Just last week the national debt grew to a point that it would not fit on the Times Square Debt Clock. The old clock was built to accommodate $9,999,999,999,999, or $ 9.99 trillion. Last week, however, the national debt soared past $10.2 trillion. This milestone set a 50-year record for the size of debt as a percentage of GDP. Not something I would write home about.
There are many out there who would blame President Bush because of the cost of the war on terror and lowering of taxes. While I do hold Bush partially to blame, it is not for these reasons. Instead it is because Bush and other politicians abandoned their conservative principles.
Frankly, I defend President Bush’s decisions on both the war on terror and lowering of taxes. While costly, the decisions to go to war were the right ones. Yes, that is right, I said “ones.” The threat of weapons of mass destruction was not the only reason to go to war. However, that is not the topic of this column.
Lowering of taxes was a prudent decision. As a fiscal conservative, I contend that the Bush tax cuts helped spur economic growth and stave off a recession after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This is supported by IRS data showing that gross federal revenue from taxes increased from $2.128 trillion dollars in 2001 to $2.674 trillion in 2008. So just to clarify: taxes were lowered by Republicans, and revenues during the same period went up.
So where did we go wrong? We let our elected leaders – including President Bush, the Republican-controlled Congress prior to 2006, and the current Democratically controlled Congress – spend like drunken sailors. On top of that, President Bush has only used his veto power 12 times since becoming President. During their terms of office Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 bills, George H.W. Bush vetoed 44 bills, and Bill Clinton 37.
Conservative principles have been abandoned so much over the past few years that Republicans paid the price in 2006, and appear to be paying the price today. People frequently confuse “conservative” with Republican. While there are parallel values, there are also differences between the two. Conservatives believe, among other things, in small government, personal and state rights, low taxes, and the right of an individual to keep what they own without government interference.
You might be wondering where the candidates stand on these issues? It is very confusing, seeing as the two main candidates have similar proposals. Both have plans to lower taxes for “the common man” and “reform government spending.” But both also have plans to further spend tax payer money and increase the national debt.
But when it comes to the economy, I’m more in favor of McCain. He has a history of fiscal conservatism. The same cannot be said for Obama. McCain’s economic plan also supports business. While the personal tax savings for lower income individuals will not be as high, McCain’s economic plan spurs business growth which in turn supports job and economic growth.
In contrast, Obama’s plan is socialism: it redistributes wealth from wealthier taxpayers, through increased taxes, and gives it to low- to middle-income taxpayers in the form of tax credits. When we are possibly facing a global recession, this is the worst thing we can do to the economy. Sure, Obama’s plan will make us feel better temporarily, because the immediate hardship will be slightly less difficult, but such a socialistic approach is a business killer, causing further economic woe when businesses are forced to lay off more people or even go out of business.
When making a choice about this upcoming election, McCain is the only viable fiscally conservative candidate.
Ian Nachreiner is an agricultural science senior and Mustang Daily political columnist.