Can Voters Be Dumb Enough to Believe Democrats Would Ever Balance a Budget?

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)

February 18, 2004

Some of the e-mail I have received on my article last week entitled George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush and Anti-War Movements has certainly been interesting.

While many letters thanked me for putting the current attacks on Bush in perspective, I also got some downright hysterical hate mail about it, and a few letters that started out with pretend compliments. One sent me an article from the “Democratic Underground, which has a collection of merchandise sporting the socialist logo “Anybody But Bush” and an e-mail which said, “Please read this and let me know why a fine woman like you would support a man with questionable repect for the American public.

I imagine the writer meant to say “respect.” With a lot of the hate mail I get, I can see that spelling was not something many of these folks learned in school. The article, which was entitled, “Integrity, Intentions and Intelligence” accused President Bush and his entire cabinet of lacking all three. It never ceases to amaze me that so many liberals have tried to convince America that George W. Bush lacks “intelligence.” On the intelligence subject, the author of the hate piece said:

“By his own admission Bush sleeps ten hours a night and works out on a treadmill two hours a day. By his own admission he doesn't read newspapers, preferring to be told what is important by the people around him. He refuses to have impromptu news conferences and reads every statement written for him. His only endearing quality is his admission of his own limited intelligence.”

So, we now can believe Yale and Harvard Universities gave degrees to a man of “limited intelligence?” How can anyone today actually believe that the man in the White House, whoever he is, must “read newspapers” to learn about “what is important?” After all, what exactly are most newspapers writing about these days? They are writing stories, many of them totally fictitious, about …what the man in the White House is doing. It appears that “news” commentators haven’t figured out yet that Americans now have access to transcripts of what the President says. They can find out what he actually said simply by going to the White House website and READING what he said.

The writer attacked the President’s “integrity” by saying:

“When it comes to integrity, George W. Bush has broken the mold. In his campaign he said he would bring us together, but his 'leave no billionaire behind' anti-environment record and tax breaks have show a devotion to his financial backers that is so far to the right and cynical that no self-respecting Democrat can support them - even if they were allowed into the room where the decisions were made.

“Calling himself a compassionate conservative, Bush slashes programs that help the needy, the disabled and veterans. He boasts about his ‘Leave no Child Behind’ act but then doesn't budget enough money to make it happen, making it one more unfunded mandate.

Actually, of course, attacks on George W. Bush’s “integrity” began during the Republican Primaries in 2000 when John McCain committed the ultimate insult by running a campaign ad that compared George W. Bush with President Clinton who had been impeached for lying in court. McCain was winning primaries – until that ad came out. Many people are tired of negative campaigning – which we are already seeing from the Democrats. So far, Bush hasn’t started campaigning. Maybe he feels if he gives the Democrats enough rope, they will hang themselves.

As for the patently ridiculous and oft-repeated charge that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy – millions of Americans who are NOT wealthy know from personal experience that simply isn’t true. After all, they received and have cashed Bush tax-refund checks. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, Bush promised to cut taxes – and he cut taxes not once, but twice. He kept his promise. That’s what integrity is all about.

Then, of course, there was freeing the 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq, as President Bush, with the support of Congress, declared war on the terrorist network around the world that had attacked Americans throughout the world during the Clinton Administration. On their second attempt they succeeded in destroying the World Trade Center and tried to destroy the Pentagon. According to the Democratic Underground,

“Bush's defense department appointees cook up excuses to go to war and through their arrogance, have corrupted what could have been an honorable international action at reasonable cost. …They refused to tell Congress what the war might cost because that would have stopped their plans cold if we had known the truth.”

Cook up excuses to go to war? Was Pearl Harbor “just an excuse” for the Democrats to go to war? Some have so claimed. The writer complains about Bush not spending enough money, then whines about the cost of fighting terrorism? What war in the history of America was ever presented to the American people with a price tag attached? Would Americans have decided to just surrender to Japan after its attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 if they had been told that the Democrats’ $2.9 billion 1940 deficit, would skyrocket to a $54.5 billion deficit by 1943?

The Roosevelt administration spent 30.3% of the country’s total GDP of $180.1 billion in 1943. That compares to the 2003 budget Bush deficit of .7% of America’s GDP, when we not only were fighting the war on terror on 2 continents but also had a recession that reduced tax receipts. From 1943 to 2003, America’s GDP rose from $180.1 billion to $12,922.3 billion. To match the Democrats’ level of spending in 1943, the last time we were waging a war on two continents, Bush would have to run up a deficit of $3279.6 billion, not the $80.2 the Budget office estimates for 2003. (pages 25-28)

The Democratic Underground then observed,

“Americans must not be fooled again. We must understand that their intention to go to war was related to their intention to run up the national debt to sap the government of funds.”

To comment: Mary@bannerofliberty.com