National Debt has Exploded Under Bubble-Boy

The Associated Press has a story out reporting that the national debt of the United States is increasing by nearly a million dollars per minute or 1.4 billion dollars a day. When George W. Bush took office, the national debt stood at 5.7 trillion dollars. Now, after nearly seven years of his administration, six of which his party controlled both houses of Congress, the national debt stands at 9.13 trillion and is set to go over 10 trillion dollars by the time he leaves office.

The article points out that the consequences of this increase in the national debt:
But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have added to our nation's debt problem to the tune of about 2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade, according to the article.

What the article doesn't stress is that Bush's reckless, radical tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 greatly contributed to this problem. Between 1993 and 2000, the years of the Clinton administration, the deficit between what the government spent and what it took in as revenue decreased. This followed the 1993 tax act of Clinton's which Republicans claimed would ruin the country's economic. In 2000, the goverment actually ran a surplus of 86.4 billion dollars.

Now, it is true that in 2001 that surplus had turned into a 32.4 billion dollars because the economy had entered a mild recession. But that relatively small deficit exploded after Bush's tax cuts went into effect. Here are the numbers for the annual defict,in billions of dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office:

2001-32.4
2002-317.4
2003-538.4
2004-568
2005-493.6
2006-434.5

As can be seen, Bush's tax cuts of both 2001 and 2003 were followed by massive increases in the deficit. Although Bush and his Republican allies tout the recent decline in the deficit as "proof" of the effectiveness of his tax cuts, 2006's deficit of 434.5 billion dollars is higher than any annual deficit under Reagan, his father, or Clinton. Boy, that Harvard MBA that his supporter bragged about in 2000 has really helped our nation.

Voinovich Votes Against Increasing College Aid

This is a description of H.R. 2669-College Cost Reduction Act of 2007:

College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 - Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to alter the Pell Grant program by: (1) increasing the maximum Pell grant; (2) removing the tuition sensitivity provision reducing the Pell Grant available to students attending low cost schools; (3) allowing year-round Pell grants; (4) increasing students' Pell grant eligibility by increasing their income protection allowance; (5) altering the formula for determining whether a student qualifies for a simplified means test and zero-expected family contributions; and (6) excluding certain income and assets from student need determinations.

Sounds like a good idea, right? After all, Americans are being constantly urged to get more education so they can compete in the global economy. Who could vote against something like that? George Voinovich, that's who.

George Voinovich: Supporting Bush on Iraq and opposing helping Americans go to college. He's a real sweetheart, ain't he?

Duck Hunter's Staff Working Against Bubble-Boy

Steve Clemons, who runs ABC's political website called The Note, writes in the Huffington Post that Cheney's staff is working to undermine Bush's policies. This is a quote from the article:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the president is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

If this is true, the implications are staggering. First of all, if you are President you cannot allow your VP to undercut your efforts in anything, let alone diplomacy in the MidEast. Second, again if true, you cannot allow staffers to the VP to undercut your Secretary of State, who is a cabinet official that you appointed. Finally, if true, it shows why Cheney shouldn't have been given the power that Bush gave him, especially in matters of national security.

All of this, though, is probably good news for Democrats from a purely political point of view. The 2006 election meant that Bush had to realize that there are now peple in positions of power to act as a check on him. He is realizing this far more than Cheney. Cheney is still in full combat mode, acting as if nothing has changed for the Bushies since the election. This means that the Bushies are starting to fight among themselves.

We have seen this very recently in Gonzales's Justice Department, and now we may be seeing it in fighting between Cheney and Rice for Bush's support. The more they fight among themselves, the less power they can exercise.

Of course, from the point of view of American diplomacy in the world, this is not good news. Nor is it good news for the residents of the Persian Gulf because, if Cheney wins the struggle, the changes of a war with Iran increase.