The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted forand then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference.Stay Focused, Connected, Informed & Inspired.
Here is a great article by Chuck Norris which reveals that federal spending has skyrocketed since Obama has taken office and massive government waste.
By Chuck Norris:
The Congressional Budget Office just reported that in the past two years since President Barack Obama took office, federal spending is up 21.4 percent.
The national deficit was $1.29 trillion in 2010 (second to the $1.4 trillion in Obama's first year in office, 2009), which means that for every $1 the federal government spent this past year, it borrowed 37 cents of it!
The feds will tell you that their outrageous spending habits were necessary to pull our economy out of its recession. But would their same rationale justify the fact that the money Congress spends on itself has soared 89 percent over the past decade, more than three times the U.S. inflation rate?
It's true. In 2000, the feds spent $2.87 billion to run Capitol Hill. In fiscal year 2010, they almost doubled the amount, to an enormous $5.42 billion. From 2000-10, while inflation went up 26 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Capitol expenses went up 89 percent.
Were all those expenditures necessary to pull the economy out of a recession, too? Will the Obama administration again blame former President George W. Bush for its contemptible spending habits in its first two years?
According to Capitol News Connection and the congressional watchdog groups Sunlight Foundation and LegiStorm, here are just some of the itemized personnel costs of your legislative branch of government, including their comparative increases from 2000:
--Congress members' salaries and benefits: $126 million, up 23.5 percent.
--Expense allowances for Senate leaders: $180,000, up 99 percent.
--Senate officers: $178.98 million, up 99 percent.
--House leadership offices: $25.88 million, up 82 percent.
--Other House officers: $198.30 million, up 120 percent.
--Senators' personal offices: $422 million, up 75 percent.
--Representatives' personal offices: $660 million, up 62 percent.
--Architect of the Capitol salaries: $106.78 million, up 118 percent.
--Capitol Police salaries: $265.18 million, up 237 percent.
--Capitol Police general expenses: $63.13 million, up 860 percent.
Other items:
--Senate inquiries and investigations: $140.5 million, up 96 percent.
--Capitol grounds upkeep: $10.97 million, up 102 percent.
--Capitol building maintenance: $33.18 million (not listed separately in 2000).
--Senate office buildings: $74.39 million, up 16 percent.
--House office buildings: $100.46 million, up 169 percent.
--Capitol Visitor Center: $22.45 million (didn't exist in 2000).
--Congressional Budget Office: $45.16 million, up 72 percent.
--Government Accountability Office: $556.84 million, up 47 percent.
--Library of Congress: $446.15 million, up 73 percent.
--Congressional Research Service: $112.49 million, up 57 percent.
And if you don't think those costs are reflective of a nation in economic peril and government run amok, consider momentarily how critical these following costs are to running our country -- or are they?
--Since Democrat Nancy Pelosi took over the position of speaker of the House in January 2007, funding for her office soared 62 percent, from $2.9 million to $4.7 million. For a single office?!
--And taxpayers paid an enormous printing bill of $93.76 million, up 212 percent. (How many copies of the 1,000-plus-page Obamacare bill do you think that bought the feds? In a computer age of paperless transactions, don't you think they could save a few dollars here by learning what PDF files are?)
--According to the Sunlight Foundation, $4.28 million was spent on student loan repayments during the first quarter of this year as one of the congressional staff member employment perks.
--Pension costs continue to soar as congressional members enjoy the $60,000 annual benefit when they retire at age 62 after only having five years of congressional service. More than 400 former members receive average pensions of $60,000 a year.
--Taxpayers also forked out $3.27 million for Capitol Hill office supplies, as well as $628,332 for food. In addition, we spent $51.05 million on electricity and $4.63 million on sewer and water services in the Capitol building.
--And that water bill doesn't include the bottled water, which the House offices alone spent nearly $200,000 on during just the first quarter of 2010!
Friends, this next election fight is not for the weak at heart. Those elected next will either plummet our country into a fiscal abyss by maintaining the present course or deliver our economy from utter ruin by turning sharply to avoid economic disaster.
If our country is to survive, we must elect only those who show proof of fiscal discipline, refuse under all circumstances to increase our national deficit, disdain special interests, are willing to radically cut spending, and commit to pass and live under a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. (Please join the movement to pressure Congress to do so, by signing BBA Now's petition for a Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment. And for a voter guide detailing where candidates in your state stand on issues, go to http://www.ChristianVoterGuide.com.)
With the present elective battle at hand, I call upon the great battalion of patriots to get out and vote Nov. 2 in the same spirit in which George Washington admonished his army in 1776: "The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men."
Hopefully the constitutional conservatives we voted in office on November 2 will nip this out of control spending & waste in the bud.
(I also encourage everyone to check out the trailers to two new patriotic films playing near you, "I Want Your Money" and "Battle for America.")
Here is the trailer for the movie Battle for America:
It seems to me that it is either impossible for Obama to see the truth and reality related to his increased spending versus his predecessor’s spending, or he‘s willfully ignoring the reality and truth . Either way, Obama is clearly as blind as a bat. Bush did overspend. But Obama has accelerated the spending and it has turned into a pandemonium of government spending. In addition, the Obama administration continues the blame game. This is the first President in history, that is an irresponsible crybaby, and that has also filled his administration with a bunch of whiny crybabies. Obama has continued to blame and complain about Bush’s prior spending like a naïve little boy. Obama continues to complain about spending when he could halt spending in certain governmental agencies at any time. But, I guess that solution hasn’t come to Obama or his administration’s mind at any time. How come all these supposed geniuses are so blind? Irresponsible in the worst way? And, they continuously refuse to do the obvious to reduce our deficits. Hmmmm… Obama, his administration, and the Democrats clearly DO NOT want to make any budget cuts or decrease funds for any agency or program to decrease the deficit. Instead they are going on a government spending binge. Plus, Obama makes it obvious that he loves playing the blame game. If they reduced the deficit than the Obama admin couldn’t point to this huge deficit and keep on exaggerating and blaming the Bush admin for the deficit. Obama has increased the deficit by 3X what Bush left him with. The Obama admin is all about illusions, exaggeration, and lies.
But, the Obama administration is making it clear that they are continuing with their modus operandi, and keeping allegiance to the failed liberal philosophy of increased government spending. Obama needs to freaking STOP this runaway freight train of spending before it literally wrecks this country. STOP In the Name of Love! Obama STOP for the love of this country. Stop bankrupting this country into oblivion. Please stop pillaging the American people’s wallets!! Please stop stealing from future generations! So, Mr. President, Stop in the Name of LOVE!!!
Here is a fun video and an interesting article below.
Ten Years Ago? Seriously? By: Keith Hennessey
On Monday when releasing his budget the President said:
The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.
This is a common refrain from the President and his team. Argument: The previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program … without paying for any of it.
•Response 1: Yes, we did. At the time, Congressional Democrats tried and failed to create an even more expensive new drug program without paying for it. (Mr. Obama was not in the Senate at the time.)
•Response 2: This Medicare drug program is ongoing. If the President thinks it is too expensive, then he should propose to make it less expensive. If instead he thinks it should be paid for, then he should propose other spending cuts or tax increases to offset the future costs. Pending health care legislation would instead expand this expensive benefit and pay for the expansion, but would do nothing about paying for the ongoing base costs to which the President is objecting. The past six years of deficit spending from this benefit is beyond President Obama’s control. The future spending is not. He could do this through reconciliation with 51 votes in the Senate.
Argument: The previous Administration and Congresses funded two wars without paying for it.
•Response 1: The Obama Administration is continuing these wars without paying for them, and expanding forces in Afghanistan without paying for that.
•Response 2: Two of those years were with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. There were legislative attempts to end the Iraq efforts, but none to end the Afghanistan efforts. I don’t remember anyone in the Democratic majority Congress (including then-Senator Obama) making a serious run at cutting other spending or raising other taxes to offset the war costs. Last year Rep. Obey proposed a war tax and was quickly silenced by his colleagues.
Argument: The previous Administration cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for it.
•Response 1: Setting aside the mischaracterization “for the wealthy,” President Obama proposes to extend a significant portion of that tax relief “without paying for it.”
•Response 2: If all the Bush tax cuts are left in place bracket creep will soon cause total federal taxes to once again climb above their historic average of just over 18% of GDP. Repealing these tax cuts would mean the government would be taking far more from the private sector in taxes than it has in the past. I believe taxes are not too low.
•Response 3: Our medium-term and long-term deficit problems are driven by the growth of entitlement spending: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Raising taxes will not slow this spending, it will just buy us a few years of delay and slow economic growth. CONTINUED
