Rarely do I quote Republicans for political insights, but this video of Ronald Reagan telling the truth about how Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit was too great to pass up. And Mitch McConnell and Republicans know Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, but that won’t stop them from pushing their big lie anyway.

And lest you think that Ronald Reagan even momentarily did something good, always remember that Reagan was the first one to tax Social Security in order to pay for his tax cuts to the rich.

The only time Republicans pretend to care about the federal deficit is when there’s a Democratic President in the White House.

Peep the decades-long okie doke:

1) Republicans run up the deficit by passing giant tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires

2) and then they say that to reduce the deficit, which remember, they just caused, we need austerity cuts to the social safety net: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, poor people need to go without, experience some belt tightening & austerity to pay for rich people living lavishly. It’s class warfare. It’s inflicting austerity on the poor to pay for the transfer of wealth (theft) to the rich.

Conservatives venomously refer to these social programs “entitlements” as if they’re charity or handouts or something, but you earned every penny of that money—you literally have the money (taxes) taken out of your paychecks over the years. That is YOUR money.

And the deficit? That’s money that’s already been spent. It’s not money Congress is trying to decide how to appropriate in the future—IT’S MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT. So when Republicans threaten to not pay the debt, you might be surprised to know that they’re basically saying America shouldn’t pay its bills. Or maybe you wouldn’t be surprised.

The bottom line is this: Republicans run up the deficit, and Dems lower deficits.

But here’s the real kicker - deficits aren’t nearly as important as Republicans make them out to be. It’s a bit more complicated than a few sentences, but if deficits were truly as catastrophic as Republicans say, then they wouldn’t keep running up the debt every time they’re in control of Congress.

Why don't we make a new rule? How about we just do disaster aid and get people out of trouble. It's not a huge driver of the deficit and Republicans can pretend to be deficit hawks when people's lives aren't on the line.

Republicans officially re-became “deficit hawks” on 20 January 2021 at Noon EST.

Unanimously opposing the Biden/Democratic stimulus (AKA: The American Rescue Plan) has not prevented Capitol Hill Republicans from trying to take credit for it. 🙄

Republicans shamelessly take credit for Covid relief they voted against

The Covid-19 relief package Biden signed is even more popular than the 2009 stimulus. It also comes after many Republicans backed two Covid-19 relief bills while Donald Trump was president, as well as 2017 tax cuts that (coincidentally) were projected to add $1.9 trillion to the national debt while disproportionately benefiting the rich.

What has happened to the deficit hawks who used to dominate the Republican Party?

They have become chicken hawks, or just plain chicken.

Congressional Republicans used to rant, rail and express rage over budget deficits. Ronald Reagan derived a lot political advantage in 1980 by ridiculing the $40 billion budget deficit run up annually during the Carter administration.

Fast-forward to the…

To Fix the Debt, Stop Fed Rate Hikes

[The] deficit scare-mongers are not interested in numbers and economics; they want to gut key government programs – most importantly, social security and Medicare. That is why they are pushing the fear stories about the debt and deficit. This is the rationale for the Campaign to “Fix” the Debt, a collection of 80 CEOs ostensibly focused on getting the budget in order.

What is perhaps most infuriating about this crew is the claim that their efforts are somehow designed to benefit our children and grandchildren. This is bizarre for a number of reasons. First, while they do want to cut social security and Medicare for current retirees and those expecting to benefit from these programs in the near future, the biggest cuts in their plans will hit today’s young.

In effect, they are promising to “save” these programs for young workers by destroying them. Under most of the proposals designed to “fix” these programs, social security will provide a sharply-reduced benefit for retirees in 40 to 50 years’ time, compared to the currently scheduled level. And Medicare will by no means ensure most seniors’ access to decent healthcare.

However, what’s even more bizarre regarding their generational equity logic is the idea that, somehow, the well-being of future generations can be measured in any way by the size of the government debt. This point should have been pounded home to even the thickest deficit hawk by Hurricane Sandy. What we do or don’t do in the next decade will have a huge impact on the climate conditions that our children and grandchildren experience. Imagine that we listen to our Campaign to Fix the Debt friends and find a way to pay down the debt while neglecting any steps to curb global warming.

We’ll be able to tell our children and grandchildren that they don’t have to pay interest on government bonds (they also won’t be receiving interest on government bonds, but let’s not complicate matters with logic), even as they evacuate their homes ahead of flood waters. Undoubtedly, they will be very thankful for this great benefit that we will have bestowed on them, courtesy of the public-minded CEOs of the Campaign to Fix the Debt.

In reality, the campaigners are spewing utter nonsense when they imply that the well-being of future generations will be in any way determined by the size of the government debt that we pass on to them. We hand down to future generations a whole society and a planet that will be damaged to varying degrees, depending on our current actions. Neglecting the steps necessary to fix the planet out of a desire to reduce the deficit is incredibly irresponsible if we care about future generations.

Of course, global warming is far from the only non-budgetary cost that we are imposing on future generations. When we fill our jails with young people, many of whom will spend much of their lives in the criminal justice system, we are imposing large costs on future generations. We just are not honest enough to enter them in the budget books. The same is true when we make enemies internationally with aggressive military actions that could lead to enduring hostility.

There are also even simpler cases of dishonest accounting: if the government imposed a $250bn annual tax on prescription drugs (roughly $3tn over the ten-year budgetary horizon), everyone would understand this as a large burden on consumers. However, when the government grants patent monopolies on prescription drugs that allow drug companies to charge $250bn more than the free-market price, no one enters this additional cost on the ledgers.