They All Lie - But Daschle Does it Best

Ether Zone ^ | 1/8/02 | Ed Henry

[Jean S]

Standing on his step-stool, little Tommy Dashle raised himself to the microphones and delivered the democratic party platform on the economy yesterday, January fourth, only a few days into the New Year. If it weren't so serious and insulting, it would be laughable.

After eight years of rule under a democratic administration and a false economy, Mr. Dashle has the nerve to imply that the recession is the fault of the current republican administration. He claims that: "In 1993, we made a decision. No more living beyond our means. No more borrow-and-spend and piling up mountains of debts to leave to our children and grandchildren. From that point on, we decided, everything we did had to fit into a new framework of fiscal discipline."

How dumb does he think we are? Does he think we've forgotten Clinton's apology for giving us one of the highest tax increases in history? An apology where he said: "I taxed you too much," but did nothing to rescind it.

And who can forget the government shutdowns of 1995? Arguments where Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich refused to raise the national debt ceiling from $4.9 trillion, even threatening to bankrupt the government, until the democrats agreed on a date to balance the budget. It was two years later, in Novermber of 1997, that a balanced "Unified" budget was finally established with everybody taking the credit.

In between we had years of arguing about whether it would take ten years, seven years, eight years, or whatever to balance the budget. Finally, they decided on the year 2002 because that was expected to be the time when loot from entitlements would equal any deficit ever run.

Anyone who believes that we went from a $237 billion surplus in fiscal 2000 to a deficit in 2001 needs to have his head examined. It's another deception caused by the fact that the "unified" budget combines "on" and "off" budget receipts. For all practical purposes, "on budget" is income tax money and "off budget" comes from stealing surpluses from Social Security, Medicare and a dozen other entitlements.

In fiscal 2001, that closed last September 28th, we had a surplus of $127.2 billion, the second largest surplus in history. Money stolen from entitlements was $160.7 billion, the "off budget" surplus. Because of the "New War" that broke out only weeks earlier, we had an "on budget" deficit of $33.5 billion ($160.7 minus $33.5 billion, equals $127.2 billion). While talking patriotically, democrats like Dashle will conveniently refer only to the deficit. Democrats are proficient at scare stories, a foothold of the incompetent.

And the national debt? My God, you would have to be an idiot to believe what Dashle has to say about that. His so-called "fiscal discipline" caused the national debt to go from $4.54 trillion to $5.67 trillion during the Clinton years. That's an increase of $1.13 trillion and a matter of record.

The national debt has gone up every year. It has never gone down. Last year, fiscal 2001, it went up another $133.3 billion. Sure, since 1998 and the Balanced "unified" Budget Act, the "on budget" spending was held in check, but the "off budget" side continued unabated. That's the side where they steal your retirement, health care and other entitlement money under the pretext of borrowing it. Also a matter of record.

With the exception of fiscal 2000, where there was also a surplus/overcharge of $87.1 billion in income taxes under a democratic administration, there has always been a surplus in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement money to which the government helps itself as fast as it comes in. They steal your retirement money and that adds to the national debt because the government thinks it can both spend and save the same money. The annual interest that they pay against this "borrowing" also adds to the debt and is enough to make the national debt rise overall even if nothing more were stolen.

Then we got Mr. Dashle's plan to stimulate the economy. Apparently politicians have given up on the idea of putting payroll taxes "on vacation" for a month. A plan that would have made it too obvious that they didn't need the money and might have caused even dimwits to realize that the government steals their retirement and health care money. Now, there's a new subtler plan.

As Mr. Dashle puts it: "Democrats see things differently. We support tax cuts that work. But we want to make sure that any tax cuts we pass don't threaten the Social Security or Medicare reserves, crowd out other critical investments, or drive us deeper in debt."

What reserves? Didn't the Secretary of the Treasury just tell us that there was no money in the Social Security Trust Fund? If you can't believe the man who manages the accounts and also happens to be one of the trustees of the fund, then whom can you believe? And isn't the Social Security Trust Fund now 20 percent of the national debt?

Of course, Dashle didn't go to Paul O'Neill for advice. No, he went to the former Secretary of the Treasury. Robert Rubin, the man who left office shortly after the Indians won a lawsuit accusing him of mismanaging Indian trust funds.

And what is this grand new plan that the democrats propose? Why, it's much like the idea of putting payroll taxes on vacation for a month with a twist.

"Today, I am proposing two new ideas to try to get the economic stimulus debate back on track. First, we should pass a new Jobs Creation Tax Credit. This tax cut would be available to every business in America. It says, simply, that if you increase your payroll—if you hire new people, restore hours that have been cut, or give your workers a raise—you'll be reimbursed for all of the extra payroll taxes."

Wow, isn't that something? The party of the people, the party that's supposed to represent American workers, the little guy, is proposing a payroll tax cut for employers. They will get their "matching funds" back from the government. What a deal for fat cats.

The newly hired employees, those working more hours, or those getting raises will still be credited with these matching funds, but the government will rebate employers; i.e., give them back part of the "surplus" the government shouldn't be stealing anyway.

But it's only temporary and only for some companies. Probably only until the two million who've lost their jobs recently are back to work. A minor sacrifice for the government who can then return to full theft-as-usual.

If the democrats really wanted to help American workers they would cut back on the payroll taxes that produce a surplus neither Social Security nor Medicare need at the moment. Either that or invest the money properly instead of in debt.

The next ten months are going to be full of political garbage. The American taxpayer better learn to separate what’s real from the pure bull.

[South Dakota]

In 1993 we decided to stop borrowing beyond our means. So it took a democrat in the Oval office to convince you to stop spending beyond our means?