“Today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” — President Obama, Feb. 23, 2009
THE INCOMING PRESIDENT HAD BEEN IN OFFICE for about a month when he made the above pledge, one that, like so many others, has gone unfulfilled.
The blame game started almost immediately. Indeed, “we inherited” portends to the placement of blame, while the catch phrase, “It’s all George Bush’s fault,” is now a running gag among the opposition.
When Obama took office in 2009, the deficit was $1.2 trillion, the highest in history, to which Obama added an additional $200 billion, making the total 2009 deficit $1.4 trillion.
In each subsequent year the deficit has been at the unsustainable level of $1.1 trillion or more. Today, the deficit for 2013 is projected to be $900 billion; thus, Obama missed his pledge by a factor of 33 percent.
Yet according to the Keynesian economic theory to which Obama subscribes, we need to spend more tax dollars on a stimulus that is not stimulating. It appears the president wants it both ways as he successfully places the blame elsewhere: “I could not reduce the deficit because the economy was worse than thought”; and, “I need to spend more money to get the economy back on track.” Yet if the latter is true, placing blame on Bush for the “inherited” deficit is a moot point, since Obama is willing to increase deficits further.
Indeed, a synergy exists between the two parties: Democrats pass legislation leading to disastrous unintended consequences, and Republicans then are blamed for the failure.
This goes back decades. Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act is a prime example. The CRA, a ticking time bomb enhanced under the Clinton administration, went off in 2009, contributing significantly to the housing crisis. Yet blame is placed almost entirely on the “greed” of Wall Street.
Few have played the blame game better than our current president. According to a Bloomberg poll published last week in the Christian Science Monitor, Obama has succeeded in placing blame squarely on his opposition: “55 percent of those polled … approve of Obama’s performance in office. But only 35 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party.”
Encouraged by numbers like that, the president is doing what he feels is best for his party, not what is best for the nation. In short he is seeking to bury Republicans even further while refusing to take responsibility for the sequestration that his office initially proposed in 2011.
In the presidential debates of this past election cycle, the president stated: “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed, it is something that Congress has proposed.”
No one checked the tape, and no “impartial journalist” was present to correct him on this fabrication, as confirmed by Bob Woodward:
“Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew (Jack Lew, then budget director) and (Rob) Nabors (White House congressional relations chief) to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011 …”
Further confirmation was available at the time from the Washington Post, in a “Fact Check” piece of Oct 26, 2012: “We had been wavering between three and Four Pinocchios. But in light of (Jack) Lew’s decision to double-down on Obama’s claim, we agree it’s a whopper.” Thus the highest rating of Four Pinocchios was granted.
It is stunning that so many people, aided by an enabling media, are blind to reality while accepting the prevarications emanating from this administration. On rare occasions, the White House has quietly admitted their culpability, as White House spokesman Jay Carney admitted: “The sequester was something that was discussed and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”
In spite of this admission, Obamaphants continue to put forward false allegations regarding the sequestration by placing blame on the GOP.
We have all heard the horror stories that will result from the pending “Draconian” cuts, but let’s look at reality: The pending $85 billion in cuts represents a 2.2-percent reduction in the total budget for the coming year. Additionally, there is no true “cut,” only a reduction in the increased spending of 2012 ($3.7 trillion). The budget of $3.8 trillion requested for this year would then be virtually the same as 2012.
What is so appalling is the demagoguery emanating from the White House. I suggest they take into consideration cuts recommended by Citizens Against Government Waste, including eliminating:
• The Rural Utilities Service, established during the Depression for the worthy purpose of bringing electricity to rural America. They now have electricity. Savings: $8.8 billion. (All savings are for the first year.)
• Ethanol subsidies — another example of a good idea gone bad. Savings: $6 billion.
• The cost growth in Department of Defense major acquisition programs by 20 percent. Savings: $7 billion.
• Community Development Block Grants. This is another 70s-era feel-good program that suffers from tremendous waste and unaccountability. Savings: $4 billion.
• Excess Federal Real Property. Many government buildings are vacant or underutilized. Savings: $3 billion.
The recommendations above are taken from the CAGW report of June 2011 that featured a total of 691 recommendations and savings of $392 billion. Some of the recommendations have been incorporated, but the vast majority has not.
We have a president today who declares that we do not have a spending problem, but a revenue shortage. This statement is at odds with the facts.
Until such time as our leaders come to grips with the rampant overspending and waste, to give them more money is an enabling act, like buying cheap booze for an alcoholic.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
If you’re problem is with spending, why not point a finger at all the republican presidents under whom spending soared. Spending is actually DOWN under Obama. Funny, I don’t see that cited anywhere in your column.
Secondly, you do your credibility no service by juggling the budget numbers. Obama inherited a $1.4T deficit. It’s now down to $835M. Down 40%. Not 50%, but not far off. Perhaps it *would* be 50% if he weren’t dealing with an opposition party that promised to attempt to thwart anything Obama proposed, no matter whether they agreed with the proposal (Cap/Trade and Romneycare, for two), or not…just for political gain.
Thirdly, as to the ‘blame’ game…perhaps the public likes Obama more because he’s actually trying to do something to push the country in the right direction…while the GOP aims only to obstruct. ‘No’ to everything. The public notices, and it’s reflected in the polling.
Let’s take it a step further…taxes…spending…foreign policy…gay rights…women’s rights…worker’s rights…gun control…the environment…education…immigration…etc…etc…the public sides with Obama and his party on every issue. If you’re looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
As stated above: “When Obama took office in 2009, the deficit was $1.2 trillion, the highest in history, to which Obama added an additional $200 billion, making the total 2009 deficit $1.4”
Your numbers are incorrect.
But your numbers don’t mean what you think they mean.
Robert, before an honest conversation on the meaning of the numbers can occur, there needs to be an agreement on the numbers themselves. But then Democrats are not really interested in honesty are they?
Looks like someone is only interested in playing the Oblame game.
Or is that the Blame O game?
Well Shelby just what do they mean?
Very interesting. The budget game is in fact a game. When stimulus money was added to a dept budget it now became permanent even if that dept spent less than allowcated. So as you see a budget of $100 with srtimulus added could now be say $120. That is now the base line and it does not go back to the original amount. So President Obam stimulus is not a one time jump in the budget. It is permanent along with the baseline icrease from 3 to 10 percent added every year. I am sorry this President has no desire to controll spending. Only to increase his and the Liberal Socialist base voting population. Increase spending using the base line effect on social programs even if it is not needed. You now up the base income of lower income and the middle class to keep them under your control. I must admit that this is what this President has done and very evectivly. Up the bar and keep both of these groups indebted to you. You now have a voting block that loves all the undeserved benefits. Why would they vote for anyone else. The big problem is it is now starting to back fire on the President. Just one issue of many to come was the increase in payroll taxes on Social Security that this friend of the lower income and middleclass decided not to tell them about. They are now seeing the effects of that in their pay checks and they do not like it. The voting public just caught on. They are now starting to pay closer attention to their Liberal Socialist President. The sequester just opened their eyes and now know it was a betrayal of the lower income and middleclass. Sorry President Obama the game is up.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/02/26/obama_in_much_stronger_position_than_republicans.html
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/02/it-was-eric-cantor-who-killed-debt-ceiling-deal
Real American the one thing you will notice is I do my own reseasrch and also state my own views. Not like you and Will Gregory who depend on others to state your views. I suggest if you wish to show your own views state them. Do not use others to support your views. It shows lack of personal beliefs.
So we can never post links? How many other rules would you like to impose?
Regulations are for liberals to dish out.
Why do liberals see suggestions just like they do rules?
Aren’t you the same one who is always demanding facts? Looks like Real American handed them to you but now you want personal beliefs. Strange, very strange.
Remember what I just said I do my own reserch and then post. Not a rule or a demand an observation and an opinion. Real American put worth someone e4lses views not hers/mis/Mike.
Yes, your lack of facts has been amply noted.
I expect you to renew this critique when DDL next posts a link, as he is wont to do — as indeed everyone on the Internet does. It’s called providing source material. You lose on this one Livesay. (Again.)
Where
Watching Faux News and reading Breitbart.com is not ‘research’.
What is? CNN, MSNBC that no one watches or do you have other sources. Man are you an angry Liberal Socialist.
Studies prove the more one watches Faux, the less they actually know about the news. Why do you think that is, Bobbie? Is it that Faux makes you dumb, or dumb people are drawn to Faux?
Another name calling angry Liberal Socialist. Please state the study or are you just having a little fun?
Bob,
There is nothing wrong with posting links. I do on a regular basis, usually from reputable sources, not biased mouth pieces like “Mother Jones”. Occasionally though I yield to the innate bias of the left and use very slanted sources or tools of the left, which they readily accept. Case in point :
In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010… added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.
New York Times
Dennis I do understand what you are saying. But when it is your only answer it shows lack of thinking out the problem. Letting someone else do your thinking is not some thing that you do. Using it as a tool can be very helpful but not like Will Gregory or Real American do.
Bob I don’t blame you for backing off. You can’t win this argument. Console yourself with this:
Republican Reality Check Begins
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-25/republican-reality-check-begins.html
Piffle, Bobbie!
You deal in belief. I deal in fact. That is why you are hopelessly ignorant.
Real American you should not say that about Shelby. He is not on your enemy list. Not nice. Shelby is not going to like you.
Bob,even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Right. You fools sometimes get it right. Not in this case, but sometimes. I suppose.
Typical Livesay insight. I was replying to you, Blob.
That is not what people are going to think. We all believe you were talking about Bob Shelby. Learn to respond correctly.
I did respond correctly. Learn to read.
As usual, Livesay is living in fantasy land. He says: ” I am sorry this President has no desire to controll spending. ” Yet, Obama has actually REDUCED spending. Name another president that has ever done that. Livesay, I’ll pose the question once again…please answer it this time…are you ignorant or, simply, a liar?
If you find three years of over a tril deficit spending and possible a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth not deficit spending I am very confused. I will let you do your own research on this. Go back and look at how revenue went dramaticaly up during the Reagan years. It then set the standard for future Presidents to spend like crazy. I was hever thrilled with the Bush spending habits at all. Also remember who presented the budget to Bush. It was a Democratic budget by the House to the Senate. Also any break even spending during the last six years of Clinton were Republican House budgets. Now tell me am I a liar or are you just a stubborn Liberal Socialist. Now I will ask you by how much President Obama reduced spending or are you only using the deficit number as a reduction instead of total budget. Like to see your answer on actual spending by President Obama and where it was reduced and by how much.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-deficit-is-rapidly-shrinking-but-only-6-percent-of-america-knows-it/
More lies, Bobbie. Bush had a Republican House. And, in re Clinton, it was his tax plan, which received ZERO GOP votes, along with the internet boom…which Clinton helped facilitate, which led to his surpluses.
I would be very careful who you say is a liar. Democrats won back the house in 2006. Took office in 2007. So as you can see the 2007/08 and the 2008/09 budget was put together by a Democratic house and a Democratic Senate. President Obama had nine months to try and reduce the budget for 2008/09. He did not he increased it. Now I will just say you are not informed. I would not say more lies on your part. I am a very respectful person and respect others opinions also. The Clinton budget years that were good were put together by a Republican House.
Yes, the Dems took back the Congress in 2006. You’re not aware that’s six years after Bush was elected? You’re not aware this was AFTER the two unpaid for Bush wars, the two unpaid for Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the unpaid for Medicare Part D? Are you really this ignorant?
You’ve left me with quite a dilemma, Bobbie. On one hand, I’m tempted to ignore you, as it’s impossible to have an intelligent debate with an ignoramus. OTOH, I find it fun to mock you. What to do? Hmmmmmm….
You have ignored my question about President Obama spending less. You also do not like to be given answers that are counter to your very left leaning Liberal Socialist agenda. You are a very angry person so I do suggest you ignore me and try to get some sleep. Do not worry6 I8 am not going away6. Folks like yourself keep my hopes alive that this country is about to change and change quickly. Try the sequester for a start. Name calling does not answer questions.
I ignore all of your questions as you refuse to answer mine, but reading Forbes (yeah, that left-wing pinko rag) may help inform you. I’ll just stick to pointing out your lies and mocking you.
You made the statement not me. So I guess you will not answer the question on President Obama spending less. Look I will not hold it against you for accepting defeat. But to call me names and not back up your statement shows weakness and lack of proof.
No, you don’t call me names. You haven’t called me an ‘angry liberal’. You haven’t called me a ‘LiberalSocialist’. You haven’t called me ‘nasty’ and ‘stubborn’. You haven’t said I hate the elderly because I point out that Medicare Part D was unpaid for. As I said, I won’t answer your questions, as you refuse to answer mine. It’s a two-way street, Boobie. I’ll mock you and put out the facts, and let the masses judge them for themselves. If you wanna disagree, fine…I’ll wear that as a badge of honor, as you’re wrong…intentionally or not…in re virtually everything.
Benician I do not blame you for backing off. What I said to you was not name calling. Political identification and stating what appeared to be your mood. None of this is hame calling. So I will except that you are wrong on the issue of President Obama not spending more but less. Not answering just tells all of us you were wrong. We will accept that. defeat.
And what I said to you was a reflection of the intelligence/honesty you display here.
Benician I have come to the conclusion you are Mike in costume. Same nasty, angry and name calling comments. So Mike you can come out of the hole now.
When Bob has nothing else he blathers about Mike/Mrs. Mike etc ad nauseam. The surest sign he’s losing an argument.
I never lose.
You never do anything else. You’re a Conservative Fascist in the Bay Area. You’re accustomed to utter failure.
Benician: Clinton, it was his tax plan…along with the internet boom…which Clinton helped facilitate, which led to his surpluses.
Yes, one can raise taxes during the Reagan created boom, Clinton capitalized on, without slowing down the expanding market.
surpluses — Those ‘surpluses’ the dems all are so proud of, all occurred in years where the debt grew (debts = the combination of past surpluses). Clinton drew down the debt in one year only, yet over all grew the debt by a significant number. The so-called surplus was achieved by borrowing money. It was a scam, that some readily bought into.
(debts = the combination of past surpluses).
‘Surpluses’ should be deficits
12 years later and this is the best you can do? Still, I suppose that’s a good pace for someone of your ilk.
Benician you may want to take a look at spending again. Bush 09 2.9, 09 2.9 {remember Obama added .2 to total of 3.1, 10 3.1, 11 3.2, 12 3.2, 13 3.4; If that is reducing spending help me out . It is not it is increasing spending.
“You now up the base income of lower income and the middle class to keep them under your control.”
What in hell are you talking about, Bobbie? Usually you write too much, this time not nearly enough.
Shelby if you knew anything about taxes, food stamps and any social give away program you would know what I was talking about. Just try Mreicade/medical for one.
“This goes back decades. Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act is a prime example. The CRA, a ticking time bomb enhanced under the Clinton administration, went off in 2009, contributing significantly to the housing crisis. Yet blame is placed almost entirely on the “greed” of Wall Street.” — So securitization, collateralized debt obligations, bundled mortgages packaged as AAA rated but were really just crap sandwiches of mortgages to people who had a pulse but not much else had nothing to do with the crash? So every loan the originators, brokers, banksters and Angelo Mozillos of the world were handing out to people they knew would never be able to pay them back, but didn’t care because they were making HUGE commissions had nothing to do with the crash. Then Goldman Sachs and all the other Wall St. Vampires placed insurance bets against those crappy mortgages knowing that they would pay off in an even bigger way. No, it wasn’t Carter’s Reinvestment Act or even Clinton’s foolish repeal of Glass Steagal that caused the housing implosion. That was all greed, pure and simple. No way to sugar coat that mountain high crap sandwich but nice try.
Fannie and Freddie had a higher number of bad loans, a higher gross dollar value of those loans and a failure rate much higher than private entities.
I also used qualifiers: “contributed significantly” and “almost entirely”.
How much clearer do I need to be to indicate that there was responsibility on both sides of the equation?
Yet to those who seek to blame it all on greed, never allow for this concession.
Nice try but no way to sugar coat the crap sandwhich you just made.
Let’s be serious, the Sequestration would never have been discussed if the crazy Teapublicans that took over the Republican Party in 2010 hadn’t threatened to crash the world economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. Until that point, something that had been done with little fanfare multiple times for every previous president. It wasn’t to increase spending, but to pay the bills already racked up. John Boehner “got 98% of what he wanted” in that deal. Now he’s all indignant. I don’t see any cuts or eliminations to the 6 billion in oil and gas subsidies or agriculture, or banking subsidies in the form of free interbank loans. Cut those and then you will make a nice dent in our spending. Where are the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Dick Cheney say that the Iraq war would pay for itself? Where’s the faux outrage there? Short memories indeed. Strange, very strange.
What do you consider subsides? Do you and I not get tax subsides? Maybe you think we should not get them also. Just how was that 6 bil amount arrived at. I would like to see that info.
I wish my mortgage deduction/subsidy was as generous as what corporations get. I also think the mortgage deduction should be for primary residences only. Major corporations have gamed the tax system so much that most of them actually get refunds!!
Here’s just a little something to chew on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Do you buy a house for a tax subsides? I think not but you get it any way.
OK, Let’s be serious: The sequestration would never have happened if the WH did not iffer it up.
Nice deflection. I answered your comment on the bad loans by the FM’s, you ignore by shifting the conversation back to the sequestration and bringing up the War, yet ignore that you were wrong.
iffer = offer
Let’s be more serious. The sequestration would never have happened if:
1) The GOP didn’t hold the nation hostage for the debt THEY ran up
2) The GOP, at a time they refused to vote with Obama on ANYTHING, didn’t vote for it
3) The GOP didn’t think they’d win the next election, which they thought would give them leverage in the negotiations
Thanks for proving my point; Dems are more interested in pointing the finger (as well as giving others the same) then working towards solutions.
Your comments are straight out of the dem playbook
I’m just laying out the indisputable facts (which, to your credit, you didn’t dispute). You just choose to see it as finger-pointing. That’s what happens when you live inside the bubble.
Benician: which, to your credit, you didn’t dispute
You are confusing my choosing to ignore a juvenile simplification that you have bought into with a concurrence of what you stated. Your ‘facts’ are completely at odds with reality and sound like you are regurgitating information spoon fed to you by the Obama team.
To be honest, I saw no point in even mentioning that fact as I saw no point in it, since you did not acknowledge your earlier errors.
DDL: “Your ‘facts’ are completely at odds with reality “. Really? Which ones? Looks like I need to withdraw my compliment. Like Boobie, you live in a fact-free world. You need to stop watching Faux and take a stroll outside the bubble.
See my quote above from the NY Times.
Representive Watters follower and master at facts. Benician grow up.
Dennis, I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that you discover Obama is not our Philosopher-King but a politician, and by implication that politics is not the art of the possible but the art of persuasion about possibles and impossibles. Hence, Obama is a demagogue while Boehner’s crowd and the Tea Party are guilty of much worse demagoguery because their strategy is not merely destructive of democratic program and process but destructive to the whole country.
We can only, and must, hope that things are never quite as bad as they seem.
There seems to be a huge lack of understanding in the commentaries here. Obama has NEVER cut spending. He has only cut the amount of increases in spending. There is a big difference. Let’s say last year we spent $100 dollars. We propose to spend $200 next year. Politicians say that is crazy we can’t spend that much. So they cut the projected spending by $50 dollars and say that they cut spending by 25%. So now they agree to spend $150. The reality is they increased spending by 50% over the previous period, while they tell the Sheeple Americans they cut spending by 25% and everybody loves the way that sounds because the politicians and the media ring the bells and cheer for what a great job they are doing. That is how it works folks and it is the dirty lie they don’t want the American public to realize. There are no cuts in spending in the sequester. Only cuts in the amount of increases of spending. We haven’t had a budget in over 4 years. The dems don’t want a budget because they don’t want to have anything to be held accountable against. With no budget they can just keep spending to their hearts content. Even Michael Bloomberg said in the last couple days that we can spend endlessly because others will always want to lend to us. Now that is a really responsible perspective. Well now, the sleeping giant is starting to wake up and the next election cycle there are going to be a lot of heads rolling.
JLB,
You are 100% correct that there is no cut. I do mention that in the piece (just above the list of excesses), but it was apparently not read by those you are commenting on.
An analogy on what is being done;
A Union is negotiating a new contract, seeking a 15% increase in pay. After a long hard negotiation they accept a 10% raise not 15%. In Washington parlance, that would be viewed as a 4% reduction (from 1.15 to 1.10), but the membership would declare a victory for receiving a 10% raise.
DDL and JLB you are both so right. I have talked about that many times. The best is the baseline budget. When any amount of spending is added to a budget item you now have a new baseline. Impossible to cut spending under these guide lines. When baseline budget increases are 3/10 % every year. Now go figure that out all you Liberal Socialist.