In 2009, the Republicans sharply criticized President Barack Obama when he gave stimulus was 787 billion dollars. In 2011 he reached that representatives of the party have put the Ministry of Finance on the brink of default to force to reduce costs.
Now the White house has made a deal with the Congress, which would increase the cost of 320 billion dollars over the next 2 years and increase the borrowing limit of the Federal budget. On an annual basis, this stimulation is much greater than taken by Obama, because then the government’s actions were calculated for 10 years. And besides, the current administration has gone on a spending, not to mention tax reform, which for 10 years, the Treasury will lose revenue in the amount of $ 1.5 trillion.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that the government spends $ 1 trillion a year more than it receives, even in a period of relative economic prosperity. But very few conservatives are against such waste, despite the fact that debt is almost 23 trillion dollars, and pay it has the next generation.
In 1990-e years the Republicans vigorously protested when their representative George Bush senior and then bill Clinton insisted on increasing taxes. In the twenty-first century, dissatisfaction with rising costs and increase in the deficit was evident only when the President was elected as a Democrat. Liberals also do not take responsibility for cost savings — on the contrary, such of them as senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren propose to spend more on virtually everything except defense.
The budget deal has one positive side — this arrangement will not lead to the suspension of the activities of the government and the Ministry of Finance will not be on the edge of default for at least 2 years. However, noteworthy is the fact that politicians often behave irresponsibly when it comes to available material means. The main items of expenses are healthcare and retirement security, and save on them it is impossible. But, at least, Congress must find ways to reduce the cost of everything else, and not to allocate more and more money on almost everything.