Today the Obama administration unveiled its budget for FY 2011. The budget ostensibly covers the next ten years, but its projections for future years are meaningless. The only year for which it has any significance is 2011, in which it anticipates $3.8 trillion in spending and an astonishing $1.6 trillion deficit. In 2006, the last year in which the Republicans controlled Congress, the deficit was $248 billion–one-seventh what Obama proposes for next year.
Pres BO’s presentation was something out of The Twilight Zone. He blamed everybody for everything. He blamed Pres Bush but forgot to say that the current deficits are 3 times larger than anything before.
In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
He also blamed “tax cuts” for the rich. He blamed Iraq. Unfortunately, Pres BO did not take any responsibility for current spending or the increase in spending last year.
By admin | Tuesday, September 8th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Pres BO should explain to the public school parents & students WHY his daughters have always attended private schools!
As the father of 3 sons who attended public schools, I call on Pres to use the speech today to answer a big question:
Can Pres BO explain why he is opposed to letting me use my property taxes to choose a school? In other words, vouchers!
I pay the taxes … why shouldn’t I use my property taxes to choose an education for our sons? Why won’t Pres BO stand up to the unions and put our children first? Why does Pres BO always crack before the unions, whether it’s Mexican trucks or “school choice”?
Also, why didn’t the Obamas send their daughters to Chicago’s public schools? How can Pres BO choose Mr. Duncan as Sec of Education? Isn’t this the same Mr. Duncan who ran Chicago’s public schools? Aren’t these the same Chicago public schools that weren’t good enough for Obama’s daughters?
“The National Education Association and other teachers’ unions have put millions into Democrats’ congressional campaigns because they oppose Republican efforts to challenge unions on their resistance to school reform and specifically their refusal to support ideas such as performance-based pay for teachers who raise students’ test scores.”
Yes, Republicans have called for “school choice”. We want parents to decide. We want middle class parents to get a voucher so that they can “choose their school”. We want kids removed from failing public schools. We want kids to get a chance at a real education.
Who is opposed? Pres BO and the Dems! Why are they opposed? Can you say “teachers’ unions”?
We feel that Pres BO should speak about this on Tuesday. Please explain Pres BO’s opposition to reforms in public education. Please explain to the parents why Pres BO opposes “choice” for our children.
Here is a great video. This is a video letter from Washington’s DC kids calling on Pres BO to stand up to the unions and keep their special programs. What happened after this video? Pres BO cracked again!
What nomination process did this guy go through? He didn’t because “czars” are not confirmed by the US Senate. I guess that the Founding Fathers were right after all. This is why the Constitution calls on the president to get his appointments confirmed by the US Senate!
My question is the same: What is BO doing hanging around with people like Van Jones? According to news reports, Van Jones was one of those “headcases” promoting the idea that 9-11 was an internal job:
In the statement, Van Jones also apologized again for several inflammatory remarks he made prior to joining the Obama administration. It was his second apology in two days.
“In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration — some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition [9/11 statement] that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”
Whether he agrees with the views expressed, Jones was a signatory on a 2004 statement calling on then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
Once again, Pres BO will have to take time from his busy schedule to explain a relationship with a radical. How many more times can BO say that he was not familiar or did not hear what these radical friends were saying for years?
P.S. Like always, there is no one like Charles Krauthammer:
The U.S. and global economy “appear to be leveling out,” Bernanke told an audience of some of the world’s leading economists and central bankers, and “prospects for a return to growth in the near term appear good.”
He warned, however, that the recovery is “likely to be relatively slow at first,” with unemployment declining only gradually.
If you’re a business owner, why take on extra employees when cap’n'trade is promising increased regulatory costs and health “reform” wants to stick you with an 8 percent tax for not having a company insurance plan?
This is why business owners are holding back rather than looking confidently to the future, as we have done in every previous recession.
In fact, Pres BO’s challenge is to persuade producers and businessmen that he won’t raise their taxes or intrude further in the free market.
Let’s bring back confidence so that the ladies can rush to the mall! Everything will take care of itself after that!
By admin | Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Reserve your seats because this is going to be sold out soon! Jake Tapper is reporting about the early skirmishes of the coming Dem dog fight, or should we call it a “French poodle fight” because we are talking about wimpy Dems:
“We Have a Tire Track On Our Chest”: President Obama Faces Possible Rebellion of House Democrats
The president’s liberal allies on health care reform have a message for the president: Don’t think you can drop the public option without a fight.
“If the president thinks we’re gonna get the votes without the public option, he’s got another think coming,” Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, told ABC News.
“That won’t pass the House.”
So what happened to that united party that couldn’t wait to govern?
First, they were not united. They just hated Bush, like they once hated the other Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower. The Dems are always united out of power. They can’t come together when the bell rings and they have to start moving the ball.
Second, most Dems did not know who BO was. They voted for change but did not know who the “change agent” was. How in the world can any rational person invest his/her hopes and dreams in someone who had no resume, except that he wrote two books about himself.
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair….
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
On the other hand, such a change could alter the dynamic of talks surrounding health care legislation, and even change the substance of a final bill. With no need to negotiate with Republicans, Democrats might be better able to move more quickly, relying on their large majorities in both houses….
Bottom line is the Democrats never needed us to pass this monster anyway. They have the votes … they just want to be able to share the blame when this blows up… and it will. But, they will have to wear this one around their neck. They will own it, and it will fail. They won’t be able to blame Bush. Welcome to one party mob rule, folks! If they do this, I think they’ll try to keep the public option.
Here is some rope, liberals … go do what you do best with it…. Will they really shoot their own foot like this? The American people have rejected this, so will the Democrats really try to force it down their throat? Wouldn’t this be political suicide?….
…. this can only mean that they’re going to go all out for the public option and use “reconciliation” if need be to nuke the filibuster in the Senate, no? Why cut the GOP out of negotiations only to settle for some watered-down alternative like co-ops? If you’re going to kick the minority party out of the room and anger half the country, you might as well make the bill as syrupy sweet to your own side as possible…. …it’s pointless for The One to keep making concessions. He might as well get the bill he wants, paint the GOP as “the party of no”, and hope that the inevitable ill effects of his program don’t appear before the midterms….
Thus did a party that no longer has enough Senate seats to pull a filibuster somehow become an obstructionist, utopia-destroying leviathan. Belated exit question: Is this all just a ruse by The One to put pressure on the Blue Dogs to accept a public option? Symbolically kicking the GOP out of the negotiations leaves the media free to focus on conservative Democrats as the true stumbling block to universal health care. Ironically, the “go it alone” move may be aimed more at his own side than at the GOP.
By admin | Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
In sports, as in presidential elections, a win is a win.
First of all, we salute Pres. elect Obama. We wish him well. We want him to succeed because we want the country to do well.
Nevertheless, this is not a landslide by any means. Nixon ’72 and Reagan ’84 got 60% of the popular vote and over 500 EV’s. LBJ ’64 and Bush ’88 got over 400 EV’s.
Obama beat McCain, 52-47%, a good victory but not a landslide. He will finish with about 355 EV’s, a strong number but not close to a landslide.
Obama beat McCain in Florida, Virginia, Ohio by very close margins. Also, the Dems did not get the “magic 60″ in the Senate.
What does this mean? It means that Obama has to deliver and stay near the center. Obama will make a huge mistake if he governs to the left or lets Congress move him to the left.
So what now?
The Republicans have to regroup as we did after losing to Carter ’76 and Clinton ’92.
We must look for new leaders and remember the lessons of 1976 and 1992.
We came back very quickly in the 1978 and 1994 midterms. In both instances, we had a clear message. We also benefited from having Dems control the Congress and the White House.
Governing is hard, as the Dems learned under Carter and Clinton. Again, we wish Pres. elect Obama well. We will support and oppose him. We won’t engage in the kind of irrational behavior that depicted the angry left during the last 8 years.
My friend Ed Morrissey posted this map. I agree with Ed except Virginia. Give McCain Virginia and he wins 286-252, incredibly the same as Bush-Kerry in 2004. I think that New Hampshire is in play, too! McCain 292-248!
I started posting at My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. four years ago. My first post was predicting Pres. Bush’s reelection. I came pretty close to the final popular vote (51-48%) and EVs of 286-252.
“But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over.
The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent.
As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.”
To be honest, we face a very uncertain election.
I have never been so confused about any presidential election since 1976. At 7pm that night, I was certain that Carter would win. At 2am, we didn’t know because of Pres. Ford’s surge!
Are the polls trending McCain? Some are are some aren’t!
What else can I say? I’m totally confused over these polls.
On the popular vote, it will be a dead heat. It’s possible that Obama wins the popular vote because of very heavy black turnouts in the south. Also, don’t forget that Obama will win California, the most populous state.
However, the most under reported story of 2008 may be a huge Republican turnout. McCain and Palin are drawing huge crowds all over. Don’t be shocked if you see large suburban and rural turnouts!
The “media in the tank” for Obama has been pushing the narrative that Dems can’t wait to vote. OK. I’m sure that Dems are excited. However, don’t underestimate our ability to turn out either!
Thomas Lifson has been keeping an eye on The NY Times’ financial detoriation. Frankly, it’s not pretty:
“The death spiral accelerates, as NYTCo earnings fell by 51.4% in the third quarter.
As AT predicted would happen after it was raised, the company now recognizes it is unable to sustain its dividend.”
Yes, you can blame this on changing habits. In other words, more and more people, specially younger people, are not reading newspapers. They are getting their news from the Internet or TV.
My guess is that there is a second problem. The newspaper has gone down hill. It used to be a serious liberal alternative to The Wall Street Journal. Today, The NY Times is just a subsidiary of the Obama campaign and the voice of the party’s left wing.
Two weeks ago, it ran a total hatchet job on Cindy McCain. What is Mrs. McCain running for? She is not a candidate. She is simply John McCain’s wife. Do we now attack candidates by doing hatchet jobs on their spouses?
It’s time for the adults to take over The NY Times. Otherwise, The NY Times will disappear along with other companies that can not survive financial reality.
Media Footnote: As a courtesy to our dial-up visitors, our audio and video media are configured to download completely before play is enabled. The control buttons in the media bar will highlight when the selection is ready for playback. Selections must be started manually by clicking the PLAY button.
License: Unless otherwise expressly stated all original material, of whatever nature, created by the American Daughter staff and included in this website, its related pages and archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons License, some rights reserved.
Disclaimer: This is a personal website. The views expressed here are those of the authors and no one else. This is also an experiment in thinking out loud, so there are no warranties as to the reliability or accuracy of anything presented here. Source material -- references, citations, quotes, photos, and other elements -- is gathered from publicly available materials and some of this material may be restricted. Any trademarks used are the property of their respective creators or owners. All are reproduced under the principle of Fair Use.