It’s not spending, it’s lower than expected revenue. Spin baby spin. The last time I checked there were two parts to an equation and they were supposed to be equal. One goes up the other goes down.
Read this from the Center for American Progress (man, do I love that word progress):
The federal budget deficit will again exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office reported today. That news is sure to trigger another round of condemnations from politicians and pundits who have a political or ideological interest in pinning these deficits on the domestic spending policies of President Barack Obama.
Unfortunately for them, today’s report—along with dozens of other similar CBO reports in recent years—actually proves the opposite—that the current deficit is overwhelmingly the result of two factors: events that occurred before President Obama took office and tax cuts.
In fact, higher spending under Obama accounts for less than 20 percent of this year’s deficit, and nearly half of that was additional defense spending—not domestic spending. Bottom line: The narrative that an “Obama spending spree” caused our deficit problem is utterly false.
Events that occurred before Obama took office and tax cuts, ummmm, so what? Tax cuts you say? I think you mean the tax rates in effect for more than four years.
Let’s think about this; Mr Obama ran for President knowing full well the state of the economy, all about the Bush bailouts, and the tax rates in effect then and now. He still promised hope and change.
For the last two years of the Bush Administration and the first two years of the Obama Administration Mr Obama’s party controlled the Congress providing ample opportunity for both hope and change (the good kind).
Knowing the tax rates and the state of the economy, it is no magical leap to estimate federal revenue thereby allowing a prudent manager to adjust spending accordingly if there is any goal to reduce or at least not increase the deficit. Instead the President spent most of his time with failed attempts to stimulate the economy and seeking out scapegoats from successful Americans to insurance companies and even the Supreme Court.
Are we to believe that the President of the United States, a man who seeks and accepts the most difficult job in the world is not responsible for dealing with events that occurred before he took office? Bush increased the deficit, we get it. Obama increased it even more, we get that too. I haven’t received a raise in three years, to cope I watch my spending closely, and do not increase my debt, most Americans get that.
The view that taxes being too low is the cause of the deficit has got to be a reflection of the ass backwards thinking of the generation now in charge of our country. A generation that grew up thinking uncontrolled spending and little saving had no consequences.
If an executive seeks a potentially lucrative CEO position with a company heading for bankruptcy and fails to turn the company around claiming that events leading to the bankruptcy occurred before his tenure caused his failure, he gets fired. The buck stops with the person in charge. Need I say more.
Where is Harry Truman when you need him?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 