Spending is a Democrat's Addiction

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." --Senator Barack Hussein Obama, March, 2006

Political Spendaholics

As The White House and Congress battle the clock to avert what the mainstream media refers to as "a catastrophic default", the lies and the demagoguery fly with wild abandon, never once second-guessed by the media. No, that media takes as gospel the words of Obama and gleefully regurgitates them over "news" broadcasts. The State-run Media is firing on all cylinders, to be sure. (I still wonder why the likes of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have as yet become sufficiently enraged at the sullying of their profession.)

 For starters, the President of the United States stating on national television that he can't guarantee that Social Security checks would go out was one of the most outrageous things he could have said. It was a blatant attempt to frighten seniors into accepting his furthering of our destruction through economic collapse. Each month the federal government receipts of tax revenues far outpaces outlays for Social Security, so if those checks don't go out, it's because Obama decided to punish the elderly for not getting his way.

There will be plenty of revenues to "meet our obligations", both in entitlement programs and the interest on our debt. What may be strained is our ability to continue funding for research into the mating habits of Alaskan halibut or construction of turtle tunnels under highways, to name a few examples. We will, however, not default on our obligations, unless the guys conducting the aforementioned activities decide that their grant money was promised and file suit. Good luck with that, boys and girls, but there is no reasonable excuse for Grandma not getting her Social Security check.

Obama continues to portray himself as above the political bickering, claiming to have the interests of the country in mind rather than brinkmanship or personal interest. He also says that he is willing to negotiate with Republicans, and that Speaker Boehner was inflexible in walking away from talks on Friday night.

But as Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck revealed on Saturday in an emailed statement before the meetings that day, the President is clearly interested in the 2012 elections. Buck wrote:

“Last night the president said, ‘the only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election'. Now, we do not know what size or shape a final package will take, but it would be terribly unfortunate if the president was willing to veto a debt limit increase simply because the timetable prescribed would not be the ideal one for his reelection campaign.”

Playing for Keeps

Obama has said this on more than one occasion, and not one media pundit has grasped it. One can only imagine the howls of outrage from the media and the Left -- pardon the redundancy -- if a Republican had made any such statement in regard to such a grave issue.

Aside from the political posturing, however, is the fact that Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Congress exhibit an innate inability to curb spending of our money. Not only are they incapable of restraint, they are now demanding more from us, insisting that taxes be raised. Obama said the other night that he's "done well", and can afford higher taxes. That's great for him, but I still don't see him volunteering to pay more. The IRS would certainly not refuse a large check from Barack and Michelle, nor from any other rich Liberal who complains about "low taxes" on the wealthy.

Democrats simply cannot be trusted with our money, and their incessant desire to seize more of it should be alarming to every American -- at least those of us who actually pay them. In his first term as President, Ronald Reagan agreed to raise taxes based on the Democrats' promise to cut spending. Those cuts never came, and Reagan didn't fall for the ruse a second time. Then George H. W. Bush suffered defeat in his second term election because of his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge that he reneged on with the same false promise from Democrats.

Today, the Democrats have been battling to eliminate the "Bush tax cuts", claiming that "they weren't paid for", a phrase all too familiar in Congressional-speak. But Democrats -- who traditionally portray themselves as the fiscally responsible party -- continually attempt to fix that which isn't broken.

In 2003, the headlines were about Bush's "massive" deficit and the harm it would wreak on our grandchildren. But with the passage of the second tax cut that year, the economy began to improve. From the AP in 2007 (notably the second-to-last year that Bush enjoyed a Republican-controlled House):

The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first eight months of this budget year as growth in revenues continues to outpace the growth in spending. 

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago. 

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7 percent from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

2003 was the worst of the Bush years, with a $455 billion deficit, which both the Democrats and media claimed was catastrophic. Each year of Obama, though, has seen deficits of a trillion dollars more than Bush's, and now they want to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion more.

And Obama wants it to last until after the 2012 elections so the problem doesn't impede his possible reelection. Since the math indicates that four more years of Obama would equate to at least $60 trillion in more deficits. That, my friends, would be catastrophic.

Sphere: Related Content

Spendaholics: Why the Tax Cut Compromise Was Necessary

The Triad of Redistribution

In 2009, the 111th United States Congress passed H.R. 1105, otherwise known as the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, and it was considered a massive expansion of government spending at a time when the deficits were mounting rapidly. At $410 billion, it contained $8 billion in pork.

It was one year ago, December of 2009. It was also long before the government heard the loud shouts of "STOP!" from the electorate in the form of voting this past November. No matter, the lame-duck session of Congress - a collection of soon-to-be-unemployed politicians - have decided to have one last laugh on the American people.

Not only did the mobility-impaired water fowl ignore the people this year, they have upped the ante, significantly. This December - today, in fact - the Congressional leadership dumped upon its membership a nearly 2,000-page bill calling for a new omnibus spending package of $1.1 trillion. Yes, trillion, with a "T". At 1,924 pages, the spending proposal amounts to nearly $572 million per page. While that may stun some people, there is more. Much more.

The Republican side of the aisle, according to Minority leader Mitch McConnell, knew nothing about this bill until it was plopped before them. Even more stunning is that the disabled drakes want an immediate vote.

Here's why this is so important, as if there were a need for further explanation. While the outrage of such reckless fiscal policy would normally be sufficient on its own, my reasoning for the title should serve to allay the ire of those who stamped their feet at the so-called "Bush tax cut compromise".

If nothing is done, and the taxes are raised again by this administration and current Congress, it is estimated that an additional $200 billion - seized from the people - will flood the coffers of the federal government, and mushroom to $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. Given what we already have learned of the gluttony of our "public servants", it is unreasonable to expect that increasing the taxes of the American people will ever be applied to reducing the deficit, which is the only reason the people would have for accepting such an injustice.

No, nothing would be gained by these tax hikes other than the further subjugation of even more of the populace and, as a result, increased dependence, which is exactly what the Left wants. Just like the pusher, Liberal politicians know full well that without a dependent constituency, power will be lost. Can't have that, can we?

Even if the omnibus spending bill is not directly related to the tax compromise, it is most assuredly indicative of why a deal was so crucial. Give a little or lose a lot. If you're a young reader, and time still passes slowly for you, I say try to hold on while this plays out until 2012. If you're my age, you already know that two years is but the blink of an eye, and we can weather this storm while holding our breath.

The key is that we can prevent an enormous influx of cash for the Democrats, who would have burned through it faster than General Grant took Richmond. In any event, I maintain that the Republicans still have a grasp on what they're doing. We have mere weeks until we can prevent Obama from further running up the credit card. Hold on.

Have faith.

Sphere: Related Content