Less than a year ago, we told each other it didn’t matter if we elected George W. Bush or Al Gore and then proceeded to make sure we’d never be able to tell who actually got elected - thus saving the trouble of having either one of them as president.

Unfortunately, George W’s daddy’s friends on the Supreme Court handed him his daddy’s old job, screwing people out of the “neither of two evils” situation.

Seeking to legitimize himself as the rightful heir, George W. Bush got his a tax cut passed and sent out $300 tax refunds. Rumors of an economic slowdown didn’t faze Bush. If anything, they gave him ammunition, allowing him to suggest that the extra change would kick start the economy.

Never mind that $300 is the cost of a decent stereo.

So months later, it has finally hit the newspapers that the earlier projections of a nearly $300 billion federal budget surplus have been revised to about $150 million. What is not condensable into headline form is that this number is only slightly more than the amount reserved for Social Security. In effect, after only seven months in office, President Bush has managed to take us from operating at a surplus to right back at the break-even point.

I feel it is only appropriate to take a moment here and harp on what everyone has been harping on all along. The man is an idiot. George W. Bush could not lead his way out of a wet paper bag. I know, this is not news. I just want to remind those of you who voted for Bush that you elected a cretin who was unable to effectively run the Texas Rangers, let alone a country. To paraphrase the crusader in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” you chose … poorly.”

But back to the surplus, or lack thereof. Not only are we going to have a minuscule one this year, but, as Congressman John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, has pointed out, we won’t have one next year. In fact, we’ll have a deficit. After a pretty successful decade, Bush has managed to ruin everything in seven months.

I’ve heard people say the government should not have a surplus. After all, the argument goes, you should not have to pay more for a product so the person who sells it can make a surplus. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that when you buy any product, you pay a markup so that the person who sold it to you can make a profit. The only difference is that you are obligated to purchase the government’s services, while you have a choice about whether to buy other products. Well, that and the federal government is trillions of dollars in debt - therefore the whole “government by the people” thing means you and I, by extension, are also trillions of dollars in debt - and it’s going to get worse over the next few years.

The only saving grace is that while we’re all in debt, in a more realistic sense, it’s really the government’s problem, and therefore, Bush’s. The president is also the man who supported the bankruptcy reform bill that would make it harder for consumers to cope with their debt by declaring bankruptcy. So the message here is, “When you buy things you cannot afford, that’s bad. When we (the government) do it, it’s OK. Here! Have a check! Vote Bush in ’04!”

I consider myself to be a conservative, but there are a few things I expect out of government that the president and speaker of the House do not. For one, I expect the government to be somewhat un-hypocritical. Another is that I expect the government to serve the people’s needs (as in “We the People …”).

In this case, it seems like the needs being served are mostly Bush’s. By robbing the surplus to buy a few extra approval rating points, Bush has shown us exactly the sort of man he is - the sort that has no qualms about leaving the nation a complete wreck after he’s out of office, just as long as he gets that second term.

Bob Romashko is a State News Web technician. He can be reached at romashko@msu.edu.