Obama budget busts the $4 trillion mark

posted at 5:21 pm on February 11, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

While the rest of the world focused on the New Hampshire primary, the White House dropped a budget bomb. Congress will get a $4.1 trillion spending plan for FY2017 from Barack Obama, complete with a massive $2.8 trillion tax hike and a set of assumptions that boggles the imagination nearly as much as the topline spending number:

“The budget that we’re releasing today reflects my priorities and the priorities that I believe will help advance security and prosperity in America for many years to come,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “It adheres to last year’s bipartisan budget agreement. It drives down the deficit. It includes smart savings on health care, immigration, tax reform.”

But that vision will come at a cost. Budget deficits will grow to 2.8% of the economy, with a cumulative effect of increasing the national debt from $19 trillion to $27.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

And although the Obama administration expects the debt to remain relatively stable as a share of the economy, that projection is based on a set of assumptions: The economy will continue to grow by about 2.5% over the next decade. Congress will enact a $10-a-barrel tax on fuel oil, raising $319 billion over 10 years. Congress will pass immigration reform, resulting in another $170 billion in new revenue over the next decade. And off-budget war spending will decrease by $636 billion through 2026.

Er …. suuuuuure. The last condition sounds the most distanced from reality. The Obama administration ignored the rise of ISIS, which has grown in the vacuum Obama left in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and now reaches even Afghanistan. Are we supposed to believe that Obama’s plan still commits to “degrading and ultimately destroying ISIS” while scaling down war spending?

Cracking the $4 trillion mark is hardly a sign of fiscal responsibility, either. As I point out in my column for The Fiscal Times, the growth of the budget under Obama outstrips economic growth and population growth, and sanity:

Put aside the components of the budget, though, and focus more on the astounding expansion of it during the years in which Obama controlled the outcomes of the budget. The final federal budget signed by a Republican president was FY2008, when Democrats negotiated with George W. Bush on the spending plan. For FY2009, Democrats passed a series of continuing resolutions to exclude Bush from exercising his authority on the budgets, delaying it until Obama could sign an omnibus bill in March 2009 to complete the budget process.

In FY2008, the federal government had outlays of $2.98 trillion, amounting to slightly over 20 percent of GDP for 2008. By FY2015, outlays had risen nearly 24 percent, while economic output during the same period rose only 10.1 percent. The population grew only 5.3 percent in the same period. The FY2016 budget pushed the increase in outlays to 32.4 percent of the FY2008 budget, nearly a third more spending in just eight years and an increase of 7.1 percent over the previous year – when the economy grew at only 2.4 percent.

Those who claim to be mystified by the rise of anti-establishment populist fervor need look no further than this.

Obama gave voters four trillion reasons for their anti-establishment fervor, especially younger voters. The rise of Bernie Sanders may be fueled by that demographic, but they’re not all economic illiterates, and they are despairing about a future of irresolvable debt:

Younger voters are especially sensitive to this. While conducting research for my book Going Red in New Hampshire in 2015, I spoke with a young man who had cast his first two presidential votes for Obama. Recently, though, the rapid increase in national debt has frightened him – as does Obama’s insistence that the proper response is to spend more. “It needs to be fixed,” he told me.

But where are the proposals to scale back the budget and eliminate deficits? Neither party in Washington has seriously proposed a plan to fix this, which means younger voters will inherit the fruits of their parents’ and grandparents’ profligacy. Both parties have contributed to the rapid increase of federal spending. That leaves voters with few choices but radical disruptors such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, or maybe Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, as outsiders willing to take on entrenched interests to end the debt cycle and get back to fiscal responsibility.

This prompted my question for Republican presidential candidates in the Townhall/ChangePolitics forum:

Be sure to upvote it!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Thank the “conservative” Paul Ryan and McConnell.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2016 at 5:23 PM

This is definitely Trump’s fault as “conservatives” couldn’t have anything to do with this.

Chomsky Dance Recital on February 11, 2016 at 5:24 PM

Why doesn’t he just carpet bomb the USA?

rhombus on February 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM

not one dime…

cmsinaz on February 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM

More investing!

antipc on February 11, 2016 at 5:27 PM

Time for Congress to respond the way the Dems did with Reagan – “that budget is DOA”.

dentarthurdent on February 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM

Hey, I got an idea, why not let middle school kids run the major banks and lending institutions in the country?

Cleombrotus on February 11, 2016 at 5:30 PM

They’re insane.

How are all the public employee pension plans doing, the ones formulated on “assumptions” of economic growth, still in the red to the tune of $100 trillion?

Thing is, even this disaster in the making pales to what Sanders has planned.

Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Anyone opposing this is a racist.

Just thought I’d get that out of the way and spare the usual suspects the trouble.

F X Muldoon on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

I just love the way we account for “military action”. We pay $400B annually on our military. But if you want to use it, that’s extra.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Why doesn’t he just carpet bomb the USA?

That would require an increase in the defense budget, an obvious non-starter.

F X Muldoon on February 11, 2016 at 5:32 PM

So what happens now?
The R Congress and Senate will pass this and pretend they hated it and fought it at every step…?

NeoKong on February 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Barky is just Feelin’ the Bern®

NOMOBO on February 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Take a close look at FY2016, Ed.

That will be the first one to spend $4T in a single fiscal year.

Obama’s official WH request for FY2016 called for $3.999T in spending – and the 2 year agreement reached between Obama and McConnell / Ryan boosted that.

Your point about the irresponsible increases in government spending, as well as government scope, power, and reach are valid. But let’s not forget that since January 2011, the GOP had control of the House. And control of the Senate since January 2015. It was the GOPe (McConnell, Boehner, Ryan) that laid the ground work for the >$8T two year budget deal agreed upon in November 2015.

This fiscal irresponsibility is one reason why the conservative base has had it with the GOPe.

Athos on February 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Congress will enact a $10-a-barrel tax on fuel oil

He’s simply delusional.

rbj on February 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Free shlt ain’t cheap, ya know.

hillbillyjim on February 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Nothing new here…the Dems don’t even present it to Congress for a vote. He may as well ask for $24T and show $20T paying off the national debt to impress his low IQ followers.

tej on February 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM

time for a flat rate federal tax, no exemptions, no deductions a flat rate tax on all income from all sources

RonK on February 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Learn from this.

h/t Axe

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM

The malignant SOB wants to do as much harm to the country as possible in his remaining time.
Rather than approving his budget, he should be tried for treason.

justltl on February 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM

Spending in NH

Bush $36.1m
Christie $18.5m
Rubio $15.2m
Kasich $12.1m
Clinton $10.8m
Sanders $8.1m
Trump $3.7m
Graham $3.2m
Fiorina $1.8m
Paul $831k
Cruz $580k
Carson $575k
Pataki $374k

Total $111.9m

Axe on February 11, 2016 at 10:59 AM

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM

Free shlt ain’t cheap, ya know.

hillbillyjim on February 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM

A concept liberals just can’t understand. All they know is the rich and businesses need to have more of their earning taken. Which of course means ours too.

darwin on February 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM

I give it about ten minutes after the first hint of opposition for Ojesus the Healer to start calling Republicans ‘hyper-partisan’, ‘obstructionists’, etc., and accuse them of robbing babies or pushing Granny down a mine shaft or some such.

hillbillyjim on February 11, 2016 at 5:40 PM

Obama budget busts the $4 trillion mark

The Republicans will support Obama on this just like they do every other time.

This is the GOP-Democratic budget.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Take a close look at FY2016, Ed.

That will be the first one to spend $4T in a single fiscal year.

Obama’s official WH request for FY2016 called for $3.999T in spending – and the 2 year agreement reached between Obama and McConnell / Ryan boosted that.

Your point about the irresponsible increases in government spending, as well as government scope, power, and reach are valid. But let’s not forget that since January 2011, the GOP had control of the House. And control of the Senate since January 2015. It was the GOPe (McConnell, Boehner, Ryan) that laid the ground work for the >$8T two year budget deal agreed upon in November 2015.

This fiscal irresponsibility is one reason why the conservative base has had it with the GOPe.

Athos on February 11, 2016 at 5:34 PM

Ed…”you talking to me, Athos?”

arnold ziffel on February 11, 2016 at 5:41 PM

This can’t be true. As of right now, there’s nothing in the Washington Post about this. You’d think that a newspaper located in Washington, DC, covering the business of the government of the US would have something about this. So, since they don’t it can’t be true. LOOK!!! Ted Cruz!!! Trump!!!

MikeHu on February 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Obama The UniParty gave voters four trillion reasons for their anti-establishment fervor, especially younger voters.


CRomnibus and CrapTheBediBus
(courtesy of Ryan) put ownership equally on both sections of the UniParty.

PolAgnostic on February 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Say what you want, at least he made the oceans recede and brought us together as a nation.

hillbillyjim on February 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM

The Republicans will support Obama on this just like they do every other time.

This is the GOP-Democratic budget.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:41 PM

But not before the Dems accuse them of trying to shut down the government.

antipc on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Guys…fellow countrymen…reasonable adults,

This and the several Supreme Court vacancies in the upcoming first term alone are why it is paramount to do all you can to prevent an admitted full fledged socialist or a corrupt criminal borderline socialist away from the White House. If your preferred Republican candidate does not win the nomination please remember what’s at stake beyond the convention. Don’t damage each other enough to where a candidate’s support becomes too personal.

Do y’all not grow tired of being nasty with each other anyway?

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Thank you, Illinois, for giving the rest of us your budgeting genius!

Deafdog on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

….but…but…butt…But I thought we were suppossed to put JugEars in the ‘review mirror’…since he’s a lame duck king…and it’s getting old… beating up the same old jester after seven years?

JugEarsButtHurt on February 11, 2016 at 5:45 PM

I just love the way we account for “military action”. We pay $400B annually on our military. But if you want to use it, that’s extra.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Maintenance costs.

DarkCurrent on February 11, 2016 at 5:45 PM

Call his bluff, respond that it’s not enough and demand a $20 trillion budget with an $18 trillion tax hike and defense spending reduced to zero. Make all those demorats in defense industry states stutter like monkeys, then ask them why they love war and hate the poor.

Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:45 PM

I just love the way we account for “military action”. We pay $400B annually on our military. But if you want to use it, that’s extra.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

You understand what happens in war, yes?

Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:46 PM

Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

Yeah – we aren’t even showing the pension fund liability on the books.

It’s worse.

Zomcon JEM on February 11, 2016 at 5:47 PM

How could anyone justify electing Bernie Sanders with the objective of decreasing spending? He wants to increase spending levels by $20 trillion over 10 years, with no clue how to clue how to pay for it

Truthfully, I think many of them would like to reduce the debt, but none of them have a plan and political will to get it done.

Techster64 on February 11, 2016 at 5:48 PM

A trillion here, a trillion there, after a while it starts to add up.

Exninja on February 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM

Congress will get a $4.1 trillion spending plan for FY2017 from Barack Obama, complete with a massive $2.8 trillion tax hike and a set of assumptions that boggles the imagination…

And recent history shows us that the Republican Congress will loudly and proudly declare themselves helpless and give Obama and the Democrats their every wish and more.

RJL on February 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM

The Republicans will support Obama on this just like they do every other time.

This is the GOP-Democratic budget.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:41 PM

But not before the Dems accuse them of trying to shut down the government.

antipc on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Theatrics.

The progressive Republicans need to prance about in front of their base looking ever so ‘severely conservative‘ before they join hands with their progressive Democratic colleagues and pass it.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM

This and the several Supreme Court vacancies in the upcoming first term alone are why it is paramount to do all you can to prevent an admitted full fledged socialist or a corrupt criminal borderline socialist away from the White House.

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Do you mean Donald or Hillary by that?

DarkCurrent on February 11, 2016 at 5:53 PM

This and the several Supreme Court vacancies in the upcoming first term alone are why it is paramount to do all you can to prevent an admitted full fledged socialist or a corrupt criminal borderline socialist away from the White House.

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM

Agreed! I would hate to see someone without Roberts stone conservatism get on the bench.

Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:56 PM

This is Obysmal the Bozo’s version of “The Art of the Deal.”

onlineanalyst on February 11, 2016 at 5:57 PM

“This is sooo stupid. If we just expand the money supply, we can shrink this debt to almost nothing”

-SJWs (+ Trolls)

WryTrvllr on February 11, 2016 at 5:57 PM


anuts on February 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM
Do you mean Donald or Hillary by that?
DarkCurrent on February 11, 2016 at 5:53 PM

Hillary.

Trump is a mercantilist. And as far as I know, not a criminal.

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 5:57 PM

And? So what if Obama wants a $10T budget? If the GOPe l!mpd!cks in the House and Senate give Prez’nit Reggie-Smoocher everything he wants, why should Jeddite snarl at the Emperor God-King? If Obama demands money from the treasury, and the guardians of the purse trip over their noodles to give it to him, the real problem ain’t the dog-eater…

Jedditelol on February 11, 2016 at 5:58 PM

Agreed! I would hate to see someone without Roberts stone conservatism get on the bench.
Bishop on February 11, 2016 at 5:56 PM

Are you putting those odds higher with Hillary or Sanders?

anuts on February 11, 2016 at 6:00 PM

Theatrics.

The progressive Republicans need to prance about in front of their base looking ever so ‘severely conservative‘ before they join hands with their progressive Democratic colleagues and pass it.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM

In 2015, the GOPe brought you: Kabuki Theater

Now, for 2016, the GOPe is bringing you: Kabuki Theater, The Sequel.

Bigger, Better, More Audacious and Craven than ever before. Unseen levels of Seething, Contempt, and Arrogance….They Dare you to hold them accountable or responsible.

Athos on February 11, 2016 at 6:06 PM

Theatrics.

The progressive Republicans need to prance about in front of their base looking ever so ‘severely conservative‘ before they join hands with their progressive Democratic colleagues and pass it.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 5:50 PM

Zactly.

To quote Roddy Mcdowall in Overboard.

Madam, you really should play a little hard to get.

antipc on February 11, 2016 at 6:08 PM

In the run-up to the UK’s 2010 election the Labour party was in power, Mr Gordon Brown was prime-minister and a couple of things were near certainties:

(1) The Labour party wasn’t going to form the next government.

(2) The country’s finances were in a mess, due to very high government spending by Mr Brown and Mr Blair through their years at the helm.

Mr Brown then proceeded to increase government spending commitments.

Since the expense was unsustainable and would further damage the wealth-creating part of the economy, the incoming government (almost certainly to be the Conservative Party) would be forced immediately to make spending cuts, but since government spending was high even before the increase, it would also force the country to continue to operate with Labour Party spending levels even though they Labour Party was out of office. This would therefore constrain the incoming government’s ability to make any truly healing changes to the economy.

It appeared to be deliberate economic sabotage — the economic equivalent of a “scorched earth” policy.

Presumably the Labour Party hoped, in this way, to force the incoming government to make unpopular and easily criticised decisions which would then increase Labour Party popularity ready for the 2015 election. It would also allow them to claim:

(*) That the Conservatives couldn’t manage the economy while Labour had delivered years of prosperity (not actually true but in the minds of the economically ignorant borrowed money and cheap imports made it seem so).

(*) That the Conservatives were wicked/evil/heartless/mean/selfish for cutting hospital and school budgets and reducing “essential services”.

Now I’m wondering if Mr Obama and his Democrat Party are trying the same kind of sabotage trick.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 6:19 PM

A trillion here, a trillion there, after a while it starts to add up.

Exninja on February 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM
\

Well, World War 2 got us out of the Depression. I guess World War III will get us out of the new one. The best way to cancel all debts is to declare war on the creditors. Devastated cities you say? Most of our inner cities already look like they’ve been bombed. Your tax dollars at work!!!

MaiDee on February 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM

Summer of RECOVERY (7X)

Hey, it’s going to work THIS TIME … we promise.
-King Putt and Crazy Joke Biden.

Missilengr on February 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM

Dear Paul Ryan, I BLAME YOU.

idalily on February 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Now I’m wondering if Mr Obama and his Democrat Party are trying the same kind of sabotage trick.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 6:19 PM

You shouldn’t wonder.

The stimulus bill of 2009 reset the new normal spending level of the federal government at about $3.6T per year, up from the FY2008 level of $2.98T. FY2007, the last all GOP budget, was $2.7T in spending.

Sequester held it at the $3.5T from FY2012 until FY2015’s budget deal between Ryan and Patty Murray set the spending level at just under $3.9T. Now we’re at $4T-$4.1T for FY2016 and FY2017.

Any promises to ‘rollback’ spending will be met with hue and cries from the left about how much suffering will be imposed of people – while the left ignores things like the ACA giving illegal immigrants about 3/4 of a Billion dollars in subsidies even though the ACA bars illegals from participating. Or the unprecedented growth not only in the numbers of federal workers, but the levels of their compensation.

During the 2013 government shutdown over funding, Obama and the Democrats deliberately acted in order to maximize the pain and inconvenience of the government shutdown. They have done, and will do, the same with the budget in order to damage the GOP candidate for President if he advocates any cutting in spending or the size and scope of the government. It’s their standard operating position.

Athos on February 11, 2016 at 6:45 PM

C’mon, Ed. You can spend your way to economic prosperity and you know it.

ghostwalker1 on February 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM

Why doesn’t he just carpet bomb the USA?

rhombus on February 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Is it a line item in the budget?

docflash on February 11, 2016 at 6:59 PM

Obama will get this 4.1 trillion budget approved. Count on it. The current budget will get extended by continuing resolutions right up until Sept 30. Beginnjing in Oct. the dems. will say pass the budget, no more continuing resolutions or shut the gubmint down. We all know what then happens. Pubs. will not dare let the gubmint “shut down” a month away from the election. Obama knows this and that’s why he submitted this budget. GOPe is a terrorist organization. More dangerous than ISIS. Time to nuke it by voting for Trump.

they lie on February 11, 2016 at 7:01 PM

I just love the way we account for “military action”. We pay $400B annually on our military. But if you want to use it, that’s extra.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM

I think there are Obamacare and EPA user fees required to cover potential damages we could cause to the enemies health and their environment.

tej on February 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM

Inexperienced, inept, pathological lying Marxist with no clue & not a care on how the country works. 1/3 of Americans out of work, while Obama’s open borders allow millions of uneducated, unskilled illegals to enter & fill sanctuary cities, bringing down wages & benefits.

RdLake on February 11, 2016 at 7:17 PM

This is nothing new. Obama foists thousands of pages of pipe dreams, and even the democrats ignore him. When he had democrat majorities in both houses, they never once brought one of his budget proposals to the house floor. He is a joke even to his own party.

Serious Drivel on February 11, 2016 at 7:30 PM

0bama budget busts the $4 trillion mark

But we must not, MUST NOT! say anything bad about 0bama during this campaign. That would be counterproductive.

/GOP-Eers

LegendHasIt on February 11, 2016 at 7:55 PM

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill

sadatoni on February 11, 2016 at 8:00 PM

Four million, millions. Four thousand billions. What’s the big deal? Lots of cronies to pay off. Lots of politicians and lobbyists to belly up to the trough. Middle class? What middle class?

Jackson on February 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Inexperienced, inept, pathological lying Marxist with no clue & not a care on how the country works. 1/3 of Americans out of work, while Obama’s open borders allow millions of uneducated, unskilled illegals to enter & fill sanctuary cities, bringing down wages & benefits.

RdLake on February 11, 2016 at 7:17 PM

What you’ve written could, mutatis-mutandis, have been written for the UK because the Democrats of the USA basically copied what they’d seen the UK Labour Party get-away with since 1997.

The British Labour Party (headed by Mr Blair and then by Mr Brown) intentionally imported the least assimilable people they could find (deceitfully understating true immigration numbers by as much as 90% as they did so) with the specific intentions of destroying British social cohesion and culture, and of creating a reliable block of voting supporters for themselves.

Its tragic that Americans in 2008 couldn’t learn anything from the UK because the similarities between Mr Blair and Mr Obama in style, character, skills, experience and their stated goals were quite striking. All the warning signs were there from before he was elected.

Alas, in both countries most people still haven’t understood that the damage, disruption and disorder was intended, and not merely a side-effect of incompetence.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

No worries. The congressional GOP will talk him down from $4.1 trillion to $4 trillion and claim a massive fiscal victory for the American people.

Of course the $0.1 trillion in “savings” will be back-ended and take place (we’re assured) in the later years.

PackerBronco on February 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM

4 trillion is actually not that bad since it was about 3.6 trillion in 2009 when he took office. You need to be intellectually honest about these things. I credit the Republican election of 2010 with helping keep spending at or near the same level for almost 8 years. The cost was that defense suffered under sequestration, but by no measure, after the Pelosi Massive 600B increase from 2008 to 2009 can you say Obama spent more than historic levels, he kept spending at a Clinton like level whereas Bush and Reagan added many more billions. For example under Bush, pay raises for federal employees often exceed 4 percent and never exceeded 1 percent under Obama, I believe.

timoric on February 11, 2016 at 9:11 PM

Quit spending my money, damnit.

losarkos on February 11, 2016 at 9:28 PM

Now I’m wondering if Mr Obama and his Democrat Party are trying the same kind of sabotage trick.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 6:19 PM

You shouldn’t wonder….
Any promises to ‘rollback’ spending will be met with hue and cries from the left about how much suffering will be imposed of people – while the left ignores things like the ACA giving illegal immigrants about 3/4 of a Billion dollars in subsidies even though the ACA bars illegals from participating. Or the unprecedented growth not only in the numbers of federal workers, but the levels of their compensation.

During the 2013 government shutdown over funding, Obama and the Democrats deliberately acted in order to maximize the pain and inconvenience of the government shutdown. They have done, and will do, the same with the budget in order to damage the GOP candidate for President if he advocates any cutting in spending or the size and scope of the government. It’s their standard operating position.

Athos on February 11, 2016 at 6:45 PM

…Its tragic that Americans in 2008 couldn’t learn anything from the UK because the similarities between Mr Blair and Mr Obama in style, character, skills, experience and their stated goals were quite striking. All the warning signs were there from before he was elected.

Alas, in both countries most people still haven’t understood that the damage, disruption and disorder was intended, and not merely a side-effect of incompetence.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

Let me dispel the notion that … it’s a shame Rubio took such a big hit for repeating the truth.

Its tragic that Americans in 2008 couldn’t learn anything from the UK because the similarities between Mr Blair and Mr Obama in style, character, skills, experience and their stated goals were quite striking. All the warning signs were there from before he was elected.

Alas, in both countries most people still haven’t understood that the damage, disruption and disorder was intended, and not merely a side-effect of incompetence.

YiZhangZhe on February 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

That’s what I remembered.
He puts out the budget as candy for his base, because they don’t realize Congress never passes it. However, he still gets a lot of his druthers funded; and those that aren’t funded he implements anyway and dares Treasury not to pay the bills.

AesopFan on February 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM

Whoops quote fail.
The final one should have been this

This is nothing new. Obama foists thousands of pages of pipe dreams, and even the democrats ignore him. When he had democrat majorities in both houses, they never once brought one of his budget proposals to the house floor. He is a joke even to his own party.

Serious Drivel on February 11, 2016 at 7:30 PM

That’s what I remembered.
He puts out the budget as candy for his base, because they don’t realize Congress never passes it. However, he still gets a lot of his druthers funded; and those that aren’t funded he implements anyway and dares Treasury not to pay the bills.

AesopFan on February 11, 2016 at 10:11 PM

AesopFan on February 11, 2016 at 10:12 PM

Budget Deficit as % of GDP:
1.1% FY 2007 GOP House (Hastert), GOP Senate (Frist) & GOP POTUS (Bush)
9.8% FY 2009 DEM House (Pelosi), DEM Senate (Reid) & DEM POTUS (Obama)

Data Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/hist01z2.xls

After the transition from all-GOP control to all-DEM control,
in just 2 Fiscal Years, the annual deficit multiplied nearly NINE TIMES!!!

Democrats want to pretend that that is all “Bush’s Fault!”, and then use that as their baseline and falsely claim “Deficit reduction”.

The annual deficit today is still several times what it was in FY 2007 under a GOP House, Senate, and President.

ITguy on February 11, 2016 at 11:52 PM

George Washington would have had oba-MAO shot for treason. The man is the anti-Christ and a proven, admitted hater of this country and the Constitution. Scum…. typical liberal.

ultracon on February 12, 2016 at 2:52 AM

Can we survive for the rest of the year until this incompetent, anti-American bum is gone?

rplat on February 12, 2016 at 9:19 AM

“The budget that we’re releasing today reflects my priorities…”

Bankrupting the country?

wagnert in atlanta on February 12, 2016 at 11:59 AM

12,718.33192041455 per capita (estimated with 12/31/2015 population)

ExpressoBold on February 12, 2016 at 5:29 PM