House GOP must not go wobbly on spending cuts
The good news out of Washington is that conservative House members, including a number of newcomers, appear to be stiffening GOP leaders’ resolve to cut federal spending.
The bad news? That those leaders needed additional steel in the first place.
Many of the millions of Americans who voted for Republicans last year, shifting power in the House away from Democrats on a historic scale, did so despite harboring worries that the new GOP majority wouldn’t deliver on its lofty promises.
It was only four years earlier, these voters remembered, that they’d cast out Republicans who had proven not to be fiscal conservatives. Worries remained, particularly among independents, that Republicans might fall off the wagon again if given the chance.
It’s safe to say those who voted Republican anyway found the alternative — two more years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — untenable. The balloting was less a celebration of Republicans than “a restraining order” on Democrats, as P.J. O’Rourke wrote in an election-eve essay in the Weekly Standard titled “They Hate Our Guts.”
That said, Republicans’ actions until late last week threatened to those nagging doubts in voters’ minds into reality.
Many conservatives groused when Kentucky’s Hal Rogers was reinstalled as Appropriations chairman even though the committee was far too spendthrift when he last presided over it. On cue, Rogers’ initial proposal for the rest of the fiscal year — which ends Sept. 30, and whose budget is an open issue because Democrats didn’t pass spending bills last year — included just $35 billion in cuts.
That’s less than 1 percent of this year’s spending, which the Congressional Budget Office recently projected at $3.7 trillion.
And if these cuts sound like less than what Republicans promised during the 2010 campaign, you’re right. The pledge was “at least $100 billion.”
Republicans might — might — have had an argument had they tried to prorate the $100 billion in cuts from this year’s budget, and then taken the full amount from next year’s budget. Then, they might — might — have argued they didn’t anticipate Democrats’ dropping the budgetary ball, and could do only so much in the rest of 2011. But that’s not what they did at first.
As of Friday, it appeared deeper cuts were on the way: $170 billion over 12 months, though it was still unclear as of this writing how much would come in this year’s budget.
How refreshing to see a spending debate in Congress lead to more cuts, not fewer. The freshman lawmakers who pushed their leaders this way are doing right by their voters.
But there’s more to be done. The specific promise was to “cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” That pledge was generally considered a reference to 2008 (although that year did include a $152 billion stimulus).
In 2008, the federal government spent just less than $3 trillion. The last I checked, the difference between that and this year’s $3.7 trillion is a lot more than $100 billion.
Seven times more, in fact.
Now, the pledge may have referred only to discretionary spending, which is a fraction of total federal outlays. But that’s a typically D.C. way of thinking about spending. When families sit around the kitchen table to talk about tightening the belt, as so many members of Congress described last year as candidates, they don’t say, “Well, the rent went up, and so did the car insurance, and our property taxes. But those are mandatory expenses, so we’ll just borrow the money to pay for those increases and only worry about budgeting when it comes to everything else.”
No, sooner or later, you have to look at the total amount you’re spending. And if there are mandatory items you can’t cut, then you cut deeper where you can to make up for them.
Now, back to those 2008 spending levels. Even a prorated return, over the rest of this fiscal year, would mean some $360 billion in cuts.
And even then, we would add $1.1 trillion to our debt…
…which would still grow to more than $14.5 trillion…
…which would still be about $4.4 trillion more than it was after 2008.
At such heights — or maybe I should say depths — we don’t need supposed fiscal conservatives to restrain their restraint.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
155 comments Add your comment
Darwin
February 12th, 2011
1:36 pm
Real John – How would you feel if you lived in a segregated society? We can’t even imagine the way blacks have been treated in this country. Look what’s going on today. Now it’s the Mexicans. Oh I’m sorry, illegal immigrants. I know it’s all about breaking the law. The point is, it’s always somebody else, never us who’s responsible for the economy or government spending. If it was, then the point of this story is that Medicare and SS will be on the chopping block. As well as defense spending. Don’t give me this I’m prejudiced because they’re prejudice routine. The Repubs play lip service to all this because it sells. Look at what they want to cut: EPA, NPR, programs for the poor, etc. Same old same old.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:41 pm
All of you idiots that voted for the Republicans YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESIRED.
These cuts sound like less than what Republicans promised during the 2010 campaign. The pledge was “at least $100 billion.”
YOU HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZLED AGAIN. Did you thionk they were going to listen to YOU? H##l
no! They just wanted your votes. YOU FELL FOR THE OLD OKEY DOKE!
Remember they also promised to create JOBS. THAT IS THE LAST THING ON THEIR GREEDY MINDS.
you have been HAD. Where are the jobs???????????????
S
February 12th, 2011
1:46 pm
The only way to fix the problem is to raise the Taxes on everyone and especially the Rich, who can afford it. What is so hard about that. We have the lowest taxes since 1950’s. Freedom is not Free, it has to be paid for by everyone!
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:46 pm
@Ex Dem February 11th, 2011 9:51 pm
You stupid idiots can’t even give Obama a chance. Let me see one of you do any better. I don’t think so.
Give Obama a chance for goodness sake. ROME WAS NOT BUILT IN A DAY. WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT OBAMA COULD CLEAN UP THE MESS IN JUST TWO YEARS.
Give me a break!
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:52 pm
@JoeR February 11th, 2011 10:25 pm
Let us see if you could do any better. I DONT THINK SO.
Vote for the Republicans and see how much better off you will be. They have lied to the voters. Ask them WHERE ARE THE JOBS???? WHERE ARE THE JOBS???
They are more concerned with reproductive organs (abortions)than creating jobs.
Everyong knows what the bottom line is here. Obama is Black. If he were white we would not be having this discussion. He is smarter than manyt of ‘YOU’.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
1:59 pm
@John February 12th, 2011 1:48 am
I am so sick and tired of White folks who think they know everything. I could just puke.
Give me a break. You people have railroadED this country into a mess for the several hundred years. Now that a black is trying to fix YOUR mess you want to down grade him. I dont know why he is trying to help America. All of you who want the republicans to lead this country – YOU HAVE BEEN BAMBOOZLED.
For all of you who are not middle or upper class you are in the same boat as black people. Republicans dont give a hoot about you.
Moderate Line
February 12th, 2011
2:14 pm
If you did not cut current defense, social security and medicare which is 53% of federal spending you would have to cut 87% of all other spending to balance the budget. There is absolutely no way that is going to occur.
In 2009 federal receipts were at 14.8% which was the lowest since 1950. However, this does not account for ALL of the deficit. It only accounts for 37% of last years deficit.
Enquiring Mind
February 12th, 2011
2:19 pm
Mr. Wingfield, I’ve only recently begun reading your column. I’m interested in people’s backgrounds so I understand their views. You look very young in your picture. What is your background? Did you grow up middle class. Did you ever have to go to bed hungry? Do you have thousands of dollars in student loans to repay?
Linda
February 12th, 2011
2:19 pm
S@1:46, The fed. govt. spent every dime it took in from taxes, other revenues, all of social security & all of Medicare. What they couldn’t tax, they borrowed from China. What they couldn’t borrow, they printed out of thin air. What proof do you have that the fed. govt. would stop spending & use the revenue from higher taxes to pay down the natl. debt?
How many months more out of the year do you think the rich should work than the middle class?
Since you think freedom “has to be paid for by everyone,” do you think that the 47% of Americans who currently pay NO fed. income tax be taxed just like the other 53%?
Darwin
February 12th, 2011
2:35 pm
There’s a related story on ajc.com where the House GOP unveils their $61 billion spending cut plan.
“From education to job training, the environment and nutrition, few domestic programs were left untouched — and some were eliminated — in the measure, which is expected to reach the floor for a vote next week.
Among the programs targeted for elimination are Americorps and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In contrast, spending on defense and veterans’ programs were protected.”
I rest my case.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
2:35 pm
The fed. govt. is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it is spending! Simplified, we have to ELIMINATE 40% of the fed. govt. just to BREAK EVEN! To pay down the natl. debt, we need to cut another 5-10%. That means we need to cut the fed. govt. in HALF. That means we need to eliminate entire departments & programs.
The fed. govt. is spending close to $4 Billion PER DAY on interest alone. Interest on the debt will equal military spending by NEXT YEAR!
Marilyn
February 12th, 2011
2:58 pm
All the Americans voting for the numbnuts called Republicans are too uneducated to realize how they’re shooting themselves in their own feet!!! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK. I don’t wnat you to tell me what to do in my bedroom, whom to marry and once and for all, stay out of my uterus!! You want to bring us back to the 18th century with all your nonsense. If you really had your way, you would probably repeal the vote for women and people of color. Wait until the cuts effect you or someone in your family – then you will be singing a different tune. PAY YOUR TAXES – ALL OF THEM.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
2:59 pm
@Shame On You — get real. I’m a white, upper-middle class man who voted for Obama and can assure you, he’s not the leader I thought he would be. He’s weak, lacks decisiveness and leadership abilities. I’m a staunch Democrat but don’t know that we made the right decision in 2008. Obama’s race has nothing to do with it as he is mixed….just like most Americans.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:06 pm
Marilyn@2:58, What do you think the definition of marriage should be? What is your definition of human life?
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
3:10 pm
Since you think freedom “has to be paid for by everyone,” do you think that the 47% of Americans who currently pay NO fed. income tax be taxed just like the other 53%?
Everybody should have skin in the game. Had the original tax reduction that was originated by Bush been allowed to expire as it was passed, that 47% would be down in the low to mid 30’s. The Bush Tax Rebate was the reason that number increased to 47%. It was all done by the GOP, so you have to fault your conservative leaders for that first and foremost. Obama’s guilty for wanting them to be extended.
It’s going to take a combination of spending cuts in all areas of the budget and an increase in the number of people and the amount of taxes paid to get us out of our fiscal mess. Tax increases alone will do nothing, and spending cuts alone will not do it either.
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
3:14 pm
Road Scholar….I am willing to give the Republicans in the House a reasonable chance to turn the ship around, clearly you are not…
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
3:17 pm
@Linda — do you really think you’re going to change anyone’s mind on those topics? Certainly not going to change mine..
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:19 pm
Southern@3:10, O & the Dems. have no intention of cutting spending. They will spend all revenues from any tax increases.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:20 pm
Native@3:17, What topics?
The Original Get Real
February 12th, 2011
3:21 pm
Shame on You
Sounds like you have some serious issues, calm down and gain some sort of perspective or seek therapy…
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
3:23 pm
@Linda: definition of marriage and when life begins…
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:26 pm
Native@3:23, I just asked two questions.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
3:27 pm
Linda
As long as the GOP is not touching defense or entitlements, they have no intention of cutting spending other than small insignificant things that only look good on a bumper sticker. Try as much as you wish, but both parties are equally culpable in spending taxpayer’s money with ease. They just choose to spend it in different areas.
Le Bourgeois
February 12th, 2011
3:35 pm
“Mandatory expenses” are only mandatory from prior legislation. New legislation can be installed to negate prior years’ mandatory expenses and create new mandatory cuts.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
3:54 pm
Southern@3:27, Really?
Bush tried to “touch” entitlements.
When Bush was elected 8/00, the debt was $5.674T. On 10/1/08 before he left office, it was $10.025T, which meant that $4.351T was added on his watch, with an average of $544 B per year added to the debt.
When Obama was elected 8/08, as I said, the debt was $10.025T. On 10/1/10, it was $13.562T, which means that $3.537T has been added on his watch, with an average of $1.8T per year added to the debt.
Obama had averaged adding 3 1/4 times as much to the debt annually than did Bush.
Bush added $814 B more to the debt in 8 yrs. than O has in 2 yrs.
O & the Dems. spent over $800B on the Economic Stimulus bill less than 3 weeks after he was inaugurated. It took Bush almost 3 yrs. to add that much to the debt.
Since Pelosi became speaker, $5 T was added to the debt (as of 10/10).
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
4:15 pm
Bush tried to “touch” entitlements.
And the result was the largest ever entitlement program signed into law, without funding to pay for it. Even respectable Conservative publications seem to disagree with what you’re saying…
Cato:
President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).
Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent. These are the overall increases in nominal dollars.
National Review:
An update on yesterday’s post: Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation writes, “Under President Bush, 2001-2005 entitlement spending jumped 33 percent (7.3 percent annually). True, much of that is spending on autopilot. But the President failed to reform these runaway entitlements, and also added a massive farm subsidy expansion.
“And that’s not counting the Medicare drug benefit, which will cost almost $800 billion in the first decade, and trillions in the decades thereafter. By no standard is that holding down spending.”
Cato:
In some respects, President George W. Bush has pursued policies similar to those of Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Bush entered office with an ambitious plan to cut taxes. Like Reagan, Bush has supported a large defense spending build-up. But a stark difference in fiscal philosophies is evident with regard to nondefense spending. While Reagan attacked the “destructive pattern of runaway spending,” as he called it in his second budget, Bush has expanded a wide array of “compassionate” welfare state programs.
You can try to paint things as one-sided as possible, but it takes two to tango. I’ll even go on record saying that the next president after Obama, whether (R) or (D), will have more added to the deficit than Obama. One thing about accounting, the interest on $14 Trillion is more than the interest on $10 Trillion, which is more than the interest on $1 trillion. Regardless to what amount is added to the deficit, the interest is accumulated on the total amount, not just what’s added in a year.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
4:22 pm
@Native Atlantan February 12th, 2011 2:59 pm
Obama weak? Give me a a break. If he was ranting and raving, cussing and fussing you would say he was a mad black man. Obama is who he is. Intelligent, mild mannered and thoughtful. Thoughtful in the sense that he does not go willie Nillie about everything. I have faith in him and I will not betray him. Just like everyone stood by George Bush when he got us into debt with a fake war.
I will take Obama over any of those idiots in Washington. You can betray Obama – that’s on you.
Shame on You
February 12th, 2011
4:26 pm
@The Original Get Real February 12th, 2011 3:21 pm
Yes I do, YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing original about you. You sound fake as most of you do.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
4:39 pm
@Shame On You — Being strong does not equal ranting and raving. Being strong means being decisive, making the tough decisions, not backing down. Unfortunately, I’d say Obama has betrayed those who voted for him. I certainly haven’t moved to the right and attacked or dismissed everything thing he or the First Lady have done but I continue to express MY disappointment in his lack of leadership.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
4:41 pm
Southern@4:15, Let me explain a few things to you, simplified. First of all, there is a budget with PROJECTED (expected) revenues & expenses & spending with a PROJECTED deficit or surplus (God willing). The PROJECTED deficit can vary greatly from the ACTUAL deficit. At the end of the year, the ACTUAL deficit is added to the DEBT.
If you will re-read my comment above, you will see that I did not use the words budgets, revenues, expenses, deficits, outlays or costs. All my figures were based on the DEBT. The natl. debt of over $14 T is the major issue.
Whoever said that deficits don’t matter was right to a degree. You can’t even have a budget deficit if you don’t have a budget, which the Dems. never got around to presenting last year. It’s the debt that matters.
I did not paint these numbers. I obtained them from the US Treasury Dept.:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Your interest calculations are 5th grade math.
Native Atlantan
February 12th, 2011
4:50 pm
@Southern – don’t get Linda started….she’s the biggest right wing troll on this site. A bit on the angry side she is.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
5:10 pm
There is only one way for the US to get ourselves out of our fiscal crisis. That is by providing our own energy. We are the laughing stock of the world. We have enough of our own natural resources to last for centuries but have let the environmentalists influence lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for decades.
Pelosi said we couldn’t drill for our own oil in an effort to SAVE THE PLANET! We buy most of our oil from 1. Canada & 2. Mexico. Which planet does she think they are on?
Our 3rd source is Saudi where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from & who is known to fund terrorism. Is the US paying for both sides of the War on Terrorism?
16 to 18% of our entire defense budget goes to protect the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.
The oil companies were forced to drill in risky deep water by the fed. govt. who then shut down drilling in the Gulf when there was a spill. We wonder why gas has gone up?
The fed. govt. decided ethanol was the way to go. We wonder why food has gone up? We are burning our food in our gas tanks! There are over 4000 products in the grocery store that contain corn. What products don’t contain corn, eat corn (meat).
The feds. say we aren’t experiencing inflation. The inflation index does not include oil or food. Maybe they should visit a grocery store or fill up a car.
Isn’t it ironic that govt. lands not being used are those that are rich in our natural resources? Obama is planning on seizing another 10 M acres from Montana to N.M.
We are fools to allow the govt. to hold us hostage to the Middle East, especially now. Let’s get out of the fiscal crisis, the Middle East crisis, our energy crisis & our national security crisis all at the same time.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
5:14 pm
Native@4:50, Thank you for the compliment. I’ll remember you in my prayers.
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
5:39 pm
we don’t need supposed fiscal conservatives to restrain their restraint.
The only time a Conservative should be allowed to do something liberal is when they CUT the federal government in its physical size, scope of authority and its’ ability to spend.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
5:39 pm
Your interest calculations are 5th grade math.
Well, if you can’t acknowledge the fact that interest on the DEBT adds to the DEBT, you didn’t pass 4th grade. I know you right wing people hate Obama and everything he stands for. That’s understood. That’s no different than the left wingers hating Bush and everything he stood for. However, while you two are playing tug of war over who caused the problem, the problem is getting worse.
It’s time to quit squabbling over who did what, and fix the problem. Making big cuts in the smallest part of the budget IS NOT going to solve it. Even if the GOP got rid of every liberal program there was, we’d still run a deficit, and add to the DEBT. Until both parties decide to cut across the entire budget, the GOP only get’s credit for bumper sticker cuts. The miniscule cuts they’re proposing now is like trying to banage a shotgun wound with a bandaid.
Winfield J. Abbe
February 12th, 2011
5:55 pm
This is all smoke and mirrors. All each side wants to do is get through the next election cycle without doing anything. These are politicians of “hope and lies”. But if they continue to do nothing, nature will eventually take its course and we will all end up with our country controlled by others.
Here are the serious cuts they must make and now, today: End all wars immediately. They are costing billions of dollars per day that we don’t have. End all foreign aid now, immediately. Cut the pentagon budget about 90%. Cut the State department budget by 90%. We have enough nuclear and other weapons to destroy the whole earth and make it uninhabitable. End the failed war on drugs. End the failed war on cancer. End all this aid to cities and states. Eliminate all these foreign bases. Abolish NASA. Abolish the dept. of Education. Abolish the corrupt NCI, NIH and FDA all corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies. Abolish the NSF which is little more than academic welfare. Cut the secret FBI and CIA budgets by 75%. Abolish the corrupt and secret federal reserve bank. Many more suggestions could be made. Again, ether Congress cuts seriously now, or nature will destroy our country automatically. There is no choice. No person, business or country can continue to operate on borrowed money. Taxes must also be increased in parallel with these cuts.
The massive debt is now about $46K for every man, woman and child and even these statistics are too low.
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
5:58 pm
Even if the GOP got rid of every liberal program there was, we’d still run a deficit, and add to the DEBT.
Say what?
Ahem… Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are liberal programs and they are in fact the greatest portion of the federal budget. Getting the entitlements, as they are called, in fiscal sound shape will come very close to balancing the budget. Add cutting the federal bureaucracy in about half or more would probably make reaching the goal of balancing budgets a real possibility.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:08 pm
Southern@5:39, I didn’t disagree with your calculations on interest. They are so elementary that I still question why you brought them up. I said @ 2:35 that we’re spending $4B per day on the interest on the debt.
I don’t hate Obama. I don’t know anyone who hates Obama. I can say many great things about him & have defended him several times. It’s just that I disagree with most of his policies. He was the most liberal member of the Senate, even more liberal than the member of the Socialist Party.
Yes, there are those on the left who hate Bush, not just his policies, him. The left is notorious for hate.
Who are “you two?”
You are the one who said, “Both parties are equally culpable in spending.” My comment @ 3:54 was to prove that statement was not true. As a matter of fact, Obama is on tract to add more debt than the 43 prior presidents combined.
We can’t fix the problem. That IS the problem. Obama has no intention of cutting spending. It does not matter what the Reps. do. It does not matter what the House or the Senate does. It did not matter how the American people voted in 11/10. Obama will veto any significant spending cuts. The fed. govt. will probably shut down in March. We are doomed.
Toby
February 12th, 2011
6:09 pm
As long as we don’t cut defence, what’s the good if you can’t destroy the world ten times over.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
6:12 pm
Say what?
Those spendhappy GOPers would take any money saved and throw it into their pet projects. If you think otherwise, they have you fooled. If you think otherwise, just “Go Fish Georgia”.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:13 pm
Winfied@5:55, I like you! Did you get your common sense from your mother or your father? Can we at least keep NCIS & CSI? I watch them every week.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
6:17 pm
Who are “you two?”
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party…. They’ve both added to the federal debt. Any attempt to try to put it all on one party is being intellectually dishonest.
The fed. govt. will probably shut down in March. We are doomed.
We were not doomed in the 90’s and we will not be doomed now. If we go down, we’ll pretty much take the world economy down. I don’t think anyone will let that happen.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
6:43 pm
Southern@6:17, “You two,” as if you were not a Dem.?
I’ve already stated exactly the amt. of debt added by the Bush & Obama adms., citing the Dept. of the Treasury. No one is trying to put it all on one party, but it is one party that is on tract to add more debt than the last 43 adms. combined.
What’s different in ‘11 from ‘95 is the difference between Obama & Clinton. It will not go well.
Southern Comfort
February 12th, 2011
7:03 pm
Nope. Not a Dem. Not a Repub either. As the offspring of a politician, I learned early in life not to trust any politician farther than you can throw them. In today’s political climate, the far right is so vocal that most people would appear to be a Dem. By current standards, even Reagan would be a Dem.
I simply think both parties share equal blame for our financial situation. It’s not a matter of who did what or when they did it. Both parties have had control of the steering wheel, and both parties could have done things long ago that would have helped us out financially.
For example, under Reagan, federal pensions were changed to where they rely more on a 401k type account versus a taxpayer funded pension. Clinton had welfare reform that actually required people on welfare to work. There’s been bright spots, but as of lately, both parties have dropped the ball.
AmVet
February 12th, 2011
7:16 pm
Neo-cons pretending to be fiscally responsibility is utterly laughable.
They only understand one thing – borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend. And then spend some more.
And on top of that giveaway hundreds of billions of dollars of our money annually to their cronies in BIG business.
It is no different that pretending that hardened criminals are trying to fix lawlessness…
Rafe Hollister
February 12th, 2011
7:18 pm
I would say something but Linda is doing an excellent job stating the fiscal situation we are in. Saw a headline today describing Obama’s budget proposal, that he presents this week, the headline said something to the effect that Obama uses scapel, no one will feel much pain. His approach is just Nero fiddling again.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
Southern@ 7:03, I’m respecting you more by the minute.
If you’re not a Dem. or a Rep., what are you? If you’re not a Dem., why are you defending the Dems.?
If you don’t trust a politician in today’s “political CLIMATE,” does that mean that you don’t think the DC politicians can control the CLIMATE of the world, when they can’t even control the border?
I totally disagree with your comment about Reagan. I know he didn’t cut spending as much as he should, but he was definitely for small govt. If he were alive today, he would be protesting with the Tea Party members.
No, both parties do NOT share equal blame for our financial situation. No party is blameless, but one party was the cause. I was right there for 30 yrs. The cause, the ignition, the match, the catalyst of our economic crisis happened in the ’90s & was social justice, affordable housing, the ideology of the progressives that poor people/minorities had the RIGHT to own their own homes, whether they could afford them or not. It was an attempt to get votes, as usual.
It IS a matter of who did what & when they did it. The progressives have removed & are continuing to remove segments of our history from our textbooks & are therefore trying to prevent us from repeating mistakes of the past. We are repeating mistakes today in attempting to stimulate our economy that have never worked.
Linda
February 12th, 2011
8:02 pm
AmVet@ 7:16, So you are in disagreement with the Treasury Dept. figures that I posted?
So you are in disagreement with the fact that Obama is on tract to add more debt than the last 43 adms. combined?
So you have not noticed that it was the Obama adm. & the Dems. that gave away “hundreds of billions our dollars of our money annually to their cronies in BIG business?” What BIG business have they not bailed out, subsidized, saved, etc.?
Until you get a grip on how the progressives have infiltrated & taken over your party, you will not understand what has & what is happening to our country. Do you even know what a progressive is & what the party is up to?
Michael H. Smith
February 12th, 2011
8:11 pm
Say what, again!?
Was there any mention of GOP’ers made by yours truly?
A fiscal liberal is a liberal by any stripe.
Thank YOU!!
Linda
February 12th, 2011
8:39 pm
Rafe@7:18, Thank you for your confidence.
Obama did not even address the debt in this State of the Union Speech until near the end.
Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would cut spending by $400 B in 10 yrs.
Obama said in his interview with Bill O’Reilly that he would cut spending by $400 B in 5 yrs.
Do the math. It has been reported that we are spending close to $4 B per day just just on the interest to service the natl. debt. If the interest is only $3.5 B per day, Obama’s cuts, per the State speech, will only save us 11.43 days of interest over 10 yrs.
Obama spent the last part of his State Speech talking about INVESTING (translated: spending even more money that we do not have, borrowed from China or printed from thin air by the Federal Reserve, causing even more inflation) to build infrastructure (translated: bailing out the unions).