From an e-mail I got from WNYC, the local NPR station…
Dennis Kucinich is the only 2008 Presidential candidate to announce a plan to end the war, bring troops home, and create an international peace force in Iraq. And now that the war isn’t popular, his anti-war agenda is. So why doesn’t the media take him seriously?
I’ll go conspiracy and claim that the beef industry is behind it, trying to deflect coverage from a vegan. It’s got nothing to do with Dennis being a crazy little elf.
Every time I read a mention that there was a surplus under Clinton, such as the December 22nd entry in Slate’s ramblings from The Has Been, it really gets my knickers in a twist.
In 2000, Bush ran for president as a different kind of Republican, stealing a page from Clinton’s ‘92 New Democrat playbook. No father in history has left behind a bigger inheritance than Clinton: a $5 trillion surplus with no strings attached.
Well, let’s look at the facts, provided by the Bureau of the Public Debt. Their Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual page shows the national debt at the end of each fiscal year from 1950 to 2005. As of September 30th on each of those years, the numbers get progressively larger.
Fiscal Year Ending
National Debt
Deficit
9/30/2001
$5,807,463,412,200.06
$133,285,202,313.20
9/30/2000
$5,674,178,209,886.86
$17,907,308,271.43
9/30/1999
$5,656,270,901,615.43
$130,077,892,717.81
9/30/1998
$5,526,193,008,897.62
$113,046,997,500.28
9/30/1997
$5,413,146,011,397.34
$188,335,072,261.61
9/30/1996
$5,224,810,939,135.73
$250,828,038,426.34
9/29/1995
$4,973,982,900,709.39
$281,232,990,696.07
9/30/1994
$4,692,749,910,013.32
$281,261,026,873.94
9/30/1993
$4,411,488,883,139.38
$346,868,227,617.72
9/30/1992
$4,064,620,655,521.66
As you can clearly see, during Clinton’s term (Jan ‘93-Jan ‘01), there were no years when the national debt went down.
What’s the foundation of this myth? Are people that stupid?
Let’s take a closer look. Obviously, ‘99-’01 are the place to look for this mysterious surplus.
Debt held by the public went down by $230.8 billion. Hmm… we were paying off debt? Sure sounds like a surplus.
Oh, but wait, what’s that other column? Intragovernmental holdings went up by $248.7 billion? What’s that mean?
The Bureau of the Public Debt is nice enough to define these terms…
Debt Held by the Public — Is all Federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and other entities outside of the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series.
Intragovernmental Holdings — Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts.
Now, I’ve done balance transfers on my credit cards. It helps save on interest payments on balances I carry. It doesn’t, however, reduce my debt. Nor does paying off one card, and putting a larger amount on another. Whatever the mechanics, calling any of it a surplus is, at the very least, disingenuous. Using Social Security money to pay for bridges, roads, or schools may or may not be a good idea. Being honest and transparent about it certainly is a good idea.
Why am I making a big deal out of this?
In order to have an informed discussion of any type, it helps to know the facts. The fact is that the national deficit fell sharply during the Clinton years. He and the Republican Congress may have done some really good things. But they did not give us a surplus, and to state otherwise is at best misinformed, and at worst… disinformation. You know… lying?
I encourage you to feel like you’ve been duped if you believed the propaganda. I hope you feel a bit of a sting, and take that as motivation to do your own investigation into such things.
I hope that I’ve educated you in some small way.
I’m open to constructive comments. I’m in no way anyone’s lackey on this point, so baseless political attacks in comments will be deleted.
Edited 1/16/07: Came across this post in the same vein.
While I know that I won’t win any arguments with those steadfastly opposed to W and his administration, or those with emotional reasons for opposing the war in Iraq…
I’m definitely going to make a few statements.
1) If Saddam had allowed full, unobstructed inspection of suspected weapons sites, the UN sanctions would have been lifted, and he could be chillin’ with a harem in one of his palaces, lighting cigars with $100 bills.
2) The initial argument for action against Saddam post-9/11 was noncompliance with UN resolutions. This was a proper justification for military action. Other UN members pussied out, but that doesn’t change the legitimacy of enforcing the resolution. Bush and company should not have justified anything with the WMD claims, they lost all goodwill of other nations. But military action was justified.
3) Yes, the execution was rushed. But would keeping him alive have helped anything? Is there any reasonable belief that he would have been exonerated?
Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state.
I still haven’t thought about it enough to know how I feel about the idea. I’ll let you know after I’ve figured it out.
