<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="left"></a></div><br></div>
<br clear="all"><hr size="1" align="left">
<div class="timestamp">March 1, 2012</div>
<h1>Four Fiscal Phonies</h1>
<span><h6 class="byline">By <a rel="author" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Paul Krugman" class="meta-per">PAUL KRUGMAN</a></h6>
</span>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Mitt Romney is very concerned about budget deficits. Or at least that’s
what he says; he likes to warn that President Obama’s deficits are
leading us toward a “Greece-style collapse.” </p>
<p>
So why is Mr. Romney offering a budget proposal that would lead to much
larger debt and deficits than the corresponding proposal from the Obama
administration? </p>
<p>
Of course, Mr. Romney isn’t alone in his hypocrisy. In fact, all four
significant Republican presidential candidates still standing are fiscal
phonies. They issue apocalyptic warnings about the dangers of
government debt and, in the name of deficit reduction, demand savage
cuts in programs that protect the middle class and the poor. But then
they propose squandering all the money thereby saved — and much, much
more — on tax cuts for the rich. </p>
<p>
And nobody should be surprised. It has been obvious all along, to anyone
paying attention, that the politicians shouting loudest about deficits
are actually using deficit hysteria as a cover story for their real
agenda, which is top-down class warfare. To put it in Romneyesque terms,
it’s all about finding an excuse to slash programs that help people who
like to watch Nascar events, even while lavishing tax cuts on people
who like to own Nascar teams. </p>
<p>
O.K., let’s talk about the numbers. </p>
<p>
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently
published an overview of the budget proposals of the four “major”
Republican candidates and, in a separate report, examined the latest
Obama budget. I am not, by the way, a big fan of the committee’s general
role in our policy discourse; I think it has been pushing premature
deficit reduction and diverting attention from the more immediately
urgent task of reducing unemployment. But the group is honest and
technically competent, so its evaluation provides a very useful
reference point. </p>
<p>
And here’s what it tells us: According to an “intermediate debt
scenario,” the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and
Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than
the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better,
roughly matching Mr. Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out
that Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and
implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he’s really a spendthrift,
too. </p>
<p>
Is there any way to make the G.O.P. proposals seem fiscally responsible?
Well, no — not unless you believe in magic. Sure enough, voodoo
economics is making a big comeback, with Mr. Romney, in particular,
asserting that his tax cuts wouldn’t actually explode the deficit
because they would promote faster economic growth and this would raise
revenue. </p>
<p>
And you might find this plausible if you spent the past two decades
sleeping in a cave somewhere. If you didn’t, you probably remember that
the same people now telling us what great things tax cuts would do for
growth assured us that Bill Clinton’s tax increase in 1993 would lead to
economic disaster, while George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 would create
vast prosperity. Somehow, neither of those predictions worked out.
</p>
<p>
So the Republicans screaming about the evils of deficits would not, in
fact, reduce the deficit — and, in fact, would do the opposite. What,
then, would their policies accomplish? The answer is that they would
achieve a major redistribution of income away from working-class
Americans toward the very, very rich. </p>
<p>
Another nonpartisan group, the Tax Policy Center, has analyzed Mr.
Romney’s tax proposal. It found that, compared with current policy, the
proposal would actually raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of
Americans, while imposing drastic cuts in programs like Medicaid that
provide a safety net for the less fortunate. (Although right-wingers
like to portray Medicaid as a giveaway to the lazy, the bulk of its
money goes to children, disabled, and the elderly.) </p>
<p>
But the richest 1 percent would receive large tax cuts — and the richest
0.1 percent would do even better, with the average member of this elite
group paying $1.1 million a year less in taxes than he or she would if
the high-end Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. </p>
<p>
There’s one more thing you should know about the Republican proposals:
Not only are they fiscally irresponsible and tilted heavily against
working Americans, they’re also terrible policy for a nation suffering
from a depressed economy in the short run even as it faces long-run
budget problems. </p>
<p>
Put it this way: Are you worried about a “Greek-style collapse”? Well,
these plans would slash spending in the near term, emulating Europe’s
catastrophic austerity, even while locking in budget-busting tax cuts
for the future. </p>
<p>
The question now is whether someone offering this toxic combination of
irresponsibility, class warfare, and hypocrisy can actually be elected
president. </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>