OKAY, YOU GAVE THE ORDER. NOW, CAN WE GET BACK TO WORK?

As Obama takes another [undeserved] bow, President Bush comfortably retreats in the satisfaction of getting the job done. It was George W. Bush who laid out the steps that needed to be done to get the number one most wanted man, as his country, and the world, unleashed vile and contempuous accusations at him.

While most people are throwing accolades at Obama for a "gutsy move", I am one of the few who believe the man had no choice. Everything this man does is for the betterment of Barack Obama, and knowing that if he did not give the okay to take Osama out, it would blow up right around election time.

Now, can we get back to work, please? You know, the subject that plunged your poll numbers? The issue that Obama would rather avoid until after Nov-2012, so that he doesn't have to show his hand until then. The one that he showed the first two years of his presidency.

Obama has no intention of cutting back on his spending. He was given a gift that November day back in 2008 -- complete control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency, and he ran with it. In two years he has turned a country from a majority of makers to a majority of takers.

51 percent of households do not pay income tax. In addition, the top 20 percent of tax payers pay 67 percent of taxes. Upper-income taxpayers have paid a growing share of the federal tax burden over the last 25 years, so this talking point of the libs about "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" is pure bunk.

This current administration was loudly shellacked in Nov-2010, but since the GOP's lackluster performance from the lameduck session to today, it is apparent the American people need to play a more stronger role than ever before. We elected people who would take a stand against out-of-control spending and robbing our grandchildren with uncontrolled debt, but they are showing signs of the all too familiar GOP weakness.

We have some true leaders on our side, such as Jim DeMint and Mike Lee, but they are sadly in the minority. The American people have lost patience with the feeble attempts to cut government spending. We want real fiscal responsibility, so let's keep the pressure on. We are that shining city on the hill.

A contact list of our representatives from Grassfire is here.

Senator Jim DeMint, the first man to set the bar in opposition to Obama, writes an excellent piece about our precarious economic situation, and our weak-kneed government employees.

The Greenville News

Don't Surrender to the Debt
by Jim DeMint - May 1, 2011

There are only two choices when it comes to our nation's debt crisis. Fight the debt, or surrender to it.

Some are already giving up.

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, $3.6 trillion has been added to the debt and if the country continues on the path he has laid, the debt will nearly double in the next 10 years to $26 trillion. Yet many Democrats are insisting that it’s more important to increase the debt limit than it is to seek spending reforms to prevent our nation from going into bankruptcy.

Borrowing more money without any plan to cut spending is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It won't improve the nation’s financial standing; it will only endanger it.

Debt increase advocates are misleading the public when they say fiscal catastrophe will result from a failure to increase the debt ceiling. They are using scare tactics to keep up their big-borrowing and spending sprees, just like they did to justify their Wall Street and mortgage bailouts. The Chicken Little claims that a debt ceiling lapse would mean the nation's creditors will not be paid are simply not true.

Next year, tax revenues are projected to cover 70 percent of federal expenditures. Only 7 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will be used to pay interest on the debt. While Washington would need to engage in significant cost-cutting measures, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed that default would happen only if Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner chooses to let it. He has the authority to prioritize payments to ensure that default does not occur by using the available money to pay the nation's creditors and cover essential services like Social Security payments without interruption.

The true threat to our economic future comes from continual increases to the debt limit with no credible plans to ever pay it off.

Trouble is already on the horizon.

Standard & Poor's recently downgraded their outlook of the U.S.'s long–term credit rating from "stable" to "negative." The International Monetary Fund is considering replacements for the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has also warned, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." The loss of confidence in America's economy isn't because we're not raising the debt limit fast enough: it's because we have no credible plan to ever stop raising it.

Everyone agrees that the debt is dangerous. Refusing to confront it makes it more so. Granting the government another blank check in the form of a no-strings attached, borrowing increase is akin to waiving a white flag of surrender to the debt.

American families cannot afford our ever-expanding government. Over the last few decades federal spending has grown much faster than American earning power. Middle-income Americans' earnings have increased by 29 percent since 1970 but government spending has risen by a whopping 242 percent. A nation that owes more than it can ever produce is destined for bankruptcy.

That is why this moment must be leveraged to force deep, long-term structural reforms to the way the government spends money. The nation must balance its budget, or it will go bust. Republicans should oppose the increase unless Congress first passes a balanced-budget amendment that requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Every state except Vermont is required by law to balance its budget.

The reason the country is in such a predicament is because the government does many things it should not do, it cannot do effectively and can't afford to do. More of the same will make things worse than ever.

We must have a balanced budget amendment that requires Congress by law to make the hard decisions it has been avoiding for decades.

Cutting spending is part of the answer, but isn't all of it. In addition to finding ways to save money, members of Congress must work together to reform broken federal programs, restructure government and devolve more activity to the states. Instead of inventing new things the federal government should do, Washington must find ways to let go control and let states take over.

If politicians in Washington aren't forced to do this now, they never will. It’s foolish to believe that if we let the government borrow more, somehow, politicians will choose to draft a budget to put an end to reckless spending later.

History proves otherwise. Congress has raised the debt limit 10 times in the last 10 years, cast hundreds of votes to pass new spending programs and held no votes on a balanced-budget amendment. If politicians are not obligated to balance the budget, it is certain they will continue adding to the deficit by creating new entitlements, like Obamacare, instead of fixing broken programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Endless spending and borrowing is not the answer. It is the enemy. If we choose to surrender to the debt, instead of fighting it, it will surely lead to our demise.

HERE'S A FOOD STAMP GRAPH THAT WILL RUIN YOUR DAY

If ever we wondered just how out-of-control this administration's spending is, nothing makes an example better than the number of people now dependent on government. This includes government jobs (doubled), food (off the charts), housing (in the tank), transportation (non-existent), energy resources (doubled), loans (pray), welfare, unemployment, and the list goes on.

At this point, it is becoming clear our real battle is in the budget and reducing the debt limit -- not increasing it. I'm done with what has become another $30 or $40 billion dollar reduction in the grand scheme of things. This is getting serious, but the politicians are playing Monopoly, rather then their constitutional role of advise & consent.

In line with the upcoming budget and deficit battle, this Food Stamps graph is just from 2008! A clear example of Obama's spending problem. From Moe Lane at Red State:

Here's a Food Stamp Graph That Will Ruin Your Day
Moe Lane - April 3, 2011

Because why have a nice, sunny morning? We probably can’t afford those anymore, anyhow.

H/T AoSHQ Headlines:

The Clarion Advisory

Primed by the financial meltdown; took off like a rocket in January 2009, and is now reaching for the stars. Over 44 million on the rolls (somewhere around 14.3% of the population), which is about 14 million or so more than when this administration took office. The graph is sufficiently grim and depressing on its own to make further commentary largely unnecessary, but I will add one sardonic comment. If current conditions are what the White House considers to be “our economic recovery,” then let me be clear: You’re Doing It Wrong.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Benefits are down, too. A little counter-intuitive, given that the time frame is the Democratic party’s control of the government… no, wait, in that case it’s not counter-intuitive at all.

WHAT WOULD DEMOCRATS CUT?

As Congress finally returns to work, many are reflecting whether or not they made the right choice in the GOP's "second chance" election. This doubt began within a few short weeks of the historic November 2010 election shellacking, and the shellacking began to fade away, as the Democrats appeared unsinged.

Democrats skillfully morphed into the role of savior of imminent tax increases, Don't Ask Don't Tell reformer, a Christmas present of another 13 week extension of subsidized unemployment for an unbelievable total of 99 weeks, another generous gift of a one year 2 percent social security tax savings for employees only, plus more goodies for our stocking. Net effect -- a Republican Party all of a sudden on the defense -- again!

To make matters worse, the GOP has appeared weak in standing by their pledge to reduce the debt, reduce the budget, and crack down on Democrat spending. In fact, it's laughable. A $100 Billion promise turned in to different bills no higher that $61 Billion, and the percentage of reduction to national debt is not worth a "Gazunteit".

This week, as the GOP again takes the helm, it's time to re-ignite the message of the Nov 2010 elections. Just think about the fact that the Bush budget had a deficit of $163 Billion for the year 2007. The budget deficit was a record $222.5 Billion in February 2011, the shortest month (one month!) of the year. The GOP has to get a backbone and stand up to the bullies.

Obama's advisors remember how his popularity grew after the December tax deal, and they are doing their best to replicate that success. For Senate Democrats and Obama, partisan politics is the name of the game.

Fear kills. Rather than worrying about taking blame for shutting down the government, the GOP should take credit for lowering the deficit, spending and debt, and for finally taking steps to avoid a real government shut down. Quit passing it on to the next Congress. Be a man. Do it now!

The longer you are in a problem, the less likely you are to solve it.

When the Dems are in power, they steamroll the GOP, the rules, and anything that gets in their way. Why are the old school Republicans so spineless?!? That’s why we voted in the Young Lions and gave the Republican Party a second chance.

If we need a reminder to re-ignite this flame, remember what has happened over the last 2½ years. The Morning Bell from Heritage Foundation gives us a prospective of what Democrats would cut... nothing. Can the Republicans stand up and demand (not ask pretty please) better? Isn't that why so many rallied on their behalf? As they get back to work, it's time to remind them. Contact numbers can be found at TheOrator.com

What Would Democrats Cut?
by The Heritage Foundation, Conn Carroll - March 28, 2011

As a third temporary spending bill expires next week, the attention of Capitol Hill will once again be focused on producing a permanent spending bill to keep the federal government open and operating. The threat of a government shutdown would not exist had the Democratically controlled 111th Congress passed a budget for this fiscal year. In fact, not only did they fail to pass a budget, but for the for the first time in the history of the budget-making process, last year’s Congress failed to even vote on a budget. And now, even as the consequences of their failure are just days a way, the Democrats have still failed to agree on a plan that cuts spending.

Thirty-eight days ago, on February 19, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would keep the federal government open for the rest of this fiscal year. Responding to the overwhelming mandate from the American people delivered last November to cut federal spending, that House budget cut $61 billion in spending from 2010 levels. The Democrats then produced a plan that they said “cut spending,” but even The Washington Post Fact Checker found no real cuts.

And they will not even go on record identifying which cuts in the House’s bill they are willing to accept. The Post explains why: “Such a move would force Democrats to go on record defending programs that Republicans had identified as wasteful.”

It is understandable why the Senate is so afraid to offer its own spending plan. When the President offered his own budget for next year, he claimed that it would produce only a $7.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. At the time, we predicted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would produce vastly different numbers, since the President’s proposal included audaciously hopeful economic forecasts and fake spending cuts. Sure enough, on March 18 the CBO scored the President’s budget as causing $9.5 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. That is more debt than the federal government accumulated from 1789 to 2010 combined. Heritage analyst Brian Riedl surveys the damage:

These large deficits will persist because the President’s steep tax hikes cannot keep up with his runaway spending. Relative to the historical averages (which were also pre-recession levels), President Obama would raise taxes by 1.3 percent of GDP yet increase spending by 4 percent of GDP. The main drivers of runaway spending—surging Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs—would not be reformed at all. Accordingly, the annual cost of interest on the national debt would quadruple.
…
Under President Obama’s budget proposal, taxpayers would see large tax increases, bigger government, and slower economic growth. The President who declared that “I didn’t come here to pass our problems on to the next President or the next generation—I’m here to solve them” would, over the next decade, drop an additional $80,000 per household in debt onto the laps of our children and grandchildren.

The White House spent all of 2010 deflecting criticism about its deficit spending by pointing to the President’s debt commission. Then when the commission finally produced a report that included actual spending cuts, the White House couldn’t run from it fast enough. Congressional Democrats have no plan to cut government this year, next year, or any year. Conservatives should hold firm to their $61 billion in cuts and force Democrats to produce their own spending cut plan.

More MORNING BELL here.

THE DAMAGE OBAMA HAS DONE

With his new budget, Obama not only ducked our economic problems, he gave it his famous finger.  What was it that Tennessee Ernie Ford said -- "Another day older, and deeper in debt!  Saint Peter dontcha call me, 'cause I can't go.  I owe my soul to the company sto'e (that's the White House, my friends)" Debt, debt, debt.  Debt for you, for me, for our children, and for our grandchildren.  It's sinful, and the man in the White House has no conscience.

"It's Debt On Arrival", Congressman Paul Ryan said.  If anyone thought for a moment that Obama was going Clinton on us, guess his budget will clear up his latest lie.  Ironically, Obama is spouting how much cuts he's made, and [just like the so-called tax credits he made] are non existant, or so miniscual, they're not worth mentioning.  The $3.7 Trillion budget is an insult, and rather than showing true leadership, Obama's turned a serious state of affairs in to a game of cat and mouse.

The Democrat Party is surely not the Democrat Party of old, where a young President began his historic leadership with the words, "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."  But the 1960s radicals of those days are now running the asylum, and Barack Obama has just poked America in the eye with his atrocious budget.

Couple that with the events happening in Wisconsin.  Union mobs trying to hog tie the state government for attempting to get the out-of-control spending under control.  Same thing in New Jersey.  The public unions are bankrupting the country, and people are waking up to it.  We're broke, and it's getting worse.  The time of corrupt out-of-control spending is over.

From Dick Morris, a chart that will knock your socks off.  It's stunning!  Digest it, and keep the fires burning under the feet of our congressional representatives -- federal and state.

The Damage Obama Has Done
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann - February 15, 2011

The mainstream media does not cover the full extent of the damage the Obama Administration has inflicted on this country. Even FOX News often doesn't have the time to go into sufficient depth to explain what is happening.

From our friend Ruth S. King comes a chart which all of us should read and absorb, sobering though it may be:

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!

Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

In our new book, Revolt! (Due out March 1 – you can pre-order autographed copies now at DickMorris.com) we explain how Obama has wrecked our economy and chart a path to reverse the damage and defeat him in 2012.

These numbers make it crystal clear how crucial these two tasks really are!

Read more of his columns at DickMorris.com

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, MR. PRESIDENT

"Actions speak louder than words." An old tried & true proverb said to me by my Mother over an entire childhood, and passed on by many common sense thinking families. Obama's State of the Union (SOTU) pep rally was so full of hyperbole, I lost count.

Watching the State of the Union address was as painful as last year's, and I kept hoping for another "You Lie!" outburst, because his speech was full of contradictions. Time after time we have heard: (h/t Mark Levin)

APRIL 9, 2009 – "And we will not rest until we reach a day when not one single veteran falls into homelessness"

MAY 11, 2009 – "I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is finally achieved in the United States of America"

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 – "We will not rest until we are succeeding in generating the jobs that this economy needs"

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 – "I will not rest until business are investing again, and businesses are hiring again"

JANUARY 28, 2010 - "We will not rest until we build an economy that's ready for America's future"

MARCH 5 2010 – "I’m not gonna rest & my administration is not gonna rest in our efforts to help people who are looking to find a job"

MAY 26, 2010 – "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and the clean up is complete"

JULY 8, 2010 – "My administration will not rest until every American who is able and ready and willing to work can find a job"

... and all the while, the only things Obama focused on like a laser was advancing his 'redistribution of wealth' agenda: Obamacare, Financial Control, Cap & Trade, Internet and Talk Radio control, a failed Stimulus, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), growth of government, and ever increasing deficit spending.

It took some 35 minutes before Obama ever mentioned our looming deficit, albiet briefly with embarrassingly low-ball resolutions, while in the same speech stating a broken economy must "invest" more. His reference to a "Sputnik Moment" is laughable, when it was himself who put the kibosh on NASA.  More empty Obama speak, as he attempts to hide the truth.

We have a man in the White House who clearly does not know what he is doing, or how to fix a country on the brink of disaster. We have a man in the White House who is more comfortable on a soap box campaigning, as he has done for the last two years, dining out, vacationing, playing sports while 'Rome is burning'.

As Charles Krauthammer said in his great piece "Deaf on debt: Returning to old liberal ideas, President Obama ignores the American people":

From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?

So much for our "Sputnik moment".

The only way we can save our great country is to stay on top of our elected representatives, hold their feet to the fire, get rid of the weak-kneed moderates, and "Focus Like a Laser" in getting a constitutional conservative in the White House in 2012!

Senator Jim DeMint has some excellent suggestions in a recent email:

Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President
by Senator Jim DeMint - January 26, 2011

Dear Fellow Conservative:

The President used his State of the Union Address last night to disguise his liberal agenda in free-market, conservative rhetoric. Yet the specific policies he promoted are part of a deliberate strategy to grow the government at the expense of our personal freedoms and jobs.

For all of the talk in the media about how the President is moving to the center, he asked Congress last night to increase the role of the federal government in almost every area of our lives.

Rather than acknowledging the failure of his stimulus program to create jobs, the President claimed it saved our economy. Even worse, he called for more stimulus spending to "win the future".

You and I know that winning the future requires less government and more freedom, not the other way around.

Our Constitution is not indifferent toward liberal and conservative policies. It enumerates the very limited powers of the federal government and reserves everything else for the states.

Instead of calling for more federal intervention in our schools, the President should have called for reforms to allow states to opt-out of the ineffective and burdensome No Child Left Behind law.

Instead of calling for more federal intervention in our nation's highway system, he should have called on Congress to devolve these decisions to the states, which can build their own roads and bridges.

Instead of calling for a freeze in spending, the President should have called for a dramatic cut in spending to limit the size of government and balance the budget.

In nearly every area, the President is pushing America in the wrong direction. Unless Americans see through the rhetoric and stop his policies, we will lose our future. It's that simple.

Americans overwhelmingly elected Republicans this past election so they would put the brakes on the President's liberal agenda. I take that mandate very seriously and will do everything I can to stop the massive spending, takeovers, and debt that are destroying our country.

That is why I am introducing legislation in the Senate today to repeal the President's unconstitutional takeover of our nation's health care system.

The health care law was rammed through Congress despite widespread opposition from the American people. Yet the President told us last night to give up on repealing it, make only minor changes, and leave this experiment in socialism in place so it can strangle the greatest health care system in the world.

Not on my watch.

I'm not going to tell my children and grandchildren that I was around for this and failed to do everything I could to stop it.

Please contact your senators and encourage them to support the full repeal of the President's health care takeover.

Listening to the President last night reminded me of how much work we have to do to save the country we love. Even though we won many victories in the past election, the world's greatest salesman of socialism remains in the White House.

Fortunately, many Americans like you are alarmed by the direction of country and are taking positive action to send new leaders to Washington who will fight to save our country.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. Together, we can and we will secure America's future.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

ARE AMERICANS MORE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT?

The Heritage Foundation has a terrific piece on the true state of our unemployment:

Are Americans More Dependent On the Government?
by Amanda Reinecker, March 5, 2010

One of the pernicious consequences of ever-larger government is the increasing dependence of the population on the government for their well-being and livelihood. To drive this point home, experts in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis set out to answer the question, "are Americans more dependent on their government?" Their answer: Yes.

Dependency on government has spiked 31 percent since 2001, according to the 2009 Index of Dependence on Government. Heritage experts found that the total Americans dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care is a staggering 60.8 million. (Download the full report in PDF.)

The problem isn't a partisan one. In fact, our experts have identified a steady increase in dependency on government programs for each of the last seven years. The report's authors, including CDA director Bill Beach, clearly note that "the rapid expansion of dependency-creating programs did not begin with Barack Obama's inauguration."

But what sets this year apart from the others, writes Beach, is that "all of the evidence points to even more rapid increases in dependency ahead, which well could threaten democratic government." This is particularly true because America faces the pending mass retirement of the Baby Boom generation, as well as an increase in the number of people who pay no taxes whatsoever.

Since his inauguration, President Obama has worked to expand the size and scope of the federal government, rapidly deepening and expanding the reliance of the American people on federal programs. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the President's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — a.k.a. the "stimulus" — which essentially reversed welfare reform and reestablished dependency. The Left's health care "reform" would only make the problem worse.

"Americans should be concerned" about this year's Index, writes Beach. "Dependence on the federal government for life's many challenges strips civil society of its historical and necessary role in providing aid and renewal through the intimate relationships of family, community, and local institutions and governments."

Some fear that America is nearing a tipping point in the relationship between government and the private civic associations that have for so long defined our nation. But Beach believes this year's index score shows, "we've reached that point."

A brighter unemployment forecast? Not yet

According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed another 36,000 jobs in February, leaving the unemployment rate steady at 9.7 percent. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the fact that "only 36,000 people lost their jobs today … is really good." Now, The Heritage Foundation strongly believes in looking on the bright side of things. But only when there is a bright side.

The President's jobs deficit stands at 8.3 million. What does this mean? Heritage economic policy expert J.D. Foster explains:

Obama promised that if elected he would create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 through new economic policies, beginning with the enactment of a massive economic stimulus package. Accompanying his jobs promise, the President also emphasized accountability and measuring his presidency by results. The result of the President's jobs promise means total employment which in February stood at 129.5 million should be at least 137.8 million by the end of 2010, leaving the Obama jobs deficit at almost 8.3 million jobs.

This deficit, coupled with a forecast for 10 percent unemployment rates over the next two years, illustrates the failure of President Obama's "stimulus" package and underscores the need to explore economic policies that aren't dependent on increased spending and borrowing. (The bill for such policies, of course, is paid ultimately by the taxpayer.) Instead, Washington should truly "jump-start job creation," as the President has stated, by providing businesses with incentives to invest and take risks in pursuit of opportunity.

Individuals and businesses aren't starting new endeavors, investing, hiring new workers, or expanding into new markets because of their economic concerns and fears about intrusive new federal controls.

If lawmakers are really interested in getting the economy back on track, writes Foster, "the first step is to fire Washington's job destruction machine" and adopt pro-growth polices. Then maybe we'd see a brighter turn of events.

DECEPTION AS A PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNANCE

Everytime you hear the lie that Bush inherited a surplus when he took office after Clinton, always keep in mind "Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance." There is another tidbit to always keep in mind -- The left lies all the time; they have to (thank you, Mark Levin).

Although Bush did his fair share, it does not hold a candle to how liberals spend money and grow government -- in complete opposition to our Constitution. So much for what Obama inherited, more like what he created, but then he's not know for being truthful. They next thing we will here is him taking credit for Iraq. Oh, wait -- Joe Biden already did that. Hubris!

James Long writes about the deficits and debt that The One inherited in American Thinker:

Deception as a Principle of Governance
by James Long, February 11, 2010

The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton's term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on "Meet the Press," 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we'd stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on "This Week," 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton's last year in office turned decisively downward -- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats' projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton's last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton's last year. Axelrod's and Menendez's claims that the surplus was $236 billion on "[t]he day the Bush administration took over" were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the "Clinton surplus" were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush's term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The "Clinton surplus" fell $393 billion in twenty-four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan's victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton's dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats' mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.

Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ's wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.

President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama's disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

If Hillary is really interested in "heading toward eliminating our debt," then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.

In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term "pravda" is usually translated as "truth," but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as "the official word." The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstream Pravdas is that everything is President Bush's fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.

James Long is a professional engineer and manager.

BEHIND OBAMA'S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS

Over and over again, Obama spouts "I inherited this deficit, I inherited this recession, I inherited this financial crisis, I saved America from the brink, I gave tax cuts (REBATES) to of America". I -- I -- I, and still it's not about him. Uh-huh. Of course, the numbers are a lie in order to show off his magnificence, but the true numbers are far more interesting.

Dick Morris outlines the difference between truth and fiction in his interesting new piece:


BEHIND OBAMA'S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
by Dick Morris, February 1, 2010

President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced "when I walked in the door" of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Congressman Joe Wilson might have said "you lie," but we'll settle for "you distort."

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damn lies, and statistics.")

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit -- officially -- up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then...he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama's 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.

Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.

The interest rate we are now paying for the debt -- about 3.5% -- is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency/heroin stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other.

Obama's program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. He freezes very selected budget items while he shovels out new spending in his stimulus packages. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here's what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Those are the real numbers. Or, as Al Gore would have it, "the inconvenient truth."


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS RIGHT, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

In light of the spin we will inevitably be subject to tonight, let's get some real figures down. Firstly, a freeze is not a cut, and in order to get a grip on reducing our deficit, you have to reduce spending, Mr. President, but you already know that. That's just going to be Spin No. 1, and the most critical to our existance. Everything else takes a second seat, because if this county goes backrupt, the rest cannot be dealt with.

The freeze is "not a hatchet, it's not a scalpel, it's a Q Tip", and insults our intelligence. With the trillions and trillions being thrown around by this administration, Obama's "freeze" affects less than one-seventh, while on the other hand it freezes all the outrageous salary increases Obama made earlier this year by no less than 25%. When did any one of us got that kind of raise? And it's tax payer money!!

The Heritage Foundation has some earth shattering numbers:


President Obama Is Right, We Have A Spending Problem
The Heritage Foundation, January 27, 2010

Tonight in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is expected to propose a "freeze" on government spending. Obama's spending "freeze" will only last three years, will not start until 2011, will only apply to a $447 billion slice of the federal government's $3.5 trillion budget, and will not apply to any of the unspent $862 billion stimulus plan, his health care plan or the House of Representatives' additional $156 billion stimulus plan. Despite all the loopholes, time limits and procrastination, the President should still be commended for beginning to acknowledge reality. And as a new report issued yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows, the reality is this: the U.S. government has an insatiable spending problem.

The CBO's summary of the report is bad enough: "Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting ... accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 54% of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67% of GDP." But as bad as those numbers are, our fiscal health is actually worse. The CBO is forced by Congress to make a number of unrealistic assumptions about future revenue and spending changes. But their report makes up for this by including alternative projections that make more realistic assumptions. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl crunched those numbers and found:

The public debt -- $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 -- is projected to triple to $22.1 trillion by 2020.

Over what would be President Obama's eight years in office if re-elected, baseline budget deficits are projected to total $9.7 trillion -- nearly triple the $3.3 trillion in deficits accumulated by President George W. Bush.

By 2020, the budget forecasts a $1.9 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 98 percent of GDP and annual net interest spending surpassing $1 trillion.

Our country simply cannot afford to be spending $1 trillion in net interest in 2020. So what is the driving force behind these unsustainable deficits? Unprecedented rises in government spending. More Riedl numbers:

Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP.

Discretionary spending has increased 25 percent in three years -- not even counting the $311 billion in discretionary stimulus spending and approximately $150 billion in annual spending on the global war against terrorists.

In 2009, federal spending reached 24.7 percent of GDP -- the highest level in American history outside of World War II. Non-defense spending reached an all-time record of 20.1 percent of GDP.

Comparing our government's prolific spending habits with the decline in revenues from the recession, Riedl concludes: "Between 2010 and 2020, recession-depleted revenues are projected to gradually rebound to 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). Spending is projected expand to 25.9 percent of GDP -- well above 20.7 historical average. Compared to those averages, 88 percent of all additional deficits by 2020 come from additional spending (5.2 percent of GDP above average), and only 12 percent comes from low revenues (0.7 percent of GDP below average)."

So 88% of all of our crippling debt problems come from our government's inability to control its spending habits. Put in this light, President Obama's spending "freeze" is just a drop in the bucket. A credible commitment to reduce government spending would go much farther. For starters, the remaining TARP and stimulus funds should both be rescinded. Next, instead of the President's fungible "aggregate" spending freeze, tough hard spending caps should be enacted. Finally, Congress should disclose the massive unfunded obligations of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; put those programs on long-term budgets; and enact the necessary entitlement and programmatic reforms that can keep government within those limits.