On blaming Bush, do Dems forget or just lie?

If you listen to a speech by President Barack Obama, at some point he will remind you he “inherited” this economy and he will imply that America’s skyrocketing debt is all the fault of President George W. Bush.  Are Democrats lying or merely confused?

Fact is Democrats took Congress in 2006, and in the two years leading up to the economic meltdown, those same Dems continued to spend. A look at some facts suggests Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is ducking her own role in the federal debt game.

Democrat Rep. Barney Frank (N.Y.) is a long-time cheerleader for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Democrats didn’t just continue to spend after they took Congress. They continued to ignore Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, having defended those government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) at every turn, as the video shown below indicates.

It’s not all about the GSE’s, however. Looking at the years since Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gained absolute control of the US government, you will find both Pelosi and Reid are ducking their own actions in the economic meltdown.

Here are a few choice quotes and remembrances of Democrat actions:

•The New York Times (Jan. 7, 2007) reported, “Congressional Democrats said last month that they would not try to finish multiple spending bills left hanging by the departed Republican majority and would instead keep most government agencies operating under their current budgets until next fall.” The Times also noted “Congress and the Bush administration agreed that the federal budget for the physical sciences should get a major increase.”

•Bloomberg (May 10, 2007) said, “The U.S. government’s budget surplus for April rose to the highest in six years as swelling revenue from taxes due that month outpaced spending on the military and healthcare.” Only Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve, sounded a note of caution. Bloomberg said Bernanke “warned the rising costs of the government’s retirement and medical programs will cause a ‘fiscal crisis’ in the decades ahead unless lawmakers soon take evasive action.” Obviously no one took action.

•USA Today (Feb. 4, 2008) itemized general categories from the projected budget. Bush wanted $59.2 billion for education after the Democrat Congress cut Bush’s ‘Reading First’ program for low-income elementary school students by more than 60 percent. Bush also wanted $300 million for private school vouchers. Dems were negative only to the private school vouchers, a traditional position for the Party.  On Medicaid and Medicare, even small 5-year trims weren’t granted by Congress. Virtually every cost-cutting measure Bush asked for among those noted in the USA Today story met with negativity from Democrats.

•None other than the World Socialist Web Site did a story in Jan., 2008 with the header, ‘Congressional Democrats embrace Bush’s economic stimulus plan.’ It is doubly ironic that the article notes Pelosi agreed to drop "any extension of unemployment and food stamp benefits as well as proposed funding increases for low-income heating assistance and state Medicaid programs.” Democrats were said to have made the concession because the “number of families receiving rebates rose from 82 million under the original Bush plan to 117 million by adding 35 million lower-income families. These families would receive rebates totaling $28 billion.”

•The same article on the World Socialist Web Site noted that more than 250 mayors had asked for federal aid because declining property tax values and foreclosures were eroding property tax revenue to cities and counties. The mayor of Trenton (N.J.) said federal action was needed “not six months from now, but within the next 30 days.” The article concludes by noting the stimulus package was “proposed by Bush and Pelosi.”

Democrats were stubbornly committed to protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with key congressmen claiming there were no problems whatsoever.  Yet even after the taxpayer funded bailout, additional GSE bailouts could total $1 trillion.

Perhaps the most confusing statement of all was made by Pelosi in April, 2009. She said during the final debate on the House floor, "Today, for the first time in many, many years, we have a president's budget ... that is a statement of our national values."

Apparently federal bankruptcy is now a national value. Not a single concern about federal spending or US debt was mentioned by Pelosi.

No word yet on whether Pelosi is just confused or lying when she places all the blame for government’s runaway debt on Bush. It is obvious, however, that the Blame-Bush-for-the-Debt position is a myth constructed to permit Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. Responsibility for our current predicament is not as simple as ‘blame Bush.’ For one thing, those GSE’s are exclusively a Democrat product and they currently represent a potential $1 trillion taxpayer sinkhole. Bush inherited that mess, by the way.

So next time Obama talks about the mess he inherited, he can thank Pelosi for her part in the legacy and he can ask Barney Frank about that $1 trillion sinkhole.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/July 19, 2010)

Update on Monday, July 19, 2010 at 7:19PM by Kay B. Day, Editor

Yes, Pelosi played politics to get Stimulus passed

In the column above, I mentioned a post at the World Socialist Web Site. That site  noted in Jan., 2008, Democrats 'embrace[d]' Bush's economic Stimulus. WSWS said, "Pelosi agreed to drop "any extension of unemployment and food stamp benefits as well as proposed funding increases for low-income heating assistance and state Medicaid programs.”

I deliberately selected a socialist website for that statement in order to deflect arguments from leftwingers. To further appease curiosity, I located another source, PBS, with similar claims.

In a story dated Jan. 24, 2008, about Bush's stimulus,  PBS said, "Both party leaders made concessions before they reached the agreement, sometimes to the dismay of their parties...On Wednesday, Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits in exchange for gaining the rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including those who make too little to pay income taxes."

My point being that Pelosi was perfectly willing to sacrifice those food stamps and unemployment benefits for a political ends.

Right now the GOP wants Democrats to pay for what extending unemployment benefits will cost. Republicans in Congress are making a viable political statement.

What exactly is the difference here?

The additional burden current and future taxpayers will bear if Pelosi has her way.