Broun’s wrong about ’slight’ difference between Ryan, Obama plans

Congressman Paul Broun, R-Athens, is the only announced candidate in the election next year to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss. I met with him last week while I was in Washington, and the thing he talked about over and over was cutting federal spending.

“I expect to win” next year’s election, he told me. “Georgians know I have the record. I have the will to say no to out-of-control spending. And I’m the only person who can be in this race who has done so, and they’ll elect me to the U.S. Senate.”

Asked about the possibility that two or three of his fellow House members could join him in the race, Broun replied: “I hope they’ll see the wisdom of staying where they are instead of losing to me.”

Strong words, as were the ones Broun wrote in an op-ed published in the New York Times on Monday. In the op-ed, Broun criticized House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s latest budget — the one Democrats have railed against as Draconian — as instead being inadequate.

“Spending [under the Ryan plan] would grow by an average of 3.4 percent annually, only slightly less than the rate under President Obama’s plan, which is 5 percent a year. After 10 years — Mr. Ryan’s target for eliminating the deficit — the ‘Path to Prosperity’ will have spent $41 trillion, when the president’s plan would allow spending of $46 trillion. My party’s de facto position has become ‘we’re increasing spending, but not as much as the other guy.’ That’s not good enough.

Just reducing growth in spending does almost nothing. We have to dig deeper and make profound cuts now. We cannot continue to assume that future Congresses will do our dirty work for us.

Broun is right that Republicans cannot be merely Democrats Lite. And let’s note it may behoove Broun to oppose the Ryan budget as too soft, given that the Budget vice chairman is one of his potential Senate opponents, Rep. Tom Price.

But is that really the only difference between the Ryan plan and Obama’s? Is increasing spending by 3.4 percent a year really only “slightly” different than increasing it by 5 percent?

No, it isn’t. Set aside the fact that, as Broun acknowledges, there’s a difference of $5 trillion during the next decade — a difference that, even by today’s bloated budget standards, is a huge one. We can also see a very large difference if we apply those spending growth rates to years past.

Take the years 1994 through 2009, which encompass the Clinton and Bush years and reflect periods of time when Republicans and Democrats took turns controlling both chambers of Congress. There were surpluses toward the end of the Clinton years (which I’m defining as fiscal 1994-2001, regardless of the overlap with Bush’s presidency in 2001) whereas there were deficits during Bush’s tenure (2002-2009, even though Obama was president during part of FY09).

Democrats love to give credit for the Clinton-era surpluses to his tax hikes, and blame for the Bush-era deficits to his tax cuts. But as we’re going to see, the biggest difference was the growth of spending.

Nominal spending (that is, spending not adjusted for inflation — the same measure by which we get the comparable growth rates in Broun’s op-ed) grew by an average of 5.9 percent during the combined Clinton and Bush eras. But the average rate was only 3.6 percent under Clinton and a whopping 8.3 percent under Bush.

What if spending had grown by 3.4 percent every year from 1994 to 2009? What if it had grown by 5 percent? Check out this table, which assumes revenues would have been the same as actual for the entire period:

Spending Growth Table 1

Let me put that another way: Between 1994 and 2009, the difference between a 3.4 percent rate of growth and a 5 percent rate would have been about $4.7 trillion.

(NB: Yes, that’s a larger difference between the 3.4 percent scenario and 5 percent growth than with the 5.9 percent actual average growth rate. That’s the magic of compound interest. In these examples, spending grew at exactly the same rate every single year. In reality, it grew more slowly early on, meaning the base was smaller when the faster growth rates hit.)

The difference during the Bush years would have been stark. In reality, deficits from 2002 through 2009 totaled almost $3.5 trillion. Had spending grown by 3.4 percent every year during his and Clinton’s presidency, though, Bush would have logged a cumulative surplus of about $98 billion. Even with his tax cuts in place.

Whether we’re talking about a 16-year period in the past or a 10-year period in the future, a difference of $3 trillion to $5 trillion remains a big deal.

So, yes, there is a big difference between 3.4 percent and 5 percent. The Ryan budget may or may not be realistic, and it may or may not be politically feasible. But it would be a far sight better than the Democrats’ even bigger-spending plans.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

464 comments Add your comment

Aquagirl

March 21st, 2013
6:42 am

From Paul Broun’s crazy to theoretical spending to the requisite shot at Democrats for no discernible reason…huh? Stream of consciousness writing is not your talent, Kyle. :)

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
6:52 am

Real Americans hope that the Congress can build on the admittedly small-potatoes success of the recent sequester and compromise on even larger reductions in spending in coming years.

Jefferson

March 21st, 2013
6:57 am

You will need more revenue if you expect change. Look at your position, where has it gotton you — nowhere, wise up or be the party of “stupid” or “moss covered” as described by your leaders.

Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions, unless you are a republican.

You should know what don’t work by now.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
7:00 am

Piled on top of that 3.4% or 5% growth rate is the $700 billion per year that Obozo has increased spending. Conservatives correctly warned that Obozo was planning to lock in the additional spending that occurred during the recession, and have been proven correct. Spending should have dropped back down to pre-recession levels after 2009.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
7:02 am

Jefferson: You will need more revenue if you expect change.
———————–

Had Obozo not snuffed out the recovery with excessive spending and regulation, we would have it.

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

March 21st, 2013
7:07 am

So at the Spending Rate of Obozo, Ryan could save us 20 trillion over ten years correct?

obiwan

March 21st, 2013
7:17 am

Don’t they teach math any more?

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
7:28 am

5% growth is just the number Obozo will admit to. Obozocare alone is likely to drive that number much higher as his fantasy cost projections meet reality.

OakhurstDawg

March 21st, 2013
7:38 am

Hi Kyle,

1st Point, how dare you call a true Republican out on such an important matter. Broun is the “Real” Conservative in the room. You’re unmasking yourself as a RINO.

2nd Point, regarding the increase in spending. Can you take a second to detail where that growth is occurring. I’m not 100 percent sure, but I believe a lot of it is coming from Defense and Medical spending. Speaking about increases in spending is fine, but let’s get some perspective.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
7:40 am

$700 billion more in spending every year + higher rate of growth in spending every year + actual cost of Obozocare = fiscal train wreck

God help us if interest rates should return to normal.

jconservative

March 21st, 2013
7:44 am

Every penny Clinton, Bush and Obama spent was approved by the United States Congress. Every penny of revenue was authorized by the US Congress. And every member of Congress was elected by the voters. And a large majority of Congress was re-elected by the voters.

Amazing how the framers of the Constitution set this thing up ain’t it?

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
7:46 am

Oak, it would appear that the growth in spending, at least in Obozo’s plan, is not due to defense. You’re welcome.
——————–

“But using inflation-adjusted dollars, the document shows, the Pentagon budget essentially flatlines for the next five years, for an overall decline of 1.6 percent. Another Pentagon document gives a slightly different outcome, a decline of 0.3 percent from 2013 to 2017. And the year-to-year increases are minimal — zero percent in 2014 and just 0.2 percent in both 2016 and 2017″

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-and-the-defense-budget/2012/02/13/gIQAoZXeCR_blog.html

L'il Aynie

March 21st, 2013
7:51 am

Kyle’s analysis of Broun’s comments about Ryan’s budget is about as useful as a landscape plan for the planet Mars.

Ryan’s budget is a farce, Broun is a crafty lunatic. Read the scores of reader comments following Broun’s Op-Ed published by the New York Times for thorough analyses of the wacky proposals to cut federal programs that benefit Americans, spend more on useless Cold War weapons, enhance federal revenue by eliminating unspecified tax deductions, and create millions of jobs out of thin air.

Cutting government spending at a time when 8% + American workers are unemployed is a certain recipe for economic recession and depression. The federal deficit is currently 6.25% of the US GDP. It supports 8+ million jobs. It shrinks every year as GDP grows, by the way.

The underlying assumption in the “spending cut” hysteria is the false notion that private capital investment will take up the economic slack from cutting federal spending. Private investors don’t follow Republican dogma; they don’t squander capital on job-creating enterprise to produce goods and services for which there is little pent-up demand. The trillions of dollars of private capital now parked in specious financial instruments will not be invested in the economy until consumer demand is buoyed by a falling rate of unemployment, to about 6%.

@@

March 21st, 2013
7:52 am

BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul yesterday was here in THE SITUATION ROOM, 24 hours ago. He said flatly he is going to Iowa in the next few weeks. He is seriously thinking of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. He thinks that is a good idea for him. What about you?

RYAN: I’m going to make my mind up later. The reason why – I think I need to do this job. I’m the chairman of the Budget Committee. When we have a budget crisis on our horizon, we’ve got to get these agreements done. And I don’t think it’s good for me, it’s good for the Wisconsin first district, it’s good for my colleagues to cloud my judgment at this time with other things.

I need to do what I think is right in this moment working on the budget. I have a leadership position. I take it seriously. And I don’t want to cloud it with ideas of what I may or may not do in the future. I want to do the right thing now. Then I’ll consider those things. And I will give it serious consideration, but I’m going to do that later on.

The difference between Paul Broun and Paul Ryan? Broun’s a candidate, Ryan’s a problem solver.

Del

March 21st, 2013
7:56 am

Rank and file Democrats are captive to the Paul Krudman philosophy. Economically speaking he leads them all around by the nose and the uninformed voters are led by the ill informed.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
7:57 am

a whopping 8.3 percent under Bush.

Thanks, Obama!

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:00 am

The difference during the Bush years would have been stark.

What were the primary drivers of the growth in spending during the Bush years?

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:06 am

Ryan’s a problem solver.

And a liar. There is no looming budget crisis on the horizon.

sailfish

March 21st, 2013
8:07 am

lil

It was not obama’s spending as you claim but rather revenue loss from shredding almost a million jobs a month for eight months at the end of 08 and beginning 09. Not to mention all the interest piled up from the crazy bush/rubber stamp congressional spending. Tag obama with the stimulus but what else did he really spend on???

Del

March 21st, 2013
8:09 am

There is no looming budget crisis on the horizon.

Only if your heads where the sun never shines.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:11 am

I never thought I’d write these words, but here goes: Thank you, John Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for finally admitting on national television that all the fiscal cliffs, sequestrations and budget battles you’ve created are, indeed, artificially fabricated by ideologues and self-interested politicians and not the result of some imminent crisis that’s out of our control.
America owes this debt of gratitude to Boehner after he finally came clean on yesterday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week” and admitted that “we do not have an immediate debt crisis.” (His admission was followed up by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who quickly echoed much the same sentiment on CBS’ “Face the Nation”).
In offering up such a stunningly honest admission, the GOP leader has put himself on record as agreeing with President Obama, who has previously acknowledged that demonstrable reality. But the big news here isn’t just about the politics of a Republican House speaker tacitly admitting they agree with a Democratic president. It is also about a bigger admission revealing the fact that the GOP’s fiscal alarmism is not merely some natural reaction to reality, but a calculated means to other ideological ends.

salon.com

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2013
8:15 am

Whether we’re talking about a 16-year period in the past or a 10-year period in the future, a difference of $3 trillion to $5 trillion remains a big deal.

Only if one is irrationally scared of big numbers.

Del

March 21st, 2013
8:16 am

salon.com

There’s the problem for those who get their information from far-left propaganda machines like salon.com. Boehner and Ryan both said that while we don’t have an immediate debt crises we have a looming debt crises that requires immediate action. Big difference in their view than that of Obama.

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2013
8:19 am

There’s a problem for those who think that Salon.com is a “far left propaganda machine.”

USC-69

March 21st, 2013
8:21 am

Paul Broun is definitely against all government. He even refused to get a medical license back when he tried to practice medicine. Somewhere along the line he must have sworn the Hippocratic Oath but that seems hard to believe. According to the N.Y. Time’s Op-Ed that he wrote he wants to eliminate Children’s Health Insurance, Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly, and Affordable Healthcare. In addition, to all the healthcare plans, he also proposes eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, and Federal Highways. I think I also heard he wants to eliminate evolution, global warming, the theory of relativity, and maybe even the English language. Who elected this irresponsible person to a public office? What an embarrassment.

Thomas heyward Jr

March 21st, 2013
8:23 am

“The Ryan budget may or may not be realistic, and it may or may not be politically feasible. But it would be a far sight better than the Democrats’ even bigger-spending plans.”
.
And comes now Wingfield with the evil of two lessor arguments.
How did that work out in 2012?
10 year budget plans reek of Lenin……………and they’re stupid.
.
Ryan is a Big government prog and spends accordingly.
Americans deserve better.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:23 am

When I think of a problem solver with his hand on the budget I think of someone who offers hard numbers that add up. Not a document that can’t even explain where the revenue losses will be offset.

Ryan’s budget has been treated like any other pie in the sky, seat of the pants, budget and largely ignored and/or ridiculed.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
8:25 am

L’il Aynie: Read the scores of reader comments following Broun’s Op-Ed published by the New York Times for thorough analyses
————-

Nothing like starting off the day with a big ol’ belly laugh! Thanks!

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2013
8:28 am

Ryan’s budget has been treated like any other pie in the sky, seat of the pants, budget and largely ignored and/or ridiculed.

Perhaps, but media outlets have at least covered it, and treated it like something newsworthy.

Like the congressional progressive caucus’ budget plan, it will not become anything like the law of the land. But…wouldn’t it be nice if the corporate media gave the congressional progressive caucus’ budget plan, oh, maybe one TENTH of the attention given to Paul Ryan’s silly scribblings?

Crazy to imagine, I know.

RC--apoi

March 21st, 2013
8:30 am

Well, I don’t know about you but I want the right to pay everybody in creation out the wazoo for my medical costs—Drs., hospitles, nursing homes, drug stores, medical equipment makers, insurance cos., drug makers, home nursing aides, ambulance drivers, parking lot attendants, concierge cos., etc. It’s my birthright as a American. Besides, people need to take Personal Responsibility for the Bad Decisions they made that caused them to get sick. Besides that, I don’t want to be paying for the medical costs of Those People, the Gays, Mexicans, furriners, old geezers, women, and others I don’t like. And besides that, people got the right to die from sickness anyway they please.

And that’s the reason why we got to repeal Obamacare. Now as for guvmint spending, I might be willing to chip in a buck or two for paying cops and paving streets, etc. But not a penny more. After all we got to look out for our Grandchildren and others that will be here left with big debt while we’re rotting in the ground.

I mean, I’m not against guvmint spending. It’s just that I want the spending to be on things I want, not what others want.

So please vote for Broun and the straight Republican ticket.

Have a good day everybody. And did I mention the right to pay for crutches, etc.?

JDW

March 21st, 2013
8:33 am

@Kyle…”There were surpluses toward the end of the Clinton years (which I’m defining as fiscal 1994-2001, regardless of the overlap with Bush’s presidency in 2001) whereas there were deficits during Bush’s tenure (2002-2009, even though Obama was president during part of FY09).”

:shock: Kyle! What’s this finally accepting reality, congratulations!

Now for this bit…”only slightly less than the rate under President Obama’s plan, which is 5 percent a year”

I see Mr. Broun continues in the math challenged tradition of Republicans everywhere. Actually the Obama plan grows spending during the years 2013-2017 by 3.461% and during the years 2013-2022 by 4.17%…but lets not let facts get in the way…

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

That said of course the real problem with the Ryan budget is the how not so much the what. Put forth a proposal to grow spending in the 3.5% range without Medicare vouchers while addressing bloated military spending and repurposing some of those dollars and then you will have something to talk about.

Now for this bit…”The difference during the Bush years would have been stark. In reality, deficits from 2002 through 2009 totaled almost $3.5 trillion. Had spending grown by 3.4 percent every year during his and Clinton’s presidency, though, Bush would have logged a cumulative surplus of about $98 billion. Even with his tax cuts in place.”

No question that Bush screwed the pooch on spending…and Obama has mostly fixed that problem…his spending increases have averaged about 1.9% during the years 2010-2013, stimulus et al included, which is of course one of the reasons for the slow recovery. This was necessitated by tax side of the equation, what those unwarranted tax cuts really did were steal the safety net that we could have sorely used in 2009. Those tax cuts meant that, even had he limited spending to increases of 3.4% he still lost the opportunity to reduce the debt by $1+ trillion and would have left us at $300+ billion plus deficit…of course that would have been far preferable to the disaster he actually left behind.

southpaw

March 21st, 2013
8:39 am

“Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions, unless you are a republican.”
—————————-
So, since–for example–Redneck Convert is a Republican, it follows that reasonable people CANNOT come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions?

That’s not what you’re saying? OK, then what DOES happen if someone is a Republican?

Just Saying..

March 21st, 2013
8:39 am

“I hope they’ll see the wisdom of staying where they are instead of losing to me.”

I see both Broun and Tiberius have the same warming level of humility…

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

March 21st, 2013
8:47 am

It’s funny how Broun seems to be the only sane voice in the budget discussions. Ryan basically proposes to rearrange the deck chairs.

It don’t surprise me none because we are using the low morals version of sanity to define Broun.

Now if he were to say something like “I will lower the level of the seas,” or perhaps institute a ban on sugary drink sizes, I’d be like whoa, where’s the butterfly net at.

1961_Xer

March 21st, 2013
8:48 am

Sorry, but Broun is dead on arrival as a state Senator. His idiotic comments on birth control and abortion make it so.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:53 am

His idiotic comments on birth control and abortion make it so.

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

Rafe Hollister

March 21st, 2013
8:55 am

Sad, but neither the Ryan budget, the Broun budget, or the Patty Murray budget have a snowball’s chance of passing, but it would be nice if the House and Senate would pass a budget and then have a conference committee try to cobble together a compromise. Whatever they come up with would be better than these continuing resolutions that increase spending every year. We need a plan that would curb spending and put us on a path to balancing the budget.

Surely, there is mucho waste and inefficiency that can be eliminated from the budget.

However, this regime seems to love to ignore tradition and seek to run the country through crises, cliffs, blame, coercion, and whining. He should create one more crises, by saying do your job Congress, I am not going to sign another continuing resolution.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 21st, 2013
8:55 am

Man turns face into tattoo billboard for Internet porn sites, regrets it
Gibby told the Anchorage Press that he was suffering from untreated bipolar disorder when he made the decision to get the facial tattoos, and that his decision to do so was motivated by his “biggest fear” at the time — not being able to pay the rent and support his family of seven.

I can hear the kids now: “daddy, let me out of the car about a mile from school, ok?”

clem

March 21st, 2013
9:10 am

i wonder if broun got into med school with father’s help?

independent thinker

March 21st, 2013
9:11 am

Latest estimates of cost of Bush off budget wars- 2.5 trillion dollars with no source of funding. Cost of unfunded Medicare Part D for ten years – over a trillion dollars. Keep your whitewash of Bush’s failed economic policies and failed wars, Kyle. The American voters figured it out last November. You can’t put the Bush failures on the Democrats no matter how you try. I agree though that more needs to be cut out of the budget. Take the defense budget back to where we were in 2000 and you could salve half a trillion a year pretty quick. Eliminate many of the tax loopholes for corporations and you have a lot more revenue. I do not hear anything about that from Kyle or either of these geniuses who want to replace Saxby.

I hope Broun keeps running. We need the rest of America to know what king of morons have dominated this GOP controlled state. A race between him and Price would be delightful. Kinda like Rick Perry and Mitt debating each other. You had to wonder which one swallowed the most stupid pills and who was lying the most..

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 21st, 2013
9:20 am

“I don’t know about you but I want the right to pay everybody in creation out the wazoo for my medical costs”
———————

No one is forcing you to buy anything you don’t want. Well, except for Obozo(care), that is.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 21st, 2013
9:21 am

“Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions, unless you are a republican.

You should know what don’t work by now.”

We certainly know that repetitive nonsensical post by now, Jefferson.

JDW

March 21st, 2013
9:22 am

@Aesop…”It’s funny how Broun seems to be the only sane voice in the budget discussions. ”

I think you should change your handle to Lewis Carroll…you have most assuredly gone “through the looking glass”.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 21st, 2013
9:23 am

“Cutting government spending at a time when 8% + American workers are unemployed is a certain recipe for economic recession and depression. ”

Actually, Aynie Sue, it is merely one of many theories.

But it is far from a certain recipe.

independent thinker

March 21st, 2013
9:24 am

I keep hoping that Paul Braun will go back to using his position on the committee for science and technology to show us what geniuses in that area the GOP has in the house, We are fortunate to have two such geniuses representing Georgia:
“”"”"”"”"”In his party, Kingston is in the mainstream. A Gallup poll in June found that 58 percent of Republicans believe God created humans in the present form just within the last 10,000 years — a wealth of anthropological evidence to the contrary.

Another Georgia congressman, Paul Broun, introduced the so-called personhood legislation in the House — backed by Akin and Representative Paul Ryan — that would have given a fertilized egg the same constitutional protections as a fully developed human being.

Broun is on the same science, space and technology committee that Akin is. Yes, science is part of their purview.

Where do they get this stuff? The Bible, yes, but much of the misinformation and the fables that inform Republican politicians comes from hearsay, often amplified by their media wing.

Remember the crazy statement that helped to kill the presidential aspirations of Michele Bachmann? A vaccine, designed to prevent a virus linked to cervical cancer, could cause mental retardation, she proclaimed. Bachmann knew this, she insisted, because some random lady told her so at a campaign event”"”"”"”"”"”"”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/the-crackpot-caucus/

And You wonder why it is called the stupid party?Rinse a Prebus forgot to mention this in his autopsy report on the GOP failure in November.

TRUTH

March 21st, 2013
9:25 am

What a load, Kyle. The theory you present is just a little biased, ya think?? Even with the re-write of financial irresponsibility, its way off base. Reminder, the election in ‘08 was a clear rejection of the GOP doctrine (save the GOP members of the House who were elected via redistricting, creating GOP vacums), After that defeat, the GOP continued spouting the same drivel that you are embracing. 2012 came about and the GOP losses were more significant. And yet, this dialouge still streams from the GOP ether.

How do you leap from Clinton’s surpluses to Bush “increasing” that surplus, save a few factors, eh? Math is a pretty amazing thing, Kyle. The if’s and but’s work, but only in theory. Factually, unde Bush, spending was grossly out of control with very little, if any, oversight. This GOP leadership essentially stemmed the economic fails we ALL experienced. And now you think the REST OF THE COUNTRY will somehow forget all that pain to go backwards with the GOP.

Kyle, nothing personal, but what a load……jus sayin’.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 21st, 2013
9:28 am

“But…wouldn’t it be nice if the corporate media gave the congressional progressive caucus’ budget plan, oh, maybe one TENTH of the attention given to Paul Ryan’s silly scribblings?”

Well, that would require you to actually watch Fox News for comparison coverage of the opposing budget plans, stands, but I suspect that channel isn’t in your wheel house.

fair and balanced

March 21st, 2013
9:30 am

Mr. Broun sure sounds like the man the GOP needs to run for Saxby’s seat:

“”"”"”"”"”"As a Member of the House of Representatives for the last few years, I have fought tooth-and-nail against President Obama’s agenda at every turn.

I was the first Member of Congress to call him a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies like government control of health care and redistribution of wealth.

I’ve not only voted against raising the debt limit, I’ve actually introduced a bill to LOWER THE DEBT LIMIT!

President Obama and his cohorts in the Senate are ruining our nation.

They are bankrupting our country and couldn’t care less about it.

They have lied to the American people time and time again and I, for one, refuse to sit back and continue to take it.”"”"”"”"”"”"”

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/no-comment-necessary-bragging-rights/(quote from AJC)

Ah a true genius at work!

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 21st, 2013
9:32 am

“Actually the Obama plan grows spending during the years 2013-2017 by 3.461% and during the years 2013-2022 by 4.17%…but lets not let facts get in the way…”

You mean like the fact that no Obama budget has ever received a single vote in Congress?

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 21st, 2013
9:36 am

I find that people who use the word TRUTH in their description of themselves generally provide little.