About This Blog
President Obama said the following in his latest redundant speech:
Last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending. But there’s not much further we can cut in either of those categories. What we need to do now is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare
I'd hardly refer to last week's debt deal as "historic cuts". They were more like taking a teaspoon of water out of a gallon jug, if that. Obama was just patting himself on the back in his usual self-congratulatory style, but the line that really raised my eyebrows was when he said there's not much more we can do to cut defense or domestic spending, which are commonly known as discretionary spending. My bs-o-meter started beeping like mad with that line. Let's see if our fearless leader is telling the truth. Here's a graph of federal spending prepared by the Heritage Foundation. It's important to note that the following federal spending figures are adjusted for inflation:
While it's true that mandatory spending growth is the lion's share of the debt problem, discretionary spending has also been increasing like crazy. If you trace discretionary spending from 1965-2000, you'll see that it rose modestly after adjusting for inflation. After that it rose dramatically, yet Obama is saying there's nothing more to cut ??? If looks to me like discretionary spending has risen by about $400 billion per year since 2005, and has doubled since around 1998. It sounds to me like there's plenty more to cut, contrary to Obama's dubious claim. Several hundred billions dollars more can be cut out of the annual discretionary spending budget by returning to the funding levels of a mere decade ago (in anticipation of my rabid liberal blogger pal, The Reverend, accusing me of being a Tea Party anarchist extremist on austerity crack for suggesting such cuts, I'd like to go on record as saying I didn't consider the Clinton-era to be one of anarchy and austerity. Times were pretty good then).
What the Republican party has to come to terms with is, discretionary spending cuts mean cuts in DEFENSE spending. I want America to be the strongest nation in the world, and I also believe in America going after the bad guys in principle, but I don't believe in bankrupting this nation, and that's what we're doing. We won't be strong when we're in the fiscal toilet. And the cost of the ongoing wars is harming us. Ten years in Afghanistan ? C'mon now. We're following the path of the Soviets, and look what happened to them. We can defend this country and still save tons on defense spending. If other countries want our protection, then fine. Let them pay us for it. I'm also growing pretty weary of those who would put us under the thumb of U.N. dictates. We aren't governed by the U.N.
Speaking of Clinton, it is a source of neverending astonishment to me when liberals brag about Clinton balancing the budget, when, as you can see from the above graph, discretionary spending under Clinton actually went DOWN, and as you can also see, spending exploded AFTER Clinton. And what are liberals dead set against today ??? SPENDING CUTS. They act like the world is about to end because the debt deal cut discretionary spending by $22 billion next year. Liberal Chicken Littles are running around talking about how that infinitesimal drop in the spending bucket will usher in the next Great Depression. They used terms like "terrorists" and "hostage-takers" to refer to the relatively minor spending cuts congressional Republicans insisted on in the debt deal. Liberals reject the very Clinton-era fiscal policies today that they take credit for then. Go figure. If I'm a Tea Party anarchist, so was President Clinton. His last budget was $1.789 trillion. This year's budget under Lord Obummer is $3.8 trillion. Liberals insanely refer to this skyrocketing spending situation as... drumroll please...a revenue problem.
Despite whatever the liberal intelligentsia might try to get you to believe, the bottom line is - liberals want YOUR money. If you have some money, liberals want it. That's all there is to it, and they spend all day every day devising ways to get at your money. That's why they favor the government controlling everything, and they talk about a free private sector like it's the spawn of Satan. Under government control, liberals, like all dictators, know they can get at your money through the tax code and regulations. They can literally legislate your money into their hands. They really like that idea, being the thieves and control freaks that they are. That's why they talk about the evil rich so much, and have wet dreams about confiscating the money of "billionaires" (in ObamaSpeak, "billionaires" make $200,000+ per year).
An old friend and I were talking yesterday, and we both agreed Obama was killing the country. The difference was, I thought Obama was pretty much an unqualified clueless fool, while he thought Obama was an evil genius trying to collapse the country on purpose. He said to me, "if Obama was intentionally trying to destroy the American economy, what would he have done differently than he has already done ?" I have to admit, I was stumped. The only thing I could think of was that Obama would have pushed for yet trillions MORE in debt, probably under the guise of more "stimulus" spending. That would ruin us quicker...and it's also exactly what left-wingers are calling for.