Our Fiscally Unserious President

US President Barack Obama speaks on the

Last night President Obama accepted his party’s nomination to run for a second term as President, just as the nation’s debt clock clicked over $16 trillion, a sum he’s added to more than any other president in the history of the country.

So, not surprisingly, the president talked a bit about fiscal matters.  He said that he worked with Congress to cut $1 billion in spending last year, and that “experts” have scored his budget plan (the one that got zero votes in Congress) as cutting $4 trillion in spending.

Click to watch the video.

Those are certainly big numbers the President is talking about, but let’s give them some context.

First, the federal government cutting $1 billion in spending is trivial.  The federal government spends almost $4 billion every single day.  What Obama with Congress to cut amounts to a few hours worth of spending.

Not exactly something worth bragging about.

As for the $4 trillion over 10 years, even if we assume Obama is using honest accounting (and he’s not, he’s basing the “cuts” on his past budgets which really have no bearing on actual spending since his party hasn’t allowed us to pass any budgets out of Congress since 2009), that’s still not much of an improvement.  It cuts out to about a $400 billion reduction in the annual budget deficit still leaving us with about a $700 billion – $800 billion annual budget deficit.

That would still be a larger budget deficit than anything the federal government ever ran pre-Obama, and it would still be roughly double the deficits from the President who is second to Obama in terms of record deficit spending (George W. Bush).

Granted, $400 billion less per year in deficit spending would be great (again stipulating to Obama’s undoubtedly cooked math), but it would still leave our nation’s finances well into the danger zone.

We need a leader more serious about these matters than Obama.

 

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • mickey_moussaoui

    disingenous looter

  • Willy Dunderfinch

    700 billion in tax cuts for the rich is what we need that will fix everthing

    • sbark

      so covetting other peoples property will solve a addictive spending habit of the Dem’cats?……..
      This last Trillion added by the Dem’ats…………took only 286 days….

      If the Govt would grab 100%……..100% of Exxon and Walmarts profits, some 46.7 billion……….it would finance the Obama Regime for 5 days….to Jan 5th

      so lets grab 100% of the profits from the other 498 Fortune 500 Co’s……….it would finance the Regime from Jan 5th all the way to Feb 29th……..

      who’s left———the middle class?

      Meanwhile the Fortune 500 Co’s move to more friendly areas of the world pretty quickly…..

      • Albert Lickenspittle

        Asking people to pay their share is coveting now ? When the waitress gives me my bill I will just tell her she is coveting my money. Spinning is what this blog is about, and perhaps Rob will give you a spinner hat.

        • sbark

          your now advocating outright theft……..you received a service you asked for, and simply want to not pay.
          You look at the “poor” as helpless idiots—-in fact the Dem’cat party looks at the vast majority of USA citizens in that light—-too stupid to do things without govt intervention…………
          People are generally much more self sufficient and can help themselves than the Dem’cats give them credit for.
          Your “fair share”……couldnt finance the Obama Dem’cat spending addiction for no more than a few weeks at max……….and then Dem’cats would lower the “rich” again.
          Under Clinton rich was 2 million……….already the Dem’cats have lowered it to 250k……….
          To pay for their addiction………the left would need to tax all the way down to their definition of poor….30k…….above 30k would be rich………….and even then they’d add more spending to warp the budget again………..

    • Bat One

      Albert/Emil/Willy, etc. Sock-puppetry aside, you’ve been spouting that nonsense that the Bush tax rate cuts cost the US Treasury $700 billion. Problem is, I don’t’ think you know enough or are smart enough to prove it! Can you?

    • Lisa

      Poor little willieB. What a loser.

  • SigFan

    No one so far has put out a serious plan to actually cut the cost of government – not simply reduce the rate of growth in spending – but actually cut it. Even the Romney/Ryan plan does the same thing though more steeply. That said, I will take Romney and Ryan over the Spendthrift-in-Chief, but we the people need to make them and the rest of the noobs in DC understand that we want the cost of government along with the reach of government brought back to sanity.

    • Albert Lickenspittle

      Our country has obligations. Our first obligation is to make sure the rich do not suffer. We can cut the budget, but we must find a way to protect the Bush Tax cuts. Many of the not so rich cannot afford private jets. How are they supposed to take winter vacations? Now that Mitt has a car elevator, everyone is going to want one. This is just one more expense the rich will have that we will not. They need all the help we can give them.

      • SigFan

        You never answered the question I asked you the other day Emil/Albert/Willy. What percentage of your income do you think it’s “fair” for the government to take? Can we put you down for a 50% contribution – you know – to help meet our obligations?

        • sbark

          why stop at 50% for those that whine for “fair share”———-if they trust the govt so fully, they could hand over some 90% and just wait for some beuracrat to give them back what is deemed their “needs”

          “A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.” — Alexis de Tocqueville, 1836

        • http://pocketjacksblog.blogspot.com Jay W.

          It’s because the answer is always “a little bit more”. It doesn’t matter what the baseline is.

          • SigFan

            True. What I’ve found though is fools like this that continually harp on people paying their “fair share” mean that everyone else needs to pay, not them.

        • Albert Lickenspittle

          I would gladly pay the rates of the Eisenhower or Clinton era. Any more questions?

          • jl

            Sure, if we had the spending of the Eisenhower or Clinton era. Any more stupid pronouncements, idot?

          • Bat One

            Actually, yes, I have a question. Under three different sock-puppet names you have stated that the Bush tax rate cuts cost the US Treasury $700 billion in lost revenue. I would like to see you actually prove that assertion. I don’t believe you can do so.

  • Willy Dunderfinch

    The responsible thing to do would be to double defense spending and cut all social programs. That will teach the poor to get off their buts and help pay for the tax cuts the rich need.

    • Gern Blanston

      Do you have anything constructive to add? Or are you just as ass?

  • Harold

    I think the message I got from Obama’s speech is that I haven’t totally destroyed this country yet and if you give me 4 more years I’ll be able to finish that job completely.

    • $8194357

      His preffered method?
      Executive order….
      By: Dennis M. Patrick
      Date: September 7, 2012

      THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
      Our American government is essentially impervious to adulteration
      but it isn’t perfect. There are duplicitous ways in which our tripartite
      government might be undermined. One way is through the use of
      presidential Executive Orders (EOs) in the face of congressional roadblocks.
      This is not conspiratorial. It’s a fact. The president can shape
      his own laws to advance his own agenda. Historically, some very notable
      EOs were used for better or for worse. They promulgated Abraham
      Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. They were used by FDR to inter
      Japanese Americans in camps during WWII. EOs were used by Harry Truman
      to integrate the US Armed Forces and by Eisenhower to desegregate public
      schools.
      According to the Federal Register, “Executive orders are official
      documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the
      United States manages the operation of the United States.” EOs appear in
      the daily Federal Register as each EO is signed by the president and
      received by the Office of the Federal Register.
      Although there is no law or Constitutional provision for EOs, there
      is a vague grant through the executive power clauses (Art. II, Sec. 1,
      Clause 1 and Art. II, Sec. 3, Clause 5) of the US Constitution. The
      intent is to help executive branch office holders carry out their
      delegated duties and normal operations. EOs have the full force of law.
      It is when the effect of the EOs move outside the executive branch that
      they become a problem.
      All presidential directives are considered a form of EO. National
      Security Directives and Homeland Security Directives are a few examples.
      Broadly worded EOs may also facilitate or provide the basis for
      executive department directives and visa versa. Obama is using EOs and
      other directives to advance his energy, environmental and fiscal objectives.
      Accordingly, the Obama administration effectively set aside
      portions of the 1996 welfare reform act. Under a February 28, 2011
      Presidential Memorandum, Health and Human Services and the Department of
      Labor were authorized to waive the work requirements for welfare, a
      central facet of the 1996 law, without congressional approval. HHS
      implemented its decision on July 12, 2012.
      In a reverse manner, because congress failed to pass the “Dream
      Act” on immigration, Obama used an EO to grant amnesty to a million
      children of Hispanic parents illegally in the US.
      The use of EOs is neither secret nor clandestine. In February 2010
      then White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel proposed using EOs to
      bypass congress or sidestep laws hindering the Obama administration’s
      decisive approach toward governing. “We are reviewing a list of
      presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across
      a front of issues,” declared Emanuel in the February 12, 2010 New York
      Times article by Peter Baker.
      To date, President Obama has signed 137 Executive Orders affecting
      in excess of 900 additional EOs from previous administrations through
      amendment or rescission. Some EOs go as far back as the Eisenhower
      administration. However, all of these accumulated EOs establish powers
      President Obama can use to cobble together an Imperial Presidency.
      If Congress, and especially the Democrat-controlled Senate, stands
      idly by, and the Justice Department takes no action, Obama can assume
      power greater than specified in the US Constitution. After all, it is
      Obama’s stated objective to fundamentally change America. This from a
      President who said in his speeches and books that the US Constitution
      was written by a bunch of white guys for their own social and economic
      benefit at the expense of others.
      The real threat is the centralized control by the federal
      government over free citizens. Control over health care, food production
      and distribution, energy, transportation, banking and financial sectors
      becomes a means to an end. The vehicle is the Executive Order dealing
      with any vaguely defined national emergency. In these instances congress
      may not review implementation of emergency actions for up to six months.
      Contrary to current thinking, the presidency was intended to have a
      limited role. The Founding Fathers did not craft the US Constitution
      designating an executive with the power of a king. Use of authoritarian
      decrees such as EOs by the president can compromise our democratic republic.

      Dennis M. Patrick

  • davoarid

    What percent of the deficit is the result of the Wars, the Bush-era tax cuts, and the recession?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Why don’t you go and do your own research? But I will say this: A) Federal tax receipts rose after the Bush tax cuts. The idea that they dampened revenues is a myth. And b) the recession did shrink revenues, but our politicians irresponsibly continued to spend money they didn’t have.

  • $8194357

    Quote:
    Gary DeMar
    Goldfather Politics
    Watching the Democrat National Convention reminded me of two black and white films from the 1940s that mention Democrats. The first is The Heavenly Body (1944) starring Hedy Lamarr, William Powell, Nancy Potter, and James Craig. It’s about a woman (Lamarr) who’s neglected by her astronomer husband (Powell) who’s pursuing a comet late at night rather than his beautiful wife.
    Lamarr’s next-door neighbor (Potter) tries to interest her in astrology as a way to help her sort out her frustrations. At first Lamarr is skeptical given the fact that her husband is a world-renowned scientist and would consider astrology as the antithesis of astronomy. Potter’s character responds to Lamarr’s skepticism:
    “You talk as if astrology is something to be ashamed of, like witchcraft or being a Democrat.”
    Exactly! Democrats believe in magic, a form of witchcraft, when it comes to economic theory and practice. They believe they can turn stones into bread, paper into real money, and electronic digits into wealth. They also believe that if you tax the rich, wealth will be created for everybody else. The reality is, “No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity,” and Democrat voter magic won’t change that truth.
    Unfortunately, there are too many Republicans who also follow the stars of John Maynard Keynes rather than sound economic charts.
    The other film is Ghost Breakers (1940) starring Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard. There’s a discussion between Hope and Richard Carlson about what a zombie is. Here’s Carlson’s definition and why zombies are a problem:
    “The problem with zombies is that they have no will of their own. They wander the night, mindless, never knowing or caring where they are going or what they are doing.”
    Bob Hope’s response is classic: “You mean like Democrats?”

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6945/democrats-are-zombies-and-believe-in-a-form-of-witchcraft/#ixzz25onyIPm9

Top