Nancy Peslosi Can't Find Anything to Cut in Federal Budget

Really? Sen. Tom Coburn found 100

Among them:

++ $1.5 Billion+: Annual cost of maintaining government properties that are not longer needed or used.

++ $65 Million: Funds taken from federal emergency relief provided to the state governments of New York and New Jersey in the wake of Hurricane Sandy that was diverted to pay for tourism-related television ads.

++ $390,000: NASA grant to produce a series of YouTube videos starring the “Green Ninja,” who motivates school children to take action on climate change.

++ $384,989: National Science Foundation funding for a study of the oddities of the duck penis. A key finding of the study was the organ’s unique corkscrew shape.

The US is losing its preeminence in space exploration and NASA is making green weinie You Tube videos? Sheesh!

Phony Budget Compromise is Selling us A Bill of Goods

Obama's not the only one putting lipstick on this pig!
In my callow youth, I can remember various Congresses putting forth their "budget solutions". In fact, most of them had some great five and ten year plans, which, admittedly were heavy on spending on the front end, but boy do those savings kick in at the rear of the plan! And then, the next Congress, which was not bound by anything in the previous one, would come up with their own ten year plan, which, admittedly were heavy on spending on the front end, but boy do those savings kick in at the rear! After having been kicked in the rear by Congress after Congress, who were serious about spending but not serious about saving, we stand on the edge of a fiscal cliff. Some would say we've already gone over and there's no hope of return. Hope springs eternal.

Which brings us to the latest ten year program to deal with fiscal responsibility. I must admit that when I first heard there was a budget compromise sponsored by Paul Ryan and the ditsy Democrat Patty Murray, I figured it was a 50/50 split between the Onion and Saturday Night Live. It was neither. The more we learned about it, the more it became apparent that this was a compromise among politicians, for politicians. What is best for the country was not on the table.

America is deeply in debt. Congress spends more money than it takes in and spends more money each year than it did the year before. This cannot go on. The so called "compromise" includes tax increases, with virtually no real spending cuts, lifts many of the restrictions placed upon spending by the sequester, and the only thing the Republicans seemed to have garnered in their compromise, is a promise from the Democrats not to shut down the government and blame them again. Oh, and five magic beans*!

In Paul and Patty's Playhouse, the closest thing to a real cut is the outrageous cut in pension benefits to wounded and disabled veterans. Not a single penny is cut from pensions of civil servants, or Congress or congressional staffers anywhere, but it was decided that the pensions promised to our veterans was a cash cow that could be milked to free up funds for other, more worthy projects, no doubt. Yeah, right!

But, unlike the last bit of brinksmanship, which focused on Obamacare, Republicans could have left Obamacare out of the discussion altogether and simly focused on spending. This was an opportunity to once again acquaint the public with the deceitfulness of baseline budgeting. Nancy Pelosi (D-Botox) made the remark "There's nothing left to cut". This delusional fantasy could be contrasted against any number of thousands of wasteful expenditures made by the government every day. (Dr. John over at Flopping Aces listed a few)

The only way to reduce the debt and the deficit is to stop spending more than you take in and make some real cuts. Obama likes to say that he cut the deficit in half, but he only talks about cuts in the rate of increase. The budget grows more ever year, trillions more than George W. Bush spent (and he spent too much!) It's not like there's no waste, or fraud or inefficiency in federal spending that couldn't be cut. Candidate Obama assured us that there was, in 2008, and promised to go through the budget line by line to get rid of it. If only we had elected that guy!

We currently borrow from the Chinese, something like forty cents on the dollar of everything we spend. A simple budget freeze would mean that we at least don't spend more money than we did the year before. Given inflation, this might mean a three percent decrease in real spending power. Who among us, if faced with a budget shortfall could not reduce our own personal or family budget three percent? Which real conservative could not explain this in understandable terms to anyone who would listen?

Others have suggested the "Penny Plan": Cut one penny off every dollar of public spending.

The 1 percent cut would last two years, followed by a cap on total annual spending — equal to roughly 19 percent of GDP. Supporters say it also will cut spending over roughly 10 years by about $5.8 trillion, based on currently projected levels.

In a few weeks, there will come another vote on the debt ceiling, which the Republicans have pretty much indicated that they will cave to the big spending Democrats, so as to avoid (the blame for) another nasty government shut down. They may even believe that this is a good tactical move, to position themselves for wins in 2014 without having to explain to the MSM why they are letting little girls die without cancer treatments just to give their fat cat, one percent buddies another tax break.

But, if they won't stand upon principle now, but are willing to allow the country to slip deeper and deeper in debt for the next two years, while doing nothing about it but robbing disabled veterans, why should we believe that electing them in 2014 will do anything but make the Republican party the party of domestic appeasement yet again?

There were 12 Republicans who voted to end the discussion, including Lamar Alexander-TN, Jeff Flake -AZ, and Roy Blunt -MO. These nine voted for the final bill:

Ron Johnson - WI, Orin Hatch - UT, Saxby Chamblis - GA, John McCain - AZ, Susan Collins - MA, John Hoeven - ND, Johnny Isakson - GA, Lisa Murkowski - AL,
and Rob Portman - OH

If any of these turkeys are your senator, see what you can do to get them primaried out. Grill your candidates about what they propose to do about reducing federal spending. Don't accept platitudes or generalities. If they have a record, see how they have voted on such things in the past.

Throw John McCain a retirement party. Make it a big one!

Be prepared to give of your time, your talent and your treasure to preserve our great Republic. God save the United States.


*We should be so lucky to have negotiators who could get magic beans in return for their concessions!

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art
Cross posted at LCR

"We Have Nothing to Fear, But Incompetence and Venality in Government"

Obama as FDR: "We have Nothing to Offer But Fear Itself!"
The recent, partial shutdown of the federal government is focusing the nation's attention on a number of things. First, is the petty, vindictive and unnecessary closing of every open air memorial, roadside scenic overlook and even parking lots and roads to private businesses doing business on or nearby federal lands.

This is unprecedented. During the government shutdown of the 1990's, Bill Clinton did not find it necessary to make draconian closures of monuments and scenic turnouts. The Obama administration is barring people from merely driving by the Marine memorial, with its statue of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima, or stopping to look at Mt. Rushmore. Behind the slender fig leaf that the government is prohibited by law from spending money on keeping these sites open, the Obama administration is spending money we don't have to actively close them.

The good news is, is that while the government is at least partially shut down, people are getting sticker shock from Obamacare (those who actually manage to get through for a quote), the traditional 40 hour work week has been reduced to 29 for far too many people, who are unable to support themselves on one job, attempts are being made to turn elderly WWII veterans away from the nation's memorials, in Obama's name, and the President has managed to break away from his golf game long enough to weigh in on the most earth shaking threat to our nation, namely, whether the Washington Redskins should change their name! (No word yet on whether or not he will intervene in having the 'panda cam' turned back on at the National Zoo...)


The second thing, perhaps, is of even greater importance than the pettiness or vindictiveness of Obama in trying to maximize pain with the shutdown, and that is the process of how our government recklessly and carelessly spends our money. The current government impasse is over the funding of one and only one program: Obamacare. The Republicans are willing to fund every program in the "budget"*, save one. This in itself constitutes compromise with the Democrats over countless agencies and programs. Obama, Reid and Pelosi, on the other hand, want an all or nothing package, and refuse to negotiate, no matter what hardships might naturally be inflicted on the health or financial well being of the American public, plus whatever novel, petty and vindictive means they can come up with to further punish anyone who stands in their way. And blame Republicans, of course. It is almost comical the lengths that Obama will go to to negotiate with dictators and tinhorn rulers of third world nations who mean the US nothing but harm, but cannot find it in himself to negotiate with fellow Americans over differences in policy.

The President and his lackeys have all re-bleated the argument that the budget cannot be passed piecemeal, despite the fact that The President himself has signed at least one "piecemeal" budgetary measure protecting the paychecks of military personnel, and then... bragged about it! What's wrong with an up or down vote on each and every federal agency or program worthy of funding, or receiving the amount of funds it does in times of hardship and deficit?

Dim Bulb Nancy Pelosi is of the opinion, stated publicly, that there is absolutely nothing left to cut in the federal budget. "There are no more cuts to make", she bleats. Really, Nancy?? No duplicate programs, no waste, no fraud...My! The US government must have become a virtual Utopia under Barack Hussein Obama. Hardly! And is Obamacare, with its thousands of pages of law and thousands of pages of regulations, so perfect that no detail or aspect can be brought under scrutiny? Every tax in the act, like those on medical devices, and every provision, like forcing Americans abroad to buy insurance that will do them no good in the country in which they live, are now sacrosanct, because they were passed in the dead of night, by a single party and is now "the law of the land"? I don't know about you, but nearly in nearly every election, on every ballot I receive, there is a measure on it, changing, modifying or replacing some "law of the land". Was Obamacare given to us on 20,000 stone tablets at Mt. Sinai that is should be eternally unchanged?

Candidate Obama, in 2008, promised that he would go through the budget line by line to eliminate waste, fraud and unnecessary expenses. Can you name any one program, other than the military, that Obama has cut in the last five years? Any program at all??? Do you expect any sane person to believe that Obama recognized areas to cut in 2008, but not one of them was cut and yet somehow Nancy Pelosi announces in 2013 that they don't exist? Are these people lying or delusional (or both)??

If it's good enough for Senator Obama, it should be good enough for the country: Why not go through the budget line by line? Make every department justify their existence before they receive another dime in federal money. Isn't that the job of government? To determine the wise and just use of federal funds? Simply throwing all of the nation's spending eggs in one basket, allows for bills laden with pork, rewarding special interests at the expense of the American taxpayer, passing budgets laden with fraud and waste, which, as Obama likes to say, hold the taxpayer and the nation hostage, if they are not passed in their entirety. What's wrong with spending taxpayer money in a careful, prudent and responsible manner? Have these people got someplace more important they need to be, other than doing the people's business?

Here's an idea. Since the American people aren't even allowed to look at our national parks and monuments while they drive by, (God forbid they should actually pull off to the side of the road a gawk for a minute), how about we zero out any line items for presidential vacations...and golf games...and fundraisers...and concerts and galas at the White House, until America is back at work and the budget is balanced? Let's ask Barry Beach House to forgo his next trip to Martha's Vineyard, or Vegas, or Hawaii, or his next couple hundred golf outings, and attempt to lead America by example for a change?

I know. I have a dream!



*Actually, a "continuing resolution". Congress hasn't passed an actual budget since 2009. Every time Obama wags his tongue or finger at "Congress" for not "doing their job", or uses the word "budget", you might remind yourself exactly how many times he has admonished Harry Reid for not bringing up any budget passed by the House, for a vote in the Senate? (Zero) Passing a budget, of course, would illustrate just how much more Obama wants to spend, than expected revenues, and exactly where the money would be spent.

Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox
Cross posted at LCR

From Solyndra to Soccer Balls - Your Tax Dollars Keep Swirling the Bowl

Doug Powers points out that a portion of the $7 Billion boondoggle that Obama wants to spend on electrifying sub Saharan Africa, he wants to spend on... soccer balls.

Now, putting aside little questions like, "Where's he going to get the $7 Billion to pay for this scheme...out of his Czar and vacation budgets?, or is he going to borrow it from the Chinese? Or another quantitative easing that steals a little bit from every man, woman and child in America?", there's the question of efficiency. How many hydroelectric dams could you build for $7 Billion and expand the grid? And rather than tantalize the children with anemic little lights to read books we only assume they might have, that they can't be bothered to read during the daylight, why not buy books or hire teachers, when you can buy electrical generating soccer balls???

Obama deprives American schoolchildren from touring the White House because of the supposed effects of the budget sequestration, yet he proposes spending an additional $7 Billion dollars for the promise of humanitarian stunts and gimmicks? Give me a break!


For a little background on the technology behind the Solyndra soccer solution, here's a piece originally published Mar. 6, 2011:
sOccket to me!

...four Harvard students are betting that the popularity of soccer around the globe can help reduce the use of kerosene.

They came up with the idea for the sOccket, a soccer ball that generates and stores electricity during normal game play. The stored electricity in the ball can then be used to light an LED lamp, or charge a cellphone or battery.

“Soccer is something you will find in every African country,” one founder, Jessica Lin, told Green Inc. “People play for hours a day, so we thought, ‘Why not try to get a little more out of that energy?’ and that’s where the idea ultimately came from.”

...Early prototypes of the ball use an inductive coil mechanism similar to the technology found in shake-to-charge flashlights. The movement of the ball forces a magnet through a metal coil that “induces” voltage in the coil to generate electricity. For each 15 minutes of play, the ball can store enough energy to illuminate a small LED light for three hours, according to initial trials.

Now if we could only get that kind of performance out of our politicians!


Update: According to one source, the price off each sOccket ball is $99.

Cross posted at LCR.

You Don't Have to be a Lying Coward to be a Democrat (But, it Helps!)

(Bloomberg) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that Congress will reach a deal after the Nov. 6 election to avert hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases and spending cuts known as the “fiscal cliff” set to begin in January.

Got that? Harry Reid, who hasn't been able to pass a budget in over three years is confident that between the election and the end of the year, that Congress will pass a bipartisan agreement, to avoid Taxmageddon and massive automatic budget cuts to the military.

Between November 6th and December 31st, a little over a month and a half, with just Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Eve in the way, Harry Reid is going to reveal all the economic plans he and the president have for the country but couldn't in any way reveal before the election, if they had a prayer of keeping their jobs and make all the country's problems go away. . That's going to happen. Yeah. Right!

“I do not believe that we are going to go over the fiscal cliff,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters in Washington Thursday, adding that he opposed a short-term deal. “I’m in favor of long term.”

Unless Congress acts, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will begin in January and the George W. Bush-era tax cuts will expire Dec. 31. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the fiscal changes would amount to $607 billion in tax increases and spending reductions for 2013 alone. Democrats propose letting tax cuts expire for top earners, while Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone and back spending reductions instead of more tax revenue.

If you happened to catch tonight's presidential debate, Obama nattered on about how Mitt was "hiding" the cuts he intends to make and the loopholes he intends to close. And here, Harry Reid and the Democrats, believing we are heading for a fiscal cliff, are hiding all their cuts, hiding their spending plans and hiding every plan they have to deal with this economic mess, from you and I. They have to deal with over a trillion dollars worth of cuts, one way or the other, but are too cowardly to tell their bosses, the American people what they plan to do, until after its too late to change your vote this November, much like they failed to pass a budget in October of 2010, 'less their losses would have been even bigger. They are willing to gamble the economic future of this country, and everyone in it, for the sake of partisan political gain.

Harry Reid and the Democrats have nothing but contempt for you. Return the favor on November 6th.

Cross posted at Say Anything, LCR.

Great Moments in Hypocrisy - Starring Harry Reid

Last week, I was driving down to Fresno, and I heard something so outrageously hypocritical from Senate majority leader Harry Reid, that I thought to myself, if there is a Hypocrites' Hall of Fame, that Mr. Reid would surely get in on the first draft. And then, each subsequent newscast provided yet another line just as Hall of Fame worthy. Perhaps the biggest laugher was this one on the Republicans budget plans:

"What loopholes do they want to close? They will not say. It's part of their fictitious math."

"They will not say". Gosh, Harry! I can't imagine a political party not explicitly writing down what their spending goals are for the country. We could call it a...budget! Say, haven't you failed to produce a budget in the Senate for over three years now, Mr. Reid? What exactly are you and the Democrats "not saying"? Harry, you and the Democrats have been "not saying" what the federal budget should be since before the 2010 elections, probably because you knew that if the public was aware of the specifics of the Democrats' spending plan, your large losses in 2010 would have been much, much larger.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry.

"You lie!" Another Bamboozler-in-Chief Moment from Barack Obama

Remember when Representative Joe Wilson yelled out "You lie!" to Obama, during his health care speech to Congress? I had my own "You lie!" moment during the president's speech last night.

When the president claimed to have "cut" 4 Trillion dollars from the budget, it was no longer a question of him spinning facts to try to put the best face on them, he was lying outright to the American people. To most normal people, a budget cut is actually that...a cut. If you budget $100 a week for groceries and you cut $5 from your budget, then you can only spend $95.

Obama was using the ultra deceptive, so called "baseline budgeting". You need to buy a car. You figure that maybe you can afford $30,000. But you look at a $300,000 Maserati and then decide on a $60,000 Humvee, but you go home and tell your significant other that you "saved" $240,000 by not buying the Maserati. So, now, not only have you actually spent twice as much as you can afford, but you figure you can spend part or all of that $240,000 "savings" on something else.

If anyone in the MSM had a backbone or could do simple math, they could ask the president one simple question: Mr. Obama: given your claim of 4 Trillion dollars in budget cuts, how much smaller is next year's budget actually going to be compared to this year's? Assuming, of course, that your friend Harry Reid still controls the Senate and might get off his duff to actually pass a budget next year?

Obama wouldn't be able to give a short, factual answer, because there are no real cuts. Obama projects higher spending every year for the next ten years. In the real world, where most people live, that means there are no cuts.

It really gives me no pleasure to call the president of the United States a liar. There is one very simple solution to this, however: Mr. Obama, stop lying!


Editor's note: You may have noticed our own resident snake oil salesman, the Bamboozler-in-Chief is doing extra duty as Barack Embalma. The economy is tough, he needed a second job!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Enron

What's the difference between Enron and the Obama Administration? Enron's accounting was more honest.

By now, some liberal, happy warrior has brought your attention to Ray Nutter's, er, Nutting's Market Watch piece about how Obama is Mr. Fiscal Conservative, and that

"under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s."

Seem too good to be true? That probably seems counter intuitive to what most of you know to be true, and it should, because there's some Enron style accounting going into those figures*. First of all, it includes a heaping helping of stimulus that wasn't in Bush's budget. But since it happened in 2009, when traditionally, the previous president is responsible for the spending, it was in Enron's, er Obama's benefit to count it as Bush's spending.

To make the bamboozling even worse, what most of us thought would be a one time stimulus, is now built into the baseline of the federal budget, so that, according to the plan, about an additional billion dollars is spent, before there is any "increase". That's how they figure the increase is lowest since Eisenhower. It is a shell game. Obama is spending money faster than a drunken Congressman. And like Obama's phoney claim to have cut millions from the budget, Obama, should he be re-elected, would spend more every year he is in office. He's told us that we would. Now if only his willing accomplices in the media would expose this charlatan, this bamboozler of the gullible, for the big spender he really is, we can send him packing back to Chicago. Or Hawaii. Or Kenya. Or wherever he wants to go. Just go.

*When White House press secretary Jay Carney starts quoting them, it becomes a part of the administration's spin machine

Update : In his own words...



Cross posted at LCR.

You can Trust Barack Obama... to be Barack Obama

Barack Obama, the Bamboozler-in-Chief, is going to try to tell you that you should not focus on the fact that most of us are worse off than we were four years ago, by telling us the the problem he "inherited" was far worse than he thought. Well imagine a fellow that decides to walk from one side of the continental United States to the other. He starts off in San Francisco, and by the time he gets to Denver, thinks to himself, "Wow. This is far longer than I thought it would be!"

But, at least, he'd have made it to Denver.

Now imagine Barack Obama starting off in San Francisco, going the wrong way, ending up in Hawaii, knocking off to play a few rounds of golf, and looking you in the eyes and telling you, "It was farther than I thought."

Obama said he'd cut the budget in half by the end of his first term, but made it tremendously larger instead. As a candidate, he promised to "go through the budget line by line" to eliminate waste and fraud. By my reckoning, he's played over 90 rounds of golf, but hasn't quite found the time to do the whole "line by line" thing. And he said he had cut millions of dollars from the budget, so that he could sound like a moderate politician, but the truth is, they were all phony cuts, and the Federal Budget is slated to continue to grow every year for the next ten years.

When next year's budget is bigger than this year's budget, normal people will tell you that's not a cut, but an increase. A bamboozler will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

The first two years of his presidency, Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. They had the power to pass any legislation they wanted, any remedy to the economy that they saw fit: health care reform (as opposed to health care insurance reform), minimum wage, or jobs bills and instead, funneled money to political supporters like Solyndra and failed solar companies, sent money overseas to build electric cars, and actively took measures to raise the price of oil, gas and electricity, instead of doing what was right for the country.

What on God's green earth makes you think the next two or four years will be any different under Obama?

Tips from his caddy??

Cross posted at LCR.

Another Historic First for President Obama!

Barack Obama, America's greatest president in his own mind, had this to say about the Republicans' budget:

the Republicans running Congress right now* have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.

Really? Could it just be that from your perspective, Mr. President, your own budget was so far to the Left that it made the New Deal look like the Contract with America?

In the history of the Republic, has there ever been a president who submitted a budget that not a single member even of his own party would vote for? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. 414-0 Another historic first for President Obama!

*Mr. Obama: Have you met...Harry Reid? Senate Democrats have not produced a budget in three years.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Mean Streak: Obama is Not as Nice as he Looks"

...only they should have used this picture!


From a Washington Examiner editorial:

"...Obama invited House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to George Washington University to hear his Wednesday address on the federal government's dire fiscal situation. The speech was advertised by the White House as a major address in which the president would join the serious conversation initiated two weeks ago by Ryan in his detailed proposal for cutting spending. What Obama instead delivered, with Ryan sitting in the front row, was, in the Wall Street Journal's unsparing description, a "poison pen" speech dripping with mean-spirited partisanship, gross misrepresentations of fact, and sophistry of the lowest sort concerning Republicans' alleged desire to hurt old people, the poor and mentally challenged children. It was the sort of harangue one would expect from a rabidly devoted partisan hack, with no relation whatever to the thoughtful appeals to reason and common values that historically have characterized presidential leadership in this country."

We have some of the audio from this less than Presidential speech here.

Obama then spent Thursday evening regaling an audience of Democratic donors with what he thought were off-the-record insider jabs about his recent budget negotiations with House Republicans, including this cheap shot at Ryan: "When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he's just being America's accountant, that he's being responsible, I mean this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level." The reality is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under President Bush were regularly funded by Congress, claiming tax cuts must be "paid for" is a hoary piece of Democratic class-warfare demagoguery, and the prescription drug plan Ryan supported cost half as much as the Democratic alternative then on the table. Such fact-free commentary is to be expected from blind partisans, but not the president of the United States.

Yow! Tell us what you really think! You can read the rest here. More discussion at Memorandum

H/T Weasel Zippers

Nancy Pelosi Snaps at White House Adviser Gene Sperling

Of course, that could just be the Botox seeking early release!

In a tense moment that may well have encapsulated the frustrations of three-plus months in the minority, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi snapped at a top presidential economic adviser, Gene Sperling, during a closed-door meeting between White House aides and House Democratic leaders Wednesday.

“Maybe you could consult with us just once,” Pelosi said, according to one source’s account. Others confirmed the basic content of the stand-out barb from the former speaker in the midst of an active but largely cordial meeting.

Nancy has been a little bit tense. Maybe something about having to fly commercial?
And those darn TSA guys keep waving her through without a frisk! No wonder she's on edge!

At the time, Sperling was discussing the form and mission of a new bipartisan congressional working group the president wants to charge with establishing a deficit-reduction plan. In the president’s view, it would consist of 16 members, plus the vice president as chairman, and finish up by the end of June.

House Democratic leaders didn’t like the size of it, the reporting date, which falls very close to the deadline for raising the debt ceiling, or the perception that a White House plan had been baked without input from the president’s allies on Capitol Hill.

Hmm. Not enough time to properly debate the outcome before the vote on the debt ceiling and close enough to the November elections that Obama can say he did something without enough time to find out if it did any good!

Win-win for the White House!

H/T Memeorandum

Mary Katherine Ham on Eating the Rich

Yeah, I know Bill Whittle did an excellent job of explaining this not too long ago, but Mary Katherine is much nicer to look at while she's doing it! (Sorry, Bill!)



More at Verum Serum

"Budget Pie Chart" - Michael Ramirez

The incomparable Michael Ramirez with a great graphic representation of the current budget mess. (A "Currant" pie, perhaps?)



H/T Full Metal Patriot

$2.4 Billion Free for the Asking. Oh, and Maybe you Could Build a Train, Too?

"Governors and members of Congress have been clamoring for the opportunity to participate."
-Ray Lahood

Federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Wednesday that 24 states, including Connecticut, are in competition for a share of the $2.4 billion that his agency plans to disburse. Amtrak and the District of Columbia are also looking for a share.

Gosh. $2.4 Billion (with a "B") in goodies being given away and our Transportation Secretary marvels at how popular the program is!

My guess is, is that if they were giving away government money to build leprechaun fences around unicorn ranches, 24 states and the District of Columbia would be in line for that, too.

Can 2012 get here any sooner? I'll have more on the high speed rail boondoggle soon.

Obama: ‘No Excuse’ for Not Reaching Budget Deal

Obama Van Winkle (asleep since October)

At an impromptu news conference at the White House, President Obama said there was “no excuse” for failing to pass a budget for the rest of this year, and that he was no longer willing to accept one short-term deal after another to temporarily keep agencies running.

“I can’t have my agencies making plans on two-week budgets,” he said. “What we are not going to do is once again put off something that should have gotten done months ago.”

How many months ago, Barry? Since Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to have a budget in place before the fiscal year starts in October, who was in charge of Congress last September? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! And who was in the White House to grant counsel and leadership and sign the budget once they passed it? Why, that would have been you, Mr. President!

Democrats could have written a budget to give NPR and Sesame Street and Planned Parenthood and Obama's Aunt Zeituni as much money as they wanted without risking a government "shut down" for over a year.

It is disingenuous of the president to imply that Republicans were somehow "dragging their feet" for months, when it was the Democrats who controlled the complete budget process and played political games with it, not willing to commit their spending plans to paper in an election year.

And then, Obama has the chutzpah to tell Republicans not to "play games", in light of the Democrats' un-Constitutional inactivity. Add to that the question, why is it "playing games" for Republicans to ask for cuts in a time of budgetary short falls, but it is not "playing games" for Democrats to insist that every program currently funded be held sacrosanct?

There's a word for that, President Barack H. Obama. It starts with an "H".

The word is "hypocrisy". (Although "demagoguery" would also fit!)

Oh, and speaking of "playing games", which side brings in Big Bird and Elmo to make their case for them? Yeah. Right.


Cross posted at LCR.

Schwarzenegger Cuts Gov't Workers Pay to Minimum Wage

Because, he won't be back!

The Schwarzenegger administration today ordered State Controller John Chiang to reduce state worker pay for July to the federal minimum allowed by law -- $7.25 an hour for most state workers.

The instructions from the Department of Personnel Administration exclude roughly 37,000 state workers in six bargaining units that recently came to tentative labor agreements with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The rationale is that the legislature has not passed a budget, therefore there really isn't any money budgeted to pay these folks, but, you have to pay them something!
As noted, if you worked for one of six collective bargaining units that cut a deal with Arnie, the ax didn't hit you.

Schwarzenegger has invoked a 2003 state Supreme Court decision as grounds for the move. That ruling, White v. Davis, held that without a budget that appropriates money for state payroll, employee wages can be withheld to the federal minimum. That condition exists today, which is the start of the 2010-11 fiscal year and the state is without a budget. The back pay would be paid once a budget is enacted.

Even if it's legal, is it the right thing to do? Schwarzenegger is a lame duck, due to term limits, but ticking off 240,000 state workers is bound to have some consequences. People's expenses tend to expand to their salaries. That's about a quarter million Californians who will have to cut back on spending (and paying sales tax) just to struggle to make ends meet.

Not a pretty picture!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

Reason's Three Reasons "Obama Care" Won't Cut the Deficit

H/T Nice Deb

Damn the Deficits! Full Speed Ahead!

The Congressional Budget Office (controlled by Democrats) has recently revised their estimates of national budget deficits upward.

What happens in 2013 that sends a gradually declining deficit into an ever increasing deficit?
Oh, that's right! ObamaCare! Never mind!

We are so screwed.

Graphic shamelessly stolen from Left Coast Rebel
Cross posted at Say Anything

Paul Ryan Gets the "Evil Eye" From President Obama

"Hiding spending does not reduce spending"

-Paul Ryan, R- Wisconsin

The look Obama gives him looks an awful lot like this one:



H/T Yid with Lid