McCain, his "balanced budget" and our two wars
Posted by Little Ms Purple at 7/7/2008 9:12 AM 
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
Reading through Mike Allen's reporting in the Politico this morning about how McCain plans on balancing the budget by year 2013 (the end of his first term), something struck me as odd, just as it did Josh Marshall at TPM, about how he intends to do so.
Obviously, balancing the budget is a tough stand for McCain to take given that he wants to keep all of Bush 2.0 tax cuts permanent (which he was against before he was for), curb wasteful spending (which the Republican controlled Congress between 2002-2006 and Bush 2.0's refusal to use his veto pen is responsible for) and limit entitlement programs by, among other things, going back to the "private accounts" for social security that failed once and will probably fail again with the American people... but these are the steps that McCain will take for his balanced budget.
BUT... and this is where it gets interesting, he also says that he will use the money saved from winning the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt. The McCain's camp reasoning is that since these wars are paid for by deficit spending that when McCain wins the wars, all of that spending will go to pay down the debt. It's hard for me to wrap my brain around this when McCain is the candidate who wants a permanent presence in Iraq and isn't willing to put more troops into Afghanistan WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED TODAY! Now, Obama saying that he will use this money to help pay for programs and reduce our debt makes more sense since he's the one running on getting our troops out of Iraq in 16 months from his inauguration.
The fiscally conservative plank of the Republican party is what I connected to and believed in most about the party... that they know how to balance a budget and stay fiscally solvent. But when Reagan went on a buying spree to beat the Soviets in military power, it was justifiable to go into debt. Bush 1.0 made the reasonable move to raise taxes (which lost him the election) because he knew there was no other way to deal with our debt. Clinton, with the help of a booming economy, finally got us to where we needed to be... a balanced budget. But then Bush 2.0 comes in, cuts taxes, raises discretionary spending, increases the size of government, launches two wars (one a necessity; one an ideological choice) and doesn't veto a single spending bill when his party controls Congress... and look where we're at. McCain running on not coming out of Iraq but using the savings from winning in Iraq to decrease our budget deficit... unbelievable.
UPDATE: Sam Stein at Huffpost knocks down McCain's budget plans in regard to his "win Iraq so we can balance our budget" respect.
Obviously, balancing the budget is a tough stand for McCain to take given that he wants to keep all of Bush 2.0 tax cuts permanent (which he was against before he was for), curb wasteful spending (which the Republican controlled Congress between 2002-2006 and Bush 2.0's refusal to use his veto pen is responsible for) and limit entitlement programs by, among other things, going back to the "private accounts" for social security that failed once and will probably fail again with the American people... but these are the steps that McCain will take for his balanced budget.
BUT... and this is where it gets interesting, he also says that he will use the money saved from winning the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt. The McCain's camp reasoning is that since these wars are paid for by deficit spending that when McCain wins the wars, all of that spending will go to pay down the debt. It's hard for me to wrap my brain around this when McCain is the candidate who wants a permanent presence in Iraq and isn't willing to put more troops into Afghanistan WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED TODAY! Now, Obama saying that he will use this money to help pay for programs and reduce our debt makes more sense since he's the one running on getting our troops out of Iraq in 16 months from his inauguration.
The fiscally conservative plank of the Republican party is what I connected to and believed in most about the party... that they know how to balance a budget and stay fiscally solvent. But when Reagan went on a buying spree to beat the Soviets in military power, it was justifiable to go into debt. Bush 1.0 made the reasonable move to raise taxes (which lost him the election) because he knew there was no other way to deal with our debt. Clinton, with the help of a booming economy, finally got us to where we needed to be... a balanced budget. But then Bush 2.0 comes in, cuts taxes, raises discretionary spending, increases the size of government, launches two wars (one a necessity; one an ideological choice) and doesn't veto a single spending bill when his party controls Congress... and look where we're at. McCain running on not coming out of Iraq but using the savings from winning in Iraq to decrease our budget deficit... unbelievable.
UPDATE: Sam Stein at Huffpost knocks down McCain's budget plans in regard to his "win Iraq so we can balance our budget" respect.
Comments