Deficit Attention Syndrome

Once in a while, someone in the mainstream media manages to do something right.

As the economic debate heats up over President Obama's policies, the New York Times fronted a column by David Leonhardt on a golden oldie that gets far too little attention these days: the deficit.

I know: Your eyes are glazing over already. But the fact that we're saddling future generations with untold billions in debt ought to be a huge issue.

The media, though, have put it way on the back burner. It's complicated. It's boring. It takes place mostly in the out-years.

Politicians, too, have discovered that while nobody much likes the deficit, people don't turn out in droves to vote against those who exacerbate it. The benefits -- of either spending on programs or cutting taxes -- are here and now. The deficit is a number that balloons sometime in the future.

Budget deficits haven't been a major political issue since Ross Perot forced them onto the agenda in 1992. Bill Clinton wiped out the deficit, George Bush brought it back, and now Barack Obama is making it worse. Bush's justification was 9/11 and war, and Obama's is the financial calamity her inherited, but the outcome is more red ink.

Conservatives who snoozed through the Bush deficits are now using the issue to tag Obama as an out-of-control, big-spending socialist. But it all depends on who is doing the spending. I'm looking at the cover of the May 14, 2001, issue of National Review. "Don't Fear the Deficit -- The Advantages of Red Ink," it says.

The Leonhardt piece draws one conclusion that helps the president and another that hurts him. What's striking is that, with some exceptions, there has been so little debate about this. When was the last time you heard someone on a news program talking about the deficit?

"The first is that President Obama's agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested . . .

"The first category -- the business cycle -- accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It's a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

"About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

"Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies -- together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama -- account for 20 percent of the swing.