Sorry Y’all

OK, I want to admit right off the bat that we here at theLobbyist have been fairly derelict in our duties.  This has been an exciting election season, and many of us are caught up in the fervor by campaigning for some of our local guys, or perhaps ypu have noticed that out ConservativeCongress site has blown up recently as people become more and more aware that CC exists to help people identify the conservative Congressional candidates in their district.

So I want to say, I’m sorry.

Here we are on the crest of a wave that is scheduled to level the political landscape in two days and those of us writing at theLobbyist have let you down.  Nevertheless, we are going to get up off our rear-ends (and enjoy it when we kick the Democratic establishment onto its rear-end) and get things up here for our readers.  Thanks!

-the editors

Comparing Bush Spending to Clinton Spending

Yesterday, Jed Lewison of Daily Kos put up a post comparing Clinton’s eight years of spending to Bush’s eight years of spending. The post- which cited the very reputable Tax Policy Center for its budget claims- showed just how badly Bush spent compared to Clinton. According to Lewison, Clinton saved over $100 billion in his final budget, Fiscal Year 2001.

I found the post interesting- not the least because Lewison cited the TPC, a partnership of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution- but also because TPC’s (and, thus, Lewison’s) claims are in direct contrast to what the Treasury itself shows in the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, which is an increase in the federal debt of over $100 billion. I decided to contact Lewison about his claims. Below are the questions I sent, and his responses:

1. According to the Treasury, the debt increased from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2001. What are the differences between the numbers you used and the numbers from the Treasury?

2. How much of the Bush debt you cited can be attributed to the growth in entitlements started pre-Clinton and pre-Bush years (i.e. not including the Medicare Drug Bill, etc. that added to the debt) and that obviously grew during both presidencies?

Lewison’s response:

1) The increase in total debt is basically an increase in the Social Security Trust Fund (i.e., intragovernmental debt, money that the government owes itself, which accounts for a bit over a third of all debt). I’m not an expert on all the accounting rules, but if you look at the non-intragovernmental debt, it decreased. But how Social Security is accounted for is a separate issue from the overall fiscal well being of the Federal government under Bush and Clinton.

2) Outside of new programs like the Medicare drug plan, the rate of growth in entitlements should be a wash; since they are proscribed by law, both administrations would have experienced growth in them. The underlying demographics would have had to have been huge to explain the difference in overall spending growth rates.

Regarding #1, Clinton almost balanced the annual budget, but never took care of the long-term entitlement issues America was (and still is) expected to face. So while he (and his Republican Congresses) should get credit for almost balancing the budget, they should also get blame for not touching the Third Rail of politics that is Social Security. I think Lewison is mostly right on this one, though I disagree with his last sentence. (Note: the 2000-2001 recession cut into the revenues in FY2001, which Clinton could not have accounted for in his FY2001 budget, since the recession started one month after the start of FY2001.)

Lewison is a bit more inaccurate in his second point. The rate of entitlements can’t be a wash, as they continue to annually increase as a percentage of the national budget. This in no way excuses Bush and the Republicans for their spending spree(s), nor the Democrats who were in charge for two fiscal years during the Bush presidency, but it does clarify things a bit, I think.

Lewison’s post does point out that a Democratic president spent much better than a Republican president, and rightly so. He did, however, miss that that Bush was opposed by most Republicans on TARP (which Democrats mostly supported, as well as much of the Republican leadership), and while he acknowledged the drop in revenues from the recession at one point in the post, he neglected to do the final math. Using Lewison’s numbers:

• The FY2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion;

• the stimulus accounted for $200 billion of that deficit;

• and the recession accounted for $400 billion losses in revenue for FY2009.

So, while the deficit was an atrocious $800 billion, what Bush was directly responsible for in FY2009 deficit was not nearly as bad as Lewison would like to think. It certainly was not as bad as the FY2010 or proposed FY2011 budgets under President Obama (who, admittedly, has to deal with a terrible recession and seven decades of entitlements and many years of war he is not responsible for).

Overall, as I have been saying for some time, both parties need to grow up. The Debt-Paying Generation is here, as a previous post pointed out, and unless we get a batch of politicians willing to reform how much we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense, the situation is only going to get worse. (And no, the new health care law won’t help prevent that financial worsening.)

Full disclosure: I informed Lewison I would likely be using his comments in a post. I am not pulling a bait-and-switch by asking him for his thoughts without disclosing I would use them.

A Big Yawn

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

(Somewhat) Breaking: Senator Dorgan (D-ND) To Retire

From The Washington Post’s?The Fix: “Democrats acknowledged privately that Dorgan’s decision was a significant blow although they quickly pivoted to note that the party would field a candidate. The only obvious name for Democrats is Rep. Earl Pomeroy who has held the state’s at-large seat since 1992 when Dorgan ascended to the Senate.”

From the National Republican Senatorial Committee: “”North Dakota was always going to be a competitive seat for the Democrats to defend, and Senator Dorgan?s retirement now provides us with another excellent pick-up opportunity for Republicans in 2010. This development is indicative of the difficult environment and slumping approval ratings that Democrats face as a result of their out of control tax-and-spend agenda in Washington, and we fully intend to capitalize on this opportunity by continuing to recruit strong candidates who can win these seats in November.” – Brian Walsh, NRSC Communications Director”?

This should be really interesting. My uncle is the Chief of Staff for Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND),?and so I have a more-than-passing interest in the state’s politics.?My friend Shawn, a resident of North Dakota, is one of many who thinks?governor John?Hoeven is?the strongest candidate for Republicans to run this year. Hopefully, he does, and sends the Democrats a strong message in North Dakota that voting for Democratic initiatives like this health care reform effort is a bad thing. (Both senators?from the state- Dorgen and Conrad- and Pomeroy voted for their respective chamber’s bill.)

Health Care Officially Passes Senate

It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:

1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?

2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.

3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.

4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?

5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.

It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.