Two big lies are being spun by the Democrat presidential contenders and shamefully unchallenged by the media. 1) that the Dems balanced the budget--LIE--, and 2) that the successful military camapign in Iraq was a result of Clinton's military build-up --DAMNABLE LIE--.
Senator Kerry in particular seems to have forgotten Clinton's projected budget deficits running eleven years out. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget.
Lets address Lie #1, in which the Democrats seek to gain traction for the coming election:
Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.
1998, the first year of a balanced budget was mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy based on the technology wave that created millions of new jobs and tax revenues [Just one percent change in unemployment would automatically change the deficit by nearly $60 billion in 1999 , $80 billion in 2000] and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending continued to soar and at a rate of $1 trillion in 1998.
The federal budget was not balanced by spending reductions. in 1998 Uncle Sam spent $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.
The final Clinton budget for 2001:
Of the estimated $2.9 trillion in surpluses projected over the next 15 years, Clinton calls for $2.2 trillion, or more than 70 percent, to be used for debt reduction, although this is largely a bookkeeping operation, since this is money coming into the Social Security Trust Fund which would be used to buy back Treasury bonds, moving from one government account to another. Of the remaining $746 billion in surpluses, some $432 billion would be reserved to cover expected deficits in Medicare and Medicaid and to finance prescription coverage for the elderly. The balance would be split between a significant buildup of the American military and tax cuts.
More than half, or 54 percent, of the $1.84 trillion in spending for the next fiscal year went to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and smaller retirement and disability programs, spending which is legally required. Another 11 percent, or $209 billion, will go to pay interest on previous borrowings. That leaves only 35 percent of the budget, some $634 billion, in discretionary spending, of which nearly half, or $279 billion, will go to the military. Combined with spending by the departments of Veterans Affairs and Energy (which handles the building of atomic weapons), military-related spending will account for more than half of all discretionary spending.
As for the claim that the White House had presented a plan to eliminate the national debt over the next 15 years, this has an unreal and even bizarre quality, since it is based on economic assumptions that would in the past have been considered absurd: that the current financial boom, already the longest in US history, will continue indefinitely, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates between 2.5 percent and 3.3 percent from now until 2010. Both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office made such projections, which implicitly assume that the capitalist business cycle has been abolished and that there will never again be an economic downturn, let alone a major recession.
Of course it is pretty easy to understand how Kerry and crew get away with this nonsense given the the mainstream media's complicity, a few quotes Googled up from 1994:
"The budget President Clinton submits to Congress Monday will be one of the tightest in memory, while his initiatives will mean cuts for some popular programs." -- Front-page "Inside" plug, February 6 Washington Post.
"The Clinton budget goes to Capitol Hill, and from the President on down, the administration goes all out to defend one of the tightest fiscal proposals in memory." -- CNN anchor Judy Woodruff beginning Inside Politics, February 7.
"Clinton had a role in keeping [interest rates] low by fighting and winning a battle for his budget bill last spring. That victory demonstrated to financial markets that Clinton was not going to be a big-spending Democrat." -- Los Angeles Times reporter James Flanigan, January 26.
Lie #2 is the most damning and deporable:
When Clinton exercised his line item veto, he used it most often to cut defense spending. Since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by more than 40 percent. The Navy can't adequately man its aircraft carriers, and the Army has been forced to reduce its ranks by more than 630,000 soldiers and civilians. Army divisions have dropped from 18 to 10, and over 700 installations at home and overseas have been closed. Nonetheless, under President Clinton, the U.S. Army has been called into action 26 times, racking up an incredible eleven-fold increase over just 10 such "operational events" that were conducted by the Army between 1960 and 1991.
Since 1990, the Air Force has declined from 36 active and reserve fighter wings to 20, downsizing 44 percent while experiencing a simultaneous four-fold increase in operational commitments.
In Clinton's final budget for 2001 military spending rose dramatically, no doubt resulting from the weaponery expenditure and shortcomings of Clinton and Cohen's feckless "Two-Campaign" theory exposed in the 1999 Yugoslavia campaign. However increased spending has not fully impacted the preparedness of the military in the field today. We have a record number of reserve units in Iraq and a shortage of civil affairs units, which is one reason contracts are being let to corporations. The military no longer has the manpower or capacity to rebuild civilian infrastructure.
Will such puffery work? Yes, and no. In the short term, primary voters will find the dog food tasty and want more. However, the national election will rise and fall on too many varibles to predict this far out, such nonsense as the above will not carry the day for the Dems. They need a policy outline with real solutions and they need it now.
Posted by feste at May 5, 2003 11:40 AM | TrackBack