President Obama and the Democrat led Congress end 2009 with holiday spending spree

A Progress Report

In his “jobs speech”, President Obama implicitly acknowledged that last February’s $1.2 trillion stimulus package has failed. Then he demanded another one in order to bolster his plan to “spend our way out of this recession.” But given the failure of the first stimulus highlighted by wasteful spending unearthed in the Coburn-McCain report, as well as the stifling deficits the Obama administration is already running, more government spending will mean more debt, more waste and more unemployment.

Titled “Stimulus Checkup,” the Coburn-McCain report exposes 100 projects paid for by February’s $787B stimulus package they claim already wasted at least $7 billion, and the stimulus is only 15% spent. Some of the most egregious items include; $5 million for alternative energy in a mostly empty shopping mall in Tennessee, and $1.6 million for fossil research in Argentina for Penn State University. A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism, and $100,000 was spent for a socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota. The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana, and the National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to “hook up” after drinking alcohol. (dah!) There’s even $30,000 to study how methamphetamines affect the sex drive of female rats, and $50,000 for a global warming field trip to Copenhagen for 11 students. The Coburn/McCain report shows insult to injury for the millions of American workers who aren’t involved in one of the Left’s pet causes or who do not have high-powered friends in the Democratic Party.

In response to the senators’ report, White House spokesman Liz Oxhorn said, “In the end, even if there are a few unwise projects, it is only a handful out of the over 50,000 projects that have been approved to date.” But those other 49,000 plus projects haven’t exactly succeeded either. Obama sold the first stimulus by warning that the unemployment rate could reach 9 percent without a large infusion of money. Unemployment is now circling 10 percent, with his large infusion, and the November unemployment report showed 15.4 million unemployed Americans (that's a 3 million increase since the $787 billion stimulus was passed), with another 9.2 under-employed, part-time workers.

The worst part of Obama’s new stimulus is that he wants to pay for it with leftover or repaid TARP funds. A recent Treasury Department report shows it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer approved bank bailout funds faster than expected. But, as Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said from the floor of the House on Tuesday, “To use money from the TARP fund in the manner that is being discussed by the White House and congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American taxpayer.”

Anticipating a tough sell to congressional Republicans, Obama invited House GOP leaders to an arm-twisting session at the White House. But Republicans were having none of it, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor gave Obama an alternative plan to create jobs that would add nothing to the deficit. Cantor’s proposal would halt stifling business regulations, approve pending trade agreements and freeze domestic discretionary funding, among other measures. Those are all welcome ideas, but were not welcomed by the Obama administration.

The national debt stands at $12 trillion. The federal government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit in 2009 (more than triple last year’s deficit), and the 2010 deficit is expected to be even higher. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the Democrat’s health care reform plan and cap-and-trade legislation in most part because of their catastrophic costs.

Aside from the stimulus package, the government found a few other 2009 "investments" to give them the appearance of caring about your pain just a little to much. They chose to spend $3B on the cash for clunkers program that helped people buy 690,000 new automobiles. After discounting those who were going to buy a car anyway, but took advantage of the $4000 "clunker" discount (565,000), the program ended up spending $24,000 per incentivized vehicle (125,000). Then they chose to spend $10B on a first time home buyer tax credit program that, after discounting those who wre not first timers and thise would have bought a house anyway (80%), but took advantage of the $8000 tax credit, the program ended up spending $75,000 per house. Oh wait, I've got one more. The governments horrendous $75B mortgage mitigation program that was supposed to help people (of merit) who's home was about to be foreclosed. As of mid-December, some 759,000 homeowners had received some loan modifications on a trial basis typically lasting three to five months. But only about 31,000 had received permanent modifications. So far, the program is only 25% utilized, and at last record, ended up spending about $871,000 per saved mortgage. Average price of those homes? $178,000 (WTF!!?) This is your money people!! This is the reason for future tax increased and yet another reason for spending cuts (both the easy and the painful).

President Obama signed a mammoth omnibus spending bill variously described as costing $447 billion or $1.1 trillion, depending on whether "mandatory" spending for programs such as Medicare and Social Security were included in the tabulation. The spending package will keep much of the federal government running through next September. Now, when government revenues are low, you would think the federal government would be downsizing and taking waste-cutting measures, much the same as the state governments have, but dozens of federal agencies received average budget increases of 10 percent. The $787 billion spending bill passed in the spring was supposed to address the recessionary needs of the country over the next couple years. So there is no reason for additional spending in the "budget bills" other than marginal adjustments for inflation. Some critics of the bill noted that thousands of earmarks were included. Earmarks the President himself vowed would no longer be allowed. According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, the spending bill features more than 5,200 disclosed lawmaker earmarks worth $3.9 billion. Republicans are playing this up to highlight the Democrats’ willingness to keep spending even as our government nears the federal debt limit. The $3.9 billion in earmarks comprises less than one-half of one percent of the total cost of the bill. I guess $4 billion is little more than a "rounding error" or "pocket change", but it's your pocket change!! The 10% increase over last years bill amounts to $50 billion. Is that pocket change too!!?

"It is business as usual, spending money like a drunken sailor, and the bar is still open," declared Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) during debate on the bill.

President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military operations in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion split pretty evenly between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The defense bill was the last of 12 annual spending bills to be sent to the president. The "defense bill" also carried about $13.3 billion in "non-defense" spending, most of it for temporary extensions of several domestic programs Congress claims they didn't have time to consider separately. Truth is, some are highly contentious programs that would not have passed unless tied to troop funding. Others are embarrassing fixes to previous legislation that they hope goes unnoticed buried in billions of dollars of defense spending.

Lawmakers extended through February a package of emergency unemployment and health-care benefits, a stopgap provision to ensure that unemployment benefits aren't cut off over the holidays. (got elections next year) They had been part of this year's poorly thought through $787 billion economic-stimulus package. Those benefits include health-insurance subsidies for laid-off workers under the federal COBRA program. The benefit had been slated to expire at the end of this month. Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and provided funding for Medicare to forestall (for two months) a scheduled 21 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly(doc fix). It appears congress has made several mistakes in previous legislation and needs to spends money, every couple months, to "kick the can down the road" a couple more months.

The bill includes about $11 billion more spending than the fiscal 2009 bill, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding for fiscal 2010 brings to more than $1 trillion the money approved since Sept. 11 for the wars, veterans' care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security. That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan. (an absolute bargain when compared to $1 trillion of failed, socialist, stimulus spending, just this year!!)




Mrs. Robin Hood


The issue of unspent bank bailout funds (TARP) also arose, and Republicans are pushing for unspent funds, and loans repaid by the banks already, to be used exclusively for debt reduction, while Democrats want to spend it on job creation programs they somehow forgot to write into the $787 billion stimulus package. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to reuse the funds that "bailed out Wall Street" and use them to "save main street". That's pretty good spin, Miss Robin Hood, but those are our tax dollars, not Wall Street dollars! After initial White House and Treasury Department resistance, the administration appears now committed to leveraging TARP funds.
Officials cited two principle reasons:

1). the funds could allow the White House to "pay" for the jobs legislation without resorting to offsetting tax increases or spending cuts.
2). improve the political optics of the much-maligned bailout package.

President Obama is now asking Congress to use unspent TARP funds to finance a one-year jobs package that could cost upwards of $100 billion. The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned to ailing companies during the financial crisis last year, with the portion loaned to banks showing a slight profit, according to a Treasury report.
The officials said the government could ultimately lose another $100 billion from the bailout program, if big banks need more loans or if the $700 billion TARP fund is extended to help small businesses or to avert home foreclosures….
No, the $550 billion balance, which they are portraying as a "savings," is burning a hole in their pocket, so much so that they've extended the program until Oct. 3, 2010, to give them time to spend the leftovers. More spending for cash-strapped states; more funds for road, bridge and other infrastructure projects; aid to small businesses in the form of tax credits or direct loans; more spending for green-friendly private-sector and public-sector weatherization projects. Other items could be added to the package, White House officials said. No final price tag has been determined, they said.

Congressional Republicans argue a section of the TARP law directs unspent funds and repaid loans to debt reduction. Congressional Democrats dispute this interpretation.
"It's an outrage," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., ranking member of the Budget Committee. "It's an absolute outrage. And you know who pays the bills? Our kids. It's not right. It's not fair and it's not appropriate." Gregg said the White House and congressional Democrats see the TARP funds as a trough of unspent money, not one-time only loans given in dire circumstances to stabilize a financial system on the brink of failure. Gregg said TARP funds should fulfill that limited purpose or pay down the federal debt, now just over $12 trillion.
"They see this pool of money coming back in... doing what it was supposed to do which was stabilize the financial institutions (and) then come back to the taxpayers to negate the cost," Gregg said. "That's what we all agreed on. But a bunch of guys are here and (have) said 'Oh let's go out and spend it. We got this money. Let's spend it.'"

Brendan Daly, spokesman for Pelosi, told Fox that Democrats believe they can use unspent TARP funds - totaling $226 billion - for other purposes without changing existing law.
The Treasury Department has said it's permissible to "recycle" TARP funds that haven't been used or have been repaid by once-distressed banks. The only funds off limits, according to Treasury, are profits and dividends banks paid to the government as part of their loan agreements. (taxpayers hoodwinking again) It now appears the entire $700 billion loan program is lost forever to the Democrats insatiable appetite for spending. Their true goal is to boost aid to states and municipalities to preserve unionized government jobs, and fund tens of billions in infrastructure projects to keep unionized construction workers employed, if only temporarily.

Democrats state they are focusing on using government spending to strengthen the economy and create jobs, which they claim would have the byproduct of boosting federal tax revenue and reducing the deficit.
Where the new "stimulus" differs from the failed last stimulus is in its "help" for small businesses: government-backed loans and tax credits. This is a wise choice of stimulus, but consider the predicament of business owners and entrepreneurs. Obamacare figures to raise their costs dramatically. Cap-and-trade and government regulation of carbon dioxide would raise their energy and compliance costs. Big Labor's "card-check" bill still threatens to raise labor costs while reducing productivity and the quality of their products and services. States and municipalities, facing unprecedented fiscal crises, may raise "soak-the-rich" business taxes. Add to that, hyperinflation could be around the corner. With all of their economic trepidation, why would employers want to go more deeply into debt to hire people they might have to lay off next year? And why would they add to their payroll for the sake of a tax credit that would be funded, albeit indirectly, by taxes on their steadily shrinking profits?




Democrats to the rescue!!!......Really?


President Obama signed a bill to raise the federal debt ceiling by $290 billion, to $12.4 trillion. The previous debt ceiling was $12.1 trillion and was set to be topped on Dec. 31. Failure to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit to cover federal borrowing could have lead to a technical government default. But the $290 billion will only be enough to allow the Treasury Department to borrow money to fund government operations and programs until mid-February. The government piled up a record $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 to counter a meltdown in financial markets and it's failed attempt help bring the nation out of its worst economy in seven decades.

Senate Democrats voted to raise the limit and Republicans voted against doing so, with one defection on each side, Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).
"I would not support raising the debt ceiling because Congress has not adopted a credible process to restrain spending and eliminate red ink," Bayh said a statement after the vote.

Democrats had originally planned to pass an unprecedented increase of almost $2 trillion to avoid another vote before next year's midterm elections. But that plan fell apart amid opposition from about a dozen Senate Democratic moderates, who refuse to support a debt-limit increase unless it is accompanied by legislation to establish a new bipartisan task force to come up with a plan to curb the deficit. Top Democrats in the House and Senate, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are strongly opposed to the idea of an independent commission, arguing that the concept relinquishes too much Congressional authority. (authority she abuses regularly) Given that resistance, one compromise being discussed is a deficit reduction commission that would be created by executive order. It would still make recommendations to the House and Senate, but they would be subject to revision by Congress. (who will just say no) Pelosi, meanwhile, is supporting demands of moderate House Democrats, who are demanding a "pay-as-you-go" budget law aimed at ensuring that new tax cuts or new spending programs don't increase deficits in exchange for their votes for the next debt increase. The Senate is generally opposed to the idea, even though it was the law of the land for more than a decade. The Senate will return to the issue when it reconvenes in January.

With the increased spending and more red ink provoking new Congressional alarm, a group of Democratic deficit hawks insist that Congress and the White House agree to new efforts to rein in the deficit or they would block a large increase in the debt limit. Unable to strike a larger $1.8 trillion deal with the White House and the Congressional leadership, the lawmakers said they would support only a short-term increase in the debt limit to allow more time for negotiation and for Mr. Obama to present his own deficit-reduction strategy in his State of the Union address. “We are not going to give up the leverage we have now,” said Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who leads the Budget Committee and is an author of the plan to create an independent deficit-cutting commission to examine the long-term fiscal outlook and propose a new budgetary framework that would be subject to an un-amendable, “take it or leave it” vote in both chambers. “There are a number of us who feel very strongly that this is the moment we can get some kind of concession,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri and one of a group of lawmakers who met in the Capitol to plot strategy. She and others said they wanted a vote on a new proposal to create a bipartisan, independent commission to stop itself from ruining the nation's finances. Modeled on a commission that closed military bases such as the Presidio and Treasure Island in San Francisco, the budget commission would be composed of 10 Democrats and eight Republicans now serving in Congress, plus the Treasury secretary and one other administration official. Others want an agreement by Congress to follow “pay as you go” rules when considering legislation. Leadership aides say both sides are beginning to bend, especially after a furious round of saber-rattling over raising the federal debt ceiling that led Democrats in both chambers to conclude that, in the absence of a compromise, they faced mutually assured destruction. Both chambers now have until mid-February to reach agreement to avoid a situation wherein the U.S. would go beyond its debt limit and face the prospect of defaulting on its debts. Conrad secured pledges from at least a dozen senators to reject any debt limit increase without a commission bill attached, and conservative Blue Dog Democrats warned that they would do the same without a Senate concession to accept pay-go legislation. Pelosi hinted at the discussions and expressed a new-found openness to consider a commission — along with certain unspecified conditions. “There is talk of putting a commission together to review entitlements, the impact on our budget. We will look at that and see where we can come to agreement on that.” “We will come to terms on a commission — by the way, one that can pass the Senate,” Pelosi said. Many expect the compromise to contain a commission on entitlement spending, to address what many believe is a looming fiscal and budgetary catastrophe resulting from drastic gaps between future entitlement program liabilities and projected federal revenues, and a "pay-go" rule for discretionary spending.

Top Democrats say their focus last year had to be on job creation,(Really!!?, how'd that work out for ya??) but Mr. Obama and his aides say they intend to focus on deficit reduction this year and will propose a restrained budget. Lawrence H. Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, said Mr. Obama was receptive to new ideas for reducing the deficit. But Mr. Summers would not commit to White House backing for a commission with the ability to make recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. “What’s fundamentally important is that we find a solution that works,” Mr. Summers said. “And the president will be open, is open, to any approach that offers the prospect of controlling the budget deficit.”

The deficit this year shattered records at $1.8 trillion and the Obama budgets call for about $9 trillion in deficits over the next decade. In the past year, the public debt has shot up from 41 percent to 52 percent of the gross domestic product and is headed to a previously unthinkable 85 percent in eight years. Democrats have increased discretionary spending (minus entitlements such as Medicare) by 8 percent this year, on top of the stimulus. The Peterson-Pew Commission, composed of former members of Congress and budget experts, warned that the federal budget has reached a danger zone much faster than anticipated even a year ago. Like a homeowner swimming in mortgage debt, the government's bills are growing faster than its income, to the point where overseas investors holding U.S. debt could be spooked at any moment. Recession-caused tax revenue shortfalls, and record government spending this year on a $787 billion stimulus and a $700 billion bank rescue have raised the debt very rapidly, to nervous-making levels.

The Peterson-Pew panel called for immediate action to stabilize the debt at 60 percent of national income (still way above its historic range under 40 percent). The commissioners said swift action is needed to reassure investors, invoking funding panics that have recently hit Dubai, Greece and the United Kingdom. Still, Democratic leaders in Congress and the Obama administration contend that joblessness is the more important problem now. Christina Romer, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (and dumbest economist on earth) said it would be "suicidal" to cut spending with the unemployment rate above 10 percent. Economic growth is the best remedy to the deficit, they argue. "The number one thing you need to do to improve the economy and improve the deficit is put people back to work"





Time for a change.


The Democrats’ unflinching and unprecedented reliance on more spending that’s frightening the American people who understand that trillion dollar deficits and an ever-higher debt ceiling are a disastrous combination. This is like someone who has maxed out his credit cards asking his bank to raise the limits so he can keep on charging, rather than living within his means. As ordinary Americans tighten their belts and cut up their credit cards, it’s time for the Democrat controlled Congress and the Obama administration to do the same. The practice of throwing good tax money after bad public policy must end.

It would be beneficial if the Democrats would consider alternative methods of job creation other than massive federal spending. If the U.S. government would reduce taxes and regulations and extricate our nation from trade pacts that force American industry overseas, a great deal of job creation could take place without increasing the federal deficit one cent. Strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution is the simplest way to limit the size and scope of government, which has the byproduct of removing limits on the marketplace to create the jobs that are needed.

If we continue spending and borrowing at this pace, we are headed for a debt-driven crisis. Foreign creditors, such as China, have begun lecturing the Obama administration on its unsustainable fiscal policies. This government is $12 trillion in debt – Divided among the U.S. population, the debt amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child in this country. The federal government will borrow 43 cents for every dollar that it spends this fiscal year. After just three years of Democratic control in the House, the national debt has increased by 39 percent. Interest payments on the national debt are becoming one of our major budget expenses. Today, the "daily" interest burden on our national debt is $600 million! Rather than continuing to borrow and spend even more, we should tighten our belt and spend less.

This new stimulus is aimed at accelerating job growth and laying a foundation for economic growth and funding “shovel-ready” projects. You may be asking — isn’t that what the first two economic stimulus packages passed under President Bush and Obama were for? The answer is yes. Did they work? No! Were they costly? Outrageously costly! Americans are not buying into the “third times is a charm” mentality. Nor should they be when a host of new economic numbers proves otherwise. Despite repeated stimulus and bailout attempts, unemployment has climbed to 10 percent in the past several months. Our national debt hit another record high — $12 frickin trillion! — Americans know that more stimulus spending means more deficit spending and another contribution to a ballooning federal debt that will be placed on the backs of our grandchildren and financed by countries like China. As such, Americans have spent the past several months raising their voices against a job-threatening and deficit-bloating government takeover of health care, a “cap and trade” national energy tax, and an ever-increasing limit on the national credit card. Yet, Congress and the Administration keep spending money without setting priorities or reducing waste.

"In the space of a single fiscal year, 2009, the debt soared from 41 percent of the gross domestic product to 53 percent. This sum, which does not include what the government has borrowed from its own trust funds, is on track to rise to a crushing 85 percent of the economy by 2018."

The Chinese, Japanese and Arabs still buying that debt will begin to suspect they are holding onto paper on which the United States will default, or will cheapen by inflating its currency – as the Germans did in 1923 to avoid paying war reparations.

When they do, they will stop buying U.S. debt and start dumping. The Fed will then have to raise interest rates to attract borrowers, throwing the economy into a tailspin.

We need to cut the waste!
Slash funding for wasteful, abusive, and duplicative spending. The Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act, H.R. 1802, would establish a bipartisan commission to review federal agencies and programs in an effort to eliminate wasteful spending on duplicative, inefficient or outdated programs. CARFA would make recommendations to Congress and to the President for changes to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars.

We need to balance the budget!
Constitutionally require Congress to balance the federal budget each year. The Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J. Res 1, will force Congress to enact fiscally responsible spending measures, reduce the deficit, and ensure that the money our citizens work so hard to earn is not spent on wasteful spending and programs.
The bill requires that Congress not spend more than it receives in revenues, requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress, and requires a 3/5 majority vote to increase the debt limit. This common-sense solution is already implemented in many states across our country, including Virginia. A Constitutional amendment will force Congress to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending and make the decisions necessary to balance the budget and eliminate the federal deficit.
(an exception for defense needs in times of war or "across-the-board" tax reductions in times of recession needs to be implemented)

It's time to reform the system!
Institute process and entitlement reforms that take a long-range budget view. The SAFE Commission Act, H.R. 1557, would establish a Commission that would review federal spending and develop legislation designed to address the unsustainable imbalance between long-term federal spending commitments and projected revenues; increases in net national savings to provide for domestic investment and economic growth; the implications of foreign ownership of federally issued debt instruments; and revision of the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

Economists on the left and right are increasingly calling for a European-style value-added tax, similar to a national sales tax, as the only feasible way to pay for the government. Conservatives say a broad-based consumption tax is preferable to the overloaded income tax, paid mostly by upper-income groups. Liberals prefer a value-added tax to slashing government services.

Creating fiscal discipline in Washington is a first and necessary step on the road to economic recovery. Americans should demand nothing less from their government than a clear commitment to take control of our fiscal future. Our leaders are in no way elected to represent future generations of Americans. When they pile up needless debt beyond what their current constituents will ever be able to pay off, forcing it to be payed by future generations, is equivalent to taxation without representation. We elect the government we deserve. When we "vote ignorant" of the issues, simple minded, Socialist Democrats gain control of Congress and the Whitehouse. This is a call out to all Americans that still have backbone remaining. It's time you act! It's time you are heard! Speak up...Speak out...Protest... and, God damn it VOTE THIS FALL!
-The Conservative