Trump's First Term Wasn't Fiscally Responsible. Will His Second Be Different?
Even before the pandemic spending increase, the budget deficit was approaching $1 trillion. The GOP has the chance to embrace fiscal sanity this time if they can find the political will.

Donald Trump won the election. The House and Senate are in Republican hands. That means the GOP now owns the debt and its consequences. This responsibility, while too much for past politicians, presents the opportunity of a lifetime: namely, to be the ones who put the government back on fiscal track and, among other things, save entitlement programs from long-term disaster.
As a reminder, our debt is huge. It's the size of the annual economy and is set to reach at least 166 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 30 years. Interest rates are high and have driven interest payments on that debt to levels not seen in a long time. These payments will eat up 20 percent of government revenue next year. If we exclude revenue earmarked for Social Security and, hence, already committed, that number is over 27 percent. It grows going forward and may even explode if interest rates end up higher than projected.
This isn't just a government problem; it's a you-and-me problem. A large body of literature shows that rising debt leads to higher interest rates and slows economic growth. The indebtedness crowds out private investment; reduces the ability of businesses to expand, innovate, and hire; and ultimately harms the very people policymakers aim to protect.
No matter how enticing the reason, when Uncle Sam takes larger slices of the economic pie, the portion left for productive private enterprises shrinks, resulting in a smaller, less dynamic economy and fewer opportunities.
Then there is the very real risk that our creditors demand higher interest rates in exchange for buying more treasuries, making the problem bigger. They might also worry that the Federal Reserve will devalue our debt with inflation.
As The Washington Post editorial board rightfully warned incoming Republicans, large unfunded tax cuts could "cause exactly the kind of inflation that doomed Democrats in this election cycle. Worse, [President-elect Trump] runs the risk that the bond market will finally say 'enough' and start demanding even higher interest rates to offset the risks of buying into America's ballooning debt."
It's a sound warning considering the first Trump term wasn't fiscally responsible. Republicans on the campaign trail reminded everyone how great the Trump economy was, and how low inflation and interest rates were. But this same booming economy made the deficit and debt growth all the more unnecessary. Even before the pandemic spending explosion, the budget deficit was approaching $1 trillion.
Perhaps the second administration, with a fresh mandate, will show the discipline and leadership needed to change our fiscal trajectory.
The allure of quick fixes and big spending programs is strong. The popular, yet misguided, pitfall of the moment—expanding the federal government's role by dumping money into pet projects and subsidizing manufacturing and new family entitlements—all but ignores costs. Extending the Trump tax cuts and adding provisions such as no taxes on tips or overtime pay (without any offsets) will also be tempting. As will be denying that reforming Social Security and Medicare are fiscal imperatives.
Instead, Republicans should focus on slowing the growth of debt-to-GDP. Economic growth is an important factor to achieve this goal, and the Trump agenda includes some such policies. Reducing excessive red tape that stifles businesses and hampers productivity, as well as more capital-friendly tax policies, would boost economic efficiency and give companies more freedom to allocate resources effectively, boosting tax revenue. Such regulatory and fiscal relief is especially important in the manufacturing sector.
Yet economic growth alone won't pay off the debt. It played a role in helping the country shed some of its debt after the Second World War, from a 103 percent debt-to-GDP ratio in 1945 down to 25 percent by 1973. However, a recent paper showed that it is only a piece of the puzzle. The main factor in those decades' declining debt ratio was the austerity that followed the war, which produced primary surpluses (revenue minus spending, excluding interest payments on the debt).
This decline was essential and relevant to our current situation. While the inflation that plagued the United States in the 1970s and '80s was painful, it would have been much worse had the public debt-to-GDP not been relatively low. Today, with the debt at 100 percent, we aren't so lucky.
The road ahead will be difficult, and the choices won't be popular. But if Trump wants to be remembered as the president who helped restore America's economic health, he must shy away from debt-fueled government expansion and embrace fiscal discipline and renewed trust in the power of the market.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know, if you're looking for any sense of credibility, repeating a Washington Post Editorial Board "Warning" isn't going to get you there.
Even if the point that spending is too much is valid, you're just repeating the propagandists' attempt to set the tone.
Linking to your own magazine's article about Trump being irresponsible and it only has a 6 billion food program as an example? This is after the alternatives to the office immediately went for legislation pouring money into the inflationary economy an order of magnitude greater.
This is why nobody takes Reason seriously anymore, even when it's an ostensibly libertarian topic.
Also "paying for" tax cuts? Fuck man, writers have to get off the whole notion that it's the government's money and they're giving it to the people. It's the people's money and they're taking it from them.
The answer is no. The Trump admin will borrow trillions of dollars.
It’s a pretty safe bet that we will borrow less than if Harris were elected.
This is a trick question. It's meant to be anti-Trump however it's answered.
Congress holds the purse strings. The real question is whether Congress will be fiscally responsible.
They will not be. Which sets up the attack avenue:
A) Trump signs Congressional spending bills = Trump is financially irresponsible!
B) Trump vetoes Congressional spending bills = Trump is taking away your [insert undeserved entitlements]!
And then there's this little classic switcheroo:
the budget deficit was approaching $1 trillion.
So... you didn't mind the ludicrous budget itself, just that we didn't - couldn't even if we wanted to - keep to it? And that somehow a balanced budget would magically fix the national debt?
You've framed it in a way such that you can place the blame on Trump instead of where it's actually deserved. Now, hopefully, with a supermajority, he can avoid some of this nonsense and Congress will be empowered to take some much needed and long past due steps. Like repealing the laws that prevent the defunding of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Or that establish wasteful agencies and provide for their funding. Or that fund special interests that should be 100% the purview of charitable organizations.
But I'm not holding my breath. Trump has nothing to lose. Congress always does. The REAL question is, will Trump dig his heels in.
I hope he does. I can't imagine his supporters having a problem with it, and the people that will already hate his guts anyway. So, why not.
Congress may hold the purse strings, but people blame the President, as all commenters here have been yammering about Bidenflation.
Trump couldn't stop Congress from spending, but he could at least have vetoed spending bills and put the onus on Congress for overriding him. He didn't. He wasn't serious about spending less. And who knows? Some vetoes of veto-proof bills actually discourage enough legislators that the veto sticks. But Trump didn't even try.
as all commenters here have been yammering about Bidenflation.
Bidenflation was a direct result of Biden (or whoever was actually running the country) demanding ruinous policy that in no way benefited America. Everything from climate change nonsense under the guise of "infrastructure" (which we never saw), to a kajillion bajillion dollars to Ukraine, to funding anything with a rainbow, to free everything for border jumping criminals, to padding the pockets of the health and education system peddling transgender mutilations, and perhaps most importantly - something in which he DID have a lot of control - keeping a regulatory boot on American production and the supply chain (and then conveniently blaming razor-thin margin grocery stores for the prices).
You're 100% correct that his willingness to sign any spending bill that hit his desk was a major reason I refused to vote for him. I hope you're right and that Trump DOES veto anything that isn't serious about spending. But I think, if nothing else, he's at least got less open, naked hostility towards the private sector and to America's economic health compared to ANY leftist.
And, I've said it before so I'll own it here - I'll happily accept any spending necessary to deport every last border jumping criminal alien out of this country. I think it should be funded by bleeding every other agency (except the DOD, whose funding should lend in assisting in this process) dry and clamping down on entitlements (in particular Medicare/Medicaid) - but if he can't manage that, then this is the ONE basis for debt-spending that will 100% undoubtedly produce long-term rewards. And that's worth it.
He ran on tax cuts, including eliminating taxes on social security, tips, and overtime. Some exit poll voters mentioned the sole reason for their vote was the expected tax relief on all of their overtime income. If the promised elimination of overtime taxes isn't delivered, those voters aren't likely to take any solace from the fact that the federal debt position has somehow been improved, but they are still paying taxes on their overtime income.
If the administration wants to do a bait-and-switch, and forgo their expensive campaign promises and replace them instead with the exact opposite (austerity), they can do it, but the party will not do well in the next election. Making that sort of sacrifice would take far more will and courage than any of them have.
And the major problem is that the majority of the electorate does not have much taste for fiscal responsibility whe it comes down to specifics, especially for old age entitlements. Until this is attitide in the electorate ischanged or the political class cannot kick the can down the road any further, nothing much will hsppen.
During his first term Congress wasn't fiscally responsible, and I fully expect that during his second term they won't be fiscally responsible, either.
But it's just possible that he'll mount a serious legal challenge to that law Congress pushed through years ago criminalizing Presidential refusals to spend appropriations, and if he can win that, it would be big in terms of deficits.
He should have vetoed those spending bills and made Congress override his vetoes, out the blame squarely on them. Presidents love the credit for spending, they get the blame too.
Agreed. Trump and the entire [R] party made a HUGE mistake supporting the Democrat written spending bills. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul was the ONLY honorable Republicans in that charade.
There is no provision in the US Constitution for Wealth Distribution.
In fact; Wealth Distribution is just a BS excuse word for armed-theft.
A 100% net-negative ... because 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
Obamas [D]-trifecta deficits $1.0T - 1.4T.
Trumps [R]-trifecta deficits $0.7T - $0.8T.
Bidens [D]-trifecta deficits $1.4T - $2.8T.
Relatively speaking; The Trump [R]-trifecta was 2-Times MORE fiscally responsible than its counterpart WHILE cutting Taxes.
Yes. The [R]-party has miles to improve on but it's not the Red-Flag of deficit spending by even a half point marker.
Notice 3 things
HE is appointing strong take-command folks over many areas of Presidential responsibility. EG Musk to Dept of Government Efficiency
No way Trump runs again, he cannot and will not make this the feathered nest of an Obama
You can't complain about being punched if you just avoided being shot. Kamala blew through ONE BILLION DOLLARS-- something you avoid mentioning. Your only choices are : YOUR ACTUAL CHOICES
"Trump's First Term Wasn't Fiscally Responsible. Will His Second Be Different?"
1. Last time I checked, it's the legislative branch that holds the purse strings, not the executive.
2. After over three and a half years of Biden's and the democrats' spending, I don't see how Trump's spending could be much worse.
1. But mean tweets!
2. But mean tweets!
In the real world we need to bring into perspective of relative to the other option. Trump is not fiscally responsible and in all probability will not become fiscally responsible, however he was and will be more fiscally responsible than the alternative. Hopefully he in a second term more more towards fiscal responsibility than his last term.