Editorials of The Times

Republicans Love the Deficit

So much for all that sanctimony about fiscal responsibility. Forever and always, it can now be said that Republican lawmakers care about the federal deficit only when they want to use it to bash Democratic presidents.

After embracing $1.5 trillion in debt by slashing taxes on corporations and wealthy families in December, the Republican leaders in Congress pushed through a two-year budget deal on Friday that will increase spending by nearly $400 billion. While a lot of that money will be spent on important priorities like disaster relief, infrastructure and education, a big chunk of it will go to an excessive and unnecessary military buildup. Contrast this with the parsimony Republican lawmakers displayed in 2011 when they refused to raise the federal debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to deep cuts to government programs.

“If you were against President Obama’s deficits, and now you’re for the Republican deficits, isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy?” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said as he held up passage of the budget bill for a few hours — perhaps until he realized that the definition fit him, too, since he had voted for the tax cuts that will blow up the deficit.

Deficit spending can be an indispensable tool — to revive an ailing economy, invest in productive infrastructure, rebuild after natural disasters and pay for unavoidable wars. And it was vital for the government to run large deficits after the financial crisis, when the country was tumbling into the worst recession since the Depression.

But the Republican leaders who opposed stimulus spending in 2011 and 2012, when many Americans were struggling to find jobs and the economy was in the doldrums, are now making the absurd argument that the government ought to do more to fuel the economy at a time when the unemployment rate is about half what it was back then and corporate profits have soared.

Even with the economy growing at a decent clip, the government should raise spending on domestic programs that were slashed when Republicans demanded deep cuts. Nondefense spending relative to the economy is the lowest it has been since 1961 — 3.1 percent of gross domestic product, far below the long-term average of 3.8 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Dilapidated roads, bridges, railways and water systems need to be upgraded and repaired. Puerto Rico, Texas and Florida still need help recovering from the 2017 hurricanes and making themselves more resilient to future storms. Lawmakers also must spend more to end the opioid epidemic and increase access to substance abuse treatment. The budget bill only partly addresses many of these and other needs.

But the deal President Donald Trump approved Friday also includes a $165 billion increase in military spending over two years, more than the Trump administration had even requested. Military spending will jump to $716 billion in 2019, from $634 billion in 2017. In inflation-adjusted terms, that would put the Pentagon’s budget well above the Reagan buildup of the 1980s and nearly as high as in 2010 — the peak of military spending since World War II — when more than 200,000 troops were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even before this latest increase, the Pentagon’s budget exceeded the combined military spending of the next eight biggest defense spenders globally — a list that includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India.

Some of the defense increases are understandable. The cost per active service member grew by 61 percent from 2001 to 2012, after adjusting for inflation, because of new and expanded benefits such as incentive bonuses, raises and increased health care expenses. But other increases arose from a dysfunctional budget process manipulated by a defense industry that woos Congress with unneeded or extravagant weapons. These include the F-35 fighter jet, missile defense programs that are plagued with problems, and a plan to modernize the nuclear arsenal over a period of 30 years at a cost of more than $1 trillion.

Democrats went along with this budget. They’re the minority party and have limited leverage, and at the moment they are not deploying it very effectively, as has been demonstrated by their failure thus far to clarify their priorities or win protection from deportation for the Dreamers, young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

The true culprits are the House speaker, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Both are self-proclaimed deficit hawks. “In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time,” Ryan declared in 2012. But recent actions have revealed that the real game is to cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy, and use the resulting deficits as a pretext for cutting programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that benefit the poor and the middle class.

Trump has been a bystander in this whole process. He signed the bill, though it ignores many of the administration’s requests by, for example, increasing spending on the National Institutes of Health rather than cutting it.

All told, the Republican tax cuts and the budget deal will nearly double the federal deficit to $1.19 trillion in 2019. While no credible analyst doubts that the federal government, which spends about $4 trillion a year, can make its debt payments, the growing deficit will make it harder for the government to respond to future recessions or to make responsible spending decisions. It’s a sure bet that, were the economy to tank, Ryan and his ilk would argue that the country couldn’t afford to increase government spending to get it going again because the deficit was already too large.

New York Faces an Easy Test on Voting

In his proposed budget for the coming year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo says New York must at long last bring its elections into the 21st century by, among other things, joining the large majority of states that permit early voting.

He’s right. Cuomo, however, has so far set aside no state funds to carry out this change, which means New York’s 62 counties would have to pick up the tab. This is regrettable. But it’s also fixable. To show he means business in this matter, the governor has until Thursday to add the necessary money before he hits a deadline in this stage of the budget process.

We’re not talking about vast amounts of cash. Quite the contrary. Some officials have estimated it would cost as little as $6.4 million to enable New Yorkers to vote across a stretch of days instead of solely on Election Day, Nov. 6 this year. With a budget weighing in at $168 billion, the state spends at a rate of about $320,000 a minute. Early voting would thus be a mere 20-minute expense.

If this burden is foisted on the counties, some might wheeze under the strain. Localities in New York have long complained, justifiably, about a pattern of “unfunded mandates” — requirements that come from Albany without so much as a nickel to make them happen. If ever there was an issue of statewide concern, and fiscal obligation, voting is it.

Cuomo’s aides argue that keeping money out of the discussion is a sensible tactic at this point. Don’t let hand-wringing over dollars, no matter how few, get in the way of the principle of electoral reform, they say. But a counterargument can be made that covering the cost now in his budget would demonstrate that the governor is dead serious about this issue.

There’s no guarantee that the Legislature will go along with any request for change, which in Cuomo’s formulation would also permit automatic voter registration, Election Day registration and absentee voting without having to offer an excuse. These ideas have died in the past in Albany, typically at the hands of Republicans, who control the state Senate and worry that anything that enhances voter turnout could work to their disadvantage.

Some of the proposed changes require amending the state Constitution. Early voting is not one of them. All that’s needed is for lawmakers to say yes.

Keeping polling stations open across a stretch of days is hardly a radical system. It exists in varying forms in 37 states of both the red and the blue variety. It is also popular among New Yorkers; a Siena College poll last month showed a support rate of 65 percent.

For a state that fancies itself a bastion of progressivism, New York remains frozen in electoral practices that amount to an incumbent-protection racket. Take the restrictions on changing party affiliations. As races develop, some registered voters may realize they want to switch allegiances before primaries in June (for federal offices) and September (for state offices). They’re already too late. The deadline expired four months ago — ridiculously early.

Early voting is an easy test for both lawmakers and the governor to prove their seriousness of purpose in shoring up democracy in the state. All it would take is 20 minutes’ worth of money.