About This Blog
In 2000, federal spending was $1.789 trillion.
Enter George W. Bush as President.
In 2008, federal spending was $2.983 billion.
Over 8 years, federal spending increased by $1.2 trillion PER YEAR on Bush's watch. That's a LOT of additional spending. An enormous spending increase. People try to tell me Bush was a conservative, but I have a hard time accepting that with astronomical spending numbers like he had.
Enter Barack Obama as President, or as I described it when Obama was elected, "going from the frying pan into the fire".
In 2009, federal spending was over $3.5 billion.
Obama has proposed a budget for next year of $3.72 trillion.
If that budget was accepted, which it will not be thanks to Republican victories in the House, federal spending would have increased almost $800 billion PER YEAR since Obama became President. This follows the $1.2 trillion PER YEAR spending increases implemented by Bush. Obama has implemented an unbelievable amount of additional federal spending over a very short period of time. People try to tell me Obama is a centrist, but all I can do is laugh at that. I'm still trying to reconcile the talk of Bush being a conservative. I'm beginning to think people have lost their minds. From my vantage point, Bush was a liberal, and Obama is the most liberal President we've ever had. Heck, both Presidents did the same things on economics. They both increased spending by a bunch. Both Presidents created brand new entitlement programs, Bush with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Obama with ObamaCare. Bush increased social spending by a greater percentage than any President since LBJ, the creator of the welfare state. Obama would surpass Bush if left to his own devices. I haven't seen many conservatives in charge lately, just liberals and conservative posers. In my opinion, the last time our government had any significant conservative economic influence was during the Clinton years. Spending was slowed, welfare was reformed, and the budget was balanced. That's what conservatives are SUPPOSED to accomplish, not tax cuts coupled with gigantic spending increases as was done under Bush. That's not conservative, it's crazy.
If you want a statistic to drive home exactly how crazy the spending increases of the last dozen years have been, here it is - In 1997, total federal spending was $1.6 trillion. This year, our federal DEFICIT is $1.6 trillion. Here's another way to look at it - if federal spending had only increased at the level of inflation over the last dozen years, we'd have a balanced budget right now, even with the recession, even with the Bush tax cuts. At this point in our country's history, big expanding government means economic death, via either debt and the destruction of our currency, or the fiscal strangulation of the people through prohibitive taxation. There is no magic wand we can wave and make it all better. We HAVE to reduce the size of government.
But all of the preceding information is just backstory for the actual subject of this post. As you digest the following information, keep in mind that federal spending has increased almost $2 trillion PER YEAR over where spending was a short decade ago. It has literally doubled. It took our country 224 years for federal spending to reach $1.789 trillion per year. It has taken us 10 years to double that number. If that's conservative, then I'm Karl Marx. Remember that as you read today's story:
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a measure to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year and cut $61 billion in the process. The bill was considered under an open amendment process, and there were hundreds of amendments offered and over a hundred votes cast over the span of a week. This after-action report will look solely at the Congressional appetite to cut spending.
After TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of yearly federal spending increases were implemented over the last decade, House Republicans proposed cutting $61 billion from the budget. That's pretty weak, given our $1.6 TRILLION deficit. $61 billion only amounts to like three tenths of one percent of all the spending increases that have been implemented over the last decade, and it amounts to less than two tenths of one percent of the federal budget.
The results of this vote are why the Democrats have got to go. Their reaction to these measly spending cuts ????
THEY VOTED AGAINST THEM:
...how many House Democrats refused to vote for any spending cut out of the 21 proposed? 96. Almost 100 Democrats — one shy of half of their caucus — couldn’t find any spending cuts they could support. And beyond those 96, another 47 could only vote to support one tax cut. Combined, that means that 143 out of 193 Democrats could only find one or less spending cut to support — or 71% of their caucus. The highest-ranking Democrat on spending-cut votes is Robert Costa of California, who supported 50% of the proposals.
On the other end of the spectrum, how many Republicans voted for every spending cut proposed? Out of 241 Republicans, that number was … 47. Most Republicans supported most of the cuts...
The bottom line is, the Democrats don't want to cut spending. They are just giving lip service to the idea, from Obama on down. Many Republicans do want to cut spending, though there aren't enough of them willing to take the risk to cut spending in a significant manner. At least the Republicans are looking to move the ball in the right direction, toward reducing the size of our mammoth government.
Let's start by voting a lot more Democrats out office and see where that gets us. Right now, we're living in an imaginary economy, a debt-fueled fantasyland led by President Weakling. We're living in a house of cards that will soon come crashing down. It has to stop, and the Democrats are acting like crackheads who don't want to admit they have a problem. Most of the mainstream media continues to enable the Democrat crackheads by covering for them. The voters need to conduct an intervention and send the Democrats off to rehab until they can become reintegrated back into economic reality. That may take a while.