Sunday, March 16, 2008

McCain May Be Our Savior


we have only five to 10 years to address the federal government's looming shortfalls before we're faced with a fiscal crisis.

In about a decade, the twin forces of demographics and compound interest will leave few options for solving the fiscal mess Washington has created.

We could make draconian spending cuts, or impose large tax increases that will undermine our economy in the competitive global marketplace. Or we could debase the value of the dollar by printing a large amount of money. This would shrink the overall value of the federal government's debt. It would also wipe out the value of most Americans' savings.

I join many others in saying that federal spending is now as significant an issue as the war on terror, federal judgeships and energy independence.

John McCain can stand on his own record as it relates to fiscal conservatism. Compared to his opponents in November, he is nothing less than a savior.

Hope alone won't carry us through the valley of the shadow of debt. The fact that neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama has made cost-cutting a part of their political vocabulary is a clear indication that they would increase spending. In fact, Mrs. Clinton has already proven skillful at snagging pork. Over the past few years alone, she has attached some $2.2 billion in earmarks to federal spending bills. Mr. McCain has asked for exactly $0 in earmarks.

And while Mr. Obama's oratorical skills have been inspiring, his proposals would entail roughly the same $800 billion in new government spending that Mrs. Clinton proposes. To his credit, Mr. Obama admits that his spending proposals will take more than three clicks of his heels to fund. He would pay for his priorities with a bevy of tax increases which he hopes taxpayers won't notice.

He is the only candidate of the three we have to chose from that the philosophy and the record to support the action needed to save our country for the future. Liberal tax and spend policies have sapped our ability as a nation to support and pursue even the most basic functions of government. Our fair state can't be far behind.

There is a yawning gulf between the viewpoints of Mr. McCain and those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nowhere is this more evident than on the critical issue of the steady collapse of our government's financial house.

Since 2000, the federal budget has increased 72%, to $3.1 trillion from $1.8 trillion. The national debt is now $9 trillion -- more than the combined GDP of China, Japan and Canada. Add in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security commitments, and as a nation we are staring at more than a $50 trillion hole -- an invisible mortgage of $450,000 for every American family.

So if "change" is what we need, it is exactly the opposite of what is being offered by Clinton or Obama. Their policies, coupled with our current liberal-leaning congress, if ever enjoined, could hasten the financial disaster that is a mathematical certainty if corrective action isn't taken soon.

If we don't solve this issue, national security, social issues, universal health care and what temperature our planet happens to be will all be moot.

6 comments:

jkruse said...

I'm fascinated that somebody could examine that curve between the years 1980-1992, 1992-2000, and 2000-present and determine that we're doomed if we don't elect another republican president.

jroosh said...

I knew someone would make that observation but in fact I don't consider Bush to be a fiscal conservative either.

So it's not a Republican we need per se, it's a true fiscal conservative.

I will say that in my opinion, Bill Clinton, who was fairly conservative as far as Democrats go, inherited the fiscal legacy of Ronald Regan.

jkruse said...

...inherited the fiscal legacy of Ronald Regan... which happens to exhibit a major inflection point near 1992 and again near 2000.

Funny how "Reagan's" economic policy worked so much better for Clinton than it did for Reagan, Bush, or Bush.

Bike Bubba said...

One could put it another way. The failure to spend on the military during the Ford and Carter years, and during the late Bush 1/Clinton years, created the need for many of the spending increases of the Reagan/Bush 2 eras.

You could also point out that the Clinton administration benefited from a GOP Congress that put the lid on spending for a time, and reformed welfare.

But in the end, jkruse, you'd be right to suspect that we might do better in fiscal conservatism. I can admit that.

jkruse said...

...Clinton administration benefited from a GOP Congress that put the lid on spending for a time, and reformed welfare.

I thought those guys didn't leave until 2006. From the data it looks like they took off around 2000.

I know the answer though. There's always some democrat to blame, and a republican to praise.

Bike Bubba said...

Kruse, they DID in a way take off after 2000. Remember the term limits pledges that a few congressmen actually did hold to?

That said, it is correct that a lot of fiscal conservatism went by the wayside when W got elected. Trying to "set a new tone," we passed Teddy Kennedy's "Most Children Left Behind" bill, Medicare prescription drug coverage, and other goodies wanted by the Democrats.

Add that to the costs of waging war after 9/11, and you've got a sharply rising national debt. Is that so complicated? Liberalism is expensive, whether Democrats or Republicans are leading it.