A newsletter to which I subscribe recently asked "When is the last time you remember a balanced budget, or a surplus of money in the Government? I don’t know about you, but it hasn’t been in any of my 37 years on this Earth."

Ah, how quickly memories can fade.

Actually, the federal budget was balanced not long ago. It happened when that commie pinko fag junkie skirt chasing Bill Clinton was in office.

Clinton handed off a balanced budget to the "fiscally responsible" W (R-lying sack of s$%&). Clinton also signed into law the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Given those, and the fact the republicans constantly strut and preen about their fiscal superiority (that used to include me), how did we wind up with budget deficits that are increasing at astonishing rates?

Look at the 'leadership.'

While it's true that only Congress can appropriate money to be spent, the President

1. Sets provides the leadership that "sets the tone" for government
2. Submits budget proposals to Congress
3. Can veto any bill, including spending bills
4. Actually orders the spending of the dollars designated by Congress; only Congress can authorize spending specific sums on specific budget items, but the President can refuse to spend the amount designated by Congress. If you have trouble with that last item, keep in mind that the current president has gutted many federal agencies by not spending the money allocated by Congress. Examples: EPA, Food & Drug Administration, Customs, Coast Guard, FEMA
   

The national debt has continued to increase, even during the pre-Bush balanced budgets. Blame interest on the existing national debt. The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense expense and the combined expenses of social services and agriculture are higher (some lump together social & ag because both categories involve subsides).

Reducing the National Debt is usually a good thing, and increasing the National Debt is usually a bad thing. Which major party does a better job of managing the National Debt? I'd have to go with the party whose rate of debt increase is the lowest and whose rate of decrease is the greatest. Which major party wins on this? Your answer is probably wrong.


In post-WWII America National Debt increases occur under Republican leadership, and decrease (dramatically) on the Democrats' watch.

Exceptions:

1. The slight decline in the Nixon/Ford years. Note that the rampant inflation of the money supply and the resulting devaluation of the dollar enabled Nix-ord the pay down the debt with cheaper dollars.
2. The slower decline (still a decline) under Carter. Skyrocketing interest rates raised the cost of existing debt and the somewhat "small" new debt.
   
   For those reasons, neither of those exceptions actually defies the trend of who handles YOUR money better.
   
   The Democrats suck, but the Republicans suck more.
   
   
3. The moderate Republican Eisenhower continued the trend started by the Democrat Truman. Good on him.

The only truly fiscally responsible Republican in modern times was Eisenhower. He also had the best defense policy- the old Republican concept of "speak softly, carry a big stick."

There is a graph that parallels the above is the rate of growth in, and hard-number growth in, the number of non-defense Federal employees. Democrats DECREASE the size of government, while Republicans INCREASE the size of the Federal government. Couple that with the generally-accepted notion that what the government does, it does better (for whatever that is worth) under Democrats. Democrats= smaller government AND more efficient government. Naturally, now that I need it, I can't find it. When I do find that graph, I'll repost this so that you can see the similarity.

Whodathunkit?

Now you know one of the reasons that I am a Recovering Republican: I discovered reality.

PS: none of this means that I am some kind of born-again Democrat. It merely means that I left Republican orthodoxy and fantasy behind. Would I ever go back? Maybe if there is a 2nd-coming of Ike.

Labels: balanced budget, Bill Clinton, eisenhower, Fiscal Responsibility, ideology, ike, national debt, problem with reality, recovering republican, smaller government

John McCain had planned to visit an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday to tout offshore drilling and the industry's environmental friendliness, but Hurricane Dolly canceled his plans. Dolly hit land in Texas Wednesday as a Category 2 storm, cutting oil and gas production by some 5 to 8 percent overall.

McCain and other Republicans have been pushing to allow more offshore drilling in U.S. waters, and emphasizing the environmental safety of offshore drilling is one part of the strategy. In a recent speech, McCain said, "As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston."

Which, it turns out, isn't actually true. According to government figures,

• Storms in 2005 caused 146 small spills in federal waters


• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita completely destroyed 113 oil rigs and damaged 457 pipelines.


• The resulting oil spills were large enough to be seen from space. (But apparently not from campaign headquarters.)

Stolen from Grist

Labels: george w. mccain, john mc bush, mccain, oil rig, oil spill, problem with facts, problem with lying, problem with reality