Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a likely 2016 presidential candidate, has some explaining — and penance — to do.

On Wednesday, Mother Jones dug up some old videos of the self-proclaimed libertarian slamming Republican hero Ronald Reagan’s economic policies for increasing government spending and debt.

In 2007, while stumping on behalf of his father’s presidential campaign, the younger Paul praised Ron Paul’s decision to “vote ‘no’ against the very first Reagan budget.”

“Everybody loved this ‘great’ budget,” Paul mocked. “It was 100 billion in debt.”

“This was three times greater than Jimmy Carter’s worst deficit,” he added. Ouch.

Paul again compared the Republican Party’s most beloved hero to Jimmy Carter — the GOP’s go-to punchline — at a Montana GOP event in 2008, saying, “Domestic spending went up more rapidly in the ’80s than it did under Carter.”

The Tea Party-backed senator went on to explain that he and his father have nothing “personal against” Reagan — they “just don’t know that he had the energy or the follow-through to get what we needed.”

A year later, in 2009, the punches kept rolling. “Domestic spending went up at a greater clip under Reagan than it did under Carter,” Paul said while complaining for the Senate.

That same year, Paul even traced the source of Republican “hypocrisy” to Ronald Reagan — an argument he backed up by again invoking Jimmy Carter’s economic record.

Paul’s knockout, however, came afterwards, when he warned students at Western Kentucky University: “Well, you say, ‘Reagan’s a conservative, Carter’s a liberal.’ Not necessarily always what it seems.”

“Not necessarily always what it seems” is also how Paul hopes to explain his mortal sin.

“I have always been and continue to be a great supporter of Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and the millions of jobs they created. Clearly spending during his tenure did not lessen, but he also had to contend with Democrat majorities in Congress,” Paul tried to clarify in a statement issued to Mother Jones after the videos surfaced.

This is one sin that Paul is going to have to pray will be forgiven.

Watch Mother Jones wrapup on all Paul’s anti-Reagan remarks below.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Budjob

    I think Dandy Randy had better examine his history more thoroughly.It wouldn’t take much effort to be better at economics than King Ronald the Rat !

    • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

      Reagan bought hook, line and sinker into the “Supply Side Economics” theory based on his belief that those who had the wealth would allow it to trickle down to those who did not. Even the guys who originally posited this theory realized it would never work in the real world because those who “held” the wealth were more likely to hold on to it (or hide it) than they were to utilize it in such a manner (hiring, pay raises, etc.) to improve everyone’s economic lot. That was why his rival for the Presidential nomination, George H. W. Bush, dubbed it “Voodoo Economics”, because it was smoke and mirrors and would not work.
      That infamous “first budget” was based on an increase in government revenues brought about by sharing the wealth (which didn’t happen). That was why his next budgets included tax and fee increases (which never caught up with the monies lost in the first two years of his economic policies.
      And to prove that Republicans are incapable of learning from History, Dubya did the same damn thing in 2001! Decreased revenue, and increased spending. However, he not only did not learn Reagan’s lesson about needing to increase revenue, he then got us in two wars that he somehow kept not putting the costs for them in the Budget! Thus running both wars on IOUs!
      Finally, in 2012, you had Willard running on the platform that the Rich were not rich enough and needed further tax breaks! I really hate to say that the Junior Clueless Wonder from Kentucky may have a semblance of a clue, but in this case, he may.

      • Budjob

        Another misconception that individuals have about King Ronald the Rat is that he was the catalyst that brought down the Soviet Union.The truth is that he simply outspent them out of existence and,in the process contributed to the astronomical increase in the federal deficit.

  • paulyz

    Talk of Reagan or Carter in useless, just another distraction on what we have now under Obama: Trillions more in debt, no end in sight in spending, tax increases, Amnesty, more dependency on foreign oil, Obamacare’s rising costs, etc………..

    • tobyspeeks

      Thanks for the fox sound bites. Too bad for you and your ilk that’s all it is.

    • Paul Bass

      Every statement is a lie. Obama has:
      1) Reduced the deficit MORE than any president in 40 years,
      2)Lowest taxes since before WWII
      3)Amnesty, WTF?
      4)MORE Domestic production of Oil & Gas then the last 30 years.
      5) Non-Partisan CBO says ACA is coming in overall 7% LESS

      SO go spread your FOX lies elsewhere….

      • edwardw69

        You’re wasting your time. The guy is clueless.

        • Paul Bass

          I know, he is on these blogs all the time with his nonsense. I guess I let him bug me because he shares the same name as I. So he should be smarter, right? 😉
          Thanks for your comments.

          • edwardw69

            Oh, I admit I have replied to him in rare moments of weakness. You’ll notice that he never answers replies.

        • Allan Richardson

          It’s still good to remind the REST of the readers that he’s lying. Some of them wouldn’t hear the debunking facts otherwise.

      • idamag

        If you were sitting with this guy, and heaven help you I hope it never happens, and you challenged him, he would tell you he doesn’t talk politics. All he does is rant. He is either very immature and very young. He is certainly not well educated and has not been exposed to much diversity where he lives or growing up. He is a bully and hopes his rhetoric is hurting your feelings. He doesn’t hurt my feelings as he means nothing to me. He is not some one I would pick out to have a discourse with as his ignorant ranting is not stimulating.

        • Paul Bass

          Thanks idamag, I feel the same! and keep up your comments, a appreciate them all.

    • Mark Ginn

      Says Paulyz, the talking Faux Newz parrot

      • Irishgrammy

        Faux Newz audience, the most uniformed people on planet earth! Where lies and deliberate mis-information abound, and a creature like a Cliven Bundy is a supposed “patriot hero” (what a ridiculous joke”) and Hannity stokes the far right militia types to start a shoot out for the sake of “freedom”, but our President with all he does to help ALL Americans is decried relentlessly as Marxist, Fascist, Socialist, un-American, blah, blah, blah…any and every nasty attack they can come up with every hour, on the hour daily……..clearly weak minds like Paulyz fall for every word as it feeds their hate…………..heck of a way to live ones life!.

    • Budjob

      And paulyz says,blah blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah and,Sean Haplessly says BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH!!!

      • idamag

        That is exactly what it sounds like to me.

  • FT66

    It hasn’t taken long Rand Paul to show vividly what it means to be a politician. This is exactly what they do. They say the truth and once they realise it won’t bring votes they want, they abruptly change what they said earlier. Rand Paul doesn’t need to meander on what he said about Reagan. It is the truth. He has to stick to it. He doesn’t need to change anything if at all he wants to be taken as a serious politician. If he becomes a nice chameleon,as it shows he has started, am afraid to say his career will be diminished in no time.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Yes–the only good thing about Rand Paul is/was his habit of saying exactly what he thinks.

  • jointerjohn

    The republican establishment would like to do away with the Pauls and all others with their brand of libertarian inclinations. The reason libertarians scare the republicans is because libertarians actually believe in something and many are admirably faithful to their cause. If there’s one thing that is no longer welcome in today’s republican party it is loyalty to ideals. They only have room over there for political whores, gainsayers and opportunists.

  • johninPCFL

    Finally. Carter handed Reagan a national debt of $400B. Reagan handed GHWB a national debt exceeding $4T. How were Reagan’s budgets so ‘nearly’ balanced, but the debt explosion so great? He pulled military expenses from his budgets. That’s right – the military is free.
    Unfortunately, every president until Obama continued the practice. That’s how Clinton had budget surpluses but still added to the debt. And for being honest about spending (i.e. putting military spending back into the submittals) Obama was slammed for “tripling the budget deficit”.

    • ThomasBonsell

      Clinton’s surplus of $62.9 billion over eight years while growing the debt by about $1.5 trillion came from other reasons.

      Worked this way: after Reagan sent the deficit and debt skyrocketing, he raised the payroll tax in 1983 to “save Social Security,” That tax increase created surpluses in the SS Trust Fund, which, by law, had to go to the Treasury for IOUs. In creating 23 million new jobs, Clinton also created even higher SS surpluses that went to the Treasury for IOUs. His four years of surpluses were mainly in the payroll tax and thus became more debt owed to the SS Trust Fund.

      That SS Trust Fund is now the largest owner of the national debt – about $3 trillion – and that is why the right is trying to screw with Social Security. It doesn’t want to redeem those trillions in IOUs because that would have to be done with taxes other than the payroll tax. Income tax receipts would be the main sources of funds to redeem SS IOUs, and we know how the right hates income taxes.

    • Allan Richardson

      And Carter’s problems were the economic “hangover” from the NIXON-FORD era Arab oil embargo, which began the climb in gas prices from pre-embargo 25 CENTS to post-embargo $1.25, and up from there. People were driving less in order to keep their jobs, thus spending less on recreation; some were just unable to cut enough, forcing them to miss work and lose their jobs; the more people cut spending, the more lost their jobs. And yet prices went up because the cost of the INGREDIENTS (petrochemicals and transportation) in many products went up so sharply.

      People without jobs, or barely subsisting, could not get credit to get more efficient equipment (cars and other vehicles, but also heating and a/c, business equipment, etc.), in fact had to use what credit they could get to pay current bills. The credit that was available to replace family cars went to buy FOREIGN cars, because American car makers never had to make efficient cars before (the “market” was for muscle, not economy). By the time American industries, typically but not only Detroit car makers, could arrange credit to do the research and development to make more efficient capital equipment, then THEIR customers could depreciate old equipment and replace it, a decade had passed, which no President could have accelerated. And if you count the years, you can see that Reagan got credit for an economic recovery that was being BUILT under Carter.

      Naturally, a failing economy, such as this “stagflation” (higher retail prices concurrently with loss of employment and wages), blamed by right wing pundits on Carter (not on Nixon’s WIN program!), would reduce government revenue, while increasing the NEED for government assistance spending. But Reagan found excuses to spend enough on defense to DWARF the deficits of Carter.

  • DDL

    In 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 27 years on average, 45% of US adults said that they “Strongly Agreed” with the ideas that
    the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution didn`t happen.
    Combine this level of public awareness of reality with gerrymandering and the
    Congress is easily captured by medieval “thinking” ie. Supporting the GOP 1%ers. against the nations interests.
    How can there ANY female or Gay supporters of the GOP ?

    • Allan Richardson

      Stockholm Syndrome would explain it.

      Or the way Annie looked up to Daddy Warbucks for taking her out of the orphanage, ignoring that it was policies endorsed by people like him that caused the Depression and put millions of kids in those orphanages in the first place.

    • Independent1

      Yeah, it’s really unfortunate that so many supposed Christians are so misguided that they interpret Moses documentation of earth’s creation in Genesis literally: that God created the world in 7 “earth days”. If people used a little common sense, they would realize that the term ‘day’ was related to ‘God’s Day’ and not ‘Earth’s day’; especially given that in the narrative the sun was not created until the 3rd day. So given that it’s our sun which creates a day for us as the earth spins and it rises and sets, the ‘day’ in Genesis could not have been an ‘Earth Day’.

      So as it also says in the bible, a day is like a 1,000 years to God and a 1,000 years is like a day. In other words, there are no days and nights in Heaven to be a reference. The days described by Moses were billions of earth years as God did not wave a magic wand like the wizard of Oz and suddenly poof! everything was here. As is also recorded, God likened himself to a potter and if anyone looks at the perfection of His creations, it’s clear that he took much time to create every object and living thing.

      So the majority of people who believe that creationism and evolution are two separate things, are not using very much common sense. Evolution is nothing more than the reality of God working to perfect his creations. Like a potter, he created a creature and let it try to survive on the earth and tweaked it as he found that each creature and other living thing needed to be changed to be able to better survive on our planet’s environment. Why is all that so hard for so many to see and understand????

      • DDL

        Sorry but the global consensus of archaeologists (including
        the leading Israeli archaeologists) & experts in Near East history is that
        there was no Exodus , no Joshua invasion of Canaan & that the biblical
        Israelites were native Canaanites who lived in the highlands of Canaan. ie. No
        Moses , no covenant , no promised land.

        As to Abraham ,he is
        also a myth. Bible scholars agree that the 2 references to him being from Ur date to the Helenic
        period(300 BC or later). That he met a Philistine king & used camels as
        beasts of burden 1000 yrs before that was possible is not a problem for the
        uninformed. As is the consensus of experts that the United Monarchy never In the 10th century BC, Judea was a very sparsely populated outback of
        23 villages while Samaria
        had 235 villages & towns with 8-10x the population & yet most people
        lived on the coastal plain or fertile Jezreel valley.

        We need to separate the myths from facts. Justifying the
        ethnic cleansing of Palestine
        on the fairy tale of the Passover is equivalent to celebrating Easter based on
        the Easter bunny. ie. Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew who believed in Mosaic
        law not the stuff that Paul & later writers cooked up.

        • Independent1

          Sorry, but I don’t believe a word of what you just posted.

          If you’re interested, below is a link for just some of the archaeological finds that have actually proven that Sodom & Gomorrah, the Ark, the Red Sea crossing, Mt. Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant all existed.

          See this link:

          If by trying to discredit the bible, you’re trying to suggest that we’re all here because of the fallacy of an evolutionary theory that says we somehow by magic were created by purely brainless single-celled organisms who somehow were smart enough to create a living creature that even the smartest humans haven’t been able to fully figure out after almost 100 years of trying and that these wondrous creatures were created without any intelligent design, you’re obviously barking up the wrong tree. People who believe the fairy tale of everything just evolved without some outside help are by far believing more fantasies that have come from the minds of scientists than those of us who believe in creation by God.

          • DDL

            The fairy story of the Exodus and Israelite invasion has been completely debunked by the science of archaeology. Eg. It is full of references to people ,places & things that did not exist until many centuries later when the first draft of the stories were created. eg. Abraham could not have met a Philistine king or used camels as his beasts of burden until 1000 yrs later. The Israelites fought the Midians ,the Moabites, the Edomites , the Ammanites , the people of Arad all of which was impossible for 3-5 centuries later (when the fables were created) . The leading Israeli archaeologists have shown that there was no invasion of Canaan by digging the cities that the bible says Joshua sacked & finding that some had been abandoned for 2 centuries (eg. Jericho & Ai or were not founded until 2-3 centuries later.
            These stories have joined Noah`s flood , the tower of Babel (after which god assigned one of his many sons to be the personal deity of each of the new nations he made by made by forcing each nation to speak a different language, the race of giants that god`s sons sired when they came down to earth and discovered women (there were no women in heaven I guess). The giants that the Israelites declined to fight & god punished them for by banning them into the dessert for 40 yrs.
            Archaeologists (including the leading Israeli archaeologists) now agree that there was no United Monarchy and that start of this fable can also be dated to 7th century BC by its references. In the 10th century BC Judah was a very sparsely populated OUTBACK within Canaan with a pop`n of ~5000 people spread over 23 villages of which Jerusalem. The same Israeli archaeologists found 225 villages in Samaria and yet most Canaanites lived on the coastal plain or in the fertile Jezreel , Bethshean & Jordan valleys. David & Solomon were mere chieftians of an unimportant highland community.
            You have a lot of catching up to do Mr. Independent. When you get to the Virgin Birth story ask yourself if you have ever used Critical Thinking before swallowing that story.

    • idamag

      You just explained how there are supporters of the new GOP. 45% of adults think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There was another poll that said 30% believed Obama was born in Kenya.

  • ThomasBonsell

    Paul finally got something right: Jimmy Carter had a much better economic record than did Ronald Reagan-George H.W. Bush with their “trickle-down experiment.

    Carter’s one term saw 10,339 million jobs created. The three terms of Reagan and Bush produced 18,698 million new jobs (6,233 million per term). That means Carter did about 67% better record than trickle down in job creation. So where is that sterling Reagan record of job creation that Paul talked about?

    Since World War II every Democratic administration created more jobs than did every Republican administration, but Paul wouldn’t talk about that.

    Jimmy Carter had the national debt down to the 30-31% of GDP range (about where it was under Nixon) while Reagan-Bush raised that debt to over 70%. In fairness, the Nixon-Carter figures were helped out by the hyperinflation that started under Nixon and were caused by the OPEC oil embargo. But keeping economic growth higher than additional spending also contributed.

    Carter also had human rights as an important part of his foreign policy while Reagan relied on mass murder by Lain American death squads.

    And Paul admires this man?

    • Allan Richardson

      Conservatives admire Raygun because they identify the real man, union president (Actor’s Equity) turned scab-employer, with the fictional cowboys and Marines he played in the movies. Sometimes I wonder if Ronald HIMSELF believed he was one of his movie characters in a TV sitcom series.

    • Independent1

      One thing everyone seems to forget is that Carter was in office at the beginning of the computer boom when Apple was just releasing the really 1st commercially useful desk top computer. By the time Reagan took office, IBM and some other companies had gotten involved in making improved versions of desktop computers so Reagan was really in office during the explosive stage of the developing computer market; but despite that advantage, as you pointed out, job creation during his two terms was really nothing to brag about and it tanked during his 2nd term when the full impact of his tax cuts had taken effect. And it was abysmal during the Bush 1 4 years and it wasn wasn’t until Clinton came in and raised taxes again that the economy really jumped.

      As you pointed out, Reagan and Bush 1 barely created 18M jobs in 12 years whereas Clinton created almost 23m in 8 years. There’s an article I read recently which demonstrated that during times of low tax rates, the rich, including companies, stash their money because the tax rate is so low that they can pile up huge fortunes without getting big tax bills; whereas when taxes are higher, they tend to invest monies they’ve stockpiled because of the higher taxes on the earnings they would be incurring from their investments.

      All of this proving that the GOP’s standard philosophy of cut taxes and budgets to spur the economy is 180 degrees from what should actually be done. As long as taxes are kept low, and the GOP is insisting on now, the rich and corporations will continue to keep trillions of dollars stashed away and will hesitate to invest in their businesses to spur the economy. (Another tidbit on Carter is that he was the president that was in office when America’s debt to GDP ratio hit the lowest point that it reached in the 20th century – at around 35%.)

      On another topic: I know for bookkeeping purposes, the Feds generally keep track of a presidents performance from the time he/she is sworn in; but it’s my feeling this is really unfair. It’s my feeling that Presidents economic performance should be tracked from when they submit there 1st budget through to the date of their last budget. Although historically this wasn’t really a big deal because most presidents only increased our debt by maybe 200-400 billion dollars.

      But it really became a factor when Bush passed a 1.4 Trillion budget to Obama; which most people want to saddle Obama with which is totally unfair. My point is, that if you track a president’s performance from 1st budget thru last budget you, I think, more accurately assign the economic performance to the correct president. For example: instead of Bush looking like he only raised our debt by 6.3 trillion, tracking his performance from
      10/1/2001 to 9/30/2009 accurately shows that he raised our debt by 7.9 trillion. Not too mention the next 3-4 trillion increase that resulted from the economic disaster that we’re still trying to dig ourselves out from under.

      • ThomasBonsell

        A couple minor points.

        Whereas it is correct that Clinton created “almost 23 million jobs” that statistic doesn’t tell the real story. During his time in office federal employment fell almost 300,000 jobs, so taking that into account, Clinton created more than 23 million jobs in the private sector. Federal employment rose under Reagan-Bush and again under Bush Jr. It’s down again under Obama.

        You are correct that it is unfair to judge a president from inauguration day. As an example, the Dow Jones Industrials were at 7,949.09 the day Obama was inaugurated, but the carryover from the Bush disaster took the DJI down to 6,547.05 before the decline was arrested on March 9. Even though the bottom didn’t occur until about seven weeks after Obama took office, the decline was entirely Bush’s.

        Job losses that were eliminating about 800,000 jobs a month in January of 2009 continued to shed jobs for 13 months after Obama took office, but fewer jobs were lost each month until jobs began to be added. The official records will not show those losses on Bush’s account or he would have a net loss of jobs for his two terms, the first net job losses since the Great Depression. Those job losses will appear on Obama’s record making it look like he didn’t add many jobs in his first term when actually he added millions after the Bush carryover was halted.

        Facts are Bush was credited with 1.129 million jobs created in his second term, but his carryover eliminated several million after Obama took office. Obama was credited with 1.208 million new jobs when in reality, if we discount those lost in the Bush carryover, he created several million more than the official records show.

        I wouldn’t start counting when a president submitted a budget, I would count from the first day of the fiscal year because that is the time a budget really starts to matter. That would make Obama’s fiscal record begin on October of 2009, not when he replaced Bush or when he submitted his first budget several months before the fiscal year began.

        • Independent1

          Absolutely!! I agree with everything – and the fiscal year is what I meant to imply. When a new president comes in, he’s kinda hamstrung for 9 months with the budget that the previous guy got approved before he left office, plus the mess in the economy the previous guy allowed to happen; which prior to Reagan and the 2 Bushes may not have been a big factor, but they certainly have been since those three.

          Even Clinton had to deal with large deficit carryover from Bush 1 so if you use the fiscal year the amount of debt that was added during Clinton’s 8 years was about a trillion and not 1.5 trillion. And the number of government employees actually cut during his 8 years was around 380,000.

          There was an article recently about the how GOP brags about Reagan and it being the job creators that showed that Reagan and the two Bushes with 20 years in office created 20 million jobs if you use the most favorable numbers for them, whereas in a little over 12 years Clinton and Obama created 26 million. But if you add Carter into the mix, Carter, Clinton and Obama crated almost 37 million jobs in a little over 16 years compared to the 20 million Reagan and the two Bushes created in 20 years. Demonstrating in just one more way that the GOP knows absolutely nothing about running a government. And that’s state or federal.

          The GOP should be banned from trying to run any government; they’ve virtually made an absolute mess of virtually every red state; they’ve corrupted government operation in red states such that on average people live 2 year shorter lives in red states, and some reasons are that red states lead the nation in murders, in infantile mortality, in poor healthcare delivery systems, in violence, in the pollution of their environments and 23 of 25 states that lead the nation in auto accidents are GOP governed states. How much more of a mess can states be????????

          • ThomasBonsell

            My data from the US Office of Personnel Management shows that at the end 1992 – 20 days before Clinton took office – the number of government employees was 3.017 million. At the end of 2000 – 20 days before he let office – the number was 2.639 million. Thats a 378,000 decrease, Should have checked that out instead of relying on memory.

            Not only do Republicans do a bad job governing, they also do a bad job lying. When Clinton started showing surpluses in the fifth year of his administrations, Republicans all over the place claimed that he succeeded because of the policies Ronald Reagan put into place about 15-16 years earlier. But when Reagan had a strong comeback from the severe 1981-82 recession, it was because of the “Reagan Miracle,” Republicans said, not the policies Lyndon Johnson put into place 15-16 years earlier.

            Reagan and Bush Jr. both inherited similar economies. Reagan got one that was slowly emerging from a recession that ended seven months before he took office. Bush inherited one that was slowing down after more than eight years of robust growh. They both did the same wrong thing; cut taxes on the aristocracy and deprived government of money needed to combat the weak economies. Clinton, on the other hand, inherited the exact same type of economy that did Reagan, but he raised taxes of the aristocracy and created that massive growth, the longest sustained and robust growth in history.

            But Republicans can’t learn a thing from this. Three successive tax cuts for the aristocracy while corporations were allowed to run wild (after all the “business of America is business”, Cal Coolidge) in the 1920s preceded two recessions and one depression. They couldn’t learn anything from that either because Reagan followed the exact same script reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 28% while corporatgions ran wild (“Govenment is not the solution, government is the problem”, Ronald Reagan).

          • ThomasBonsell

            I got two different sources showing the growth of the debt under Clinton.

            Figures from the US Treasury and US Bureau of Economic Analysis say that at the end of fiscal year 1992 the debt was $4.065 trillion. At the end of fiscal year 2000 the debt was $5.674 trillion, a growth of $1.609 trillion.

            The site puts the figures at $4.177 trillion at the end of calendar year 1992 and $4.662 trillion at the end of calendar year 2000; an increase of $1.485 trillion. In both cases, the figures would be distorted by the carryover effect from the Bush regime; so how much is attributed totally to Clinton is difficult to calculate.

            I have run across some right-wingers who cite the increase in debt under Clinton as prove he had no surpluses. They are ignorant fools.

            Clinton had to borrow for the first four years to pay for government running deficits from the Reagan-Bush time. In the four years of surpluses, the surpluses came from huge surpluses in the payroll tax from the 23-plus millions of jobs created. A 1938 law required all payroll-tax surpluses to go to the Treasury for IOUs rather than sit idle.

            So Clinton creating so many new jobs and huge surpluses in the payroll tax resulted in huge increases in the debt. A conservative can’t get its brain around such facts.

          • Independent1

            Okay, but don’t forget that Clinton didn’t get sworn in until 1/20/93, so his 1st budget didn’t start until 10/1/93 and his last one ran through 9/30/2001 (those were his 8 fiscal years). So Bush Sr’s ending debt was 4.411 and the debt at the end of Clinton’s last budget was 5.807 or an increase during Clinton’s 8 years of 1.396T. Yeah, and given that the debt was already 4.4T when Clinton assumed it, even interest on the debt added quite a bit over 8 years.

          • ThomasBonsell

            Yes, I know that there is almost an eight-month carryover before a new president has his budget in place,

            That allows much mischief to be done by a new president. Such as, Clinton’s last budget didn’t have nearly the surplus as his previous budgets because George W. Bush had a chance to enact massive tax cuts that reduced tax income and start a recession that also reduced tax intake and increased government spending.

            On the other hand, Clinton raising taxes and creating new jobs made Daddy Bush’s last deficit look more mild than what it might have been if Bush had been re-elected.

            Figuring such matters on a calendar-year basis or a fiscal-year basis offers no way to avoid such distortions or figure out who is totally responsible for what.

          • Independent1

            Okay, I see what you’re saying, but if you do that with Bush Jr., you let him off the hook for the responsibility of his last budget which had 1.4T in deficit spending that Obama had to pretty much eat. It looks like it might be a kind of catch 22 sometimes. Looks like you’ve got to take more of a look at what the incoming president actually gets away with doing with finagling spending or cutting revenues before he has to create his own 1st budget.

          • ThomasBonsell

            I’ve discussed this with others. Bush didn’t leave a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion.

            He left a budget deficit of $1.55 trillion. Some off-budget surpluses allowed the spending deficit to be reduced to $1.412 trillion.

            There’s a difference between budget deficits and spending deficits. I know it’s a nit-picking matter but I want to attribute to Bush all he deserves. And his deficit could have been much worse had not Obama used the eight months till the end of fiscal year 2009 to get a new stimulus package passed and slowed the loss of jobs. And Bush’s deficits would have been worse if the cost of his wars were on budget, which they weren’t, but were put on budget by Obama.

            Here’s a link to the job-loss mess Bush left Obama and what happened after Obama took over:


            You may have seen such a chart since they seem to be all over the place and anyone but a Republican can find them.

            I have also been thinking that we could ignore the first year of a president’s run and the last year to get a clearer picture of what he actually accomplished.

            But that would eliminate from consideration most of Reagan’s crushing recession of 1981-82 and the slowing-to-a-crawl economy that left Daddy Bush with a recession. It would also ignore the recession Baby Bush had going for him before the 9/11 attacks and the Great Recession he left for Obama.

          • Independent1

            I was starting to think it was me that was off a year but notice at the end of Dave’s table that the fiscal year still not completed is the 2014 fiscal year which runs till 9/30/14.

            2014 *$17,436,444,226,100 $17,436,444,226,100

            *2014 Fiscal Year is Ongoing

            The 1st column is Nominal Debt and the 2nd is the debt in 2012 dollars.

            Here’s the link to Dave’s table on our debt:


  • Sand_Cat

    So Rand Paul sometimes speaks truth. Good of him to do so, but he still won’t get my vote.

    • Allan Richardson

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • DezJimmar

    Oh noooo! Rand… what have you done? You were our last chance for a ‘President Paul’ tenure

  • Plutark Heavensbee

    Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

  • commserver

    “Clearly spending during his tenure did not lessen, but he also had to contend with Democrat majorities in Congress,” Paul tried to clarify in a statement issued toMother Jones after the videos surfaced.”

    This sounds very similar to what we see today.

    The GOP control the House and have been obstructive to the president at every step.

    The GOP don’t control the Senate but they can cause things to not happen.

    How does Paul explain all of that? Clearly spending isn’t his thing. Or is it under the right president.