So called republican conservative journalist David Brooks in an editorial that appeared in the Times Picayune of July 7 titled, "What Sort Of Party Are Republicans ?" tried best to put the U.S. House republicans on a pedestal concerning budget cuts in connection with extending the debt ceiling but then he says if the republican party was a normal party they would seize the opportunity to put a long term limit on the growth of government. Never mind that the federal government has grown more on the republican watch than on the democratic watch in the last 30 years.
Brooks then goes on to indicate over the past few years the republican party may not be a normal party. The dictionary describes few as a small number and not many. He talks about the members in this movement with in the republican party on more than one occasion but fails to name who is in this movement with in the party. Brooks says the members of the movement have no sense of moral decency and do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. That sounds like the whole republican party to this writer not just the "movement." My thought is that Brooks is talking about the "tea party" but does not have the courage to name names.
The time has long passed for republicans to be put on a pedestal concerning cutting federal spending. Brooks is trying real hard to rewrite the republican history of the record debt created during the administration of George W. Bush. The republican party controlled both houses of congress during Bush's first 6 years and rubber stamped his massive deficit spending spree every one of those 6 years and also the last two full years. Bush and the republican party had a wonderful opportunity to continue to balance the federal budget like Clinton did but reversed all of that in Bush's first fiscal year budget which was in deficit. Brooks, the republicans in congress and those that would become tea party members were all silent as a church mouse the whole time Bush and the republican controlled congress and were creating this record debt.
Brooks tries to offer a distinction between the movement and the republic party but he can't. It is the same ideology that has existed for a long time and is part of the party's anti-American ideology and make up. The national debt was not a problem at the end of President Carter's last fiscal year budget. It stood at less than one trillion dollars. That all changed with the election of Reagan and it became a problem when he left office. The national debt at the end of Reagan's last fiscal year budget was $2.857 trillion an increase of 186%.
The national debt when Clinton left office stood at $5.807 trillion at the end of Clinton's last fiscal year budget. George Herbert Walker Bush followed Reagan and when he left office the national debt stood at $4.411 trillion, an increase of 54%. The national debt was not a problem when Clinton left office but became a disaster on the watch of George W. Bush and when he left office the national debt at the end of his last fiscal year budget stood at $11.909 trillion, an increase of 105%. Compared to the increase in the national debt on Clinton's watch which was 31% the people can see who is responsible for the majority of the national debt we have today.
Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 ran the country for 20 years and never balanced one federal budget or made a serious attempt to do so. How long does it take Mr. Brooks? Are you aware that the last republican to preside over a balanced budget was President Eisenhower? That was in 1960 over 50 years ago.
Mr. Brooks and the republicans now want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class because of their own failed fiscal and economic policies and their desire to bankrupt the federal government so social security and medicare will no longer exist. He can try to rewrite history concerning the republicans sad fiscal record and blame it on the movement he talks about but the facts tell the true story. Nice try Mr. Brooks.
By the way Mr. Brooks, the only President who reduced total federal spending in the last fifty plus years was President Obama in his first fiscal year budget that ended 9/30/10. Federal spending was down 1.6% compared to spending in Bush's last fiscal year budget. I do not remember you reporting that. Rewriting history can not change the facts.
Note 1: Numbers mentioned in this commentary can be verified by going to the web site of the CBO and the U.S. Treasury Department.
