"Only in the case of war, a recession, or a national emergency",

May 13, 2002 12:28 AM

"Only in the case of war, a recession, or a national emergency", Bush promised during his 2000 campaign, would he ever enter deficit spending. He now repeatedly and rather mordidly jokes that he never imagined that he'd hit the "trifecta" by getting all three- perhaps to explain why we are now experiencing a $100 billion dollar deficit this year. One tiny problem: Bush never made this supposed campaign promise despite frequently claiming just such as thing, as Jonathan Chait of TNR notes in his recent column. These "special conditions" for deficit spending and depleting the Social Security surplus were spun out of thin air just last summer, and modified post- 9/11, as a necessary escape clause when the budget crunch hit.
posted by hincandenza (12 comments total)

I agree with Chait on this. How can anyone honestly call what the right wing Republicans (as opposed to the more traditional ones) are doing with the federal budget "conservative?" What ever happened to fiscal accountability?
(rant)
It's all about the oral sex they're unashamedly giving the extremely wealthy and the large corporations! The long term goal of these nuts is to destroy the federal government by bankrupting it. That way there can be no more of the most hated "socialism."
(/end rant)
posted by nofundy at 7:11 AM on May 13, 2002

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
posted by jpoulos at 7:41 AM on May 13, 2002

impose steel tariffs. subsidize farmers. support government pork with gigantic budgets. have attorney general ignore states rights.

republicans or democrats? it really makes little difference, it seems.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 7:49 AM on May 13, 2002

"republicans or democrats? it really makes little difference, it seems."

Beg to differ. The subject here is the budget, is it not? There is a huuuuuugggee difference between a $290 billion surplus and a $100 billion deficit. Get out your calculator and see if that isn't a correct statement.
posted by nofundy at 8:54 AM on May 13, 2002

It's all about the oral sex they're unashamedly giving the extremely wealthy and the large corporations! The long term goal of these nuts is to destroy the federal government by bankrupting it. That way there can be no more of the most hated "socialism."

Hey, what do you have against oral sex?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:03 AM on May 13, 2002

Oral sex can get you impeached, yes? Fiscal irresponsibility not so much ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:38 AM on May 13, 2002

It wasn't just a campaign promise — Bush said it to Congress after he was elected, as Chait notes:

On February 27, 2001, in his first address before Congress, Bush assured that his budget would "prepare for the unexpected, for the uncertainties of the future" by setting aside "a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs" totaling "almost a trillion dollars."

Hey, isn't lying to Congress and the American people what the Republicans claimed Clinton had done that was so very wrong?
posted by nicwolff at 9:49 AM on May 13, 2002

by my calculations, nofundy, they're all the same under the skin. but thanks for the math lesson.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 10:09 AM on May 13, 2002

I think it's pretty sick that GWB uses the "trifecta" statement over and over as a "laugh line." There's absolutely nothing funny about either of the three things. He's used this line at least eight times and, as Chait said, it is a lie to begin with. Mediawhoresonline turned up in a google of the matter and they are doing a great job of covering this story. Don't expect to see it in the major media outlets, ever.
posted by nofundy at 10:33 AM on May 13, 2002

Hey, isn't lying to Congress and the American people what the Republicans claimed Clinton had done that was so very wrong?

On the off chance that you meant this as a serious question, "lying to the American people" was among the many things that the Republicans hyped as a political scandal, but it was perjuring himself -- lying under oath -- that led to Clinton's impeachment.
posted by snarkout at 3:13 PM on May 13, 2002

him lying isn't nearly as surprising as him using the word trifecta.
posted by rhyax at 6:22 PM on May 13, 2002

On the off chance, snarkout, that you aren't seeing the point of his comment: The legal basis was, as we know now, entirely manufactured and what Bill Walton would call a "ticky-tack" foul. The "lying to the people" as a general principle was what they tried to crucify Clinton with, using pompous and all-too-serious tones to justify why time was being wasted on the question of whether a powerful political figure had extramarital dalliances and tried to cover it up.

Problem is, the people weren't biting- they could tell the difference between "scandalous but silly" and "scandalous and substantial". Lying about a blowjob is the former; lying about core budgetary principles affecting government spending, taxes, and Social Security: VERY substantial.

However, "the People" require a free press to find out about these things, to understand what's happening. If people fully understood the Social Security shortfall that is expected in about 10 years, and how they have been explictly paying for the last 20 years an increased Social Security tax to build up a "surplus" in anticipation of this; if the people understood that that surplus isn't really a surplus at all since it's a planned saving for the expected bill arriving in about 10 years; if people understood how Bush's tax plan sends half of the tax cut to the wealthiest one percent (who pay virtually none of the Social Security taxes) and how that tax cut is covered by a) blowing through the Social Security surplus and b) deficit spending- despite promises not to do this- that prevents paying down the debt and thus reducing debt interest payments; if people understood how Bush is pissing away not just our economic stability but indeed the Social Security taxes they have paid for 20 years so that boomers won't get the same benefits when they retire, or we'll have to go even deeper in debt to do so...

Well, if the press made this clear to them, by simply presenting the economic facts and the discrepancies between what Bush says and what he does (as opposed to how "folksy" he may seem on any given day, or arguing silly things like "gravitas" or poll numbers)... well, I think "the People" would be mighty pissed.

Fortunately for Bush, there isn't much of a free press left in this country, so this critical story, like this thread, will pretty much whither and be ignored- all while Nero fiddles at his "ranch" in Texas.
posted by hincandenza at 10:34 PM on May 13, 2002