The probem with having an historical perspective...

Ryan loves hearing me say the words "I was wrong". I am the first to admit that I am wrong, quite often, and I don't think I am often remiss in admitting it. That is the reason for this post.

Since about 2002, I have often sided with Ryan in regards to the question of "fiscal responsibility" that was such a campaign issue in both the '96 and '00 Presidential races. Even Kerry made a stink about it in '04, but his voting record made it a non-issue very quickly. The root of the debate in regards to the Bund was always the perceived success of the PAYGO Act (Pay-as-you-go Act) that not only balanced our Federal budget for the first time in more than 25 years, but gave the Feds a surplus for the first time since 1969.

I had understood the Act to have been the brain-child of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when Newt and the Boys swept into the majorities of both Houses of Congress, and that all of the Clinton Administration's claims of fiscal responsibility were, in fact, simply Bill and Al taking credit for a GOP legislation.

I was very wrong.

The PAYGO Plan had its roots... its inception, if you will... in the Democratic Congress of 1990 with the Budget Enforcement Act, which President G.H.W. Bush signed into law that same year (thus breaking his 1988 vow of "No New Taxes"... can't you read lips?). From 1990 and the passing of the Omnibus Budget Act to 2000, the Federal deficit fell from a nearly 5% of GDP short coming to a 2.7% surplus. The Bush Administration, upon moving into the White House, immediately began reversing the PAYGO system... and to the discredit of the Dems in Congress, they allowed it to happen. In six years, the Federal Government has gone from a 2.7% GDP surplus to a 4% GDP deficit... and the deficit is growing at a rate of .5 to .7% GDP annually (Sources HERE).

Now, I am the first to admit that the benefits realized by the Clinton White House didn't feel the effect of a two-front war raging on the far side of the planet and eating resources and manpower at a rate of $11 billion a month. However, I fail to see why non-defense or security spending is being allowed to work outside of the PAYGO system. I'm not against deficit spending to win a war (I don't think one CAN win without it), but if there are education laws, transportation acts, bills for Medicare and Medicaid reform... why are these NOT required to follow the PAYGO formula?

What's my point?

As near as I can tell, McCain has always supported the PAYGO plan. With the example of Obama's Capital Gains faux pas a couple of weeks ago, and Clinton's inability to explain how she is going to fund all of her proposed reforms, one of the GOP's biggest guns in the upcoming run to the general election SHOULD be government finances. Obama and Clinton can SAY they support a fiscally responsible budget based solely on their party affiliation, but won't be able to "balance" that against their promised reforms. McCain, on the other hand, can say that he, even as a Republican, has not only supported responsible spending, but has acted on it the entire time he has held office since the PAYGO plan went into effect in 1990.

For example, both Obama and Clinton promise massive government support of national health care reform... Obama even going so far as to promise UNIVERSAL health care (something I am diametrically opposed to, even as a Democrat). McCain has promised to make it the law of the land to enable taxpayers to deduct ALL health care expenses (even preventative expenses like the cost of insurance and deductibles) from you Federal tax bill... thus eliminating the chance of government growth and waste by placing the savings in the hands of the taxpayer, rather than the government itself.

Pay-as-you-go simply WORKED. It was common-sense financing that curbed the growth of government and reduced deficit spending in a very short amount of time... regardless of which Party-card the authors and supporters had in their wallets. This is EXACTLY the kind of ammunition that can make the Democratic candidate (whichever one wins the primary) look rather foolish rather fast... simply by shining a very bright light into the murky darkness that is the "thinking" behind these DNC promises.