Putting Your Money Where His Mouth is

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.

In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)

FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.

In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.

In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.

Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.

And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — when Germany and Japan surrendered.

The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 — and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.

So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.

Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.

The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.(CNSnews)

The Bush Deranged who will blame every ill in the universe on George W. Bush, who admittedly was a fiscal socialist like them in his last years.

The fact that Congress was taken over by The Reid-Pelosi types in 2007 didn’t help any.

Whether that was trying to buy off his legacy from people that had already spent years piling on him or just weakness., it’s hard to say.

Bush in his last couple of years was a train wreck.

But the current administration takes that train wreck and brings in Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Hedorah, and all the other monsters and has a stomping party on it.

Then proclaims not only is it the other guys fault but they have “saved us all”!

How great are we! 😦

BUT He made me do it!!! 😦

Bovine Fecal Matter!!

That’s like saying, after an all-night binge drinking session and getting pulled over for DUI that it was the bar’s fault or your friends who egged you on.

It’s complete crap.

So you have “fiscal responsibility” after the biggest spending binge in American History….then you propose EVEN MORE OR THE SAME  (aka Health Care, Cap & Trade, Amnesty for New Democrats,etc) and that’s supposed to work because you have re-imagined it!

The definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing every time and expecting a different result.

They are insane.

But this is the wet dream of  several generations of socialist Democrats at precisely the wrong time.

But they can’t understand that.

Like children who have been lusting after a toy for Christmas since the day after Christmas from when they were 2 they think the message is not the problem, but how it’s phrased and delivered.

That somehow the 1000 lb. White Elephant in the room is not the problem, so let’s call in a stylist and call it a The Blanco Pachyderm Supreme, as if that will help sell there socialism.

In true Orwellian fashion, it’s not the ideas that are bad, it’s the presentation.

The almost child-like arrogance and stubbornness is not appealing.

Neither is the finger pointing.

But they can’t see that.

And that’s why they are headed straight for the iceberg aboard the Titanic.

Unfortunately, we are all the Passengers and we will all go down with them.

And it’s all those Damn Republican’s Fault! 😡

Vice President Joe Biden complains that Washington is “broken” and “dysfunctional.” In fact, Republicans blocking Democrats from further wrecking the economy is the American system at its best.

Appearing on the CBS Early Show, the vice president lamented that “Washington, right now, is broken,” adding that “I don’t ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators. … I’ve never seen it this dysfunctional.”

The man one heartbeat away from the presidency obviously has a conveniently short memory.

During the Bush administration, when Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the Senate but were lacking a supermajority, Democrats were only too happy to use the filibuster to block judicial appointees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown — because they weren’t liberal activists. (The courts are where liberals are able to wield the kind of sweeping powers that the people would never give them through the ballot box.)

Now, with the tables turned, Biden has come to think a lot less of the rules of that “world’s greatest deliberative body” where he spent more than 30 years.

Others on the left agree.

Lawyer Thomas Geoghegan, writing in the New York Times last month, charged that “the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional” and argued that the Founding Fathers “were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.”

But the derailing of the radical health care revolution being pushed by the White House and the Democratic majorities in Congress is a perfect example of how America’s legislative system can rise to greatness — protecting the majority.

Defending the filibuster last month on the Witherspoon Institute’s thepublicdiscourse.com, Radford University political science Professor Matthew J. Franck noted: “The Senate has chosen a set of rules that prize the power of senators as individuals to shape and to slow down debate in the chamber, while the House has chosen rules that streamline debate and advantage the majority party.”

The Senate filibuster is “in purpose and effect, an aid to legislative deliberation” because, according to Franck, “the Senate has always prized the freedom of action of the individual senators, to speak at length during debate and to turn the deliberations on a bill in new directions by way of amendments.”

In the case of health reform, the people, who overwhelmingly oppose the Democrats’ plans, have indeed been deliberating.

Last month they used a special Senate election in one of the most dependably Democratic states in the Union to obstruct the Democratic majority’s locomotive running through Congress.

Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s 41st vote means the radical left will have to wait longer to get what they crave: extensive government control over the U.S. medical system.

What Joe Biden calls “dysfunctional” is American government working as it should — thanks to the Republicans doing their job in opposing still more spending and dangerous government intrusion. (IBD)

So let’s stay in Campaign Mode.

Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress are firing all their guns at once to tout the benefits of the $862 billion stimulus package passed a year ago this week. They’ve even planned a 35-city tour to support it. Their message?

“One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility,” President Obama said Wednesday. The stimulus act has created 2 million jobs, he claimed, predicting 1.5 million more this year from the program.

Is it just a coincidence that the 3.5 million jobs he is claiming is exactly what the White House predicted early last year? We doubt it. But whatever the case, Obama’s claims are false.

Start with this: Stimulus didn’t save us from an economic cataclysm. Obama himself said so back in March, noting that the economy was “not as bad as we think,” and that he was “highly optimistic.” It’s clear he didn’t think we were on the brink of a Depression.

He was right. In an editorial at the time, we pointed to 13 separate economic indicators signaling an imminent economic recovery — with all of them flashing before the stimulus was in place.

We knew at the time that our resilient private economy would climb out of its hole, and that politicians would try to claim credit. That’s why we wrote: “No politician who voted for these job- and growth-killing measures should claim any credit for our eventual rebound.” Following Wednesday’s fact-bending dog-and-pony show, we think that bears repeating.

The claim that stimulus has “created or saved” 2 million jobs is complete fiction. It rests on the obviously false idea that money can be taken from the productive private sector and given to the nonproductive public sector and create a net gain in jobs.

Based on the imaginary existence of a so-called “Keynesian multiplier,” this kind of thinking hypothesizes jobs that don’t really exist. Sadly, when we count actual jobs, the reality is a bit starker: 8.4 million jobs lost since December 2007, the start of the recession. And more than 4 million lost since the start of 2009.

So when Vice President Biden says Americans are “getting their money’s worth” from stimulus, it should be treated as a punch line — not a policy view.

Look Ma, how great I am. 😦

Worse is the administration’s claim that stimulus is responsible for the fourth quarter’s 5.7% spurt in GDP. This, too, is utterly false.

Two-thirds of that number was made up of inventories. Businesses had liquidated so much in inventories as Obama came into office, helping to make GDP declines last year deeper than expected, that when they finally stopped the economy appeared to be growing strongly. It wasn’t.

Real final sales, a measure that excludes short-term inventory swings, rose just 2.2% in the fourth quarter — hardly a boom.

What bothered us most, however, was Obama’s reference to a “lost decade” under President Bush — a now-popular insult Democrats use to imply Obama’s predecessor is to blame for everything.

So, let’s review the Bush record one more time.

As background, Bush’s presidency began after the largest stock market crash in history, which destroyed nearly $8 trillion in national wealth. Business investment had collapsed, in part due to the Y2K debacle. The economy in early 2001 was already in recession. And within nine months we were hit by the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. economy came back. From the end of 2000 to Bush’s exit from office, 4.6 million jobs were created, industrial output rose 5%, productivity soared 25%, real after-tax income jumped 21% and net wealth grew by $8.6 trillion. And that includes last year’s financial meltdown.

Calling this a “lost decade” is simply wrong. Curiously, the economy was far healthier before Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Is it just coincidence that the unraveling of our financial system took place just as they regained control?

Today, stimulus, TARP and other programs intended to boost the economy are instead adding trillions of dollars in debt and spending that our kids and grandkids will have to pay off in coming decades. And let the record show: They’re not creating jobs.

Recent polls show Americans overwhelmingly believe the stimulus is a failure. They’re right. And no amount of snake oil sold by slick White House salesmen from the back of a government truck is likely to convince them otherwise. (IBD)

But Don’t tell the Democrats or liberals that, it’s Heresy. 🙂

And they will be signing it’s praises regardless.

So, How do you want your $14 Trillion Dollar Blanco Pachyderm Supreme?

Take out or Delivery? 🙂