Rick Perry Favored By Republicans And Tea Party Supporters

Gallup's new numbers are out and Rick Perry seems to at the front of the pack still, among Republicans who identify "government spending and power" as the set of issues most important to them as well as a smaller lead against Romney among Republicans who say "business and the economy" is their top issue.



Findings also show that Perry is more popular among Tea Party supporters than any other candidate as well.

Rick Perry's candidacy has attracted strong initial support from Republicans who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement. Perry leads by 21 percentage points over the closest contenders among this group, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. Among Republicans who say they do not support the Tea Party movement, Romney and Perry are essentially tied.



These results are based on an Aug. 17-21 Gallup poll, which showed Perry overtaking Romney as the front-runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination among all Republicans nationwide.



The poll finds that 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement, with 36% saying they do not consider themselves supporters. Included among the group of Tea Party supporters is a smaller group -- representing 12% of Republicans -- who say they are "strong" supporters of the movement. Among this smaller group, Perry's lead is even greater, 46% to 16%, over Bachmann, with all other candidates in single digits.



In Gallup's July measurement of Republicans' nomination preferences, before Perry officially entered the race, Romney held a slight edge over Bachmann among Tea Party supporters, 29% to 23%. Romney led Paul by 25% to 16% among nonsupporters.

The breakdown is explained over at Gallup on the lead Perry holds over Romney on the Government spending and business and economy issues, but there is no doubt that 3 weeks into his official campaign, Perry has slid into the candidate of choice for many.



NRO explains why Perry is popular with those that recognize his name already and why he will become more popular as more match him up against Romney and others.

• As “America’s jobs governor,” Perry is a one-man antidote to Obama’s venomous policies, which have held unemployment above 9 percent for 25 of the last 27 months. Across all 50 states, between June 2009 and June 2011, the Dallas Federal Reserve calculates that 49.9 percent of America’s net new jobs arose in Texas. July was its eleventh straight month of payroll expansion, with 29,300 Texans finding work. Nearly eleven years into Perry’s governorship, Texas inarguably is No. 1 in job growth.

During Romney’s single four-year term, however, the U.S. Labor Department ranked Massachusetts No. 47 in job growth. Employment increased just 0.9 percent between January 2003 and January 2007. At that time, U.S. job growth was roughly 5 percent, reports WSJ.com’s Brett Arends. Romney did keep Massachusetts ahead of Ohio and Michigan — two Rust Belt job sieves — and Louisiana, crushed by Katrina.

Read the whole thing.



Job growth and the economy are going to be two of the most important issues for the 2012 GOP nomination and for the 2012 presidential election and Perry stands far above all other GOP candidates as well as above Barack Obama on records alone.



Unless unemployment is drastically reduced and/or the economy grows at an impossible rate over the next year, Obama has nothing to campaign on except his speeches which are nothing like those he charmed voters with in 2008, because now there is a record behind him and it is ugly.



Obama's signature issue, Obamacare is still opposed by the majority of Americans and his unprecedented spending spending spree and deficit increases in the last two and half years have failed to stimulate the economy or produce the job growth promised with unemployment still over 9.0 percent.



No doubt as more Americans, especially Independents, learn more and are able to compare Perry's record with everyone else in the field of candidates and Obama, Perry's national lead will increase.



.

Democrats And Obama' s Specific Spending Excesses

The first headline I saw this morning was from CBS News titled "National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama."

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.



The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.



It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.



The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

The very next headline I saw was "Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit" from Byron York at Campaign 2012 who breaks down the 2011 projected deficit, separating the expenses associated with the economic downturn from the specific spending excesses of Obama and the Democrats, showing that half the projected deficit is a "down payment on the Obama domestic agenda."



York starts by showing the stark contrast from 2007 to 2011:

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

He goes on to explain how we went from a $160 billion deficit in 2007 to the nearly $1.4 trillion projected for 2011.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.

York fairly shows that half of those figures can be directly related to the economic downturn and posits that certain spending would have had to be done whether it was a Democrat or a Republicans in control of the White House.



Then he shows the other half of the problem, and that lies directly at Obama's feet.

That's a deficit increase that would have happened in an economic crisis whether Republicans or Democrats controlled Washington. But it was the specific spending excesses of President Obama and the Democrats that shot the deficit into the stratosphere.



There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government. "It's spread all through the budget," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "It was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda." Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending.



As for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP -- it has no specific line in the budget, either, but that is because it was anticipated to pay nearly all of its own cost, which it has.



Spending for Social Security and Medicare did go up in this period -- $162 billion and $119 billion, respectively -- but by incremental and predictable amounts that weren't big problems in previous years. "We're getting older one year at a time, and health care costs grow at 7 or 8 percent a year," says Holtz-Eakin. If Social Security and Medicare were the sole source of the current deficit, it would be a lot smaller than it is.



The bottom line is that with baby boomers aging, entitlements will one day be a major budget problem. But today's deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending on everything other than entitlements. The recent debt-ceiling agreement is supposed to put the brakes on that kind of spending, but leaders have so far been maddeningly vague on how they'll do it.

Read the entire piece for actual dollar amounts.



The issues above along with job creation and growth are going to be central to the 2012 elections, presidential and senatorial, and are issues that need to be hammered home, relentlessly.



Obama inherited a troublesome economy but under his hand, his guidance, and his first two years a House and Senate completely controlled by Democrats, that economy spiraled downward in a free fall and Obama would tell you it is simply "bad luck."



American voters should keep an old expression in their minds over the next 15 months:



"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."



Then in November 2012, they should vote accordingly.



.

Majority NABE Economists Believe Spending Cuts Are The Solution To Deficit Problem

CNBC:

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.



The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

Read it all and pass it along because you can be assured that Liberals and the majority of media won't be highlighting it for their readers.



.

Perhaps Liberals Should Sit Down, Shut Up And Listen For A Change

"The majority of citizens in nearly all the world’s most developed countries simply aren’t prepared to tolerate the degree of borrowing required to sustain generous welfare programmes any longer."---- Telegraph, Aug. 2, 2011

Going through the headlines over at Memeorandum today, watching Liberals whine, howl, beat their chest and demonize the Tea Party and members of the right over the debt deal that has been reached, agreed to and is passing through both chambers of Congress, I am seeing a theme of complete denial from the left side of the political spectrum.

One of the most arrogant pieces yet is over at Mother Jones by Kevin Drum.

But no matter how many times we try to kid ourselves with one poll result or another, liberals just don't have that advantage. The public is mostly in favor of raising taxes on the rich — though I suspect its support is pretty soft — but on the bigger issues they mostly aren't on our side. They think deficits are bad, they don't trust Keynesian economics, they don't want a higher IRS bill (who does, after all?), and they believe the federal government is spending too much on stuff they don't really understand. Conservatives have just flat out won this debate in recent decades, and until that changes we're not going to be able to make much progress.

This is why I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he's never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven't. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven't persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are.

I call this arrogant because Drum admits that on the largest of issues the public is not "on our side", [Liberals] yet he believes it is because Liberals simply haven't convinced the rest of the country that the Liberal mindset and agenda is right and the majority of the public is wrong or simply doesn't understand what the "smarter"(in Drum's mind that would be Liberals) folks understand.

I disagree, the Liberal "Wonks, hacks, activists", as Drum calls them, have spent the last months doing nothing but trying to convince the general public that Liberals are right and the public is wrong. They have produced chart after chart, dedicated millions of words and posts and articles, explaining their thinking.

Guess what? The public opinion still has not changed.

The liberal arguments have been heard and rejected by the majority.

So, instead of simply admitting that the majority is more conservative than they are, believes the government should spend within it's means as the rest of us have to, think that our debt is out of control and needs to be brought down and government needs to be smaller, what do Liberals do when they cannot force their agenda down our throats?
They call them "hostage takers", "terrorists", they claim the Tea Party has declared "war" on America, they liken Republicans to "baby-kidnapping", and "monsters" and call the debt deal a "Satan sandwich

Libs do that instead of giving the majority of Americans the simple respect of having their own opinions that don't match their own and they blame Tea Party members of Congress, those the majority of the public voted for in the 2010 midterms, for the specific policies that Liberals are against, rather than considering their own agenda and beliefs are wrong.

One has to wonder if these Liberals, like Drum, have ever looked in the mirror and asked themselves, "could I be wrong, could the majority be right?"

I did that when I was a Clinton Democrat and lo and behold I found my answer was yes, I could be wrong and yes the majority could be right.

Perhaps if Liberals would sit down, shut up and listen for a change, they might actually learn they are not the smartest kids in the room and the majority of Americans are much smarter than our politicians or our pundits give them credit for.


[Update] Jonah Goldberg has a message for the Liberal media stooges and their hypocrisy.

Well, go to Hell. All of you.

Please read the whole thing.

.

Home Depot Co-Founder Explains The Damage Of Obama's Economic Policies To Job Creation

"Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs."---Bernie Marcus, Co-founder of Home Depot

Today we see another name on the list of businessmen who are explaining the damage Barack Obama's policies of regulations, tax increases and out-of-control spending, is doing to America's economy, unemployment and growth.

Bernie Marcus co-founder of Home Depot, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs, tells Investors Business Daily that the single biggest impediment to job growth today is the U.S. Government.

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

Recently it was reported that Democratic Steve Wynn, CEO of casino company Wynn Resorts, stated that Barack Obama's administration "is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation" in his lifetime.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

Before that I published a long comment from a small business owner, A.J. Motes, who explained how Obama and Democrats had blurred the lines between the "rich" and small business owners and how the Democrat's tax increase proposals would cause the lifeblood of our economy, the small businesses, to suffer.

So when politicians are talking about raising taxes on the filthy rich, they want us to think that those nasty old bankers, corporate swells, and union thugs are finally going to get what's coming to them. Unfortunately, these protected groups will be largely immune to the tax and regulatory burden. The real losers will be the small business owners, ordinary folk like you and me who have no means of protecting ourselves against the power of the government.

Don't be fooled by political rhetoric that claims taxes will be extracted from the super rich. It's the small business owner, already suffering in a poor economy, who will be hurt the most.

I wouldn't mind taxes if everyone followed the same rules and if government weren't spending our money on stuff taxpayers don't want. And I really don't like feeling that I have been turned into a slave who works to support the half of America that lives off government subsidies and handouts. Cut government spending first!

These are job creators, employers, the very backbone of our economy and they are explaining quite clearly what Barack Obama's policies have done and are continuing to do to our country.

.

Gallup- 55% to 35%, Majority More Concerned About Lack Of Spending Cuts In Debt Battle

Gallup shows Americans want some type of compromise in the debt ceiling battle but lower into the Gallup poll it shows that by a 20 point margin, 55 percent to 35 percent, the majority "say they worry more that the government would raise the debt ceiling without plans for major spending cuts, than that the government would not raise the ceiling and an economic crisis would ensue."

The question: Which concerns you more: The government would not raise the debt ceiling and a major economic crisis would result, or the government would raise the debt ceiling but without plans for major cuts in future spending?

55 percent of respondents are more concerned about the lack of spending cuts than about any crisis that would result in no debt limit increase.

Bottom Line

Americans would like their representatives in Washington to compromise and get a debt agreement in place before the Aug. 2 deadline, but at the same time are concerned that any such agreement include major spending cuts.

Now, answer it out loud folks.. which party is fighting very publicly for spending cuts and which party is fighting against making those cuts?

Video- Boehner Response To Obama's Veto Threat On Cut, Cap And Balance Act

Video below (H/T Hot Air)

This week, the House will pass a plan that addresses our debt and spending while taking action on the debt ceiling. And while the House once again acts responsibly, the administration still won’t present a plan or even say what cuts it’s willing to make to end Washington’s spending binge and the economic uncertainty that it’s creating. This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the President’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government.

Yesterday when Obama's veto threat first hit the news, I said "Despite all Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he has no desire to rein in uncontrolled government spending. He has no desire to lower our deficit."

I stand by that today.

Passing the CCB Act through the House of Representatives is smart and would force the Democratically controlled Senate, where 23 Democratic members are up for reelection in 2012, to either pass it or reject it, all done publicly so voters will see exactly where the holdup is and who is blocking America from starting down the long path to become fiscally responsible.

Should it make it through the Senate, then Obama's veto would confirm to all Americans just where the buck stopped and who is preventing real "change."

.

Op-Ed Columnist David Brooks Doesn't Understand The Concept Of Republicans Keeping Promises

David Brooks over at New York Times' Opinion page writes a piece which starts by detailing how Republicans have changed American politics by focusing a large spotlight on spending restraint, debt reduction, forcing the serious start to entitlement reform discussions and Brooks determines Republicans have been effective negotiators.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

Every item Brooks listed were parts of the Republican campaigns in 2010 before the midterm elections. Promises they made to their constituents. Promises their constituents made very clear would be kept or they would not be given yet another chance to prove they would be fiscally responsible, fight for what their constituents elected them to do.

Emphasis mine in the quoted portion of Brooks' op-ed column above because after stating so clearly what Republicans have done in the short time they had control of the House of Representatives and a gain in net seats in the Senate giving Democrats less of a majority they had before the 2010 midterms, he then decides to have a temper tantrum about Republicans continuing to keep the promises they made in 2010 to win those very seats.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

He goes on to rant and rave a bit more but you get the gist, right?

In the original quote up above it states, and I emphasized his quote, that Democrats "have agreed not to raise taxes", then in the second portion he complains bitterly about Republicans not closing tax loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures... all of which is just a fancy way of saying Democrats are still trying to raise taxes using the Democrat's code words for taxes which is "revenue increases."

A normal Republican in Brooks' world would seize the opportunity (meaning quit while ahead), yet the first set of quotes, from Brooks in the very same piece, credit Republican's "tough and inflexible" negotiation stances and saying they proved to be "effective" in getting us where we are today where we are focused on spending cuts and balancing the national budget.

In the bottom portion of his piece he continuously contradicts the very basis of the of the top portion. One has to wonder if he has a dual personality or he truly doesn't understand that Republicans are keeping the promises they made, one of which was to not fold a winning hand, to not stop until we have a balanced budget. Especially when that winning hand has the backing of the majority of Americans.

Every poll conducted of late has shown that two of the top issues in the minds of voters are the national debt and spending cuts. The exact things, along with job creation that Republicans campaigned on and have publicly fought Democrats tooth and nail for, since last November 2010.

This battle is over the debt ceiling. The last one was a budget. The next one might be an appropriations bill or yet another budget bill, but Republicans must, at every turn, with every vote, continue to fight for spending cuts and balancing our budget aka not spending more money than we have. They must continue to fight against the Democratic solution to everything which is spend more/tax more instead of getting their spending habits under control.

Just to put things into perspective.

The Day Obama took office the national debt was $10.626 trillion, today the national debt is $14.396 trillion.

During Bush's two terms the debt increased by $4.9 trillion. (Source, CBS News)

In two-and-a-half years, Barack Obama has raised our debt by almost as much as Bush did in eight.

Oh, and about those taxes?

So far this year, individual income tax payments were up 28 percent to $701.8 billion, while corporate tax receipts increased 5 percent.

Last month's deficit was close to the congressional estimate, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday projecting a $59 billion shortfall in May and a total federal budget deficit of $929 billion, $6 billion less than the deficit last year at this time.



Incoming revenue increased 19 percent, or $28 billion, compared to last May.

Republicans finally understand we cannot tax and spend our way out of this mess, cuts must be made, entitlements must be recalculated and adjusted to a sustainable level, a balanced budget must be created and our politicians must abide by it.

These are non-negotiable promises that were made and that must be kept.

We are done. Compromise time is over.

Fight to get our fiscal house in order and we will vote for you in 2012. Give up that fight, compromise on the promises made, and we will vote your butts out as fast as we did the Democrats in the midterms of 2010.

Yes Mr. Brooks, as your headline says, this is a no-brainer.

.

Debt Limit Talks: Bush Era Rates Off Table And House Democrats Feel Ignored

After the bipartisan talks imploded last week when Democrats insisted that part of the deal include $400 billion in tax increases. This forced Barack Obama to finally come to the table in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which stands at $14.3 trillion now, to allow the U.S. to borrow more money.

There have been a flurry of meetings that now include Obama, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a separate meeting with House Speaker John Boehner and another meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), assistant to the leader.

The Hill reports that the administration has stopped insisting on ending the Bush-era tax cuts.

I am starting to get a vague sense of deja vu though as I see headlines like "House Democrats feel jilted by the president in budget, debt talks."

Just as House Democrats did in December after Republicans took a large net gain of House seats,the biggest turnover of seats in decades, to take control of the House of Representatives, House Democrats are now upset, feeling that they are being taken for granted and ignored and complaining publicly.

“How is it that the House Democrats played such an important role [in the majority], and all of a sudden [the White House says], ‘Forget it, we’ll work with the Senate and the Republican leadership?’ ” asked Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), vice chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee.

House Democrats’ frustration with Obama is boiling in the intense heat of negotiations to reach a budget deal and raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Capitol Hill Democrats have been steaming for months, since being sidelined during talks to extend the George W. Bush-era tax rates and fund the government this year. Many say the White House takes their support for granted but ignores them when it comes to making policy.

“Before this year we were playing a strong role,” said Cuellar, but “now a lot of us feel like we’re almost being ignored.”

Before this year they played a strong role because they had an overwhelming majority, and they had a Democratically controlled Senate and White House and were able to shove anything that they wanted through because the GOP could not stop them from railroading laws and bills.

November 2010 midterms ended that one party reign.

They are frustrated, speaking out to reporters, angry and aren't at the point where they can admit the reason they are being "ignored" treated as if they are "irrelevant" is because House Democrats are irrelevant at the moment.

Of course Obama is taking them for granted, who else are they going to support in 2012? The Republican candidate against Obama?

I don't think so.

Obama knows the answer to that question and so do the House Democrats that are throwing their temper tantrums.

The Obama administration needs the debt ceiling voted on, passed and raised by August 2, 2011.

Republicans have made it clear that for any debt ceiling raise to pass the House of Representatives, an equal amount of spending cuts be part of the deal. Want $2 trillion (example) then cut that same $2 trillion. Republicans want a balanced budget amendment to show they are serious about stopping the practice of spending more money than we have.

Republicans seem to have learned their lesson when they were thrown out of leadership positions the last time by their base for spending like drunken sailors with taxpayer money. They understand they campaigned in 2010 on the premise of cutting spending and lowering our deficit and if they do not fight to keep those promises, they can be replaced again in the next election.







Wasteful Government Spending

Gallup found that 73 percent of national adults understand what liberal Democrats and Barack Obama (yes, redundant) do not seem to be able to... that wasteful government spending is more to blame for the rising federal budget deficit than not raising enough money in taxes.


Corporate Taxes vs Budget Cuts

In May, a New York Times/CBS News poll (neither organization can be accused of a "conservative slant") shows that most Americans prefer budget cuts over raising corporate taxes.

In general, however, few Americans back increasing taxes on American businesses: only 37 percent said corporate taxes should be increased to help reduce the federal budget deficit. The rest agree with an alternative argument that increased taxes would discourage American companies from creating jobs and hurt them in the global marketplace. Thirty-two percent would rather see corporate taxes remain as they are now and 26 percent said taxes on corporate profits should be decreased.

Government Shutdown vs Spending Cuts

In April Rasmussen found that 57 percent of polled voters suggest that a government shutdown would be preferred to not doing the deep spending cuts necessary to get the federal budget on its way toward balance. Only 31 percent believe that avoiding a shutdown is more important.


The bottom line here is that this battle, like the previous budget battles since November is being aired publicly with the same public referred to in the polls above, watching as Republicans fight for spending cuts, a balanced budget amendment and Democrats fighting to raise taxes.

I can almost see all those public statements used in GOP campaign videos with Democrats and Obama stating over and over again "raise taxes" with the GOP candidate saying "cut spending."

Democrats need to stop playing to their 13 percent fiscally liberal base and start playing to Americans as a whole or even to the 38 percent that view themselves as moderate on fiscal issues, or 2012 is going make their massive losses in 2010 look like a walk in the park.

.

International Monetary Fund Downgrades U.S. Forecast

Via Washington Examiner we see the International Monetary Fund has downgraded their 2011 and 2012 growth forecasts for the U.S.

The IMF now forecasts U.S. gross domestic product of 2.5 percent in 2011 and 2.7 percent in 2012, yet Obama's budget proposal anticipated growth of 2.7 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively. While that may not seem like a big deal, small fluctuations in GDP can make a huge difference on deficits because economic performance has an effect on both sides of the budget ledger. Greater growth means more revenue because more people are employed and earning higher incomes, but it also means less spending on so-called "automatic stabilizers" such as unemployment benefits.

Obama's growth compared to Reagan's:

Reagan recovery saw GDP surge by 4.5 percent and 7.2 percent in 1983 and 1984,and the Obama economy isn't going to achieve that in anybody's wildest dreams.

Here are a few differences between Obama's policies and Reagan's:

* Reagan cut income tax rates. Obama spent his first two years promising to increase tax rates on “the rich,” mostly small business owners and investors. In December he signed legislation that schedules his tax increase to take effect two months after the 2012 Presidential election

* Reagan cut “discretionary” spending. Obama dramatically increased it.

* Reagan reduced regulation and government intervention in the private sector.

* Obama has implemented waves of new regulation and under his leadership Congress passed legislation that will require new regulations of health insurance and virtually every detail of banking and finance – even ATM cards.

BTW, it has been a year since Obama's much lauded "Recovery Summer" as Speaker of the House John Boehner explains:

The “stimulus” was all about big spending and big government — not jobs. That was obvious on the day the “Recovery Summer” began in my home state of Ohio. Local construction workers on a nearby site in Columbus were forced to take the day off, without pay, so the White House entourage could roll through and tout all the taxpayer dollars they were spending. But all that spending got us was more debt and fewer jobs.

Approximately 1.5 million jobs have been lost since the “stimulus” was signed in 2009 — roughly 300,000 of them as administration officials hopped from town to town promoting the “summer of recovery.” The national unemployment rate was 9.1 percent in May — far above the 8 percent promised by the White House — and has averaged 9.5 percent throughout the Obama presidency.

The president can call this a “bump in the road,” or blame ATMs, or joke that those “shovel ready” jobs that were promised “weren’t as shovel ready as we expected.” But there’s nothing funny about policies that keep workers on the unemployment line and drive us deeper into debt. Those aren’t the kinds of results — and this isn’t the recovery — the American people deserve.

There has been no recovery. Obama and the Democrats who controlled the House and Senate at the time, poured almost a trillion dollars into the economy and slowed down the bad news, but using an analogy I have used before, that was nothing more than putting a band-aid on a gushing wound and claiming the wound was healing just because less blood visibly flowed.

Slamming money into the economy will not fix the underlying problem. If the root cause is not addressed then it does no more than throw good money after bad to watch it get sucked up before everything starts collapsing again.

In the meantime, all that money thrown at the problem adds to our debt/deficit.

.

Gallup: Plurality Opposed To Raising Debt Ceiling: Far Left Thinks Americans Too Stupid To Understand Issue

Welcome Mahablog readers, discussion continues at a followup post.

The debt ceiling is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow and by a 47 percent to 19 percent margin with 34 percent saying they don't know enough to say, a plurality of Americans are against raising the debt ceiling.

Even more worrisome for Congress members and Barack Obama is that 57 percent of Americans are closely following the public discussion about raising the debt ceiling. Especially members that are up for reelection in 2012.

A majority of Americans (57%) say they are closely following the news about "discussions to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, the maximum amount of money the U.S. government can borrow by law." Republicans are following the issue more closely than are Democrats and independents; upper-income Americans are following it more closely than lower-income Americans; and those with a postgraduate education more so than those with a high school education or less.

More on the implications over at Gallup.

The Hill:

Republicans and some Democrats have said that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without serious spending cuts and fiscal reforms attached. But President Obama and Democratic leaders have urged Republicans not to play politics with the vote, arguing that failing to hike the limit would lead to a debt default that would send shockwaves throughout world financial markets.

Considering more Americans by a very large margin do not want to see the debt ceiling raised than those that do, Democrats can cry foul about attaching spending cuts and fiscal reform conditions and call it "playing politics" all they want, but Republicans who campaigned on these issues and were handed control of the House of Representatives and a net gain in the Senate in 2010, understand that without those attachments they will be publicly breaking trust with the voters that elected them.

As far as the so-called progressive left is concerned, Americans simply are too stupid to actually understand the issue.

But my impression is that most people in this country aren’t even being exposed to basic explanations of the issue. They just hear “debt” and “raise,” and they’re agin’ it.

Then again that is the same old song the left like to sing whenever the majority or plurality of Americans disagree with them. In their minds the American public isn't educated enough on (insert issue here), the American public aren't capable of looking into an issue and making their own determination.

I completely disagree with that. I believe the American public is watching the issue closely, they understand the ceiling is going to be raised but want to make sure the endless merry-go-round of borrowing, spending and being forced to borrow more because Washington overspends, ends.

Poll after poll done' this year, from a variety of polling organizations, show that the economy, jobs and the national deficit are the top issues in the minds of Americans.

American voters are watching, they are engaged more than I have ever seen in my 40+ years and I seriously doubt they appreciate being told they are too stupid to understand what they are seeing.

[Update 5/15/11] Maha responds and I respond back, all links found here.

.

Democrats Join Republicans Insisting On Spending Cuts Tie In To Debt Limit Increase

With a national debt of over $14 trillion, government spending out of control and the very public battle between political parties showing Republicans insisting on spending cuts and Democrats fighting against them, the White House now needs Congress to increase our debt ceiling.

Republicans in Congress have insisted that any increase be tied to more spending cuts and a fiscal plan that shows Congress is serious about reducing the debt.

The Senate is still controlled by a Democratic majority and any deal made on raising the debt ceiling which includes spending cuts, will have to include Democratic support and it looks like that support is there.

Wapo reports:

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.”

Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is “hopeful” that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year.

Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.)releases a statement explaining why so many Democrats are joining with Republicans to insist deficit reduction be a part of the package.

“As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path,” Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), another Democrat challenging the White House, said in a statement his office released this week. “If we don’t take action to reduce our deficit spending, Congress will be facing this same debt ceiling vote in the near term – still with no end to our deficits in sight.”

Polls conducted by a variety of sources, from January 2011 (Reuters) and as recently as April 2011, (CBS News) show that there is consistent opposition by Americans voters to raising the debt limit.

In 2012, 23 Democratic Senate seats are in play and 10 Republican Senate seats, so decisions made now will be watched and judged and will undoubtedly be a factor in how constituents vote in those elections.

Resurgent Republic:

President Obama’s policy of raising the federal debt limit without any preconditions relating to limiting spending, i.e. a "clean debt limit," is supported by only one-out-of-ten voters, the least popular option of three presented in a Resurgent Republic survey conducted jointly with the American Action Forum.

The second-ranking option overall is "not raising the debt limit under any circumstances." That option places second among Independents and Democrats, and is the top preference for Republicans.

The preferred option, drawing support from a plurality of voters overall, is "raising the debt limit, but only in exchange for substantial spending cuts and a commitment to reduce the deficit." The days of "routine" debt limit increase votes may be history, with voters holding firm views about the debt ceiling vote in a time of concern over the economy and a pervasive view that "we have got to stop spending money we don’t have," as has been seen in previous Resurgent Republic polling.

The Democrats listed above understand the Republicans in Congress enjoy an overwhelming amount of public support to lower the deficit, cut spending and get our fiscal house in order.

They understand this because their chances at being reelected depend on it.


Semi-related :

McConnell turns the tables on Reid in budget fight

“I understand that the Majority Leader would like to have a vote on the House-passed Ryan budget and we will,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement. “But we’ll have a vote on the President’s budget at the same time. Since there is no Democrat budget in the Senate, we’ll give our colleagues an opportunity to stand with the President in failing to address the problems facing our nation while calling for trillions in new spending, massive new debt and higher taxes on American energy, families and small businesses across the country.”

Ouch.

.

Support For Ryan's Path To Prosperity Comes From Unlikely Place: Slate- 'Good Plan'

Reminder from yesterday's post for those that wish to read the GOP's Path To Prosperity for themselves instead of letting the firestorm of opinion pieces in the old and new media tell you what to think.

Read the Full 73 page Report- Key Facts and Summary- A Contrast In Budgets (PDF's from budget.house.gov)

In going through the the discussions and massive amounts of ink dedicated to either hailing the budget plan or criticizing it, I found support for Paul Ryan's plan from a very unlikely place.

Slate, not known for a bastion of conservative thinking, headlines with "Good Plan".

For the past 30 years, Republicans have been hypocrites about spending. They've raged against big government without ever proposing the kinds of cuts necessary to bring federal expenditures in line with tax revenues. Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, producing an actual budget surplus during Bill Clinton's second term. But they've been little better than Republicans when it comes to confronting the nation's long-term fiscal imbalance, which is driven by the projected growth in entitlement spending.

This dynamic of political evasion and reality-denial may have undergone a fundamental shift today with the release of Rep. Paul Ryan's 2012 budget resolution. The Wisconsin Republican's genuinely radical plan goes where Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich never did by terminating the entitlement status of Medicare and Medicaid. (It doesn't touch the third major entitlement, Social Security, though Ryan has elsewhere argued for extending its life by gradually raising the retirement age to 70.) Ryan changes Medicare into a voucher, which would be used to purchase private health insurance. He turns Medicaid into a block grant for states to spend as they choose. Though his budget committee isn't responsible for taxes, Ryan includes the boldest tax reform proposal since the 1980s, proposing to lower top individual and corporate rates to 25 percent and end deductions. While he's at it, Ryan caps domestic spending, repeals Obamacare, slashes farm subsidies, and more.

If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party—one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don't respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.

The Slate piece delves into some of the meat and potatoes of the plan and concludes at the end of the article:

But more than anyone else in politics, Rep. Ryan has made a serious attempt to grapple with the long-term fiscal issue the country faces. He has a largely coherent, workable set of answers. If you don't like them, now you need to come up with something better.

Consider the conversation on how to bring America's fiscal house in order, started.

[Update] Video below shows Ryan stating "It all comes down to this: Either you fix this problem now where we, you can guarantee people who’ve already organized their lives around these programs get what they have coming to them, or you pick the president’s path, which is do nothing, punt, duck, kick the can down the road, and then we have a debt crisis and then its pain for everybody."



H/T CNS News

.

Paul Ryan Unveils The GOP Path To Prosperity: Budget To Cut $6.2 Trillion Over 10 Years

Read the Full 73 page Report- Key Facts and Summary- A Contrast In Budgets (PDF's from budget.house.gov)



Paul Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's first congressional district and serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee, writes an op-ed in the Wall street Journal explaining the GOP Path to Prosperity.

"Our budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years and puts the nation on track to pay off our national debt."--- Paul Ryan, Wall Street Journal April 5, 2011

Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

During the last few months, the GOP controlled House of Representatives has been in a public battle with the Democratically controlled Senate and Democratically controlled White House over spending cuts, with the GOP pushing for more and more spending cuts and the Democrats holding on to every bit of government spending they can.

Below I am going to show two visuals. One from Business Insider from February 2011 showing an income statement for the United States and the other provided by Ryan in his WSJ op-ed.

Click to enlarge

According to the pie chart above the U.S. brought in $2.2 trillion and spent $3.5 trillion.

58 percent of those expenses are from entitlement programs. 20 percent from Social Security, 22 percent from Medicare and Federal Medicaid and 16 percent from Unemployment Insurance and other entitlements.

Those numbers were taken directly from The White House Office of Budget Management.

Anyone who lives on a budget or deals with money in any way should understand that level of spending vs revenue is not sustainable.

The graph Paul released in his WSJ piece shows what will happen if something drastic isn't done.



The GOP Path to Prosperity leaves nothing off the table, addresses entitlements in a way that no one has dared to address them in decades for fear of public backlash because while voters continue to harp on Washington for their continual overspending and enlargement of government, voters also cringe at the thought of specific targeted entitlements and the change needed to stop this free-fall into debt America is on.

The major components in Paul's proposal are Reduce spending, Welfare reform, Health and retirement security, Budget enforcement and Tax reform.

Reduce Spending:

This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.

Welfare Reform:

This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.

As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.

Health and Retirement Security:

This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.

In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower- income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.

We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.

Budget Enforcement:

This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.

Tax Reform:

This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

More:

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

From the Heritage Foundation's The Foundry:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget proposal, for the first time in recent memory, sets our nation on a different and better path. It tackles the massive spending excesses of the recent past and the entitlement crisis that is beginning to command our fiscal future. It rejects the politics of government dependence, massively higher taxes and the inevitability of national decline. No budget in decades has had the potential for so fundamentally improving the nation’s prosperity and restoring its vast promise. This is a monumental budget proposal for monumental times, and it opens a serious and necessary conversation about the future of our nation and its great legacy of freedom, opportunity, and self-government.

They conclude:

But in the end, let’s remember where we are and what Chairman Ryan has accomplished. Last year, neither the House nor the Senate passed a required budget resolution. This year, President Obama proposed a budget that more than doubles the national debt. In the first budget of the new Congress, Chairman Ryan has forged a serious path to fix our nation’s fiscal and economic crisis. The House, the Senate, and the President must now do their part so that we may reclaim our nation’s future.

You will hear a lot of talk, Conservatives hailing this plan, Democrats criticizing it, politicians pushing their own political agenda and pundits pushing their own ideology.

Click the links at the top of this post, read it, do the math and decide for yourself if we can sustain the path we are on and if the answer is no, then determine for yourself if you believe this proposal addresses the concerns you have as individuals.

.

Economy, Spending And Budget Deficit The Top Concerns For Americans

The question Gallup posed for their survey on what concerns Americans the most was "Next, I am going to read a list of problems facing the country. For each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, only a little or not at all."

Economy- 71 percent listed the economy as their greatest concern, 22 percent listed it as fair amount and only 7 percent as only a little/not at all.

Federal Spending and the Budget Deficit- 64 percent listed Federal Spending and the Budget Deficit as their greatest concern, 23 percent listed it as fair amount and only 12 percent as only a little/not at all.

Those are the top concerns for Americans.

Gallup's bottom line

Americans' economic anxiety has not abated over the past year, as 7 in 10 Americans continue to tell Gallup they personally worry a great deal about the economy. This has ranked as Americans' top concern on this measure since 2008. Healthcare led the list from 2002 through 2007 and remains among the top five today.

This year's additions reveal that federal spending and the budget deficit worry Americans nearly as much as the economy. The interesting distinction is that all three party groups worry about the economy, while the deficit concerns far more Republicans and independents than Democrats.

Pretty clear that Democrats are out of touch on what is the most important to most Americans, which is why their problem is not "messaging" it is their message itself.

.

One Obamabot Jumps Ship

Obama loses Sully. When one losers their biggest fans, they have a problem.

Andrew Sullivan: "Obama To The Next Generation: Screw You, Suckers"

They have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

It will be interesting to see who Sully blog campaigns for in 2012. My guess would be Obama and his justification will be "but he is better than the REPUBLICAN!!!"

Sullivan is referring to Obama's budget proposal which proposes to increase the deficit, borrow more money to pay for spending we cannot afford and clearly shows a president that proposes to continuing to spend more than we take in. (That plus a link to his proposal in yesterday's post)

Quick reminder of the bottom line:

The U.S. government would bring in $2.627 trillion in revenues and spend $3.729 trillion.

According to Obama's so-called "budget" proposal, our 2011 deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion.

Other liberals reactions are more muted, with most understanding Obama's budget isn't going anywhere without change and they know this proposal is just Obama's starting point for negotiations with Republicans.

Blog Reactions from both sides

Taylor Marsh, not an Obamabot, but solidly supported him after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign.

The light has finally dawned. “Hope” and “change” were marketing messaging. Ah, got it. Mr. Sullivan is actually channeling his own grief even if he’s well beyond the under 30 crowd. It has him looking to Mitch Daniels for fiscal salvation, who just had a rhetorical collision with Rush Limbaugh.

Pres. Obama is just another elite corporate politician doing what every other president would do in order to live to fight another day. He’s going to let the opposition propose the devastating cuts to people’s favorite programs, while preemptively cutting some of his own to have as a talking point.

POLITICO proves why Obama did what he did. The first ones up on their “loser” list is “the liberal base.”

Obama thinks that by offering minor spending cuts while still proposing to spend more than we take in, he has a talking point for his 2012 campaign. "See, I tried to show fiscal responsibility by proposing to cut things!!!"

Director Blue has a chart showing exactly how much "cutting" Obama is proposing.

I've marked the Obama cuts in yellow. Repeat: I've marked the Obama cuts in yellow.

It is all laid out over there so please go read the entire thing.

Power Line (Conservative), titles their piece "Steep Cuts?" Even the Left Is Starting to Notice":

I suppose Sullivan was one of the last to figure this out. The only mystery is why anyone would be surprised by Obama's failure to lead. Can you name a single occasion in his life when Obama has ever shown leadership? I can't.

Obama's game is transparent, isn't it? He is playing a game of chicken. He puts forward a series of proposals that he knows are more or less insane; but he also believes that Republicans will come to his rescue. They, not being wholly irresponsible, will come up with plans to reform entitlements--like, for example, the Ryan Roadmap. Ultimately, some combination of those plans will be implemented because the alternative is the collapse, not just of the government of the United States, but of the country itself. But Obama thinks the GOP's reforms will be unpopular, and he will be able to demagogue them, thus having his cake and eating it too. Is that leadership? Of course not. But it is the very essence of Barack Obama.

Andrew Stiles at NRO, breaks down Obama's proposed spending spree and it is worse than anyone thought.

$3.73 trillion — total spending this year (25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).

$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.

$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.

$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.

$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years.

$4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe.

$1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), up from $1.3 trillion in 2010.

$2 trillion — Amount the budget will raise taxes on business and upper-income families over the next ten years, which includes letting the Bush-era tax rates expire in 2012 (for incomes $250,000 and up).

$50 billion — Amount the administration plans to spend this year on infrastructure and transportation “investments.”

$30 billion — Amount dedicated to a “National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy,” including the much-touted high-speed rail initiative.

$77.4 billion — Funding allocated for the Department of Education, a 22 percent increase from 2010 levels, and a 35 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$29.5 billion — Total spending on the Department of Energy, a 22 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$9.9 billion — Funding allocated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 30 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$150 billion — Total amount the White House plans to spend next year on research and development programs.

8.2 percent — Predicted unemployment rate in 2012.

When all is said and done, Obama's proposal is just that, a proposal. It is Congress that sets the budget, the President simply sends his "wish list" out and hopes Congress gives him some of it. Obama's first two years he had it easy, Democrats controlled the House and the Senate so Obama got what he wanted.

This year is different, he doesn't own Congress any more. Republicans need to stand up, make the difficult decisions on cuts and stick their neck out there. The voting public wants less government spending. We may not like all the specific cuts, but all in all we know that the path we are on is unsustainable.

.

GOP Rep Shuts Down Democratic Fear Campaign About Government Shutdown

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)has just stated that if Republican and Democratic politicians as well as the president cannot agree on a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund government for the rest of the fiscal year, then to stop a complete government shutdown the GOP could pursue a temporary measure before March when the previous temporary CR is set to expire.

The Hill:

"If we don't get agreement in the meantime, yes, we do think there's going to be some sort of situation where there's a short-term CR," Ryan said on "Good Morning America."

Democratic politicians have been "pounding away" at a political message accusing Republicans of risking a government shutdown over spending differences, to which Ryan's comments in the above video could be a response to.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, cited comments from House Republican Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, quoted in a CNN.COM story, saying it is a “possibility” that the fight over spending cuts could lead to a government shutdown.

Many Republicans are against another temporary CR because that would leave spending levels at their current rate which is unsustainable.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday said, “Any time that we propose a spending cut, it seems that Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and others scream, ‘Shutdown.’”

Boehner and McConnell have declined to rule out the possibility of a government shutdown in recent television interviews. Doing so would hurt the GOP’s leverage with the White House. Both have emphasized their intent is to reduce spending, not shutter the government.

We spend more than we take in and that type of fiscal irresponsibility is what Americans are fed up with.

Republicans are proposing $1 billion in cuts, Democrats are balking and keep screaming "shutdown", using it as a fear campaign.

In this instance though, the American people, voters, want government to control their spending habits and Democrats are once again backing the wrong horse for if Republicans lay out a CR which cuts spending but still funds government and the Democratically controlled Senate and Obama's White House refuses to pass it, then the blame will lay squarely on Democrats and they know it, which is why they are trying to shape the message.

Americans are not as stupid as Democrats seem to think they are and this will backfire on them if they force a shutdown simply to try to blame the GOP for it.

The Republican controlled House of Representatives needs to set the proposal up, put it online for Americans to see, pass it, then throw the ball into the Senate's court and shine a spotlight brightly on Harry Reid, daring him to shutdown the whole shebang.

The only way to control spending is to force Democrats to stop spending.

The GOP needs to have confidence in the American public that we will watch, we will see who is trying to get a handle on spending and who is fighting against it and we will hold those refusing to cut spending accountable.

.

Obama's Budget 2012: At No Point In Projections Would Government Spend Less Than They Take In

With so many headlines from major news outlets talking about Barack Obama's proposed 2012 budget, deep within an ABC News' Political Punch article, we see the bottom line:

~~~At no point in the president’s 10-year projection would the U.S. government spend less than it's taking in.~~~

By the numbers:

The U.S. government would bring in $2.627 trillion in revenues and spend $3.729 trillion.

According to Obama's so-called "budget" proposal, our 2011 deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion.

Noel Sheppard, at NewsBusters, makes this point:

....this means that since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, we have posted over $5 trillion in deficits.

For the record, that's more combined non-inflation-adjusted red ink than the United States of America had created in all of the years of its existence prior to that point.

In just four years, the Democrats recorded combined deficits greater than what had been posted in the prior 220 years.

ABC News highlights the details of the proposal:

Among the tax increases proposed:

• ending subsidies for oil and gas companies ($46 billion/10 years); and

• reducing the rate at which those in the highest tax bracket and some people in the second highest bracket can itemize tax deductions in areas such as interest on home mortgages and charitable giving

The Obama administration is also proposing letting expire after 2012 the lower Bush tax rates on income over $200,000 for an individual $250,000 for a family but they are not including this revenue when projecting the $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction.

Among the spending freezes/cuts:

• a five-year spending freeze over non-security-related discretionary spending ($400 billion/10 years);

• cutting $300 million in Community Block Grants, which help cities and counties fund low income housing and anti-poverty programs;

• cutting the low-income heating assistance program (LIHEAP) in half, or by $2.5 billion;

• cutting $125 million from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative;

• cutting more than $1 billion in grants to large airports;

• cutting $950 million in states’ funds for water treatment plants and other infrastructure; and

• having the Pentagon budget grow at just the rate of inflation would cut $78 billion

Yesterday morning, Speaker of the House, John Boehner sent a letter to Obama, signed by 150 economists urging an end to "stimulus" spending and calling for immediate spending cuts to boost our economy and help create a better environment for job creation in America.

Letter below:

150 Economists Call for Spending Cuts to Boost the Economy

From the Speaker's website:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today said President Obama is set to follow his request for an increase in the debt limit with a budget that “will continue to destroy jobs by spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much.

More:

Early reviews confirm President Obama’s budget will offer too much spending, taxing, and borrowing. By “raising taxes” and seeking “more spending,” the president’s blueprint “would barely put a dent in deficits,” according to The Washington Post and “does not even hit the short-term goal he set” for his own fiscal commission. As Speaker Boehner said today: “This isn't winning the future, it's spending the future.”

Bottom line here is something that every individual that lives on a budget understands.. you cannot spend more than you make.

If American citizens have to live within their means, then we have the right to insist our government do the same.

This proposal will now go to Congress which will rewrite much of it trying to bring spending down to at least the amount that we are bringing in, which will create a showdown between the Democratically run Senate, the Democrat in the White House and the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Progressive liberals continue to try to offer the false argument that the extension of the Bush era tax cuts somehow increases our deficit over time, but since that is not money that is "in hand" for the government to spend, it has nothing to do with increasing the deficit.

Spending money that is not there to spend is what increases deficits. Borrowing money to pay for that spending is what increases the debt.

Raising taxes on Americans to justify spending and borrowing more money and claiming that by not raising those taxes it is somehow raising our deficit is complete intellectual dishonesty.

Here is an analogy for you.

Neighbor one uses credit cards and keeps spending more money than he is taking in, increasing his debt to the credit card companies and increasing his own household deficits. He does this by assuming he can sneak into his neighbors house and steal money to pay those credit cards off.

Neighbor two protects his money and prevents neighbor one from stealing from him.

Neighbor one then cries out that if he would have been able to take money from his neighbor, he would have been able to pay off the credit card companies, lessen his debt and he would not have such high deficits then.

That money was never his to begin with so has absolutely nothing to do with his spending nor his borrowing habits.

Intellectually dishonest argument.

[Update] You can see the entire budget proposal here.

[Update #2] Reactions from Senate Republicans found here.

.