Romney ad: President Obama’s spending habits have created a “prairie fire” of debt

posted at 12:01 pm on September 18, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

The Romney campaign is out with a new round of ads, and given that much has been made of whether/how Team R is going to re-strategize in the now t-minus 49 days until election day, this latest attack on President Obama’s spending policies is bringing some focus to the national debt, in no unclear terms.

A pretty apt metaphor, I’d say — the tone is kind of scary, but heck, so is the problem. As the WSJ pointed out yesterday:

Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household. …

Did you know that the Federal Reserve is now giving money to banks, effectively circumventing the appropriations process? To pay for quantitative easing—the purchase of government debt, mortgage-backed securities, etc.—the Fed credits banks with electronic deposits that are reserve balances at the Federal Reserve. These reserve balances have exploded to $1.5 trillion from $8 billion in September 2008. …

Did you know that funding for federal regulatory agencies and their employment levels are at all-time highs? In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second consecutive year. It’s up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and especially small business.

…Yikes. In that same vein, however, this next ad is one that, on a personal level, I find extremely effective. As you may have read in my various rants against the Democrats’ completely manufactured “war on women,” I am fed up with being told that I’m not a ‘real woman’ because I dare to have political concerns that transcend contraception, abortion, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act. I’m supposed to believe that Mitt Romney’s policies would make it a “scary time to be a woman” (I’ll say it again: Are you flipping kidding me!?), but the only things that “scare” me about the upcoming election are the exact same reasons that everybody, man and woman, should be scared. I’m scared that, because of our spending habits and our growing government, our economy is contracting; that jobs and opportunities and wealth creation is going to be that much harder to come by; and that my and my children’s future incomes (if we can find jobs, that is) are going to get the bejesus taxed out of them because our political system couldn’t get its act together. That is what I’m scared of.

What women (should!) care about is the economy — can it ever be said enough? I think this is a great parry to the Obama campaign’s scare-tactic spin machine trying to make women believe that somebody is going to swoop in and confiscate their contraception, or whatever it is they’re always on about. What say you, ladies (and gents!)?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Obama has increased the debt by about 60% in his first term. Bush doubled the debt in two terms. Without adding up individual years and just doing an average of both his terms, that Bush increased the debt about 50% in his first term, compared to 60% for Obama.

FloatingRock on September 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Well that seems a little negative.

Bishop on September 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Yeah it is, a little bit more than real.

I just get tired of being called a traitor because my vote is not cheap enough to be sold to, well, he is slightly better than the other person.

When you let the party move to be more like the other party, you are in fact the traitor. As that other party is given more room to move even further from your real goal.

Holding a politicians feet to the fire only happens in one of three places. Votes, Money and feet on the ground. All of which happen before the election. If you are not willing to make him earn those, then your vote is as valuable as any Democratic voters vote that cannot be swayed by persuasion and their best interest.

Sorry for the negativity. I think I might be a bit more negative. I got all excited about Romney last night, and then got knocked back down to reality. I will try to be a bit less toxic.

astonerii on September 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM

SWalker on September 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

That was Air Force usage. The Army used it in VietNam as a call that a unit was about to be overrun (see: Ia Drang Valley, among other references)

And on three separate occasions, I used that call to get help. It must have meant something to someone, because we ended up with a hell of a lot of aircraft stacked up over our position and dropping ordnance all around us.
Others in my unit used it, too, when their teams were trapped.

Solaratov on September 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So, you want Romney to stop by your place some evening, kiss your ass for a while and make some hard-and-fast promises that he’ll do whatever you think is best…in order to persuade you to do the right thing for your country?

Solaratov on September 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM

No that is your schoolyard bully coming out to create a reality I did not describe. Him coming to my house and making a promise to me does not hold his feet to the fire. I ask Romney do what is the right thing for our country, if he promises to, then he earns my vote.

Maybe I got lost somewhere along this convoluted road of a replican democracy we live in. Is it a nation of the People, By the People and For the people? Or is it a government of the Politician, by the Politician and for the Politician. I always get confused.

Well not really.
Romney is asking me to hire him for a job. My vote being an afirmative hiring decree by me. My consent for him to represent me. I have one condition, that he promises to end the transfer of wealth from my daughter’s pocket to other people’s pocket. That he ends the buying of votes at the expense of my not allowed to vote Daughter.

I think that promise, more than my vote is what is in the interest of the nation. I guess your milage may vary on this. If you have a vested interest in allowing your politician access to my child’s pockets, you probably do not like this position. So, who hates the country more? Me, who wants the country to get onto the real right path, or you, who wants to have the security of knowing that for 4 years a person affiliated loosely with your party identification is the one running things, but 4 years or 8 years out someone else will have the power to reach into childrens pockets to buy votes with?

I am sure you are unbiased, so tell me, am I unpatriotic because my vote has value to me?

astonerii on September 18, 2012 at 2:01 PM

No doubt America is on fire and Obuma ran out of the extra $3T he borrowed to throw on the fire…no problem says Bernanke as he fires up his computer to fan the flames!

aposematic on September 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I like both those ads. A lot.

Now, someone in a PAC needs to put out an ad about women of my generation who didn’t need to be taken care of. All we wanted was a land where there weren’t artificial barriers, like “no women need apply”. Unlike Sandra fluck (what an unfortunate name she has), I wasn’t a weak, whiny sister who needed a sugar daddy to survive and like the planned parenthood crowd who’s ultimate goal is for all women to kill their children and have someone pay them to do the job.

BTW, would someone who KNOWS Billy Crystal tell him to shut the heck up? Seriously? He’s a pretentious little twerp whose know it all attitude is severely offensive. He wanted Romney. Now he needs to support him—especially when Romney tells the truth. I am very sick of the Beltway Appologetics!

Portia46 on September 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM

All we wanted was a land where there weren’t artificial barriers, like “no women need apply”.
Portia46 on September 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Freedom is not worth protecting for some. Next thing you know they will be telling churches they have to hire non believers! Oh, ooops, already happening. Or that church funded and run hospitals will have to hire abortionists! Oh yeah, that too. Well, I am sure they would never tell a company that they need to pay women with less experience, less reliability and less education and ability the same wages they pay men…

Somehow, somewhere, I thought businesses were run by people who had their own rights…

astonerii on September 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM