The first President Bush famously said that "facts are stubborn things." And that they are.
So what are the real facts concerning how we in the U.S. reached the unsustainable national debt and deficit levels of today? And are we becoming a European type social democratic society with an ever growing dependency on government?
Who did all this financially nasty stuff this to us, in other words? Was it all the fault of Bush #1's son George W., as the Dems claim, or is the debt and deficits debacle blame more properly laid at the feet of Barack's boys and girls? And does it matter?
In other words, whoever is elected president next month, what difference will it make?
Here's my take. If our "public servants" of both political parties won't face facts and admit that we have to ACCEPT A MIXTURE of (1) paying more taxes ACROSS THE BOARD (middle class included) and (2) receiving fewer government entitlements ACROSS THE BOARD (middle class included), We the People aren't headed toward a successful resolution to our economic woes, no matter who's in office. There simply are no magic bullets.
The Bush Blame Game lays it out for us:
"Some conservatives weren't entirely pleased with Mitt Romney's
response to the question in Tuesday's debate about how the governor's
policies would differ from those of President George W. Bush.
Typical of the chatter from conservatives was a complaint from
Jameson Campaigne, a longtime political activist in Illinois. "There was
no need to blame 43 for the expanding deficits," wrote Mr. Campaigne.
"These came from the Pelosi-Reid spending of fiscal 2008-2013 . . ..
Under Bush and the GOP Congresses of 2000-2006, deficits were reduced
But the deficit shot up when Ms. Pelosi became House speaker. In 2008
the deficit soared to $459 billion and then to $1.4 trillion in 2009.
Yes, Mr. Bush deserves some of the blame, but the Democratic Congress
under Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi has been catastrophic to the nation's
The deficit in the past four years has averaged 7 percent of
GDP and $1 trillion a year. It would have been nice if Mr Romney had
told that to the nationwide audience on Tuesday night."
It would be even nicer if somebody put forth a serious proposal to successfully deal over time with our economic growth, government spending, unemployment, entitlements, energy independence, education (including affordability), retirement funding, and related government debt and deficits issues that will eventually make us a weaker and less safe and secure society.
A strong and prosperous domestic economy is a fundamental precondition for having a strong national defense and an affordable and effective foreign policy.
If "What's past is prologue," as William Shakespeare said long ago, the results of the November election could matter greatly to what happens with respect to our nation's future prosperity and national security.
For those of our fellow citizens who believe that continuing to pile up deficits and debt really won't matter all that much to our nation's future health and prosperity, a very rude surprise and disappointing future lies directly ahead.
And for the rest of us who recognize clearly that unpaid for government redistribution programs targeting the middle class eventually must be paid for by We the People, there will be absolutely no future joy in telling the current non-believers that "We told you so."
By then the coulda-shoulda-woulda been days of avoiding a financial or worse catastrophe will have come and gone. We'll have become just another social-democratic government dominated and entitlement dependent weak-in-every-financial-and- national security-way-basket case. Just like the Europeans are today.
Our kids and grandkids clearly deserve the same individual opportunities to "build their future" that we were given, and now it's up to us to give it to them.
It's the clear and unambiguous responsibility of our soon to be elected officials to do just that as well.
At least that's my view.