The Clinton Budget Surplus - Money That Would Have Been Better Spent

Barack Obama and Democrats have been blaming President Bush for destroying the great budget surplus his predecessor President Clinton handed to him. Of course the Democrats make no mention of the September 11th attacks or of the two wars we are fighting as a result as one reason the budget surplus is history.

I wrote this back in September:

We shouldn't just remember the attack. We should also understand the events that led up to this attack being a reality. No, I don't mean that somehow American's actions around the world brought this about. That is just liberal BS. I mean how our own Government's stupidity (Under President Clinton) failed to see the threat and stop it. President Bush has been unfairly blamed for being handed a country that already had terrorists operating inside it. The seeds of this attack were planted when Clinton was in office and his administration, pandering to liberals, enacted barriers to prevent proper investigation such as 'the wall'. But you don't hear about that. You only hear about the huge tax/budget surplus the Country had under Clinton and how wonderful the country was back then. Well maybe he should have spent some of that surplus to better protect the country. - FFI

In line with my comments the Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled 'Will Obama Gut Defense? Capitol Hill Democrats want to target the Pentagon.' which includes another reason for the Clinton budget surplus:

Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.

But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%. - WSJ

So once again Democrats are touting something that sounds great on the surface but in reality is a big black mark against the last Democrat President who somehow keeps managing to shift blame for his mistakes to others.

Unfortunately, with calls to cut Government funding, Obama is probably looking at cutting back on military spending, just like Clinton did. That in itself is another reason to vote against Senator Obama being the next President.

(Video found/posted at The Jawa Report)

As it stands, a President Obama would probably need to raise military spending, not cut it. Good luck getting him to commit to that!

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary. - WSJ

-------------------- --------------------