  They say they will make up for the loss in revenue by cutting spending (and eliminating some tax deductions).  However, they will not be specific about which programs they plan to cut, by how much, and which deductions they will eliminate.

In order to make up for the enormous loss in revenue, a Romney/Ryan administration would need to drastically cut many programs and deductions.  The question is: will they actually cut enough - enough to not only make up for the loss in revenue but to get rid of the deficit and start paying down the debt?  If recent history is any judge, I'm betting they will not.

Low taxes is a central part of what defines "fiscal conservatism."  But equally important is responsibility.  A fiscally conservative administration should balance the budget, create a surplus, and pay down the debt.  Unfortunately, that is not at all what the three previous GOP administrations did.

When the neoconservative movement gained control of the GOP, the decades long tradition of paying down the debt stopped, and the debt began to grow, starting with the Reagan administration. By the time GHW Bush left office, the debt had grown from about 30% of GDP to about 65% of GDP - more than doubled. Remember, until Reagan took office, the debt had been shrinking for decades, through both GOP and Democratic administrations.

Clinton takes office. He balances his budget. The debt shrinks from about 65% of GDP to about about 55% of GDP.

GW Bush takes office. The debt grows from about 55% of GDP to about 85% of GDP.

Obama takes office, and the debt continues to grow to where it is now.

Let's look at this. Over the past five administrations, the debt has risen from 30% of GDP to 100% of GDP (as of Jan. 1, 2012) - over 3X what it was when Reagan took office. And Obama oversaw about 15% of that 70% increase.

Clinton actually paid it down by about 10%. So that means that Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for the other 55% of the increase, plus they are responsible for reversing Clinton's 10% decrease. So in total, Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for a 65% increase in the debt.

A 65% increase from 30% puts us at 95% of GDP.  So if neither the Clinton nor the Obama administrations had happened; if we we were left to just the devices of the previous three GOP administrations, we would have wound up in the same place anyway.

So let's just put to rest this ridiculous myth of GOP fiscal responsibility right now. Shall we?

For more information on the debt (and further discussion of why I left the GOP), please watch:
Episode 11: "Ex Republicans" - Former GOP members discuss why they left the party.

-Rio Veradonir
CTC Panelist

"Like" us on FaceBook for a chance to win FREE STUFF!

Hey, everyone.

We're happy to announce an ongoing monthly drawing:

Every month, we will give away FREE STUFF to one or more lucky winners.  All you have to do is "like" us on FaceBook.  Thereafter, you will automatically be entered in the drawing every month, forever.

No joke. Actual, free, useful, cool stuff - valued at between $15 and $50.  Stylish t-shirts, useful hiking bags, hot/cold thermoses, and other great stuff from our swank Cafe Press store.  This will happen EVERY month. And the winners will be congratulated publicly on our FB page.

We look forward to giving away our stuff.  We really do!

Why we treat states (and their leaders) as rational actors

*an opinion piece contributed by CTC panelist Anita Kellogg

When discussing international politics with those outside of academia, the argument that we can't negotiate with (insert leader of choice) because they are crazy, always surprises me the most.  It is surprising because the assumption that states are rational actors is foundational to international relations and foreign policy making.  Of course, it must be understood, that the concept of rationality in economics and political science differs from popular usage.  At its most basic, the assumption of a rational actor means that said actor can be expected to act in his/her own best interest.  In the case of states, this means they should foremost be concerned with preserving the security and integrity of the state.  In the case of politicians, we expect that their primary goal is to stay in power (which also means securing the security of their state).

It is important to point out that according to this definition, the leader may be an atrocious violator of human rights and otherwise a complete sociopath.  However, in dealing with said leader we will not expect him/her to act in a way that would recklessly endanger the security of the state, unless in the very rare case that particular leader has displayed such reckless behavior in the past. Off hand, I cannot think of an example of a leader behaving this way on the international stage, but I also cannot deny its exceedingly rare possibility.

In terms of current events, the assumption of rationality means that one cannot take seriously the possibility that Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel, because Israel's own supply of nuclear weapons means that retaliation would most likely result in the total destruction of Iran. This does not mean, however, that efforts against nuclear proliferation are meaningless or that there are not rational reasons a country might detonate a nuclear weapon. In this latter case we certainly have more to worry from a nuclear North Korea, which is teetering on the edge of being a failed state. Were the North Korean regime to become convinced of the collapse of the nation and their power, it would not necessarily be irrational to use a nuclear weapon as a last resort since they have nothing to lose by doing so. I'm not sure how likely such a scenario is, but it does point to a troubling rational explanation for the use of a nuclear weapon. I personally do not think military strikes will be effective in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but I do think it is worth the cost of serious sanctions and international diplomatic effort to keep Iran from going nuclear.
In sum, while it may make for some humorous entertainment to portray Kim Jong-Il and his ilk as crazy lunatics (yes I laughed at Team America), it would be dangerous to think this way when considering foreign policy. To declare an actor irrational is to say there is no possibility of negotiation, because they are not concerned with their most basic need--survival. There may be arguments that support the use of a military option towards Iran, but the idea that Iran would risk its total destruction by attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon is not one of them.

~Anita Kellogg
CTC Panelist

Getting Off the Ground

It's been a lot of fun getting Coffee Table Congress (CTC) off the ground.  I spend a lot of time talking politics over cocktails with my friends anyway, so it was an easy transition to doing it in front of the camera.  My friend David Tiktin was not an obvious choice for host.  I auditioned about a dozen people, and was pleasantly surprised how well-suited he is.  David is a natural moderator, has great charisma on screen, and manages to keep his opinions to himself.

My buddy Dave Long provides most of the start-up equipment - some lights, a decent mic, and a couple cameras.  Add my meager contributions, and we almost have a make-shift production going on here.  Dave also designed all the beautiful graphics for the show (including the incredible opening credits animation).  I could not have done this show without the two Daves.

Everybody is volunteering.  It's a big commitment for the host and crew.  Panelists don't have to go on every episode, though, so it's less of a commitment for them.  Still, it's not easy building a pool of like-able, knowledgeable folk.  Some of the panelists are friends, others are new acquaintances who replied to a Craigslist ad I put out in search of talent.  The hardest thing has been finding registered Republicans who are kind of an endangered species in Los Angeles.

Going forward, we hope to upgrade our equipment to enable a live edit, which will save much time and ensure that the episodes can be posted much faster after each taping.  I probably put 30+ hours a week into this show, and it is similar hours for Dave Long and my wife Talia Squires, who helps edit.  Nobody gets paid, but we have a good time.  And we feel like we're contributing something to the political landscape.  If you like the show and are in a position to help us grow via a little generosity, you can do so by clicking on "Contribute" on the left.  Or simply buy something in our store.  100% of proceeds go toward improving the show and keeping it afloat.

Regards,
-Rio Veradonir
director