No matter what anyone says, both sides of Congress want more deficits. They just get to it in different ways.
You can stimulate the economy in two ways: cut taxes or increase federal spending. They both work inefficiently because Republicans never really fix the tax code when they so-called "cut taxes" and often it's just a short-term tax credit where middle America gets to pocket $1000/year and that money feeds the economy. The democrats spending increases aren't that efficient because, well, government spending is never efficient.
And because so much or federal government spending is already fixed and there is only a small piece of the pie that is discretionary in every budget, in EITHER of these scenarios, short-term, the year-to-year deficit spending goes up.
And both systems rely on the short-term deficits to end because the stimulus caused by either of their systems eventually kicks in and result in increased federal revenue. This normally happens about 2-3 years after the "tax cut" or after the government expansion.
That's why we're never really going to change anything on this issue. Too much of our federal government right now is almost untouchable.
The only changes we've seen over the past 50 years have really been small government expansions (more federal programs) by Democrats, then a Republican comes in, cuts those programs (they never get all of them) and offer a short-term tax cut.
That's why I'd love to actually see tax reform and not a tax cut. Sure, there are some taxes that should be lowered. But the new tax law doesn't have to reduce federal revenue for me really to be behind it. What I really want is just a complete re-write of the code, simplification, get rid of the countless loop holes and deductions that only the wealthy seem to use. We can make the tax code simpler and keep revenue the same and then hope the REFORM stimulates the economy even though there isn't any real net cash gains in the tax law for America (poor, middle or upper class).
At the same time continue to SLOW DOWN spending increases on programs, which are written to always increase at a rate it seem faster than the economy (especially under Obama's economy). The travesty of the Obama Presidency is not just his deficit spending. It's that his spending resulted in so little growth. And that his spending programs have written in increases that have outpaced the growth rate he predicted when first becoming President. It's embarrassing to the Democrats that they write and pass spending programs but aren't willing to cut spending if costs or growth don't support the program in the first place. That is the definition of Democrat tax-and-spend policies that I just can't ever get behind.
