The political news coverage and conservative pundits have been focused on the political horse race and personalities and not so much on issues.  One wonders where to turn this year so that we do not, as stated in the 2008 Democratic Party platform, “mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt.” Scary charts depicting the national debt made the rounds in 2009. Here is the Chart of Darkness today:

The total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product takes into account inflation, population changes, and productivity and includes debt held by the public as well as intragovernmental holdings. This is a picture too big to spin.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump or their legions of surrogates seem very concerned about the debt, other than to make ritualistic denunciations of the opposition. Both would rack up even more debt with far-reaching vote-buying programs. Secretary Clinton wants to take us to $29 trillion in ten years. Mr. Trump propososals would bring the debt to a staggering $39 trillion.

Vaguely sensing the public’s anxiety over the astronomical national debt levels, Mr. Trump treats the national debt like a slightly over-leveraged condo development saying, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” He offers this financial innovation reflecting his deep appreciation of the issue: “You never have to default because you print the money.” Forget Monopoly and begin inventing your hyper-inflation board game now.

Hillary Clinton has put her pollsters and focus groups to work designing tax increases, beginning with a $400-500 billion “Fairness Tax” straight out of the most depressing pages of Atlas Shrugged. Payroll, income, capital gains, and estate taxes all will go up in Byzantine schemes calculated to activate base voters’ emotions of envy and resentment.

It turns out that there is a difference between the parties, at least when it comes to Congress. Here is a non-expert analysis, using a little more than 50 years of the same data shown above, to get past the rhetoric. The transitions between the changes in control don’t align, but the overall pattern is clear. The he percentage of gross public debt to GDP at each observation date clearly changes based on who controls the branches of government:

Here is a summary:

Over 50 years the total debt to GDP ratio increased by a net 56% when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. Debt to GDP increased by a net 52% over the years that Republicans controlled the White House.

There are some problems with my admittedly simple analysis. Accelerating your family sedan from 31 to 63 miles per hour on the highway is not dangerous at all. Going from 63 to 105 is a huge increase in risk of a crash and may get your license revoked. Taking debt from 31 to 63 percent of GDP during the Reagan-Bush years was not ideal, but not so risky. We managed to win the Cold War, cut taxes, rapidly grow the economy, and follow up with a ten-year peace dividend. What do we have to show for taking debt from 77 to 105% in the last seven years? Or from 55 to 77% in the eight years before that? We got massive bailouts, severe recession, and a global war on terror that had to be fought but left the world less stable than when it began.

Just looking at the last 23 years, when debt levels are much higher, reveals the following pattern:

Giving credit to Bill Clinton for bringing the debt ratio down and blame to George W. Bush for bringing it to new modern highs, the Obama presidency was a such a disaster that he has pulled Democrat presidents almost even with Republicans in this period. When President Obama finishes his fundamental transformation project, he and Bill Clinton will likely pull even with George W. Bush.

The striking distinction between the parties in the last 23 years and the last 50 is in Congress. That the Senate Republicans actually presided over a shrinking debt burden is a pleasant surprise even if the last two years was a bitter disappointment. Overall, voting Republican for the House and Senate in 2016 is the clear choice between the major parties for those who believe that the balance sheet of the federal government and the value of the dollar matter. The presidency, at least for the debt, does not seem to matter too much.

[Updated 9/7/2016]