As much as Republicans like to paint Democrats as big-spenders, the latest numbers from the Bush Administration tell a different story. Sure, the wealthiest Americans may pay less taxes, but the $482 billion budget deficit isn’t what I’d call low government spending. Democrats will raise taxes. Someone has to.

I may not be an economist, but even little-old-English-major-me can see that as long we spend more money than we raise (ie taxes), we will be in debt. Say what you will about Clinton, but Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and turned it into the biggest deficit we have ever seen. Granted, the population of the US has increased, and inflation has also taken a toll so percentage-wise it’s not as large as the raw dollars may seem. Nonetheless, our spending is out of control. The $150 million stimulus package, a mere drop in the bucket, makes a nice scapegoat, but it is far from the real problem.

Ross Perot has a great presentation on this subject with more charts and graphs than you can shake a stick at. The bottom line? Our healthcare and social security spending is increasing at a rate that we can’t maintain while fighting two wars and providing tax cuts for the super-rich. Not only do we need to reform healthcare and retirement benefits, we need to spend more wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan and let the Bush tax cuts expire.

No one likes to pay taxes, but our government has overspent its budget nearly 500 billion times. Someone has to take responsibility. When Obama takes office in November, and has to deal with this mess, remember it was the Republicans that got us into it, but it will take a Democrat to get us out.

Bush’s proposal is like putting band-aide on a broken leg. Our time and money should go toward researching ways to produce clean energy–cars that run on hydrogen or are electric, or perhaps function on something else entirely. I have complete confidence in our research capabilities to find a more efficient way to fuel our country. I wouldn’t be opposed to expanding domestic oil exploration if it were packaged with an agreement to increase funding for alternative fuels and came with regulations that would protect certain areas such as wildlife preserves. Even as Bush and others call out for more oil exploration, I doubt they would like an oil refinery in their town. If I were in congress, I’d call for the next refinery to be in Crawford. It’s one thing to say we need more exploration to bring the cost down, and quite another to take care of all the fine print that such a decision entails.

But, the right wing has dubbed Obama as lacking in skill. Just a pretty face with a bunch of empty words. Somehow, his interpersonal skills and amiable personality have been distorted to mean he’s a better rock star than a politician. OK, I’ll admit calling him a Barack Star is a clever play on words, but why does it have to be a bad thing? Oh no, he inspires thousands of young people to vote for the first time. Oh no, he raises more money from average private citizens than lobbyists and party heavy weights. For shame! How dare he, a stylish well-spoken man, enter politics and run for president.

The same right-wingers who like to call Obama names conveniently neglect to mention that he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, has published two best-selling books, and served on both the state and national legislature. He’s actually served more years as an elected official (twelve) than Hillary Clinton (eight). But as Obama has said on a number of occasions, experience alone doesn’t create sound judgment. Clearly, Bush’s experience as the governor of Texas for six years didn’t translate into effective leadership. However, Obama has proven his good judgment through his record. In the U.S. Senate, he opposed the war in Iraq from the start, even when it was overwhelmingly popular. He has also served on a number of committees, found here. Then there are his eight years as a state senator. I love when people discount this role, as if they know the first thing about it. In the state legislature, he worked on bipartisan bills to create Earned Income Tax Credits to assist needy families, providing more than $100 million in tax cuts over three years. He also fought for a better criminal justice system through reforms that required videotaped confessions and interrogations in capital cases. This is just a sampling of his record, which includes loads of passed bills.

I guess I can’t blame staunch conservatives for blasting Barack for his suave style. After all, they’re trying to find a way to make John McCain presidential. What better tactic than to paint the skilled, smooth rival as “too flashy” while ignoring his lengthy record in public service. McCain’s ineptitude as a public speaker is not inversely proportionate to his ability to lead the country. It’s laughable that the GOP considers the use of teleprompter a more authentic style than Obama’s candid speeches. While the right wing likes to couch their arguments against Obama as issue-oriented, they rarely mention them. Opting instead to pick apart his wardrobe (which is frequently lacking in American flag pins), and charismatic speaking style.  I’m voting for Obama because of his stance on the war, plan for universal healthcare, work on death penalty reforms, emphasis on early education, and commitment to cleaning up Washington. I’m not going to lie though, his basketball skills and sense of comedic timing are a plus.