As The Budget Continues To Grow And The Debt Continues It's Explosion
The President is to propose a 3.8 trillion dollar FY 2011 budget and at the same time projects the deficit will increase to a record high of 1.6 trillion dollars. However, not to worry as by 2013 the red ink will be stemmed the deficit will only be 700 billion dollars, or 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). But just one minute, it is only to begin rising again in 2018. And just when I thought the architect of Obamanomics was maybe on to something.
The plan sounds to me like more gimmicks and lies. With 106 trillion dollar in unfunded liabilities, a 12 trillion plus dollar national debt, and continuing deficits for as far as the mind can grasp, this sound like insured economic destruction and a slide into third world nation status. Please forgive the pessimism, but the logic of this government just doesn't add up.
Sure, the administration can blame Bush, they have and will continue to do so. And of course Bush was no fiscal conservative and made some ill advised decisions, both domestically and internationally. But the budget, deficits, and the running of the nation rest squarely on your SHOULDERS now Mr. President. So get over it and make decisions that return fiscal sanity and responsibility to government, and you can start by seriously addressing debt reduction and not piling on more expenditures that continue to grow the federal government.
Some excerpts from Johnathon Weisman's article in the Wall Street Journal:
"At the same time, Mr. Obama is under pressure to address the country's continued high unemployment rate. And he will propose increases in spending for priorities such as education and domestic scientific research. All of this raises questions about how much progress the president is likely to make in trying to fulfill his pledge to halve by 2013 the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited."
"The budget embodies Mr. Obama's larger predicament of needing to contain the deficit without harming the economy, which remains fragile. The deficit has become a major political issue, as antigovernment activists swing independents against what they describe as Mr. Obama's big-government policies and Republicans try to regain the mantle of fiscal responsibility after the Bush years saw surpluses swing to deficits."
"The deficit is forecast to stabilize at $800 billion between fiscal years 2015 and 2018 before beginning to rise again, according to the White House projections. The projected rise is due to the retirement of the baby boomers, which is expected to result in increased spending on Medicare and Social Security."
Isabel Sawhill, a budget expert at the Brookings Institution, criticized the president's goal— a deficit of 3% of GDP long after the recession has ended—saying it amounted to "defining deficits down."
"The pay-go rules will make it more difficult for Congress to dig the hole deeper but won't affect currently projected red ink; and the commission will likely be a paper tiger," she wrote on Friday. "In short, these proposals will still leave us with unsustainable deficits as far as the eye can see. It is depressing to discover that we can no longer even aspire to balance the budget once the recession is over."
Follow the entire article at The Wall Street Journal.
For more on Obamanomics, and the fiscally irresponsible journey he is taking us on, I refer my readers to Michelle Malkin.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Wall Street Journal
Via: Michelle Malkin
Hi RN,
ReplyDeleteI think blaming the previous administration is par for the course for any president. What is frustrating in this administration's case is that they are pursuing the same economic policy as the predecessor they criticize;were they pursuing (IMO) a policy which restored effective oversight and didn't reward moral hazard they would be far less open to criticism.
Example would be Reagan.He put blame on the previous administration at least every year of his first term, however he was pursuing a very different course. I don't agree with his policies;the blame may or may not have been valid. But at least in enacting different policy I believe Reagan was more right in passing blame.
Perhaps it is, and to some degree even warranted as the policies of the prior administration does carry impact into the next.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we are past that at this point in time, and GWG being the spendthrift that he was still is being outspent by Obama at an even more alarming rate. For a take on Obama's break all budget and deficits visit The Humble Libertarian and read his Monday Post.
Reagan, now there was a man with a mission, a love of country, a vision he truly beleved in(knew in his mind to be true), was able to effectively get a nation behind him to a degree that all Presidents since him have failed to do, although you can probably argue Bill Clinton if so inclined.
Reagan had a proper philosophy of governance and an understanding of what liberty truly means. He understood and respected the ability of the individual to succeed if left alone by government the governmnt.
Reagan effectively slowed the growth of government, he did not reverse its trend which was truly unfortuante.
Perhaps he would have accomplished a greater slowing had he not spent as he did to dismantle the Soviet Union. History 100 years from now will have a better perspective on the wisdom of that decision.
As to Reagan's criticism of Carter, well deserved as Carter was one of the nations most ineffective Cheif Executives ever IMO. Only time will tell how Obama stacks up against him.
Wouldn't it be incredible to somehow rocket into the future one hundred years and to read what historians have written? Looking back they may draw entirely different conclusions. And even more fascinating, they may objectively draw the wrong conclusions-which puts a tiny sliver of doubt on all my historical reading.
ReplyDeleteOK I'm not smoking anything funny honest!