"Understanding that yes, we are committing more resources than we thought we might be in protecting our homeland and prosecuting a war and so it's understandable that we would be going through a period of deficits"
About this Quote
Donald Evans, President George W. Bushs secretary of commerce, is offering a justification for the early 2000s return to federal budget deficits. After the surpluses of the late 1990s, 9/11 reshaped national priorities. The government created the Department of Homeland Security, surged defense spending, and launched military operations in Afghanistan and later Iraq. Evans frames this shift as an unavoidable reallocation of resources: protecting the homeland and prosecuting a war are costly, and the scale proved larger than anticipated.
The language seeks to make deficits appear not only rational but temporary. Calling it a period of deficits implies an extraordinary moment rather than a structural condition. That framing aligns with the politics of the time, when officials argued that new security demands and an economic slowdown justified red ink. It also reflects a standard economic view that downturns or emergencies can warrant deficit spending to stabilize the economy and address urgent needs.
Yet beneath the reassurance lies a policy trade-off. Deficits grew not only because of higher outlays but also because of large tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which reduced revenues just as spending rose. Evans sidesteps that tension, focusing attention on external shocks rather than discretionary fiscal choices. The rhetoric of necessity smooths over the classic guns-versus-butter dilemma, where money directed to defense and security limits capacity for domestic programs or requires future tax increases.
The phrasing prosecuting a war borrows legal language to suggest duty and procedure, further normalizing extraordinary actions. Still, calling the deficits understandable does not address their long-run implications: interest costs, intergenerational burdens, and potential crowding out if deficits persist beyond the emergency. The statement captures a moment when national security imperatives redefined budget politics, and when leaders sought to balance public anxiety with reassurance that the consequences, while costly, were both justified and temporary.
The language seeks to make deficits appear not only rational but temporary. Calling it a period of deficits implies an extraordinary moment rather than a structural condition. That framing aligns with the politics of the time, when officials argued that new security demands and an economic slowdown justified red ink. It also reflects a standard economic view that downturns or emergencies can warrant deficit spending to stabilize the economy and address urgent needs.
Yet beneath the reassurance lies a policy trade-off. Deficits grew not only because of higher outlays but also because of large tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, which reduced revenues just as spending rose. Evans sidesteps that tension, focusing attention on external shocks rather than discretionary fiscal choices. The rhetoric of necessity smooths over the classic guns-versus-butter dilemma, where money directed to defense and security limits capacity for domestic programs or requires future tax increases.
The phrasing prosecuting a war borrows legal language to suggest duty and procedure, further normalizing extraordinary actions. Still, calling the deficits understandable does not address their long-run implications: interest costs, intergenerational burdens, and potential crowding out if deficits persist beyond the emergency. The statement captures a moment when national security imperatives redefined budget politics, and when leaders sought to balance public anxiety with reassurance that the consequences, while costly, were both justified and temporary.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Donald
Add to List
