Obama’s 2013 budget a far cry from Clinton ’93

February 19, 2012

More money, more money, more money.......Give me more money.

It is inevitable that every empty suit, every media made star, every failed politician eventually becomes irrelevant.

For no matter how great an orator one may be, the rhetoric eventually runs out or becomes so stale from incessant repeating that the mic can be turned to max and the ears in the room are still deaf to the noise.

Not necessarily invisible to the public eye, but irrelevant to the public conversation.

Barrack Obama has been close to that point for some time now but his 2013 “budget” is the tipping point that will forever be remembered in the annals of history as the moment the American public finally realized, “this guy just doesn’t get it”.

By submitting a budget so unrealistic that even Spock would call its assumptions “impossible” to achieve, Obama has shown that any reality behind his rhetoric of “responsible spending” is a non-existent reality.

$3,8 trillion in spending with $1.4 trillion of it borrowed.  Ever since we crossed the line from the “B” (billions and hundreds of billions) word over to the more compact “T” word (with just 1. this or 3. that) it seems harder and harder grasp the gravity of just how terrible a $1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit is.

In the interest of public service, follow me in the corner time capsule as we travel back in time a mere twenty years to the heady days of the beginning of the Clinton Presidency and life before the blue dress.

Just two short decades ago the ENTIRE federal budget was but only the $1.4 trillion that Obama is laying upon the backs of future generations today.

And to add insult to injury, the ENTIRE national debt held by the public was listed as $3.248 trillion.  (For you dwainbwains who lurk over her in silent troll mode:  that’s $550 billion LESS than pile of hypocrisy Obama just submitted.)

Or to put it another way:  In 1993 our national debt was $3.25 trillion, yet in just one term Obama has overseen the adding of over $5 trillion in NEW debt.

While Dear Leader defends his fantasy figures with the rhetoric of “this budget invests in education, infrastructure, technology, science, and all the other yada, yada, buzzwords”  think what has happened to the country over the past twenty years of spending.

The Department of Education alone has spent over one TRILLION dollars and yet test scores continue to nose-dive and children across the land continue to be held hostage by failing schools and the radicalized union leaders who run them.

While the EPA has spent billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars and put out reams of job strangling regulations it’s all in the name of “cleaner air and water”, the Corner doesn’t recall a “Mad Max” landscape of doom that needed ALL those regulations and tax dollars wasted.

When it was created by Jimmy Carter, (our most recent failed President, sans Obama), the Department of Energy’s mission was to get us off of foreign oil and secure America’s energy future.  And while the dollars burned through by this agency don’t rise to the Department of Educations, “T” range they are in the hundreds of billions.

An interesting side note is Obama’s Department of Agriculture request:  While in 2008 a little over $90 billion was sufficient, Dear Leader is requesting over $154 billion for 2013.  Can we say “food stamp President”?

But rather than reflect upon and learn from a history just twenty short years ago, Obama has doubled down on a spending spree that has but one destination:  fiscal ruin for this nation.

The left and the Dems are constantly clamoring that the “rich” just need to pay their “fair” share and cite going back to the Clinton era tax rates to achieve their fantasy “fairness”.

On that one point, the Corner could actually find agreement and common ground.

By all means, let’s revert to the Clinton era tax rates; as long as we also get the Clinton era budgets.  (Clinton may be a lot of things in his personal life but at least he wasn’t a Soros puppet hell bent on spending this nation into financial oblivion.)

Now jump forward from ’93 to just three short years ago to 2009 and the President’s “fiscal responsibility” summit statement where he said:

“We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences………I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office….”

Now he’s out on the campaign trail backtracking with “it was just far worse than we thought”.  Yet you could fill a semi with all the cries of “worst since the depression”, “crisis”, “emergency”, “must act”.

So which is it Mr. President, were you just fear-mongering for the stimulus slush fund or were you really that incompetent not to see what was really happening?  (The Corner submits it was BOTH.)

If Obama’s rhetoric had but a scintilla of truth behind it and but one reality that could be achieved from it, their would be room for the “compromise” he whines for. But the only truth we know today is that Obama’s rhetoric has never matched the reality of the truth and today is no exception.

It’s not just that the rhetoric has turned stale, it’s turned rotten at the core and it stinks to a heaven higher than the mountain of hypocrisy from which it comes.

And it is because of that, and because of his own actions and incompetence that Obama now finds himself irrelevant to the conversations being had by the majority of the country.

Perhaps never before in our nation’s history does the phrase “elections have consequences” ring so true.

We’ve seen the consequences now we just need the correction.

November 6, 2012:  Kick him our or kiss it goodbye.






Tags: , , , ,

9 Responses to Obama’s 2013 budget a far cry from Clinton ’93

  1. anson burlingame on February 19, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Except, Geoff,

    Obama’s message to continue spending in order to….. will resonate with a lot of voters, voters that have no idea how to live other than day to day, handout from government to handout from government. There is the great danger to the nation, the cumulative effect of all those handouts from the federal government.

    Liberals cover their tracks today by claiming, yes, deficits are too large BUT….. All those dots simply mean we NEED MORE, for now and will cut later on.

    I have the fear that American voters will “buy that bridge” (to Brooklyn). For now the GOP is being consumed with in-fighting of the worst sort and RELIGION is the topic of debate, might I say For Christ’s sake!!



    • Geoff Caldwell on February 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      Well for what it’s worth it was Obama and the left that created the “religion” vs. the faux free contraception “right” in the first place.
      Obama’s polling had him in the tank with independent women he HAD to do something, but he couldn’t run on his failed policies and pathetic record so he does the next best thing.
      Bring social issues front and center and divide the country even further. Yes, it’s cynical, yes it’s demeaning of the office, yes it’s Chicago thug politics at its worst but that IS Obama.

    • A Nonny Moose on February 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      So true. Liberals will say that it isn’t true that we’re too far in debt, because there’s plenty of money out there to pay it off! We just haven’t confiscated it all yet! We could just go back to 90% income tax rates for the 50% who still pay taxes (setting it to kick in at an income level of one dollar more than I make, of course) and the problem would go away overnight, if you greedy, evil conservatives would just get out of the way! And if that runs out, we’ll just Mugabe-ize the economy and print more! Problem solved! Take that ridiculous whistling past the graveyard and add to that all the years of work the Democrats have put in to create a populace that depends on the government for everything (and ergo, depends on electing Democrats to continue to coddle them and lie to them by telling them everything is all right), and you have our current state of affairs.

      Of course, the real problem was beautifully summarized by Margaret Thatcher in an interview on Thames Television in 1976 (This Week was the program). The question and her answer (which could oh so very, very easily be transported in time to today) follows (emphasis mine):

      Q: There are those nasty critics, of course, who suggest that you don’t really want to bring [the Labour Party] down at the moment. Life is a bit too difficult in the country, and that … leave them to sort the mess out and then come in with the attack later … say next year.

      A: I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

      Just replace “Labour” with “Democrat” and there ya go.

      • Geoff Caldwell on February 20, 2012 at 7:42 am

        Couldn’t agree more. Was driving back from Kansas yesterday and my wife was asking me if Obama could get re-elected. I unfortunately had to tell her, yes I think he could. Knowing how much damage he’s already done she couldn’t understand how anyone could still vote for him. I told her, “because, honey, this country has a ton of dumb people, millions who pay no attention to politics till the day the union bus shows up and carts then off to make their mark by the “D” candidate”.
        She was one of those ignorant of the political system till she married a political junkie and over the years her eyes have slowly opened but she’s having a hard time facing the reality of just how so many people want something for nothing and how the Democrat party is so different from the Democrat party her WWII, POW father belonged to.
        It’s fulfilling to see the lights coming on, but sad in seeing her reaction as she realizes how many of her fellow citizens just want “more” without first trying to do with “less”.

  2. Herb Van Fleet on February 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm


    Well, here you go again. As far as I know all of your numbers are correct, or at least close enough for government work. But you have left out the most important part – Why? It’s easy to simply pick a few numbers and show how they’ve changed, it’s not so easy explaining why those numbers got that way. If you are going to do an historical analysis, then in my opinion, you owe it to your readers to give them something other than a gross over-simplification of the finances of the largest and most complex government in the world.

    It’s also clear that you don’t know your history of the EPA or the Department of Energy, (although I agree we should probably s…can the other DOE.) There wouldn’t be a need for the EPA if private industry hadn’t tried to cut corners to save on costs and reward their stockholders by threatening the health of the public. Hooker Chemical, for example, decided it would be cheaper to dump toxic waste into Love Canal than to do the right thing. Once we found that out, EPA started finding other “Hooker” type violators and the next thing you know we got the Superfund act; signed into law by the worst of the worst, Jimmy Carter. Clean air and clean water may not be a big deal for you, but I think most Americans are willing to pay a little more in taxes to help abate pollution.

    Anson can fill you much better than I on the Department of Energy. But at the moment the DOE is responsible for the nation’s nuclear arms and related nuclear issues. What would president Caldwell do to maintain security in this area?

    I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Yes, federal regulations are too often overkill, especially OSHA, and they should be trimmed back to more reasonable levels. But the private sector bears a lot of the blame too. And more recently, this applies especially to the financial industry as well. We let the banks and investment firms run amuck by cutting back on regulations and what to we get? – a big fat housing bubble and the loss of $17 trillion (that’s trillion with a “T”) in the national wealth. Then, to add insult to injury, we spend billions and billions in bailouts to reward bad decisions. I think reasonable regulations would have gone a long way to help prevent such a catastrophe, and the cost for that would certainly not be in the hundreds of billions But that’s what happens when the capitalists take charge and the make themselves too big to fail.

    As usual, all this was addressed long ago by the founders; especially the formidable James Madison:

    “f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” (Federalist 51, 1788)


  3. Geoff Caldwell on February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am

    What part of my “history” is wrong? I never said we didn’t need the EPA at one point. I merely point out the billions that have been spent since ’93 that have had a questionable return. And as for the Department of Energy, I suggest you go back and check the actual history that supports what I wrote. As for you nuclear concerns those can be molded back into other already existing agencies.
    I don’t find those numbers just a “few” numbers. That fact that in just twenty years the federal government has grown so fast and so large that one year’s budget under Obama is now larger than the ENTIRE national debt just two decades past?
    And I agree Madison and the Founders had it best: limited, small government. (Which I do believe the column was pointing out how we just keep getting further and further from those principles.)

  4. Herb Van Fleet on February 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm


    As to the EPA, what am I supposed to conclude when I read, “While the EPA has spent billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars and put out reams of job strangling regulations it’s all in the name of “cleaner air and water”, the Corner doesn’t recall a “Mad Max” landscape of doom that needed ALL those regulations and tax dollars wasted.” I merely tried to point out that there are cases (historically speaking) where regulations and tax dollars were NOT wasted. Unless of course you think a cleaner environment is not worthy of tax dollars. Had you actually said,“the billions that have been spent since ’93 that have had a questionable return” as you did in your response, I never would have spoken up.

    Also, regarding your statement that, “the Department of Energy’s mission was to get us off of foreign oil and secure America’s energy future . . ,” I pointed out that the DOE also had another, and in my opinion, a much more important mission – protecting our nuclear arsenal.

    My reference to the “numbers” is simply a response to your statement that, “In 1993 our national debt was $3.25 trillion, yet in just one term Obama has overseen the adding of over $5 trillion in NEW debt.” That’s just a non-sequitur. Unless you detail the events and the budgets throughout the intervening years, your argument makes no sense. Remember “W”?

    In terms of the federal budget, I think the real debate here is between the Keynesians and the followers of Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics (which also included Milton Friedman.) The Keynesians believe that government can spend it’s way out of a depression, while the Austrians say government should incentivize free enterprise to grow it’s way out. Clearly, Obama and the dems are for Keynes and the conservatives are pro-business Hayekians. Seems to me that both of those economic philosophies are in play. But it’s become a really dirty game.


    p.s., Notice that I didn’t use the “H” word? I think I ought to get some points for that.

    • A Nonny Moose on February 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      Couldn’t agree more on the Keynes versus Hayek battle. And needless to say, I believe the scam that John Maynard Keynes has pulled off would embarrass even Charles Ponzi. The only thing left to find out, in my opinion, is how many times Keynesian economics has to fail, and fail miserably, before reasonable people throw his theories in the latrine. Then again, we may all be serfs by then.

      • Herb Van Fleet on February 21, 2012 at 1:17 pm


        “We may all be SERFS by then.” Reference to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” Love it.

        On a more serious note, I think it’s important to understand the power of politics in economic policy making. Consider this from Wikipedia: “New Dealers never accepted the Keynesian argument for government spending as a vehicle for recovery. Most economists of the era, along with Henry Morgenthau of the Treasury Department, rejected Keynesian solutions and favored balanced budgets” Maybe we should send Obama a copy of Hayek’s book.



September 2021
« Jul