« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Barack Obama’s Deficit

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 12th, 2010 at 11:43 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There was a USA Today story the other day that taxes in the United States are ridiculously low now. The basic gist of the story, pushed by leftwing groups who want everyone to bow down and face Washington for its “gifts” — never mind that it is your money to begin with — is that there is no conceivable way anybody in their right mind could think taxes are still too high.

This comes as Bush tax cuts are set to expire and sets up the argument that maybe they should just expire.

The second salvo on this front is this story breaking overnight that we’re running a huge deficit this month. Take both stories together and the conclusion for the left and media is that taxes need to go up. The rest of America is thinking maybe spending needs to go down.

It was more than twice the $40-billion deficit that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast and was striking since April marks the filing deadline for individual income taxes that are the main source of government revenue.

Department officials said that in prior years, there was a surplus during April in 43 out of the past 56 years.

The government has now posted 19 consecutive monthly budget deficits, the longest string of shortfalls on record.

There is a larger issue here that everyone is missing. Barack Obama is lecturing Europe right now on its financial mess, going so far as to lecture countries like Spain on it spending. How the heck can Barry O tell anyone with a straight face that they need to cut their spending when Barry is spending in ways a drunken sailor would never conceive of spending.

Friends, taxes are not too low. Spending is just too high.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    are too low then I recommend they voluntarily contribute money to fund their pet projects.

    I think their real goal is to simply drive down consumption and leave us with just enough money to subsist.

    The problem is of course that they are simply spending way too much money. They’ve broken the Constitution’s restraints and are running wild.

    Regarding the defeat of Bob Bennett I want to add that it is precisely his kind of Republican that has led us to where we are today. Sure he was a conservative most of the time but not when it really counted, not when it required a backbone to stand up to the Left’s insatiable desire to tax and spend. Like so many old guard Republicans he simply wanted to grow the government at a slower pace than the Left. He had no real desire to shrink it. It is just this kind of Republican that is responsible for this mess almost as much as the Democrats. We absolutely must have GOP members willing to do real battle with the Left, who refuse to make deals that compromise on adherence to the Constitution and conservative principles. There can be no cooperation with the Left. None. Thus Bob Bennett must go and all those like him.

  • cwb33

    so, if NOBODY’s going to cut spencding, then taxes have to go up. What it amounts to is solving the problem Reagan created in the 80s when he said the federal government could tax like Alabama and spend like Connecticut and somehow everything would work out… it didn’t.

    So now we have to decide whether we want to tax like Alabama and spend like Alabama, or tax like Connecticut and spend like Connecticut. And with popular government programs like Medicare and Social Security making up the bulk of federal spending, I’m wagering it’ll be the latter.

  • acat

    First, by the time Clinton was elected, the deficit was gone. Was that anything Clinton did? Obviously not – it was Reagan and Bush 1.0.

    Second, Conservatives *do* cut spending. Always have. Always will.

    RINOs, centrist republitwits, and other idiots who claim to be “on the right” don’t. That was the problem in 2008, 2006, 2004, and so on – Republicans spent like Democrats.

    Not Conservatives – we were on the outside, trying and working to get rid of the RINOs. Of course, nobody wanted to hear it, and now (most conveniently) it’s as if it didn’t happen…

    Try again, ‘kay?

    Mew

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Democrats in Congress inherited 4.5% unemployment in late 2006 … we now have it near 10%, and 6 million private sector jobs were lost, with projections that it will take years to get back to zero on that.

    Democrats in Congress inherited a $250 billion deficit and it is now 5 TIMES higher.

    It’s the over-spending stupid. The Democrats have raised spending, taxes, and regulation. We need to cut back on the ever-expanding welfare state, cut the taxes and cut the regulations.

    Only then will the deficit recede and our fiscal balance get restored.

  • baserunr

    It’s the Republicans that don’t cut spending. You are conflating the conservatives and Republicans again. Far too often, they have not been the same thing. Conservatives don’t believe that all government is bad, we just believe that most everything the Federal Government does is outside of its Constitutional bounds, and most of what it spends is wasted and/or unnecessary. The idea is to get government closer to the people. With a giant Federal Apparatus thousands of miles from most everybody, government is not close to those that it should be serving, and is ripe for abuse and usurpations. Kind of like we have now.

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    and, no standing armies to speak of, and they are still teetering on the brink of insolvency.

    And they have no standing militaries, to speak of.

    So it ain’t the taxes. The taxes are never enough.

  • Michael Dugas

    “Barack Obama is lecturing Europe right now on its financial mess, going so far as to lecture countries like Spain on it spending.”

    THAT is Frikken HI–Larious! Who writes that stuff!?!
    Whew!!!!! Man my ribs are hurtin from laughin’ so hard!

    Slapstck/Buffoonery is some of the best classic comedy.
    I mean it’s gotta be a bit right?

    I can hear it now…Obama: Blah blah blah Print More Money Blah Blah Raise Taxes Blah Blah Blah Is there a Golf Course around here?

    Gotta Love that whole Suspension of Disbelief deal…….
    Who needs morals right?

    sigh

  • bobbymike

    They are measuring taxes as a percentage of GDP and since unemployed people don’t pay taxes of course by this measure taxes will go down. Also capital gains taxes are down as individuals have lost on the stock market and are just now regaining some of their lost wealth.

    Also too few pay income taxes. The rich pay way more than even the income they earn in comparison so one rich guy loses his job has a big impact on the total tax take.

    I think what needs to be done is to trade “slightly higher” taxes with massive simplification that should offset, through efficiency gains, the increase in taxes on the economy. Oh and of course massive spending cuts and entitlement reform, however, about another $100 billion/year for defense.

  • gekster
  • GregInFla

    How the heck can Barry O tell anyone with a straight face that they need to cut their spending when Barry is spending in ways a drunken sailor would never conceive of spending.

    Remember, Obama also got away with telling Karzai to reduce the corruption in Karzai’s government. Now that was a “pot, meet kettle” experience.

  • rfpzzzzz

    If you think going out to dinner on a credit card = a free dinner then you might believe that these enormous deficits are not a tax by another name. Tobacco taxes went up immediately violating Obama’s $250,000 pledge in a blink. My property taxes skyrocketed and if you think they don’t count , how about paying them for me. Bush tax decreases were allowed to expire rather than be repealed . If taxes are so low and so good why did the “protectors of the little guys” do this? Taxes on sodas and french fries, gas tax , carbon tax, stock transaction tax, medical device taxes are a few which have been mentioned or have been enacted. Only a fool would think Dems do not drool for intolerable tax rates like vampires waking up think about sucking the blood from the neck of the first unsuspecting person they can find.

  • rfpzzzzz

    Bush et al spent too much but nothing like Obama and the Dems. Bush and the GOPs last deficit was about $160B (2006). Also all the threats to business from the Dems is nothing like the GOP. Clinton was dragged to balancing at least the “phony” budget after losing the house by Kasich in the house. He also cut a lot of military spending after the cold war that probably led in part to 9/11 which Bush had to rebuild again just like Reagan did after Carter. Bitch about the GOP record (Reagan spent too much too), but very few GOPs are as bad as Obama , Pelosi etc.

  • hizchoice

    Obama’s deficit is not financial;it is spiritual , moral and social! He’s a dud at being a human being first! And his little clones are following right behind him!

  • Leopard1996

    This individual has been all over the site putting in these little one liners polluting this site for a while now. As to your point, just as others have said, there is a huge difference between “Republicans” and “Conservatives” and if you got out of your MSM,, Daily Kos, mindset and actually took a look at the world as it is now, you would see that.

    There is a reason that Arlen Specter bolted to the Dems after seeing he was going to get slapped like a prison whore by Toomey, or Crist was now running as an independent now that he realized that he was getting nowhere near the GOP senate nomination, or why Bennett is now crying like the prom queen after realizing that she is not going to be respected in the morning. That reason is that these individuals were not true conservatives. Now I will concede that conservative citizens were asleep at the switch when it came to Washington and politics, but that is probably because conservatives at the time had jobs, families, and local communities that they actually paid attention to.

  • BA Cyclone

    You are of course correct, but I think the public at-large, the sort of disinterested average voter can also easily conflate conservatives and Republicans. There is so much evidence of free-spending Republicans claiming to be conservative, the “conservative” message is mixed at best, in reality.

    In a way, it’s like trying to tell people that yes, you *can* buy a great automobile built by a U.S. company. Lots of people have individual bad past experiences that negate almost any future marketing, regardless of message or reality.

    It is up to us, as true fiscal conservatives in particular, to stand against the correlation and make the distinction as plain as possible.

    I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that is already a known public fact, or that there is not real damage out there that conservative Republicans must overcome. AND, that job becomes even more critical if we are fortunate enough to win more Republican seats in the next few elections. Republicans in leadership cannot continue to waffle on these issues, and effectively give us Democrat-light.

    Further, more to the point of the original topic – the task to sell the public at large upon government doing less and people doing more may also be just as hard. People can support it heartily in abstract, until THEIR program or THEIR federal dollars are the ones that are cut. We must be able to tell them why government can NEVER take away the risks of life, regardless of their level of funding or control.

    Our message must be clear, concise, unmistakeable – and cut to the core of our culture and why we as people MUST endure whatever withdrawal pains may exist to extract “government programs” out of our everyday lives.

  • BA Cyclone

    You are of course correct, but I think the public at-large, the sort of disinterested average voter can also easily conflate conservatives and Republicans. There is so much evidence of free-spending Republicans claiming to be conservative, the “conservative” message is mixed at best, in reality.

    In a way, it’s like trying to tell people that yes, you *can* buy a great automobile built by a U.S. company. Lots of people have individual bad past experiences that negate almost any future marketing, regardless of message or reality.

    It is up to us, as true fiscal conservatives in particular, to stand against the correlation and make the distinction as plain as possible.

    I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that is already a known public fact, or that there is not real damage out there that conservative Republicans must overcome. AND, that job becomes even more critical if we are fortunate enough to win more Republican seats in the next few elections. Republicans in leadership cannot continue to waffle on these issues, and effectively give us Democrat-light.

    Further, more to the point of the original topic – the task to sell the public at large upon government doing less and people doing more may also be just as hard. People can support it heartily in abstract, until THEIR program or THEIR federal dollars are the ones that are cut. We must be able to tell them why government can NEVER take away the risks of life, regardless of their level of funding or control.

    Our message must be clear, concise, unmistakeable – and cut to the core of our culture and why we as people MUST endure whatever withdrawal pains may exist to extract “government programs” out of our everyday lives.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    I do not know the answer to this question. But the question should be asked. Asked of the administration, Congress, the left-wing media and Democrats everywhere. There is a lot of evidence that he does. He is undermining the Rule of Law with his actions with auto companies’ bankruptcies; with his Supreme Court picks; with his political attacks on everything from Toyota to Wall Street and myriad businesses and industries; with new laws and regulations so “lloose” in specificity that it’s his hunch that rules, not the rule of law. His spending is insane. No other word for it. (And he lectures Greece.) There is virtually no one in his administration, including Himself, who has had any experience or relationship with business, commerce and industry. Without the prosperty from business, America has nothing, nothing, zero, nada. Obama is doing nothing to encourage businesses to succeed, except the few who make gigantic contributions (Google) or union-backing (GM, etc., etc.) The decades-long rules on profit-crushing union organizing activities are being rigged to benefit union bosses in the private sector. In the public sector of government, unions continually buy elections for Democrats. And, finally, the Democratic Party financiers, the trial lawyers, are buying easier and easier rules encouraging lawsuits, class actions and settlements. All of which increase prices of goods to enrich jet-setting lawyers.

    Those are only a microcosm of the evidence that Obama wants the U. S. capitalism to fail. Arguments against seem to be left-wing media articles and Obama’s pronouncements. All of which stretch the “truth” and are meant to propagandize popular opinion.

    http://www.periodictablet.com

    Superamerican

  • whats_up

    The deficit didnt become a surplus until the last three years of Clintons time in office. Some credit must go to the Republicans who controlled Congress at this time. But to claim that the deficit was gone by the time Clinton took office is inaccurate, either you are clueless on this matter or are simply lying about it. Either way it doesnt make you look good. These are easy facts to check on.

  • cwb33

    why Bush was running a $296 Billion deficit in 2006? (which is the actual number)

    Do you think it’s because his plan to cut Social Security failed (as it always will because, like I said, it’s a popular program)?

    If he couldn’t cut it in 2004, when the stock market was at an all-time high, what are the chances anybody’s going to be able to cut it moving forward?

    Unfortunately, this is the crux of the problem (that conservatives and Republicans refuse to face). Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all hugely popular programs that (along with the military) make up the largest bulk of government spending. None of these programs are likely to be cut because the American people don’t want them cut. So if we can’t cut spending, taxes have to go up.

  • cwb33

    hijacked conservative ideals in support big-business. But if you think President Palin or President Toomey or President Rubio would be able to cut spending, you’re wrong. There’s just not enough stuff that could be cut that would make any kind of difference to taxes unless Social Security, Medicare or the Military are cut.

  • acat

    Yes, Clinton didn’t get to surplus until near the end of his second term, and yes, the Repubs in Congress were largely responsible, but .. in 1996, still in Bubba’s first term, the deficit was reduced significantly.

    Getting back to the key point, yes, there was a tax increase involved.

    Mew

  • Leopard1996

    Without having an another side being disingenuous scumbags trying to demo gauge an issue could start the process of weaning off the populace of the programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and the right candidates could honestly look at the military and see what weapon systems are only being built so that district X can have jobs. That is the stuff that the conservative that I am looking for in the long term. In the short term, I am looking for candidates that can send Pelosi, Reid, and Obama packing and stop the train from where it is heading now.

    Sorry 787 Billion should have never have been spent for a “stimulus” that couldn’t stimulate a sex addict let alone an economy.

  • chuckl

    He has replaced the F-22 with the F-35. The F-35 has less than half of the capability of the F-22. Because of performance differences we must use at least 3 F-35s to attempt to provide the safety of 1 F-22. The F22 was cancelled at the time that the flyaway cost was only $120 million each. The F-35 is now above $130 million each. This is a massive reduction in our security.

    The Air Born Laser, which has now demonstrated full capability to destroy a rocket in the launch stage was moved from production testing to “research” status. This is another blow to our security.

    Add these actions to the ones that you listed. Include the massive expenditures of money that we do not have.

    The answer to your question is a highly emphasized YES.

  • acat

    Mew

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    cwb33, thanks for dragging up another of the dishonest leftist talking points for us to expose.

    It’s not the Republicans who do things to benefit “big business,” it’s the Democrats. Obama’s pandering to the largest pharmaceutical companies, the auto makers, the big investment bankers, has been obvious and shameless. They contribute to his campaigns, and he writes laws that shackle them lightly but put their smaller competitors out of business, and guarantee them permanent status as the biggest fish in their pond.

    What Republicans do is create laws that encourage businesses to innovate, and remove regulations. This does not benefit big businesses so much as it benefits small, start-up businesses.

    Oddly, though, you’re correct about the need to cut SSI and Medicare. Done intelligently, these could become partially or completely private except for small aids to the poorest, which is how both programs were originally conceived and sold.

    You should watch what’s happening in New Jersey, where Gov. Christie is successfully accomplishing what you’re claiming cannot be done. The American people are not stupid, nor are they greedy for the most part. If they become convinced that no economy can afford to fund the Utopian promises of the left, they’ll give up those programs. They’ll hate it, but they’ll do it.

    This is what’s being proved in Greece and the UK, and here in the US as well: no economy, no matter how robust, can afford the Utopian dreams of the left. We’re watching the utter collapse of the welfare state mentality. Enjoy extinction, cwb.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    …from what you said, but the main idea is correct.

    Bush’s last budget was for 2009, and Obama inherited it. The CBO figures projected a deficit of over a trillion dollars in 2009, which cannot properly be blamed on Obama, although because of Democratic control of Congress it can be blamed at least partly on Democrats generally. The difference between the ongoing $450 billion Bush deficits and the trillion-dollar 2009 deficit is mostly TARP, but also I think some war spending.

    The Obama administration seems to have added another half a trillion in deficits within the first few months after he took office, mostly on Democrats’ favorite social programs through the “stimulus” bill.

    The real story is ongoing creeping socialism. First, the collapse was mostly the result of over-regulation: forcing banks to carry too many mortgage securities, forcing them to relax their lending standards, creating an artificial secondary market for the loans, driving interest rates down to near zero, forcing reserve requirements that created capital drains when the housing prices fell, and so forth.

    Second, the really huge deficits, which are off the books, are the ones created by promises made to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various federal pension programs. These were all produced by Democrats pretending to be Santa Claus with other peoples’ money (which turns out to be imaginary money, since nobody can afford their programs.) Republicans have made periodic, timid swipes at bringing these programs back to reality, but have run away at the first sign of public displeasure.

    It’s not just over-spending, it’s over-promising. We’ll have to get used to the fact that Medicare and SS are not going to take care of us, and the government unions are going to have to accept that they’re not going to get the cushy pension for life. That’s the only way the US economy can be saved. Leave those programs alone, and we’ll go the way of Greece in a decade or two — or more likely, we’ll go into hyperinflation in the next couple of years trying to finance annual deficits of nearly $2 trillion.