The Most Dishonest Budget Ever

When Bush 43 submitted 4 budgets that held separate the expenses for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the left screamed bloody murder.   Now we have the President of the United States submitting a 10-year budget that he knows, for a fact, is totally unrealistic and avoids every major decision that needs to be made in regards to our fiscal future.  It is a budget even he doesn’t believe in, and he as much said so in yesterday’s press conference.

This budget does not contain a single provision in it (that I can find) from the Obama-created “Deficit Reduction Commission”.  That fact is amazing in and of itself.  While it puts band-aids on paper cuts, it fails to address the arteries which are hemorrhaging debt:  Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.  The President knows this budget is totally dishonest, just as he knows the democrat healthcare bill exacerbates our debt as he publicly claims it reduces it.  Presidents just don’t engage in such deceit when it comes to policy, and here we are watching someone who many thought would be the most honest and straightforward politician of our time putting forth known falsehoods.

Perhaps the President has seen what happened to his predecessor when he bravely tried to reform Social Security.  President Bush was destroyed by the left for his sincere efforts to defuse a ticking time bomb, and the price he paid may very well have been control of Congress in the 2006 election (consideration for the state of the Iraq war understood).  I hope that someday someone calculates the cost of not having fixed Social Security during the Bush administration.  These forensics will make us all ill.

But we expect leadership from our Presidents.  We expect them to stand up for what they believe is right, often in the face of severe criticism.  President Bush did it with the Iraq surge, on Social Security Reform, and on Immigration Reform.  President Obama did it on extending tax rates in December (though he had absolutely no other option).  But at a time when our nation faces a fiscal crisis that threatens our future as much as any danger of our generation, he submits the most cowardly, artificial, cynical, unrealistic, and politically-motivated budget we’ve ever seen.

Politically it may be a winner for him, but I hope not.  The President’s strategy in summary is to make the Republicans be the ones to raise the issue of major reform of entitlement programs.  He wants the Republicans to lose the votes of the huge number of elderly Americans by making the Republicans be the ones to raise Social Security and Medicare reform.  He wants the Republicans to appear to be the heartless ones who want to cut Medicaid programs for the poor.

All this while he knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these reforms are necessary.  That without them we go bankrupt.  A leader says “I’ll step up to this and explain to my people why it must be done”.  A leader does not say “let the other guy bring it up, and if they do we’ll route them in the next election”.

I have long said that electing a college professor and community organizer as President– a man who has never led anything of any significance– to lead the most powerful nation in the world was a mistake. We have seen far too much evidence that I was right, and this is another such exhibit.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Most Dishonest Budget Ever

  1. John Goetz says:

    He is a coward, not a leader.

  2. Matt says:

    David Brooks today categorically disagrees with your contention that Obama’s strategy is to politically trap the Republicans by making them go after entitlements so he can savage them in the election. I think David Brooks knows Obama a lot better than you do, and he states that “it would be morally reprehensible to bankrupt the nation for the sake of a campaign theme. Obama is not that sort of person.” Your vitriol towards Obama undermines your credibility of being “the Voice of Reason.” It is ok to object to the President’s approach, and David Brooks does just that. But he does so without expressing seething hatred towards Obama’s character. Despite all the great insights I get from this blog, my suggestion is that you will need to tone this emotion down before anyone will view you as “the voice of reason.”

    • vofreason says:

      I have a tremendous amount of respect for David Brooks, he is perhaps my favorite columnist. For a blogger like me to say this may seem presumptuous, but if there’s one main weakness I see in Brooks it’s that he has a tendency to be naive and unrealistically optimistic. I also have respect for the author of this comment, which makes it sting a bit, and I will consider the input. However, my vitriol towards the President is well-founded and I stand by my position that the President is playing a political game here, and that it is primarily motivated by political considerations for himself and his party.

      One of Brook’s primary arguments, and that of this comment, is that it would be so outrageous to play a political game with something this serious, and Obama is not that kind of a person, and essentially that no mainstream politician would do such a thing. Almost as if to argue, “there is a line beyond which respected politicians would never cross even for their own political benefit.” Balderdash.

      This may explain some of my emotion on these issues, but I believe these lines no longer exist. I believe that President Obama and Democrat leaders (and some Republicans) have lost their inhibitions on such principles.

      Want examples? How about them telling millions of elderly people dependent on social security that the Bush social security reform plan would cause them to lose their only form of income? I had 2 very close elderly relatives at this time that fully believed this was the case, and they were petrified. They lost sleep at night over it. It was a ridiculous and harmful claim, yet they made it, and yes, for political purposes. Yes, you can also use the “death panels” example against Republicans, which just reinforces my point– scruples and ethical limits in politics are disappearing.

      Need another? How about the way the Democrats handled the war in Iraq? They KNEW, for a FACT, that the acts at Abu Ghraib were exceptional acts by rogue American soldiers. Yet they, including President Obama, PURPOSELY directly associated this with Bush policy and the so-called “torture memos”. They made them appear as though they were happening at Gitmo, as if this was Rumsfeld policy, as if Bush was ordering the torture of thousands of prisoners. This was done for political purposes, nothing more. The cost to the nation can’t be measured, but if it could the metrics would be in “lives lost” because surely these purposeful distortions created new jihadists and inspired existing ones to kill more.

      What would Brooks say about the new Senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal? During his campaign he made a major theme of his campaign the fact that he had fought in Vietnam. He spoke about it on 50 occasions. Only one problem, he never got within 5,000 miles of Vietnam.

      These are facts. They are essentially inarguable, though you are welcome to try. Now, is this something to be angry about? To express vitriol about? You bet it is. We can’t treat such behavior as just part of the game. The stakes are too high.

      Let’s talk about President Obama some more and the kind of guy he is. Didn’t he lambaste “wall street fat cats” and AIG employees to the point where they had to hire armed guards outside their houses— all for political purposes? Didn’t he let thousands of students in Washington DC lose their vouchers for charter schools and thereby return to failing schools, essentially ending all hope for any future for these students– all to please his friends in the teacher’s union? I’d like to ask David Brooks about that one– how would Brooks explain it? What kind of man would purposefully and knowingly make a decision to destroy a few thousand children’s futures just to please a big campaign contributor? How outrageous is that? Didn’t he campaign with outright lies and distortions (and he KNEW he was lying and distorting) about Bush and the wars just to get elected (again, costing lives and American credibility)? Didn’t he campaign saying he would close Gitmo, end indefinitie detention, change the policy in Iraq, have a bipartisan/post-partisan administration, never pander to special interests, etc and then once in office become just another lying politician who didn’t delivery on his promises?

      Let’s get to the bottom line on my editorial. A LEADER would never have done what Obama did with the budget. That is not leadership behavior.

      What is happening in government today, led by the President, should make us mad as hell.

  3. Matt says:

    I read another ‘voice of reason’ blog on this subject found here: where
    states David that you are too naive, and to think Obama is not playing a political game and would never sacrifice the nation’s health for furthering his own political purposes can be refuted with a multitude of examples, some of which he cites. I have always viewed you as the true voice of reason, but this writer makes a pretty strong case that Obama and the Democrats have not done the nation any favors or demonstrated much adherence to principle or integrity over the Bush years and during Obama’s term. I’ll be interested to see what folks think about this other ‘Voice of Reason’s’ arguments.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s