I HAVE WRITTEN RECENTLY THAT THE U.S. ECONOMY IS SHOWING SIGNS of strengthening and shifting into a higher gear. The direct benefits are straightforward — more jobs for fresh entrants into the workforce, plus long-delayed hope that things will take a turn for the better for the longer-term unemployed. But also worth mentioning are some of the indirect benefits for our society as the economy transitions from recovery into sustained expansion.

For one thing, an expanding economy makes just about every public policy initiative easier, because economic growth means more tax revenue for governments at every level — everything from sales taxes to income taxes paid by those newly hired workers — and reduced spending on safety-net programs as people transition from public assistance of various kinds back into the ranks of the employed.

The last three of the Clinton boom years were marked by actual budget surpluses — from a $69 billion surplus in 1998 up to an astonishing $236 billion in 2000, the last year of his presidency. The same month President Clinton left office, January 2001, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate Budget Committee and described structural surpluses that were projected to continue for the next three decades, despite the imminent retirement of the Baby Boom generation:

“The most recent projections from the OMB,” he said, “indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011, including an on-budget surplus of $500 billion. The CBO reportedly will be showing even larger surpluses. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

“… The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade. This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade.”

In fact, Greenspan was actually expressing concern about the problems that might be created by paying off the entire national debt too soon:

“But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.”

Of course, none of this came to pass. President George W. Bush decided it was more important to give his rich friends trillions in tax cuts and pour a trillion (a conservative estimate) into the misbegotten Iraq war rather than do the responsible thing and continue on the path to fiscal health.

I disagree with people who describe the disaster of the Bush presidency as the result of mismanagement or incompetence. I think that crew knew exactly what they were doing in destroying the finances of our government. I am convinced it was deliberate fiscal vandalism. After all, had those budget surpluses continued, the strongest argument against government activism — “we can’t afford it” — would have been mooted, and then we citizens might have gotten ideas in our heads about investing in making America a better place in which to live.

What kind of investments? For starters, America has a passenger train system that, compared to other countries in our weight class, is an embarrassment. We are the only industrialized nation without a national network of high-speed intercity train service. While part of that is because of geographical factors — the interior of the country, particularly the West, does not have the population density to make high-speed rail economical — there are large areas of the country that would benefit from it. There is no reason the major cities in the eastern third of the country and along the West Coast can’t be linked by bullet trains.

Another investment: repairing our existing infrastructure. Bridges are literally falling into rivers, ancient water mains make ominous rumblings beneath the streets of our cities, steam pipes occasionally explode and cave in streets. Here in California, the levee system in the Central Valley and Delta regions is long overdue for a rebuild and upgrade; it is one major flood from a Hurricane Katrina-level catastrophe. All of it needs comprehensive repair and upgrades.

None of this happened, of course. And history tends to repeat itself. So now, looking ahead, I’ll make a prediction: If a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, one of his or her first priorities will be to widen the deficit with tax cuts and spending increases. And we’ll be rounding the bend on that vicious circle once again.

Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.

Sharing is caring!