Time For Change

Another Republican administration will come to an end in two months with the economy in shambles, massive job losses, layoffs, rising unemployment, massive deficit spending, and debt.  If that sounds all too familiar, it's because that is a description of the republican record and you read it first here on politidose in several articles going back to early this year.

 

Of the last three Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan did the best with the economy, but it too went into decline 18 months before he left office.  He then turned the mess over to Bush 41 who never got hold of the economy and ended up losing his reelection bid to Bill Clinton.

 

All three Republican presidents repeated the same mistake.  They never had a broad base economic policy to create a sustained economy or job creation and instead believed in trickle down economics.  Neither Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43 balanced the budget in the 20 years they served, and they are responsible for the majority of the massive national debt which is now in excess of $10 trillion.  It was less than one trillion dollars when Reagan took office.

 

The present Mr. Bush's failed policies are responsible for the massive melt down of the economy and the hardships facing our country.  Republican administrations have repeated and will continue to repeat (if given the chance) the trickle down policy that favors the wealthy over the middle class and has resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth in history.  No economy can be sustained if the middle class does not have the means and resources to fuel the economy.  That is the shameful republican legacy.  It was a Democratic administration led by President Clinton which presided over the greatest economy and job creation in the last 50 years and it was the Clinton administration that advanced the middle class.

 

Those three republican presidents had 20 years to achieve a sustained economy and job creation and help the middle class but they failed the test.  It is time for a change.  Vote Democratic on November 4. 

John McCain: Not Maverick; Erratic

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Who said this?  When did they say it?  If one was watching the news as of late, the guess could be made that Bill Clinton said this during the 1990s when the economy was prosperous and both Wall Street and Main Street were satisfied. 

But it wasn't Bill Clinton who said this.  And the person who said this wasn't talking about the '90s.  John McCain said the above quote on Monday, September 15, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the stock market had its worst day since 9/11.  The American economy, ever since that fateful Monday, has been in a steep dive with no end in sight, leading many to believe that a depression is on the way.

Yes, on Monday the "fundamentals of our economy" were "strong", but by Tuesday John McCain reinvented himself as a the modern day Teddy Roosevelt, rallying against the corruption of Wall Street Barons.  

John McCain continued that theme through last week and into this week when talk of a $700 billion bailout plan was proposed by the White House.  John McCain, sensing a political gold mine, decided to suspend his campaign, call off the debate, and fly to Washington to save the day.  

There was, of course, a few issues to be had with the above statement.  For one, is it really fair to say that your campaign is suspended when your television ads are still playing, your campaign personnel are going on cable news 24/7 to attack Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin, your Vice-Presidential pick, is holding campaign rallies across Pennsylvania?  Secondly, why call off the debate?  Isn't a crisis time like this a time when the American people most need to hear from their leaders, especially the two men who could inherit this economic crisis?  More on the calling off of the debate in a minute.  Finally, John McCain was not needed in Washington.  He is not on the Senate Banking committee, the Senate committee negotiating with the White House.  John McCain, putting it bluntly, went to Washington to look pretty.  He accomplished nothing, and, sadly, Congress is now further away from settling on a plan than they were before John McCain came to their rescue. Why are they further behind?  Well, according to several members of the House and Senate, John McCain did what he said he wouldn't: politicize the event and in turn make a bipartisan effort into an extremely partisan one.  

The debate, as we now know, is back on.  No solution has been reached, but John McCain is, as usual, going back on his word.  It's clear to me and should be obvious to all why McCain attempted to postpone the debate.  Just a few hours after making his "I'm not going to the debate" statement, McCain suggested that the Vice-Presidential debate next week should just be replaced by a Presidential one.  How convenient!  Sarah Palin, the least qualified and knowledgeable VP candidate in history, wouldn't have to face tough questions yet again. Thankfully, Barack Obama and Joe Biden stood firm; Friday's debate would go on, with or without John McCain, and the Vice-Presidential debate would be next week no matter the circumstances.  Left with the option of either going back on his word or leaving Obama with one and a half hours of free national exposure, McCain chose the latter.  

So the debate will go on and we'll finally see McCain and Obama face-to-face confronting each other on the crucial issues facing America, but the happenings of the past two weeks surely brings into question McCain's judgment and rationality.  Perhaps even more than the debate, these last two weeks have drawn a clear contrast between Obama and McCain:  Obama is cool under pressure, while McCain acts erratically. 

Senator Joe Biden: The Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama selected his Vice Presidential running mate, fellow Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, last Saturday.  Senator Biden was this writer's choice during the primaries for the presidential nomination.  Senator Clinton was my second choice.  I based my choice on their experience and their accomplishments.

 

Now the Democratic ticket is set and I believe it is important to the country and its people to elect a Democratic administration in November.  Journalists are already promoting the Republican talking point: how can the Biden pick represent change?  The idea being presented is that he has been in Washington too long.  Anyone who has followed what Senator Biden stands for knows that he does indeed represent change: change with regard foreign policy and change in regard to the economy.

 

Senator Clinton and her husband will do their part in the November elections.  No one knows at this point if the majority of her supporters will back the Obama-Biden ticket.  The voters themselves will have to make that decision and it will be Obama-Biden responsibility to make that case.  Journalists are betting the Clintons will upset the convention and divide the party.  It is part of their on going attempt to discredit the Clintons.  (Anyone who saw Hillary's speech last night or President Clinton's speech just a few moments ago know different.  The Clintons are 100% committed to electing Obama and Biden to the White House.)

 

This week, possibly friday, Senator McCain will announce his running mate.  Then, after both conventions and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, the American people will start making their final decision as to who they will vote for come November.  At the present time, 10-12% of voters are still undecided.  Both candidates will try to reach those undecided voters.  The running mates of Obama and McCain might sway some of those undecideds.  We'll have to wait and see who McCain picks, but one thing is sure, whoever it is, he won't be able to match up to Joe Biden, the perfect choice for Vice-President.  

Television Journalists and Their Big Push

We all remember how, during the primary season, T.V. journalists piled on Senator Clinton everyday and promoted Senator Obama non-stop.  On the Republican side, they treated Senator McCain and his flip flops with kid gloves.

 

I mentioned during that period of time that if Obama received the Democratic nomination, in time,  journalists would turn on him and promote McCain in the general election.  Well, it is already starting to happen.  They are now promoting a so called rift between Senator Clinton, her husband, and Obama.  They are even saying that Senator Clinton wants her name to be placed in nomination at the convention, although that is pure speculation.  Mike Barnicle, while guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball on 8/7, devoted some time on the subject with 3 guests.  Their tone was that Senator Clinton was going to make demands and split or hurt the party.  What they all failed to report and/or mention is that Senator Clinton herself said that she would work for party unity at the convention and, in fact, campaigned for Senator Obama this week.

 

Journalists will continue to plant the seed that their pronouncements are fact in an effort to create and distract from the actual news on the subject.  They are showing their ass again in trying to manipulate the general election vote in McCain's favor.   Anything to hurt Sen. Obama or portray the Democratic Party weak in any way will be what journalists continue to portray until November.  Hopefully the American people wise up and do their own research in order to inform themselves since journalists can no longer be trusted to do so.  

This Just About Says It All

credit to Steve Greenberg

The Dream Scenario

As highly unlikely as it is, the first thing that came in my mind when it was announced that Bill Clinton would speak before the Vice-Presidential nominee at the Democratic convention was that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton would be announced by her husband as the Vice-Presidential nominee at the end of his speech.  As I said, it's highly unlikely, but a man can dream can't he?  I wouldn't give it more than a 5% chance of happening at this point, but if Obama hasn't announced his VP by the start of the convention, then I would say the chances of a surprise Hillary VP announcement by Bill on Wednesday night rise sharply.

Now many commentators rightfully point out that Hillary is slated to speak on Tuesday night and if she was going to be the VP, or was even in serious consideration, her speaking slot would not be announced until much closer to the convention when a final VP choice was made.  But could this be a ruse by the Obama campaign to keep the media speculating and focused on everybody but Hillary for VP?  Secondly, it stuck me as odd that Obama would want the Clintons to take up two out of the four nights of the convention.  Let's face it, unless the VP is Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton is mostly likely going to overshadow anyone who speaks after him and will suck up at least some of the attention that a VP address would normally receive from the media.   It seems that Obama would only risk two nights of Clinton if it was to advance a larger cause --- party unity and a simply beautifully orchestrated surprise.  Plus, would Barack add insult to injury by having Bill Clinton speak and possible introduce a VP that is not his wife?  Also, it is important to look back at history for some context.  It's not unheard of that a politician can speak twice at a national convention --- George Bush did it back in 1980.  

Again, I am not projecting that this is going to happen; I am just outlining some reasons that it could happen.  Plus, can you imagine what the crowd reaction would be at the DNC --- Bill Clinton gives a great address on the values of the Democratic Party, he begins to walk off stage, then at the last second, he turns around, goes back to the mic, and says, "Oh, and by the way, I forgot one thing: the next Vice-President of the United States of America, Senator Hillary Clinton."  I get chills up my spine just thinking of such a moment.  Surely I shouldn't get my hopes up, but it's announcements like the one today that keep that hope --- as small as it might be --- alive inside me and alive inside those other 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton for President.  

The Republican Cycle Of Record Federal Deficits And Debt

The champions of deficit spending and the creation of debt are indeed the so called conservative Republican presidents.  On July 28, Mr. Bush's White House announced that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009, Mr. Bush's final budget, will be another whopping record of $482 billion --- by far the largest ever.  It was originally projected to be $400 billion. 

 

The White House also announced that this year's budget deficit for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008 will be $389 billion.  It was projected early on to be $260 billion.  The White House and Mr. Bush are now trying to blame everything and everyone under the sun for this deficit explosion, but now it won't wash because of his record of reckless fiscal policies.  Lets look at Mr. Bush's irresponsible deficit spending and debt:

 

If the latest two projections on the deficit hold up Mr. Bush's total deficit spending for 8 years in office will be over $2.5 trillion and he will have added over $4 trillion to the national debt.  Ronald Reagan's total deficit spending for 8 years was $1.4 trillion and he added $1.9 trillion to the national debt.  Mr. Bush 41 (George Herbert Walker Bush) deficit spending for his 4 years in office was $1.03 trillion and he added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. 

 

I will let the readers add those numbers up so they can understand the reckless behavior of those so called conservative Presidents.  They will have served a total of 20 years when Bush 43 leaves office and did not balance one federal budget in those 20 years.  The reckless fiscal behavior of those 3 Presidents is the reason the economy was never sustained on their watch and why job creation was uneven and suffered job losses.  They never had a true economic policy.  They had a tax policy of trickle down economics which never worked to sustain the economy. 

 

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan-Bush 41 reckless behavior of 12 straight years of deficit spending and debt by reducing the deficit every year his first 4 years in office and then created a balance budget with surpluses each of his last 4 years.  His administration had a $62.8 billion surplus for his 8 years in office and paid down over $400 billion on the national debt.  Mr. Clinton had an economic plan that produced the greatest economy and created a record number of over 22.7 million new jobs.  He also left Mr. Bush a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion which Mr. Bush squandered. 

 

The Republican Party has no record of being fiscal conservative despite their lies.  The record shows their real intention, to bankrupt the country to deprive the government of funds for Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that have been a benefit to the American people.  Their tragic record speaks for itself.  And the present Mr. Bush is by far the most tragic.

It's Controversies Like This That Get My Blood Boiling...

Let's be clear: Wesley Clark, GENERAL Wesley Clark, neither said nor did anything to demean John McCain's service to this country.  

Here's the full quote from Gen. Clark from yesterday's Face the Nation that has stirred up all this controversy:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk.  It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.  That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn't a wartime squadron....

...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." 

What is so damn wrong about what Gen. Clark said?  He spoke the truth.  He did say, after all, that he honors McCain's service and that McCain was a hero to him.  But being in the military does not necessarily prepare you for being President.  And although it makes for a sympathetic story, being shot down and held as a POW is not a qualification for being President.  

And for Gen. Clark to be attacked by John McCain for being somehow disrespectful to the military is absurd.  McCain should apologize.  The media should apologize for making this a lead story today.  And Barack Obama also owes Gen. Clark an apology for coming out against them today.  Why isn't anyone standing up and saying that Gen. Clark has said nothing wrong?  But once again, the media and our Democratic nominee is falling into the trap of appeasing the Republicans.  John McCain says Obama needs to go to Iraq.  What does Obama do?  Schedule a trip to several countries around the world, with the anticipation of an unscheduled visit to Iraq.  McCain says that Gen. Clark was disrespectful to the military.  Obama comes out, agrees, and condemns Gen. Clark.  And all the while, the media plays along.  

I'm sick and tired of the reputation of great men and women being destroyed by the Republicans, the media, and the lack of backbone by some members of the Democratic party.  It happened to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and now Gen. Wesley Clark.  Enough is enough.

Obama's Faulty Memory

While campaigning in Pennsylvania this week, Senator Obama, on more than one occasion, said that the economy under President Clinton was one reason why the people of Pennsylvania have come under hard economic times.  It is obvious Obama was trying to get to Senator Clinton through her husband, but that doesn't change that what Sen. Obama said was factually inaccurate.

 

The fact is that people in all walks of life and pay groups did better on President Clinton's watch and under his economic program than any other administration that Obama can even remember.  The Department of Labor can attest to that.  There is no other administration that can match the economic progress achieved on Clinton's watch.  The people of Pennsylvania, who Obama was talking to, were certainly not better off on George W. Bush or the Reagan-Bush watch that started back 28 years ago.

 

In fact, the economy under President Clinton did so well for people across the pay scale, there is not another economy you can compare it to.  What other administration created over 22 million jobs in 8 years; had an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest in 30 years; the lowest crime rate in 30 years; balanced budgets with record surpluses while paying down over 400 billion dollars on the national debt?  I challenge Obama to come up with an administration that performed better for the people.

 

It is one thing to be in a political campaign when some people think they can say anything that is not factual, but that is a reflection on their character and a disservice to a President who worked so hard on the economy to reverse the 12 straight years of the Reagan-Bush era, where the American people lost ground economically. 

 

Obama may have the right to wallow in his hatred for President Clinton and his wife, but he does not have a right to knowingly misrepresent the truth and the facts.

Fiscal Responsibility: A Necessity For A Sustained Economy

Balancing the federal budget, reducing spending, and paying down government debt has never been a priority or policy for Republican Presidents in the last 50 years.  That is the main reason the economy has never been on an even keel or sustained itself on the Republicans' watch.  Their ideology is to bankrupt the federal government so that social security, medicare, and other federal programs that work will have to be dismantled.  That is just one of the reasons that George W. Bush wanted to remake social security into private accounts. 

 

Contrary to what the American people have been led to believe, the federal government can afford needed programs if the budget is balanced and debt creation is eliminated.  Tax increases are not necessary to pay for needed programs when our house is fiscally sound.

 

Senator Clinton is the only presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is campaigning on fiscal discipline and a balanced budget.  She recognizes that without both, the economy will never be sustained and action after the fact will have to be taken, such as what is happening now with the fiscal disaster that Bush has laid on our country and its people.  It only takes common sense to realize how well off our country would be today had Bush not recklessly spent the $5.6 trillion surplus and had he followed the path of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility the previous administration left him.  But instead, he embarked upon a record deficit and debt spree never seen before in American history.

 

Senator Clinton understands the big picture of the benefits to the nation and its people and the rewards of being fiscally responsible.  The mess we are now in with the mortgage and financial industry would never have happened if Bush had the federal government's fiscal house in order.  During the campaign, the Republicans will once again try to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes.  The voters need to catch on to something: it has been the Republicans who are getting into their pockets in so many different ways.  $3.25 gallon gasoline is only one of the many examples.

 

Senator Clinton is in a position, with her experience, to bring back fiscal sanity and a balanced budget, to not only have a sustained and growing economy that creates new jobs, but to have the resources to do what is necessary to move our country forward and service the people's needs.  

Republican Administrations = Fiscal Disasters

The economic numbers for the first quarter are in, and they are not good.  And even worse, it comes at a time when the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, says that he does not rule out a recession.  Let's take a look at what is behind all of this:

 

The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March; 76,000 jobs in February, and 76,000 jobs in January for a total of 232,000 jobs lost in the first quarter of 2008.  The government reported that the March job loss was worse because the actual number of jobs lost in the private sector was 98,000 and only hiring by the government brought the job loss to 80,000.  The unemployment rate increased from 4.8% to 5.1%, the highest  in two and half years---at the end of March there were 7.8 million people unemployed.  The Federal Reserve also reported first quarter GDP will more than likely show none or very little growth.

 

It was reported in my three part series, "The Economy: Which Party Performs The Best", that the problem with Republican administrations and the economy is twofold.  They have a tax cutting plan ,called trickle down economics, but no real, broad based economic policy.  They have a reckless fiscal policy of deficit spending and debt creation, rather than what this country needs for a stable economy--- a sound fiscal policy, based on balancing the federal budget.

 

The economy lost jobs in the first term of George W. Bush because a lack of a economic and fiscal policy.  Job creation under his administration, when it comes to an end, will be one of the weakest since Hoover.  One recession has already taken place on his watch and another one is brewing.  Yet with all the bad news, the President does nothing.   

 

It should be noted the unemployment rate on Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43's watch never went down at a steady pace.  On each of their watches it increased over what it was when they took office before it came back down: Reagan from 7.5% to 10.8% before it started to come down;  Bush 41 from 5.4% to 7.8% before it started to come down.

 

When President Clinton took office unemployment was 7.3% and it never went over that.  In fact, the unemployment rate went down on a steady basis every year that he was in office and was at 4.2% when he left.  The Clinton administration was also steady in creating jobs upward and in record numbers while Reagan, Bush 41, and now Bush 43 were/are inconsistent.  That was also covered in my three part series mentioned above.  Those three neocon presidents did not even come close in creating a sound economic and fiscal policy.  Clinton had a real economic and fiscal policy that produced the greatest economy, created jobs, low unemployment, advancement for the poor, middle class and all through the economic ladder and real increase in wages.  Not to mention, he also produced a balance budget that returned surpluses, paid down debt, and left Bush a $5.6 trillion surplus, which he of course blew.  By the way, crime and unemployment hit its lowest level in 40 years on Clinton's watch.  Yea, you read right, it happened on a Democrat's watch.

 

The Clinton haters are out now in full mode, especially journalists who are infatuated with Obama, since his wife is seeking the Democratic nomination.  They are still reporting opinions and false hoods as fact, just as they did during the impeachment of the President by the Republican Congress.  The voting public would also do well to remember that the U.S. Senate found Clinton not guilty of the impeachment charges, and a five year investigation by the government concerning Whitewater found nothing.  The only thing the President was guilty of was lying to the public about an affair.  The same Clinton haters are trying to do the same thing to Senator Clinton---they just can't stand the fact the country and its people did so well on President Clinton's watch and they don't want to see Sen. Clinton have that same success. 

The Spitzer Scandal: My Take

I'll start off by saying that I was never a huge fan of Eliot Spitzer; I didn't see what others apparently did---a future President.  At the same time, however, I never thought he would face a scandal like the one he currently is.  All in all, I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing.  Here's my take:

First of all, I always feel terrible for politicians and their families when their personal lives get aired for the whole world to see.  My feeling is that if what a politician is doing personally doesn't effect the public, then the public has no reason to know.  After all, we elect leaders to do a job, and that job is to take care of us.  If they do that job, then that should be enough for us to know.  The perfect example, of course, is the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.  I'm certainly not saying what Bill was doing was okay, but it in no way was any business of the public's.  President Clinton was a fantastic President, and his personal life obviously didn't get in the way of that.   

In many ways, however, Spitzer's case is different.  Spitzer wasn't just having an extramarital affair, which is not illegal, he was involved with a prostitute, which, of course, is illegal.  And it's not so much the fact that he hired a prostitute that makes me mad, it's the fact that he spent the better part of his life going after and prosecuting people severely for the exact same act he has now been caught engaging in.  If there's one thing that gets me mad at elected leaders, it's hypocrisy.  And by engaging in the acts he allegedly did, Eliot Spitzer is just that, a hypocrite.  

It's for that reason that I believe Gov. Spitzer should resign.  Not because he absolutely has to, but because he portrayed himself to the public as someone he was not.  It's the exact same hypocrisy that made me so outraged over the Larry Craig and David Vitter scandals---they ran on high ethics and morality, yet were involved in controversial sexual acts. I called for Craig and Vitter to resign over their hypocrisy (they didn't), so to be fair, I must ask the same of Spitzer.  The difference, however, is that I think Spitzer has the decency to know that what he did was a clear violation of public trust and because of that, I know that he will do the right thing and step down as Governor of New York within the next few days.  

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part III of III, The Clinton/ Bush Administrations)

Bill Clinton 1993-2001

 

Bill Clinton came to office after 12 straight years of record deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the National Debt during the Reagan-Bush years.  A fiscal night mare no other President faced.  But Clinton had a real fiscal plan to reverse the out of control spending and an economic plan that was broad based to create the greatest economy in modern time.  The Democratic controlled congress passed Clinton's fiscal and economic plans without one vote from the Republicans in congress.  They predicted doom and gloom on the floor of congress; record unemployment, record deficits, a devastating economy and etc., and they were proven wrong. 

 

The economic and fiscal package contained tax increases and tax reductions for the people and businesses, along with other tax benefits for families.  It was broad based and mandated that the budget be in balance over a number of years and contained spending restraints.  Over 22.7 million new jobs were created on Clinton's watch in 8 years.  That was 4 million more jobs created than the Reagan-Bush administration created in the 12 years they served at the helm.  91% of the job creation under Clinton was in the private sector, the highest in 50 years.  The neocon Presidents always talk about promoting the private sector but it was Clinton and his economic policy that actually accomplished the deed.

 

The Republican's talk about fiscal responsibility but it was Clinton who accomplished that also.  The deficit fell every year during Clinton's first term and the budget was in surplus his last four years in office.  His administration left the incoming President George W. Bush a projected surplus of 5.6 trilling dollars and a budget in the black.  but that all changed in one short year under Bush.

 

George W. Bush  2001-2009

 

 

During his campaign for President Bush acknowledged the $5.6 trillion surplus the federal government was running and said it was the peoples money and he would return it to the people in the form of tax cuts. (Which everyone knows benefited the most wealthy the most.)  Once again trickle down economics and voodoo economics was reintroduced to the american people. 

 

Bush then set a course to reverse the fiscal and economic policies of the Clinton administration which has led to the largest deficit spending spree in the history of our country and the largest ever increase in the National Debt and the country still has to live through two more of Bush's Budgets, one ending fiscal 9/30/08 and 9/30/09.  The CBO has already projected the 08 deficit at over $260 Billion and the 09 at over $400 billion.  That's over $600billion more to add to the National Debt.

 

Bush has continued the reckless spending of the Reagan-Bush years in office and is designed to bankrupt the federal government so social security, medicare and other federal programs that have helped the people have to shut down.  They want to see social security made into private accounts so the wealthy financial institutions can get a hold of that money so they can pull another Enron.  The tax cuts of those three presidents was done to take the people's mind off what they were really up to.  The public has paid for those tax cuts over and over with debt and trillions of dollars in interest paid on the debt they created.  Money that could be used for other needed purposes.

 

And now we are in the midst of another recession, the second one on this president's watch.  The lack of a fiscal and economic policy has been so reckless, the nation and its people have lost all the gains it made under Clinton's administration.  The economy lost 13,000 jobs during Bush's first term in office and last month it was announced the economy lost 17,000 jobs.  Bush has asked for and received from congress a stimulus package, not the first financial aid to help the economy.  The problem is Bush seven years into his presidency still has no economic plan for a sustained economy. 

 

This is the President who had a business background we are told, but he used his experience to harm the country and its people instead of setting a higher course for the benefit of all.  The $5.6 trillion projected surpluses vanished under deficit spending on Bush's watch.  Never was any President in modern times able to take office with such a sound fiscal government and economy than Bush and he blew it big time.  The following numbers tell the whole sad story. 

  Budget Deficits or Surpluses

 

Bill Clinton's Administration

 

1994      $203.2 Billion Deficit

1995       164.0 Billion  Deficit

1996       107.4 Billion  Deficit

1997        21.9 Billion   Deficit

1998        69.3 Billion   Surplus

1999       125.6 Billion  Surplus

2000       236.0 Billion  Surplus

2001       128.0 Billion  Surplus

Total for 8 years: $62.8 Billion Surplus

 

 

George Bush Administration

 

2002      $157.8 Billion Deficit

2003        377.6 Billion Deficit

2004        412.7 Billion Deficit

2005        318.3 Billion Deficit

2006        248.2 Billion Deficit

2007        162.8 Billion Deficit

Total Deficit Spending: $1,677 Trillion

 

2008      $260.0 Billion Deficit Projected

2009        $400.0 Billion Deficit Projected

Total Deficit Spending including Projected:   $2,337 Trillion

 

 

National Debt

 

9/30/01  When Clinton Left Office:      $5,807,463 Trillion

9/30/93  When Clinton Took Office:    $4,411,488 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt:       $1,395,981 Trillion (increase: 31.6%)

 

As of 2/22/08:                                            $9,298,686 Trillion

9/30/01 When Bush Took Office          $5,807,463 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt           

with 2 more years of deficit spending 

to add:                                    $3,491,223 Trillion (increase of 60%) 

 

Spending vs. Previous Administration

 

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Bush I First Term            $5,368.5 Trillion

Increase of 14%                $771.2 Billion

 

Bush II First Term          $ 8,936,5 Trillion

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 46%               $2,796.8  Trillion

 

Clinton 2nd Term          $7,007.1 Trillion

Clinton 1st Term            $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 14%              $867.4 Billion

 

 

Public Debt

 

When Clinton Left Office               $3,319.6 Trillion

When Clinton Took Office             $3,248.4 Trillion

A increase  in Public Debt of          $71.2 Billion (increase of 2%)

 

Bush thru 2007                            $5,035.3 Trillion

When Bush Took Office             $3,319.6 Trillion

A Increase in Public Debt of      $1,715.7 Trillion (increase of 52%)

 

 

Public Debt as Percentage of GDP

 

When Clinton Left Office         33%

Bush as of 2007                          36% (two more budget years to go)

 

 

Job Creation

 

Clinton first term                     11,507,000 Million

Clinton second term               11,239,000 Million

Total Jobs Created                  22,746,000 Million

 

Bush first term                             13,000 Thousands jobs lost

Bush second term thru 2007     5,807,000 Million

 

 

Unemployment

 

The unemployment rate when Clinton took office was 7.3%.  It was 4.2% when he left office for a total decline of 3.1% during his two terms in office.  The unemployment rate declined every year on his watch and for 5 months during the year 2000 it stood at 3.9%, the lowest in over 30 years. 

 

 

The unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2%.  It went up to 6.3% in 2003 and stood at 4.9% in January of 2008, a total increase in unemployment of .6% as of that date.  The lowest was 4.4% in 2006.  Mr. Bush inherited the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years when he took office.

 

 

It should be noted that Bush's very first budget that ended fiscal 9/30/02 was in deficit to the tune of $157.8 Billion 6 months prior to the start of the Iraq war.  Mr. Bush had no plans to balance any budget.  The people need to think hard about this massive reversal of fiscal responsibility.  It is no wonder the conservatives hate Clinton.  He accomplished just what he said he would do with out their vote and despite their opposition. 

 

I will have a follow up to Part III in a recap and conclusions.  Stay tuned.

 

All years information are fiscal years with the exception of unemployment.

 

Notes:  The National Debt is made up of Private and Public Debt.

 

President Clinton paid down the public debt $453 Billion in his last 4 years in office.  Reagan and the  two Bush's paid down nothing in their 20 years at the helm.

 

The Reagan administration did not face any major wars, Bush I administration had the Gulf War but the coalition paid for the major part of the war.  Bush II had budget surplus coming into office and a projected $5.6 Trillion surplus. He started a war and occupation in Iraq with no plans to pay for it and  as shown his very first budget was in deficit even before the War began.  None of those three Presidents can use war as an excuse for their reckless deficit spending and debt that they have amassed on the American taxpayers. 

Bill Stumps In Wisconsin

With Hillary and Barack being the two candidates running for President, many often overlook Bill Clinton's stumping for his wife across the country.  But as these two videos demonstrate, Bill is still the greatest politician and best speaker (as far as connecting with an audience) this country has:

My Letter To Keith Olbermann

This is a letter that I am emailing to Keith Olbermann, asking him to end his bias reporting and commentary in favor of Sen. Obama and against Sen. Clinton.  I encourage all of you who read this and feel the same way to also write Keith.  

_____________________________________________

Mr. Olbermann,

I have, for a long while now, been a huge fan and supporter of Countdown and your political commentary, but you have, as of late, been taking it too far, and I'm getting sick of watching.  Could your bias in favor of Sen. Obama be any clearer?  Could your disdain for Sen. Clinton and President Clinton be any more obvious?  

By coming as close to endorsing Obama as one can without actually doing it (obviously NBC wouldn't allow that),  you are hurting not only your audience, whom many are Clinton supporters, but you are also damaging the Democratic Party.

I myself am for Sen. Clinton, but I don't consider myself against Sen. Obama.  On the other hand, you are for Sen. Obama, but overly against Sen. Clinton.  You and your show were best when you stood up as a voice for the progressive movement; when you stood up to and challenged the warped ideology of neoconservatism.  Your show is at its worst currently, as you misrepresent and demonize Sen. Clinton, who has done more for the progressive movement than many would like to admit.  

Night after night now, I see you only give one side of the story----Obama's side.  I wouldn't be surprise if you're paraphrasing lines straight off Obama's website.  It truly is uncalled for, sir.  You and other journalists would do a great deal of good, both to your own reputations and on behalf of your viewers, if you look at this race objectively.  Sen. Obama has become the media-darling; you all can't get enough of him, and in the end, that's not good for America.    

As of late, you have made the target of your criticism Sen. Clinton and her campaign.  I don't think that you believe Sen. Clinton is the real enemy, more so than the Republicans, but that is sure how you've been reporting it.  So, what I'm asking for, Mr. Olbermann, is an apology for the mischaracterizations of Sen. Clinton and the one-sidedness of your recent commentary.  But first and foremost, I'm asking for a return to the old Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  The one which unites the Democratic party and progressive movement and challenges the lies and hypocrisy of the right.  

Thanks and I hope to see the old Keith back on Monday,

J. Patrick

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part I of III)

The U.S. economy is in the news yet again with many economists and business leaders predicting a recession in the near future.  Some say it will be short lived; others say it will be deep and prolonged.  The candidates who are running for their party's nomination have already put their two cents in.  

 

If a recession does occur, it will be the second one on this President's watch.  The first occurred in 2001.  That leads to the question, which party's President, in the last 28 years, has had the best economic policy for the economy and its people?  The undisputed answer and fact is the Clinton Administration.  That is one of the main reasons Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest approval rating of any President in modern times. One could go back 40 years and the Clinton economy would still come out on top.  

 

Reagan-Bush served 12 years, Clinton 8 years and G.W. Bush 8 years.  Those 3 republican presidents served a total of 20 years.  Reagan was the first of the neocons who championed an ideology that claimed the GOP was best at balancing the budget, creating jobs, lowering unemployment, cutting the budget, managing the economy, and lowering crime.  But sadly, those 3 republican presidents were reckless with the people's money and (1) Failed to keep their promises to the country and its people; (2) Betrayed the voters; (3)  Created massive debt for our children and grandchildren; (4) Placed in jeopardy our democracy by being in bed with Corporate America, and (5)  Deliberately tried to put the U.S. government's financial situation in jeopardy with debt in order to bankrupt social security, medicare, and other social services on which millions of Americans depend. 

 

One will not have to be a deep thinker to absorb the facts.  The actual numbers will tell the story because they are already written in the history books.  There are those who have lived through the 28 years and will still not believe the facts.  They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they do not have a right to call those 3 republican presidents fiscal conservatives, nor do they have a right to call liberals big spenders.  The facts will show just the opposite.

 

George Bush said the tax cuts of 2001 and the stimulus package that was passed by Congress ended the recession of 2001.  Now he is talking about another stimulus for the predicted recession to come soon.  The reader needs to keep in mind the republican problem.  They have, through the years, a tax cutting policy but not an economic policy.  They believe in the trickle down theory.  On the other hand president Clinton had an economic policy to deal with the 12 year fiscal mess Reagan-Bush left the country in. 

 

An economic policy is lasting and covers a broad spectrum while a stimulus package does not answer the real problem and, in fact, comes after the fact.  Ditto for the tax cuts that the republicans propose because they favor the most wealthy people.  Simply put it: trickle down economics is a fairytale. 

 

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate running for president who has spoken about fiscal responsibility, while the other republicans have talked about emulating Reagan and Bush.  Senator Clinton is the only democratic candidate for president who talks about getting back to fiscal responsibility as the best way to deal with the economy and our other problems. 

 

Sadly, the massive spending and debt the republicans have put the country in is never discussed by the journalists in the news media.  Stay tuned because part II will deal with the Reagan-Bush years and part III with the Clinton and Bush years.

1/21 Democratic Debate Analysis

Wow!---thats all I can say.  Watching last night's CNN Democratic debate felt like watching a high speed car crash---where you just know it's going to get uglier and uglier but you just can't turn away.  

The first half of the debate, in addition to housing the fireworks between Clinton and Obama, had some rather odd moments. For one, it seemed as if Obama had rehearsed lines that he was determined to get in on Clinton regardless of what the topic of the question was.  In the first ten minutes, Obama was asked a question about the economy, but instead of spending his one minute of time answering the question, he attacked Bill Clinton.  It was just plain weird to see a question on the economy turn into an attack on Bill Clinton, which of course drew a response from Clinton, and then one back again from Obama and so on. 

One thing I was shocked to see, and I say this from a completely unbiased point of view, was that Obama took the Clintons' bait. It was overtly obvious to anyone watching the past few days that Bill and Hillary wanted to distract Obama from the issues and get inside his head.  And to my surprise, Bill threw out the bait and Obama jumped on it.  It was unproductive for Obama last night, it terms of the more or less national race coming February 5, to attack Bill Clinton.  Obama has South Carolina locked up with its 50% + African American vote, but Super Tuesday is another story.  And by taking the Clintons' bait and attacking Hillary and Bill, rather than answering the questions, Obama was reduced to nothing more than a mere politician.  If I was Obama and I was put in his position, going up against the Clinton machine, I would have risen above the fray and tried to appear untouchable.  

Why Obama aggressively and persistently went after the Clintons, particularly Bill, is beyond my comprehension.  Does he not understand that he played right into the Clintons' hands last night?  This should be common sense for anyone, especially someone with the savvy of Obama---you don't attack Bill Clinton in a Democratic Primary race. It's just plain stupid.

And to make matters even worse for Obama last night, he was the one who started the entire fight, and trust me, it was a fight. Usually it's Hillary who makes a charge against her opponents and more or less starts the dialogue.  Last night it was Obama who appeared overly eager to throw the first punch.  But as Obama found out, Clinton can hit back pretty hard too.  After several minutes of back and forth bickering, Obama made a comment about Clinton and Wal-Mart.  Clinton, clearly having had enough, hit Obama back with the whole Rezco scandal, which does deserve more attention than it's gotten.  You could just tell by the look on Obama's face that he was not ready for that, and he was pretty much "well-behaved" for the rest of the debate.

  

Again, I'll say that those opening moments clearly rattled Obama.  The candidates were asked about a bill that came to the Senate that would put a cap on interest rates for credit cards at 30%.  Clinton voted for it, Obama against it.  Clinton made the charge that by not voting to put a cap on how high credit cards could charge a customer interest, Obama was playing right into the corporate lobbyists' hands. Obama then gave the most bizarre comeback of this campaign season: he voted against it because he though that 30% was too high.  John Edwards, who has mostly sided with Obama in previous debates, turned to Obama, with the a priceless look on his face, and simply asked Obama how the hell does it make sense that you vote against a 30% cap, which by default would allow a company to charge as much interest as they like, and then say it was because the cap was too high.  Isn't a 30% cap better than a 100% cap?  

Edwards also went after Obama over his liberal use of the "present" vote in the Illinois State Senate.  This is really telling, because as Edwards said, if you agree with a bill, you vote yes, if you don't, you vote no.  The present vote is nothing more than a cheap shot at political cover.  Instead of taking a stand on tough issues, Obama decided to straddle the middle.  As Edwards said, America needs a President who is not afraid to take tough positions; America needs a President who will stand up and fight for a progressive agenda.

The best and most substantive policy debate of the night came over the issue of healthcare.  From what I could tell, both Clinton and Edwards looked great defending true universal healthcare.  Democrats have wanted universal healthcare for over a decade, and it's appealing to many to hear Clinton and Edwards stand up firmly for it.  They both correctly pointed out that Obama's plan is not universal.  Every American will not be insured; in fact, an estimated 15 million or more would be left without healthcare coverage.  In 2008, with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, universal healthcare can get passed.  It would be sad to pass up that opportunity, both in my mind and in the mind of many other Democrats.  

So who won the debate?  Clearly Edwards.  Not because he was particularly great last night, but because the spat between Clinton and Obama virtually cancelled each candidate out.  Unfortunately for Edwards, it's just too late for him to make a comeback.  So in that sense, when you realize that it's now a Clinton-Obama race, Clinton won the debate.  Obama played to the South Carolina base, and did well on that front.  But on the national scale, Clinton was the winner.  

Obama Calls Out Bill---Who's Telling The Truth?

In a pre-taped interview with ABC's Good Morning America, set to air tomorrow, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that Bill Clinton had recently been making "factually inaccurate" statements concerning him(Obama) and his campaign.  So, the question has to be asked: Who's telling the truth, Barack or Bill?  Let's look at the facts on some of the issues of which Barack claims Bill was not telling the truth:

1)President Clinton said that Obama's radio ad told Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for him.  Here are the President's exact words:

"There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me."

Obama claims that is not true.  But here is exactly what Obama's radio ad said:

"Caucus for Barack Obama Saturday the 19th 11am. You can register right at the caucus. Independents and Republicans who want real change can attend and switch registration." 

In addition to the radio ad, Obama's campaign was also distributing pamphlets in Nevada that urged Republicans to caucus for Obama "if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary."

2) President Clinton told a Nevada crowd that he and Chelsea witnessed voter suppression first hand at casinos:

"There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.'"

Obama claims that Bill lied and saw no such thing.  However, the local Las Vegas Sun has confirmed that dirty tactics were indeed being employed by Obama supporters:

"Union representatives, he(Ruben Beltran, a Culinary Union member) said, are telling employees they must caucus for Obama on Saturday, making it sound more like a demand than a suggestion. Beltran said workers feel intimidated because the union holds sway over their jobs."

3) Obama claims that Bill Clinton lied concerning Obama's evolving Iraq War positions.  Here is how Bill characterized Obama's positions:

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Well, here are quotes that prove President Clinton's points:

a. "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war," Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

b. “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

c. Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over."

d. "Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. " (ABC News, 5/17/07)

So, my friends, there are the quotes and the facts, do with them what you please.