YOU know that there are essentially two sides to the “balance sheet.” On one side is your “Assets/Revenue/Income“…the money that is coming in. On the other side is your “Liabilities/Debits/Expenses“…the money that is going out.

YOU know that these two sides, in conjunction, determine your bottom line…which is to say, whether or not you are making money (in budgeting, we call this a “surplus“) or losing money (in budget terms, a “deficit“).

Republicans are currently trying to tell us (examples here, here, and here from Huffington Post) that spending money, like extending unemployment benefits, increases the deficit and is, therefore, BAD. They say all measures to spend money MUST be offset by reduced spending in other areas.

In principle, this is TRUE. Yes -- adding expenses without either increasing revenue or decreasing expenditures somewhere else…would increase the deficit. File that little equation under “D” for “Duh.”

They also tell us that reducing revenue, for example the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, does not increase the deficit and is, therefore, GOOD. They say these tax cuts do not require that either more taxes be collected somewhere else, or that spending be decreased to offset their effect.

That much, is FALSE…and is, perhaps, the most irresponsible rationale we’ve heard used to justify what amounts to little more than partisan political hackery. Your average person with no financial education whatsoever can see that decreasing the amount of tax revenue without increasing revenue somewhere else or decreasing expenses WOULD increase the deficit.

See the attached graph…and you’ll see that tax cuts, in fact, have a bigger impact on increasing the deficit than two foreign wars, stimulative spending, and entitlement programs:

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This particular deception…is nothing new.  Once upon a time, in our not-so-distant past, a man named George Herbert Walker Bush (a Republican) ran against another man named Ronald Reagan (also a Republican) for President of the United States.  Reagan espoused an idea that has come to be known as “Supply Side Economics.” Essentially, this theory holds that reducing taxes on the private sector will lead to significant economic growth…enough growth to offset the loss of tax revenue.  Bush, in challenging Reagan’s proposal, would famously call this “voodoo economics.“  Watch part of the debate between the two men:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

Reagan would later go on to win the election, and today he is viewed by many in the Republican Party to be a “true conservative hero,“ a sort of epitome of what Republicans are “supposed to be.” But the truth is that his presidency, in many ways, represented an END to responsible, fiscal conservatism, and it was during his presidency that America’s federal deficit, and our national debt, SKYROCKETED.

In fact, if we look at the increase in the national debt while the last two Democrats were in office, Carter and Clinton, we saw increases of 42% and 36%, respectively.

While Reagan, following “tax cut ideology,” was President…the National Debt increased by 182%.

George H. W. Bush, who initially lambasted “tax cut ideology,” only to later adopt it himself….saw an increase of 55%.

George W. Bush, also added MORE tax cuts…and saw an increase of 89%.

Wait a minute.  Here are the Republicans, claiming STILL to be the party of “fiscal responsibility and conservatism,” and they are spending us into MORE debt than the Democrats, and are continuing to reduce our tax revenue through tax cuts, creating a LARGER deficit than under Democrats.  How exactly is this methodology either “responsible” OR “conservative?”

And what’s worse, they continue to spout the SAME lie as before.  Just this month, Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, “The reality is that as you study — when President Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, when Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, when President Bush imposed those tax cuts, they actually generated economic growth, they expand the economy, they expand tax revenue.“  Senator Kyl (R-Az.) has echoed this idea, as have Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and many others in the GOP.  Unfortunately for Pence, and for all of us, what he says is clearly NOT reality.  George W. Bush’s economic policy group told him tax cuts would not generate enough growth to make up for the lost revenue. Bush’s Chief Economist was even more direct about this when he said, “You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”

And yet so many Americans, seduced by the idea of tax cuts and ignoring their own common sense, still accept and repeat the GOP’s fiscal mantra: “Tax cuts pay for themselves.”

I love a good ideological debate, and there are a great many that we can have…but is it necessary for us to debate an issue where one side’s position is completely, demonstrably false?  Must we continue to listen to the same people who ballooned our debt and our deficit, by cutting tax revenues while spending as if the money were on fire…tell us that they deserve to be elected back into office because they have the solution to the problem: More tax cuts and responsible spending…the latter of which they proven incapable of doing?  For how long, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and amidst the screaming of expert economists, must Americans still see the GOP as the party of “foreign policy and fiscal responsibility?”

An Analogy:  You are very sick.  You go to a doctor who says he has a revolutionary, “proven” cure (although he can’t produce any proof of it actually working) called “slap therapy.“  He slaps you…nothing happens, you’re still sick.  He says, “Well, you have to do it more than once,” and slaps you again…but you’re still sick.  You decide to try another doctor who has an actual, proven, documented therapy which has helped millions of people…but it will take months of treatment, and the treatment is uncomfortable.  You try it, but after a few weeks you are tired of the discomfort and waiting so you go back to the first doctor.  He says he has the answer to your problems: “slap therapy.”  And the slapping begins anew…

America…aren’t you tired of getting slapped?

Here’s a clip containing the senior Bush’s comments, plus the reactions of both Olbermann and Maddow:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzmW6nMCJ-A

While I certain understand that as father to George W. Bush, George Sr. must certainly take great pain from the wealth of criticism levied at his son over the years.  However, Bush like so many others, fails to realize the following points:

1 - Coarse political criticism has existed since the advent of American politics…and even predates it considerably.

2 - It has neither increased nor decreased in its “incivility.”

3 - Perhaps most importantly…not all commentary and criticism is created equal.

The first point made above should be obvious to anyone with even a high school graduate’s schooling in American History.  For those wishing to learn more about the history of American political discourse, this site is one of the best collections of links that I have ever seen.  From George Washington to Barack Obama, the free press and political publications have been rife with near constant criticism coming from opposing quarters, and sometimes even from within a politician’s own camp.

Which leads nicely into my second point.  This criticism, historically, was often bombastic…and occasionally vile.  George Washington, despite being arguably the most popular President in U.S. History, was often portrayed as old and indecisive…and his actions regarding our relationships with Britain and France were vociferously objected to by political enemies.  John Adams was mocked openly for his weight, his angry temper, and some of his positions which often resembled more “monarchic” thinking than “democratic.”  Andrew Jackson was denounced as a country bumpkin, and his wife was referred to as a whore and worse.

Take this political cartoon as an example: notice that Lincoln leans on a circus sign…mocking him for holding blacks in high esteem, while insinuating that his insistence on bringing blacks into the political sphere would do little more than to create a circus side show:

Or this one…portraying Lincoln as no more than a war-hungry idiot, trampling the Constitution:

No…mockery and personal attacks are nothing new to the American political arena.  In fact, it is entirely possible than instead of bemoaning how much our culture and political criticism has changed…we might do better to decry the fact that it has changed so little.  The means of distribution (cable television, tweets to cellphones, the internet, email) may have changed, allowing many more citizens to be exposed to the criticism of politicians and their policies, but the content and tone of this criticism has changed little in the last 200 years.

That being said, perhaps the real point missed by Bush Sr., and so many other Americans, is that all criticism is not created equal.

It is certain that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow criticized George W. Bush with frequency and with passion.  They provided their audiences with facts, reports, studies…and they used an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned facts, reports, and studies.  There is a word for this: it’s called activism.  What they told viewers was happening, was truly happening, and what they said would come to pass…did.  A failed war based on a lie.  Far-reaching violations of the Constitution, resulting in abuses to civil liberties.  A failure to keep Americans safe from terrorists.  A failure to aid Americans threatened by a natural disaster.  An economy in ruins.

It is certain that Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh defended George W. Bush, and criticize Barack Obama, with frequency and passion.  They provide their audiences with distorted information and sometimes outright falsehoods, based on what they know to be their viewers preconceived prejudices and fears…and they use an impassioned rhetoric to engage their viewers, to entertain their viewers, and to attempt to arouse their viewers passions to act on the previously mentioned misinformation and disinformation.  There is a word for this: it’s called propaganda.  What they tell us is happening, is not and will never be revealed to be, and what they tell us will happen, has no chance of occurring.  No communist America.  No destruction of the upper class.  No widespread abandonment of morality.  No being absorbed into some “international monolithic world order.“  No “shadow government” of czars.

These different approaches can be seen reflected in those listening to the commentators who employ them.  Moderates and liberals watched Olbermann and Maddow.  They learned of Bush’s subversions of the Constitution, his foreign policy debacles, his hawkish deceptions, and his economic blunders as they were occurring…and they were displeased.  Moderates and conservatives similarly watched O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh.  They remained blissfully ignorant of Bush’s actions and the consequences, many of them immediate, to our country.  They would excuse and defend Bush’s actions right up until the point that he was no longer politically necessary and viable.  But it was too late.  The damage was done.  And now they join in the conservative chorus, propelled by conservative pundits, to criticize and denounce all efforts by a new, Democratic president to engage in much-needed reform and to undo the damage of his predecessor both at home and abroad.  In short, they failed to see what one president was doing AS HE WAS DOING IT…yet feel they have the capacity with the current president to predict WHAT THE FUTURE OUTCOMES of his actions will be.

I’m sorry, George Bush.  I know it must be hard to hear of the comprehensive failings of your son.  But to object to those people who were trying to tell us of these failings as they were occurring, as opposed to those who told conservatives of them only once it was already too late…is irresponsible.  This criticism of yours represents a level of self-delusion and petulance that is not suited to a man of your years and political experience.  And to group all contemporary political criticism together, does a disservice to the both the critics and the American people…who desperately need to learn how to tell which they should be listening to, and which they should be ignoring.