The good news is that in December, for the first time in three years, the government ran a monthly surplus--$11 billion to be exact. The bad news is that December also witnessed the largest amount of money ever spent by the federal government in a single month--$231 billion to be exact. In other words, the surplus came exclusively as a result of the government seizing more tax money. Hopefully, this puts to rest the falsehood championed by some conservatives that high deficits necessarily mean smaller government. Bruce Bartlett (whose book, Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, comes out next month), for instance, once argued that conservatives had "discovered that if deficits became large enough, liberals would finally be forced to cut spending." But we discovered no such thing. Deficits have been large during George W. Bush's presidency--as the subtitle to Bartlett's forthcoming book suggests--and government continues to grow, not shrink. Liberals, alas, haven't cut government in the face of a ballooning debt. While there's nothing inherently wrong with running deficits from time to time (individuals run deficits through mortgages, car loans, credit cards, etc.), justifying them by claiming that they contribute to smaller government doesn't ring true.

Are we really surprised, Dan? It has been a well known fact that, during times of war, deficit spending increases, so this should come as no shock when you consider we're not only in a war, but in what may prove to be the costliest war ever fought in history and one in which Iraq is just the second battlefront (Afghanistan having been the first). During every war we've ever fought, government grew and so did deficits. It's also historicly true that, between wars, deficits shrink, but government doesn't. I don't recall a single time in my life (now 53 years long) in which it was ever announced that the size and scope of government had shrunken. That, alone, should dispel this myth.

How might the Iraq war be the costliest war ever fouhgt in history?

Maybe in terms of total dollars and cents, but certainly not adjusted for inflation. Each year, The Vietnam war accounted for 12% of the total annual GDP, while World War II accounted for 40% of the GDP. The Iraq War accounts for only 2% of the GDP.

Thats just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Also, The Bush Administration has announcedit doesn't plan to ask for more money for Iraq next budget.

'Liberals, alas, haven't cut government in the face of a ballooning debt.' You've got to be fu*king kidding me! Blaming 'liberals' for the excesses of Bush and Congress is typical conservative horse-shit spin. Let's recap the last 6 years. Who's been the majority party in Congress? Duh, Republicans maybe. Which party has controlled the White House? Again, Duh. So if the Republicans are in charge of the government, why do you blame 'liberals' for the continuing so-called excess spending? Simple - you're a stupid shit-for-brains asshole. Your knee-jerk reaction is to blame liberals and ignore the facts.

As for Reagan, thousands of Americans with AIDS suffered and died needlessly and his "legacy" left us saddled with so much debt that draconian spending cuts with increased taxes were needed to stem the bleeding. Fu*k Ronnie. Fu*k Ronnie's legacy. And, of course, Fu*k you.

Gary,

The reasons you cited concerning the consequences of war -- large deficits, expansive government etc. -- are why conservatives should almost always oppose wars -- especially the unnecessary ones, like in Iraq.

However, under President Bush and a Republican Congress domestic discretionary spending is growing at its fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson, and by some estimates even faster. It's encouraging to see MR Bartlett expose the dangerous and reckless fiscal policies of this administration. I wonder if the Bush cultists and Neocons will now call him a liberal for opposing President Bush's big government policies, much like the anti-war Right is "liberal" because they oppose Bush's liberal Wilsonianism.

GaLiberal,

What you write is correct. It has been Bush and the Republican Congress that have been on the spending track and believe you me, it's not only the liberals and/or Dems that are disgusted by it.

But, you could make your point even better without the immature swearing and continuous use of "Duh".

You would also be better served making your point if you didn't chide Bush for spending too much and then, picking your spots, castigate Reagan for not spending enough.

Just makes it sound like you're Republican bashing. Guess that would deserve a "Duh".

Anyway, you get off topic with your mention of government supported AIDS research but the simple fact is that AIDS is not a prevalent disease in this country unless you're a GaLiberal or an intrevenous drug user it's not really a worry for most.

Don't think Reagan or any other President for that matter could see a lot of political capital in that cause.

Ronnie's solution was probably the same is it is today where throwing money at the cure might not be as much a prudent solution than not having bareback rump rangering and not using drugs.

asdf or whatever you are: First, my "immature swearing" is to make a point that most of what is posted on this blog is the immature rantings of a bunch of redneck jerkoffs. Second, my Republican bashing (Duh) is no worse than your continual liberal/Democrat bashing.

Now that's out of the way, you have to be a bigoted asshole to defend Reagan's AIDS policy. You state "the simple fact is that AIDS is not a prevalent disease in this country unless you're a GaLiberal or an intrevenous drug user it's not really a worry for most." That's a boatload of bullshit. Talk to the people that got AIDS from blood tranfusions. You can't because they're dead, shithead. They needlessly died because Ronnie was a moralist asswipe. Your dead right about the "political capital." Ronnie didn't give a rats ass about AIDS; that is until HIS Hollywood friends started dying - like Rock Hudson. And what's with the cheap shot at me? What a fu*king jerk. I guess you've forgotten that AIDS isn't exclusive to gays and drug users any more. Scum sucking shit like you makes be proud to be liberal. You must really hate America.

Hey GaLib,

It’s really very simple: you don’t want AIDS, don’t stick another guy in the rear and don’t inject drugs using dirty hypodermic needles.

As far as the rash of tainted blood transfusions, money and care have been provided to make sure that our blood supply is cleaner as better methods of testing have been developed. But the fact is that the tainted blood still comes from people who will stick another guy in the rear and who inject drugs using dirty needles.

For the MAJORITY of us who don’t participate in such risky behavior, it’s not much of a worry and something that politicians (on both sides) like to talk about but don’t invest a lot into.

Feel free to rant, rave and blame those bad old Republicans but that’s the reality and maybe should be thinking more in terms of people taking responsibility for their actions instead of blaming government.

asdf:
You're typical moralistic stupid fu*ck Republican that we can do without. AIDS-tainted blood didn't just come from gays and i-v drug users you moron. Many straight and bi-sexual people donated tainted blood and it's still out there. Why do you think hospitals want people to give their own blood before surgery? And what about people who get Hep-C? All from gays and i-v drug users? Nope. And all because Reagan and moralistic shits like you want to make some bogus claim of "personal responsibility." That's the hallmark of a coward. Why do you hate America so much?

You're a dope GaL. Unworthy of further reply.