Strangely, I recently ran across an old college chum who just happens to have served on Bush 43's Council of Economic Advisors. Since we were roomies many years ago, I'd had plenty of civilized, if not always sober discussions with him on issues far more complex than I'd ever run into in the classroom back in those days. So I asked him: what's up with this short memory? I promised I'd save the debate for when we next had a beverage together, that I was truly curious to hear his much better informed opinion on this issue.
Before he could answer, and in fact, about the time I figured I wouldn't hear from him again for another 15 years, I ran across this article:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
(sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it... I'm still too lazy to paste in the code to make it a link)
Anyhoo, what this article points out is that while W left office with a $500 billion deficit after his 8 years, and yes, that's SPENDING, so it includes the un-budgeted war costs as well as the budgeted stuff, Obama proposes $1.75 TRILLION THIS YEAR. (The CBO predicts $1.85 trillion, but what's a hundred billion between friends... let's give big O the benefit of the doubt here)
As promised, Obama predicts cutting THAT deficit in half by 2012, trimming it down to a nice lean $600 billion. Which, for those of you who can't think beyond a sound bite or remember three paragraphs ago, is still $100 billion more than the what W left him in terms of deficit. So far, I'm cool with that... progress ain't cheap.
Now I know what you're thinking: give him a second term and that will take care of it... he'll leave office with the budget evened up again. (or, more likely, you're thinking, did Luth fall down and bump his head?!) WROOONG! (on both) Projected out to 2016, O's own numbers approach $700 billion while the CBO's projection reaches $900 billion. In fact, O's friends at the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post project the results of his spending out to 2019 (not sure why or how) where it locks in at around $1.2 trillion, breaking the "t" barrier once again.
That's a lot of dough.
If I knew it would buy my kids and their kids healthcare or electric cars or jobs, I might be willing to risk what that would do to what's left of our economy, but if we've pulled the public option off the table and I still can't buy a half ton pickup with a 4-cylinder diesel engine that gets 20 mpg while towing, I'm out. I don't see what's in it for me. I still like the fact that the current guy with the launch codes can actually pronounce the word nuclear. I still like him better than the last guy, but liking the guy won't get him another vote in 2012. I know when to jump off the runaway train.
The last time I was in Windsor, Ontario, I was amazed at how much it resembled the midwest. I could live there... the other side of Lake Erie is almost as cool as this side! Or Tirennia, Italy, now there's a coastal town for me!
Luth,
Out
7 comments:
I'm trying my hardest to find some fault in your post, Luth.... but I can't. No, I didn't fall down and hit my head either.
Obama's popularity has been falling lately, and I think you have hit on why. Bush's popularity plunged the second half of his second term for some of the same reasons, one big one was his fiscal policies.
If Bush had been legally able to run for a third term, he would most likely have lost dismally. By the end of term two he lost a significant part of his support base. Too many of us thought he was acting like a tax and spend liberal. It became more obvious that the Neocons were not the same as those of us who call ourselves conservatives.
Obama and the Democrats last fall faulted the Republicans, rightfully so, for creating a huge deficit after Clinton worked hard to erase the previous one. Now Obama seems to be making it worse. He was elected with a huge amount of crossover vote - that will quickly evaporate. But, he is between a rock and a hard place, literally. I believe he truly does want more bipartisanship, but that is only alienating his base, the far left.
I kind of like the idea of a deserted South Sea Island.
"...the other side of Lake Erie is almost as cool as this side!"
I bet in the middle of winter it is even cooler.
Luth, when you do pop back up on your blog, I have a question for you. August has been the deadliest month in the past 8 years of war in the Middle East. Worse than any month under Bush, and it is in Afghanistan, Obama's war. Bush pulled out of there.
Obama and the Dems ran on a peace platform last fall, Obama promised he'd bring the troops back, but he is turning out to be as much of a warmongerer as Bush was.
Where is the liberal outcry? Where is Shaheen? Why isn't the press and others making as much noise as they did with Bush?
C'mon Ray, why the slow, hanging curveball? Everyone knows Bush didn't completely pull out of Afghanistan, he just gutted our forces there to send most of them to Iraq for no good reason thus undercutting the progress we'd actually made there in a fairly short time.
I'd guess that most O supporters feel that the outcry took place during the election (if one term too late) and now is not the time to start blaming O for trying to clean up the mess he inherited. In fact, while troop deaths were up in August, civilian deaths were the lowest they've been since the war started. So if you need a number to support him...
Finally, if the press had provided this kind of coverage in 2003 (instead of say, "Mission Accomplished" coverage or never questioning the bad intelligence) more people would have opposed the war in the first place - don't even try to play that "liberal media" myth on MY blog!! ;)
Let's just imagine if W would have received similar coverage as such matters of national security as,say, Monica Lewinsky, he wouldn't have had to worry about running for a second term. Impeached presidents usually don't! (Of course, HIS supporters probably would have voted for him anyway. After all, they did in 2004!)
Yep Luth and you just popped up that curve ball and I flied out.
If you go back to all my posts about the war, you should see that I was opposed to it all along. Bush was wrong. He started it. Obama inherited it. Absolutely no argument from me on that.
My argument now is Obama ran last year on the promise of pulling out of the Middle East, but he appears to be escallating the war effort instead. His advisors are deeply divided on which way to go, more or fewer troops. And who will he listen to?
So, you are right, those conservatives who were pro-war with Bush have no right to complain now. But, if anti-war liberals do not put pressure on Obama now, then they lose the moral high ground. It appears based on their acceptance, that they have conceded and have admitted war is justified afterall.
I meant, you flied out above....
You mean "flew" as in out of the park! Obama has yet to invade a sovereign nation. Cleaning up the messes created before he took office is not war-mongering. I've argued that we should pull out of Iraq for a long time, but we actually did some good in Afghanistan and we should probably do it again before we bail. In fact, at this point, I even feel bad enough for the Iraqis that we probably ought to try to restore some kind of order there before we pull out too.
We shouldn't have had to do this, but it's too late for that now. Still, the real point is, O didn't invade, he's just cleaning up the mess. If there's no order whatsoever in either place, then an exodus becomes another "last helicopter out of Saigon" and that's not good for us or them. So in order to exit, we must first clean up all that W layin' around.
Post a Comment