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

My imaginary friend thinks I have sold out to the tax-and-spend liberals, to the terrorist-loving wimps, to the big government wimps, to those who prefer a sluggish economy.

I haven't sold out to anyone. I just looked at the facts.

Tax-and spend isn't the problem. Fiscal responsibility is what matters.

• My former fellow travelers talk a good game, but truth be told, Republicans have long been fiscally irresponsible. They are the ones who borrow-and-spend.... and spend way too much.
• Democrats are more included to spend less, and do a better job of pay-as-you-go.
  

Terrorists are a serious concern. Who has the good track record in dealing with terrorists? Whose record is dismal?

• Terrorists have tested our mettle 3 times.
  
• Under one party's leadership, the perps of both events were caught promptly and brought to justice.
  
• The other party has botched everything and wound up with terrorist leaders regularly going on TV and mocking us. My prior party's leaders have the dismal record.
  

Who really grows government? Who really shrinks the size of government?

• Small government sounds good, but the GOP consistently expands government, while the other side shrinks it.
  

Who wins wars? Who supports the troops? Who demonstrates the correct priorities?

• I am embarrassed to say that like other Republicans, I parroted the party line. We were dead wrong. And deadly wrong, as well.
  
• Which party is in charge every time we did not win?
• Which party is in charge every time we DID win?
• On whose watch have we cut-and-run?
• If you want to prolong a war, who ya gonna call?
• When veterans get mistreated, who is supposed to be providing leadership?
• An easy one - who has the most blood on their hands from active duty troops and veterans committing suicide?
  

Are you pissed off yet? Stay tuned... the proof is coming.

Labels: borrow-and-spend, do anything, greed, no longer a republican, racist, recovering republican, redneck, say anything, southern strategy, strong national defense, tax cut, tax-and-spend, zealot

There are several reasons why I am no longer a Republican.

• The party has sold its soul to religious zealots.
  
• The party's platforms and beliefs are based on hypotheses that have been proven wrong.
  
• The party eagerly assists those who would claim righteousness while performing very unrighteous actions.
• The party has abandoned its principle of a strong national defense.
• The party accepts - worse, encourages - fiscal recklessness.
• The party climbs on the backs of entrepreneurs to promote the growth and profit of wall street's worst.
• The party has tossed accountability and personal responsibility in favor in expedience.
• The party approves of winning - saying and doing anything - at any cost.
• The party's vision extends only to the next election.
• The party is in bed with the targets of the "Southern Strategy": the latter-day racists.
  

My imaginary friend is stunned and demands an explanation. He, and you, will have to settle for understanding each of these one day at a time. Stay tuned.

Labels: do anything, no longer a republican, recovering republican, redneck racist, republican, southern strategy, strong national defense, zealotsay anything

I think of myself as a Recovering Republican (more on that later).

I have become somewhat enlightened. Now I am trying to heal my wounded soul - the one that for so many years harbored an arrogant pr#$k.

My imaginary friend - he's on the committee inside my head - is still in denial. As such, he can't break away from the party line.

Next time, I'll explain to him why I had to change.

Labels: committee inside my head, imaginary friend, party line, recovering republican