2000- +290B$

2001- +152B$

2002- -186B$

2003- -430B$

2004- -462B$

2005- -347B$

2006- -260B$

2007- -165B$

2008- -455B$

2009- -1.4T$

2010- -1.4T$

These are the budget surplus numbers vs shortfalls over the past 10 years that Barack Obama spoke of. By themselves these numbers mean absolutely nothing. Some would point out that 2000 surplus was due to a Bill Clinton led government, and while they are correct, the problem with the argument is that the congress is in charge of spending and debt. At least constitutionally. There had been a republican congress with a democratic president who at least somewhat cared about his legacy and reelection and saw the economy as an important factor in that whole evaluation. Not that he did not fight nearly every budget that was given to him including shutting down the government ceremoniously.

But it was this infight that caused the surplus in my contention.

If my argument is that conservatives can cut down the budget and balance the budget then wow..these numbers would look pretty bad for that, but as I said these are only numbers, and I’d like you to find a serious conservative that thought the GW Bush was in any way fiscally conservative. George W. Bush ran, much like Mike Huckabee in 08′, as a “compassionate conservative.” I can guarantee you if I were of voting age in the primary at the time he would not have been my choice. You can ask a few of my friends who were in my comparative philosophy class about the whole debate back then that was going on.

The republican establishment, if their feet are not held to the fire, tend to mimic Bush’s tack on spending and entitlements. For the longest time they believed these programs were critical to their reelection and because of our corruptive system that is so financially lucrative to those that have any sense of investment and of course just the salary is more then 4 times the average american that they cannot lose they would lose their lifestyle.

Now, the republicans in both houses have rightly thought that if they cede to democrats on spending and entitlements that they are not guaranteed to get their positions nomination, much less win any elections. So the normally “moderate” are now out in force for a balanced budget. My view on this is that they do not think it will pass the senate therefore it will not impact their politics after the next election. So I believe a good number of republicans should be replaced by better republicans.

In these numbers it is important to realize that 2001 9/11 massively impacted the economy. So the deficit was not only because of inflation of spending over those years. We had started, before democrats took over the house and senate, to get the deficits back down by nearly 300 billion in three years, but the current trend started with tarp and progressed from there as GW Bush “abandoned free market principles to save the free market” which is the biggest pile of balogna I’ve ever heard. Using that blueprint the current administration used the economic downturn into a reason to spend and spend and spend us into oblivion.

Tarp was not even fully used, and never actually did what they said it would do in purchasing the dead assetts. We lost 130 billion on the bailout of Chrysler alone. This is after they “paid us back”. Would two auto companies going bankrupt affect demand for automobiles? I don’t think so. People would sell and buy other automobiles, and maybe a new company with a better business plan would prop up and be more competetive then GM and Chrysler are.

The job loss would have hurt..alot, but as the demand ramped up for other vehicles alot of those job losses could have been mitigated, especially if we adopted pro-growth tax policies such as a flat tax or fair tax. Its like the Great Depression its often said that there is a consensus that FDR was a great president for guiding us out of the depression, but data that I have seen states that if he had not done what he had done we would have come out of it stronger, and sooner not relying on a war to help us do it. War materials and things are so internationalized and government run that it does not have the effect on our economy the way it used to and is largely a drain, but not to the tune you hear about.

Tea party candidates are up there, and they are doing the job they were elected to do. If the electorate was not looking for this, then instead of them, a bunch of moderate establishment republicans would have been elected again. We’ll see in 2012, but I truly believe that 2010 was as big a game changer as 2006 was in the national narrative. Another sign that people are fed up with the establishment? How well Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann are doing in polls right now. How much different is a candidate like Mitt Romney to the current administration? Not a whole lot. How much more well known is Mitt Romney then anyone else running? Its ridiculous comparison for those that do not absorb alot of political news.

In short, both sides most definitely contributed to this current situation, but the ones who did not contribute to it are the ones forcing the GOP leadership to grow a spine. I hope they continue. Someone needs to tell John Boehner that increasing taxes is revenue neutral at best long term. Long term tax cuts will generate growth, and a lower tax rate with a higher GDP yields more revenue then a higher tax rate with a lower GDP. There may be a floor to the theory, but the theory is true. Why is it that with these “unfair tax rates” that the rich pay more of a percentage of total taxation then they ever have? If raising taxes on the rich worked, wouldn’t that be completely not true?

I hope the current president learns that just because you think that its politically expedient to bald-faced lie to the entire of the country on a regular basis, that it will lead to his own downfall. I’m starting to see it from his own party and not just liberals in his own party wanting him to go further in socializing the country.

I wrote this on July 26th. Boy how things have changed since then. I guess I was just too optimistic. We have lost the narrative, and are now arguing for the payroll tax as if it actually goes into funding social security. We have Newt vs. Mitt. I just don’t know what to even say anymore about it. Can we please just get some competent people that are conservatives with a backbone in office? Please? All I want for Christmas is that.