The Coming Obama Spending Explosion

The Coming Obama Spending Explosion
By Examiner Editorial
– 10/24/08

If you worry about the skyrocketing federal deficits of the Bush era, just wait till the Obama administration hits town. Spending pyrotechnics will be spectacular if Barack Obama is elected and his liberal Democrat allies increase their majorities in Congress come Nov. 4.

We already know that Obama has proposed more than $800 billion in new spending, and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing a $300 billion “stimulus” package on top of the $1 trillion-plus in Wall Street bailouts already approved. Obama defends this spending explosion as “spreading the wealth.” What hasn’t received enough attention, though, are the absurd spending plans already proposed by Obama and other liberals in Congress, plans that would surely come to fruition with expanded Democratic majorities and a like-minded president. House Republican Leader John Boehner put together a helpful compendium of half-baked Democratic spending bills that are sure to re-emerge like the living dead:

• Tax relief for trial lawyers — $1.5 billion worth over a decade by changing rules to encourage more and riskier “jackpot justice” lawsuits. (Section 311 of H.R. 6049.)
• Obama’s own proposed Global Poverty Act that would require the United States to spend its own money working at “eradicating extreme hunger, promoting gender equality, empowering women… ensuring environmental sustainability…[and] achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers” worldwide. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy did the math and concluded this would amount to a new commitment of $845 billion in new foreign aid through 2015. (S.2433)
• New federal subsidies to buy gas for families making up to three times the federal poverty line, which would be $63,600 in annual income for a family of four. (H.R. 6561)
• Wage insurance. Create a new federal payroll tax on all workers to pay for “insurance” that would – get this – pay people up to 50 percent of the difference in wages between an old job and a new, lower-paying job. So if John Doe voluntarily takes a new job that requires 10 hours less work per week, the government would pay him for five of the hours that he doesn’t work – courtesy of other, harder-working wage earners.
• A new, Cabinet-level, multi-billion-dollar federal Department of Peace, dedicated to “peace education and training.” (H.R. 808)

These plans make clear that it would be the wealth of ordinary taxpayers being spread, mostly to people who didn’t earn it. The criminal justice system calls such a process “armed robbery” (because the government’s taxing power is backed up with arms). At this rate, “change we can believe in” would quickly become “nobody has any change left.”

Article at:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/The_Coming_Obama_Spending_Explosion.html

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Coming Obama Spending Explosion”

  1. huxbux Says:

    Let’s take a look at your laundry list of Democrat spending bills.

    HR 6049: Section 311 was removed from the bill during revision. While it would lead to more contingency cases, it would also encourage higher quality lawyers to represent contingency clients – clients who are poor and unable to afford retainer fees. It’s actual intent is to shift the quality of lawyers for those who are unable to afford high quality lawyers by reduce those lawyers who propogate “jackpot justice”.

    S 2433: The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1 million per year. The report reads “Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. S. 2433 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.” At a cost of $1 million per year, there are not many cheaper ways to improve our international image.

    H.R. 6561: Requests 2.5 billion dollars in temporary subsidies for the years 2008 and 2009. Total cost 5 billion dollars. Expensive?

    H.R. 808: While far too encompassing, the intent is proper which is promote our standing in the world and in turn offering a nonviolent tool in the fight against terrorism.

    Since this is such a black and white, Democrat and Republican issue for you, here’s a simple fact. Since WWII, the national debt has increased an average of 3.2% a year under Democrats and 9.2% under Republicans.

  2. Tom Says:

    How quaint that you state “a nonviolent tool in the fight against terrorism”. How naive can you be. These terrorist that you so very much want to nonviolently fight would behead you in a mniute to prove there point. Get educated on Islamofascism. They don’t propagate to live in peaceful co-existence with us. They demand that you give up all your beliefs and live and pray as they do. They also believe that “infidels” are not living beings to respect. They slaughter us like cattle. Didn’t 9-11 teach you anything at all. Oh wait you are probably one of those uneducated fools that think we brought that attack on ourselves.
    You did all that research on all these spending bills to argue your point that Democraps are better for the USA than Republicans. Then you washed away the entire argument by stating the Liberal mantra that we have to “talk” too the sworn enemies of the USA. To hell with talk. We talk on our terms not the enemy. We “talked” to the soviets fro 50 years and got nowhere. It was Reagan that taught us that you achieve “Peace through Strength”.
    No other country in history has done for mankind what the USA has done in the past century. We are the first country in when disaster strikes and the last to leave.
    Another note to help educate you. Presidents propose budgets to Congress. The Congress creates and enacts the budget. The democraps have controlled congress for all but 12 years since WWII. So stop with the liberal taking points and try to get the facts from both sides of the aisle. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

  3. huxbux Says:

    I can see your a man of platitudes – black and white, good and evil, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. I can see you’ve already categorized me into one of your preconceived notions. None-the-less, I’ll attempt at having a civil discourse with you.

    I am familiar with the teachings of the Koran and you are right that it preach that all non-believers, if unwilling to convert, are deserving of death. However, I’m a sophisticated enough to recognize that not all Arabs espouse to such a a radical form of Islam. It is the ones that do which we must fight.

    The terrorists we must rightly defeat are not inherently tied to any government institution. This is not a conventional war in which we can topple a government and claim victory. We are fighting an enemy that has no border or name. It’s a guerrilla war we are fighting, and if you are familiar with military tactics, you would know that a defeating a successful guerrilla organization requires tactics beyond just the use of conventional forces.

    You’ll probably be surprised that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and although I did not support the invasion of Iraq, post fact I see value in having our troops there, specifically because it drew the terrorists to a central location where we could engage them. The fact that you automatically ascribe some liberal loving, hippie anti-war label to me is insulting to my intelligence and an indicator of yours.

    But the war we are involved in, as I said, requires more then just conventional military power. It requires other non-military tactics to attack the terrorist infrastructure. The employment of freezing assets of suspected organizations supportive of terrorists was one method used by Bush. Our current efforts in Iraq to provide them with a functioning democratic government is another. One of Bush’s primary reasons for invading Iraq was to create a democratic, free nation in the Middle East in the hopes that it would promote regime changes throughout the region.

    These are all non-violent means of combating terrorism. The use of reducing poverty, which is a primary target for terrorist recruitment, would be another non-violent tool in the guerrilla war we are engaged in. It’s just another tool in our arsenal to use in the battle to defeat the terrorist infrastructure.

    Simply because I realize, as well as Democrats and Republicans and military leaders, that the use of non-conventional tactics is essential to the success of defeating the terrorists does not preclude me from supporting conventional means. No where did I ever say we need to “talk” to the terrorists. No where did I reject the use of military power to fight the terrorists.

    You make the mistake of thinking in terms that our enemy is some government or nation. Or that it’s some entire population confined within a geographical border. The analogy to the Soviet Union is not quite the same, and success won’t require the same strategy.

    The idea that just puffing our chest out will produce results or the collapse of our enemy is dubious. To cite your example of the Soviet Union(which really doesn’t imply here because we’re not fighting a government), among foreign policy experts and historians, the primary reason the Soviet Union collapsed was due to the inherent flaws in Communism that stifled economic development. Whether or not the United States or Reagan even existed, the Soviet Union would have dissolved on it’s own. That’s not to say that Reagan didn’t do well in his foreign policy decisions towards the USSR, but don’t confuse correlation with causation.

    I’m well aware that the Democrats have controlled Congress for all of but twelve years since WWII. I knew throwing that out would rile you up since you struck me as the partisan type. I assume your also aware that the biggest increase in deficit spending occurred during the Reagan administration and Congress was not controlled by either party for 6 out of his 8 years in office(the Democrats controlled the house for 8 years, the Republicans the Senate for 6).

    I appreciate you calling me naive and a liberal based on nothing more then your preference to label people according to whether or not they agree or disagree with your ideology. I also thank you for putting words in my mouth by saying I want to just sit down with the terrorists for a tea party and talk. Feel free to twist, distort, or otherwise fabricate the points I’ve made provided they neatly fit into your platitudes.

  4. wander-rant Says:

    Am I the only one out here that thinks HuxBux is Tom’s other MPD personality?

    OK, so maybe it’s just me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: