Big Spenders in Washington—Not Tea Party— to Blame for Credit Downgrade

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org. 

Lots of finger pointing has occurred following the first-ever downgrade of the United States credit rating last week. Numerous political figures, including Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) and the Obama administration’s former chief advisor David Axelrod, blame the Tea Party for the Standards and Poor’s (S&P) downgrading the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+. Some media talking heads have even dubbed it the “Tea Party Downgrade.” The truth, however, tells an entirely different story. Big spenders in Washington must face the facts that the American people have awoken and the party is over.

One day fiscal conservatives are being called “terrorists” and the next we’re being blamed for the country’s economic woes. These blame games are deliberate tactics to distract from the real issue at hand. Spendthrift politicians would much rather spread deceitful talking points than take responsibility for their actions. As columnist Jack Hunter says “it’s like blaming my bad 6th grade report card on report cards.” The failure of politicians to face economic reality is exactly why we’re in this fiscal mess in the first place.

Over the past century, we’ve faced growing deficits and mounting debt. The national debt has gone up nearly every year regardless of the political party in control. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the roughly three-year-old Tea Party is to blame for the credit downgrade. Our credit downgrade has been a long time coming. A few months ago, famed investor Jim Rogers said, “America should already be downgraded. It should have been downgraded years ago. These people, the rating agencies, have got it wrong for 10-15 years now. America is bankrupt”. He now says that our AA+ credit rating is still far higher than we deserve.

The Obama administration has the nerve to question the S&P’s math. The U.S. Treasury Department said that there was “no justifiable rationale” to downgrade the nation’s credit rating. Here’s a reality check: the United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Even the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, China, says that we are “addicted to debt.” The communist country’s state-run news agency Xinhua stated in a commentary, “the U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone.” Perhaps theChinese government should also follow its own sound advice.

The rating agency S&P warned us that we would be facing a credit downgrade unless Washington reduced deficit spending by $4 trillion over the next ten years. As the S&P explained in April, “while we’re mindful that the President and Congress are beginning to focus on some type of agreement and may possibly even have a broad understanding about the scale of a fiscal adjustment—roughly $4 trillion… We think—given the division of opinion between Democrats and Republicans—that will be very difficult to achieve over the next two years.” A $4 trillion cut or “fiscal adjustment” is barely anything when put into perspective. We face an over $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone.

The Obama administration actually rejected Tea Party backed legislation such asCut, Cap and Balance which included enough spending cuts to prevent a downgrade in our credit rating. They chose to ignore the warnings and instead pushed for a debt-ceiling hike with no substantial cuts. The Obama-Boehner debt-ceiling deal offers no actual cuts—it only means that spending may increase less fast later on. S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating just three days after the Obama-Boehner compromise was signed into law.

The price of gold is skyrocketing while the Obama administration desperately searches for someone else to blame. But it is the Obama administration, not the Tea Party, that has added $4.3 trillion to the national debt. Our mission is to restore fiscal sanity to Washington. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says, blaming the Tea Party for the credit downgrade is “like blaming the fire fighters for the fire.”

No Debt Ceiling Hike without Cut, Cap and Balance

I think this is a good plan given the political circumstances. No raising the debt ceiling unless some miraculous great deal is reached. Unlikely but worth striving to get some cuts, caps and a balanced budget. Ron Paul is the first presidential candidate to sign the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge.

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org. 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warns that America is just 40 days away from Armageddon. Don’t let the scare tactics fool you. Even if the debt ceiling is not raised, the U.S. will not necessarily default on its debt on August 2. It’s difficult to understand how anyone would still see Geithner as an authority on the economy due to his previous gaffes on everything from the “stimulus” to the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

Most credible economists will tell you that keeping the debt ceiling at its current level will not be the end of the world. St. Lawrence University economics Professor Steve Horwitz says that “people imagine a doomsday scenario where we’ve maxed out the credit card and have nothing in the bank account, when in reality we have plenty of tax revenue to pay off interest on our debt.” Even if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, the federal government still has enough money to ensure that bond holders are paid in full.

Despite our official national debt approaching $14.4 trillion, many in Washington want to simply raise the debt ceiling limit without any spending cuts or reforms. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is urging to keep the debt ceiling vote separate from spending cuts debates while claiming that not raising the debt limit would “create fundamental doubts about the creditworthiness of the United States and damage the special role of the dollar.” The truth is that the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime does far more to destroy the value of the dollar. Any economic credibility that Ben Bernanke may have once had has long gone out the window.

We should not be in this position in the first place. A recent FreedomWorks poll conducted by Frank Luntz concluded that 7 in 10 Americans in key swing states strongly oppose any increase in the debt limit. It’s absurd that our national debt has reached $14.3 trillion let alone that we’re discussing raising the debt ceiling for the 74th time since 1962. The debt limit has gone from less than $1 trillion in the 1980’s to nearly $14.3 trillion. Just seven years ago, Congress raised the debt ceiling to $6.4 trillion, which means the U.S. debt has doubled in less than a decade.

The goal is to get us to a point where spending never exceeds the established debt ceiling. It would be inexcusable for Washington to raise the debt ceiling without changing its spending habits. When will we say: enough is enough? In the Wall Street Journal, the presidents of various limited government groups Colin Hanna, Chris Chocola and Ken Blackwell write that “Republicans in the Bush years and Democrats in the Obama years have proven that we cannot trust them when it comes to spending.“ It’s past time to break the debt ceiling cycle. The continuous cycle of lawmakers increasing the debt limit as needed to finance their everlasting spending spree must end.

We need a responsible approach to the debt ceiling. The “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge, which is championed by fiscally conservative groups and members of Congress, states that the signer will oppose any “clean” debt ceiling limit increase. These signers pledge to not raise the debt limit without substantial cuts in spending, enforceable spending caps and a congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that includes a spending limitation and a super-majority to raise taxes.

Now is not the time to raise the debt ceiling unless all three of these minimum necessary preconditions are met. Vice President Joe Biden has a series of meetings with congressional leaders in efforts to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling. If the compromise includes only phony cuts—which is very plausible—lawmakers must reject it on principle. The pledge will help to ensure that representatives stand their ground in the debate ceiling fight. No debt limit hike without cuts, caps and balancing the budget. I urge you to sign the “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge and encourage your representatives to do the same.

Budget Compromise Cuts a Minute $38.5 Billion

Originally posted at Young Americans for Liberty website.

This post does not reflect the views of any organization. It is strictly my own opinion.

Near the stroke of midnight on Friday, House Republican leaders and the Obama administration agreed to a budget compromise to avert a government shutdown. Even though Democrats had full control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, they refused to pass a budget last year. We’re now six months into the fiscal year without a long-term budget. The new budget compromise will keep the federal government operating until final details of the budget deal are hammered out by next week. The compromise leaves much to be desired.

The deal only cuts $38.5 billion in spending. That may sound like a huge amount but let’s put that into perspective. Our national debt increased by $54.1 billion in the past eight days while Congress was fighting over whether to cut $38.5 billion. Uncle Sam will spend $3.8 trillion this year. The U.S. deficit will run $1.65 trillion. The federal government spends way more than it actually takes in. The reality is that the budget deal cuts barely one percent of our budget and two percent of our deficit. The budget deal still leaves us with a record deficit. These measly cuts barely scratch the surface of our fiscal problems.

These billions of dollars in cuts are preferable to simply freezing spending. However, the American people did not elect Republicans to nimble around the edges of the budget. Our financial problems are so dire that we need dramatic slashes to the budget. For the past three weeks, Republican leaders  demanded that the budget include $61 billion in cuts. Democrats were refusing to cut anymore than $30 billion. Both amounts are tiny compared to our massive deficit. If those are the only option however, cutting $61 billion is the best plan.

Both sides were unable to agree over a minute $30 billion in cuts. On Friday night, the House Republican leadership caved in to the pressure. Many were hopeful that the Republican leadership would stand their ground no matter what it took. However, they feared sticking to their guns would create political blowback if it shut down the government. They eventually accepted a compromise from President Obama to cut only $38.5 billion. That’s 63 percent of what they had originally pledged. We need brave leaders who are willing to put principles over politics.

The budget compromise does however include quite a few positive aspects. The agreement reached guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would completely repeal ObamaCare. The House already passed such historic legislation in January by a vote of 245 to 189. Without such a budget compromise, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would likely never bring this repeal legislation to a vote. The deal also denies increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to hire additional agents to enforce ObamaCare and numerous issues on the Obama administration’s agenda. It will also require mandatory annual audits of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was set up by the Dodd-Frank law or the “Federal Reserve Empowerment Law.” All of these steps are important to roll back the government takeover of our health and financial industries.

It took us many years to get into our current fiscal mess and we aren’t going to solve it overnight. Congress is finally discussing fiscal policies on our terms by discussing how much they should cut from the budget. We may not be fully satisfied by the actual amount. But we should acknowledge that they’re actually cutting rather than adding to the budget like they usually do. The debate in Washington has certainly started to shift due to the growing voice of limited government activists. We should now focus on larger fights such as the upcoming 2012 budget and the debt ceiling. It’s up to us to let them know that we expect even greater cuts from our elected officials in the future.

We are facing a $14.2 trillion national debt. This is not the time to simply trim around the budget’s edges. Washington cannot get its fiscal house in order by cutting less than one percent of the budget. Last November, voters sent a clear message that we want substantial cuts to government spending. That means axing entire departments and programs. It even means putting defense spending on the cutting board. Some lawmakers have serious proposals on the table to rein in government spending including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who has a plan to balance the budget in just five years. The debate in Washington should be focused on these real spending cut proposals rather than cutting a measly $38.5 billion from the budget.

STOP JET ENGINE PET PROJECT THAT MILITARY DOES NOT WANT

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.

In May, the House passed the FY2011 Defense Appropriation Bill that includes$485 million for an extra F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine that the Pentagon does not want. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate will vote on taking up the defense spending bill today. In its current state, the Senate version does not include any funding for the extra engine. Due to strong-arm lobbying tactics, key Senators will likely push for an earmark that funds the wasteful alternate engine program.

In the House today, lawmakers are voting on a four hundred page omnibus bill to fund the government for the next ten months that could include the wasteful engine. According to the Hill,

Senate and House appropriators have quietly been working on a catch-all spending bill for fiscal year 2011. A senior lawmaker told The Hill that at this point funding for the second engine is included in that omnibus legislation.

This is a clear case of special interest politics. President Obama has threatened to veto any bill that contains funding for the secondary engine. Former President Bush also pushed to eliminate taxpayer funding of the alternate engine program that burdens both taxpayers and the military. For roughly a decade, the Air Force has considered the extra engine to be “not necessary and not affordable.”

The Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program began in 1996, when Congress ordered two engines, F135 and F136, from separate military contractors. The goal was to boost competition between the two engines. It worked. The two engines built for the aircraft differed markedly in quality. Six years later, the Department of Defense (DOD) declared the F135 engine the winner of its Joint Strike Fighter competition.

The DOD wisely chose the far superior F135 engine built by Pratt and Whitney. According to Senator Lieberman (I-Conn.),

There was a competition to build the engine for Joint Strike Fighter. Pratt & Whitney won that competition.

The developed and certified F135 has already had an impressive 17,500 hours of testing and has successfully powered vertical flight operations.

Yet, Congress fails to end taxpayer support of the F136 under development by General Electric and Rolls Royce that the military does not want nor need. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has publicly said that “we think the current engine that GE is offering probably does not meet the performance standards that are required.” It has yet to even power a single plane in flight and it is estimated to be 5 to 7 years behind in development. The F136 engine has only been tested for approximately 200 hours total.

According to Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, “the reality is that the F-22 and F-18E/F are single-engine airplanes.” Not one aircraft built in the last few decades has had multiple engine suppliers. Shouldn’t we respect the wishes of the military by ending this needless program?

Defense spending has always been a lucrative source of earmarks and pet projects, and this is not an exception. It is projected that it will cost taxpayers at least an additional $2.9 billion to finally finish the inferior F136 engine. Since the additional funds to develop the F136 are not in the defense budget, the Department of Defense will be forced to take away money from more pressing military needs. As Robert Gates has said “every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need.”

Unfortunately, the fight over aircraft engines is emblematic of the new role Washington plays in the business world.  Today, the quickest way to profit is often through government largesse rather than innovation and entrepreneurship.  General Electric typifies the large rent seeking companies that wage battle not in the marketplace, but in the halls of Congress. In an email to his colleagues, General Electric Vice President John G. Rice writes, “the intersection between GE’s interests and government action is clearer than ever.”

In addition to lobbying for an unnecessary engine that will cost taxpayers billions, General Electric aggressively promotes other self-serving legislation, such as the costly cap and trade program that would add to the company’s bottom line at the expense of taxpayers and the American economy. Especially in an economic downturn, taxpayers cannot afford to fund the pet projects of politicians and corporations.  Congress should stand up to the special interests seeking to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars and reject the failed second engine.

 

America Needs to Take One Lesson from Cuba: Cut the Bureaucracy

Currently in Cuba, more than 85 percent of their 5.5 million workers are government bureaucrats. Even Fidel Castro recently acknowledged that this rate was unsustainable by stating that “the Cuban model doesn’t even works for us anymore.” Therefore, Cuba will cut 500,000 government jobs in the next six months to help fix its nearly bankrupt economy. According to Cuba’s official labor union, “Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies, productive entities and services with inflated payrolls and losses that damage our economy and result counterproductive, create bad habits and distort workers’ conduct.”

It’s unfortunate that the Obama administration has not learned this vital lesson. In the United States, one in every six jobs—22.5 million—is a government job. Since the start of the recession, public sector employment has increased by 590,000 while the private sector has lost 7.9 million jobs. It’s hard to believe that Cuba is correcting its mistakes while the United States is escalating its financial problems by adding even more bureaucrats. As Cato Institute Dan Mitchell states “Obama wants more people in the wagon and fewer people pulling the wagon.” If the current trends continue, the wagon—the representation of the economy—will be impossible to move forward. As the Heritage Foundation chart below shows, the gap between government and private sector jobs has rapidly grown:

Furthermore, taxpayers in the private sector cannot afford to pay federal bureaucrats their bloated salaries. With benefits included, the average federal government employee is paid $123,049 while the average private sector receives $61,051 annually. After adjusting for inflation, federal employee wages increased 36.9 percent while private sector wages rose only 8.8 percent since 2000.

Some claim that government bureaucrats deserve to be paid twice the salaries of private sector workers since they have attained more education. According to Paul Krugman, it’s an “apples and oranges comparison.” However, the Heritage Foundation has conducted a new study that carefully accounts for education and skills differences between government and private sector employees. The results:

While federal employees do earn more partially because they are more skilled than the average private sector worker, controlling for skills does not eliminate the federal pay premium. Depending on the methodology employed, the average federal employee receives as much as 22 percent more in wages than an equally skilled private sector worker. Including both wages and benefits, overpaying federal workers costs taxpayers approximately $40–50 billion per year.

America needs to take one lesson from Cuba. America must also take strives to cut needless government bureaucrats and their padded paychecks.  The rapid expansion of government employees jeopardizes America’s future economic growth. We must stop these harmful trends before it’s too late.

Record Number of People Dependent on Government Programs

Originally posted on FreedomWorks.org.

USA Today reports that a record number of Americans—one in six—are now dependent on government anti-poverty programs. Since the recession began in December 2007, the enrollment and cost of government programs have grown at an alarming rate.

In the past three years, Congress has routinely expanded the eligibility and benefits of these programs. In fact, Medicaid recipients have increased 17 percent to 50 million. As a result, the federal Medicaid price tag has increased 36 percent to $273 billion. Since the recession began, food stamps beneficiaries increased by nearly 50 percent to 40 million. The expansion of the food stamp program has cost taxpayers $70 billion—an increase of 80 percent. Additionally, more than 4.4 million people are dependent on welfare which has increased by 18 percent since 2007. Certainly, increased welfare eligibility has increased the cost of the program by 24 percent to $22 billion.

Due to media attention, Americans are well aware that Congress has extended unemployment benefits eight times. Currently, 10 million Americans are dependent on unemployment benefits which is four times higher than 2007. The cost of jobless benefits have risen to $160 billion from $43 billion—a 272 percent increase.

The Great Recession is a large reason for the rise in government anti-poverty programs. But what happens once the economy eventually (and hopefully) recovers? It is quite easy for politicians to expand benefits and eligibility to anti-poverty programs. Unfortunately, it is more difficult for politicians to rein in spending on these costly programs.

In the long term, the cost of these anti-poverty programs is unsustainable. By 2035, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that total spending for just Medicaid will increase from 5 percent of GDP to nearly 10 percent. Like virtually every government run program, Medicaid provides a low quality service that is more expensive than the private sector. At what point will politicians realize that America simply cannot afford to expand these costly and poor performing programs?

Often, government programs aimed at helping the poor do more harm than good. Unfortunately, many of these programs foster long term dependence. The Heritage Foundation has found that the majority of those who receive food stamps are long term unemployed dependents who have been on the program for many years or even decades. Ultimately, long-term welfare payments undermine work ethic. When you subsidize something, you will get more of it. Sadly, children raised in families on welfare are far more likely to remain dependent on government handouts throughout their adulthood. A study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon at the University of Michigan found that holding multiple social variables constant, “receipt of welfare income has negative effects on the long-term employment and earnings capacity of young boys.”

Instead, we should strive for a society where all individuals are able to attain self sufficiency and economic independence. Congress should seek to reform government programs to increase personal responsibility and promote employment. In the end, the poor are much more likely to gain confidence and skills by earning their paycheck rather than receiving a government handout.

Lawmakers on the left tend to portray themselves as caring since they want to expand these government programs. However, spending other people’s money is not compassion. According to the Hill, members of Congress grew wealthier in 2009 despite the economic downturn. The 50 wealthiest US lawmakers are worth an estimated $1.4 billion—nine out of the ten most wealthiest are Democrats. Yet, these elitist politicians call themselves “considerate” when they take money from taxpayers to give to others. Simply, that’s not your money to give. Genuine compassionate is when you reach into your own pockets to help out the less fortunate. Reaching into other people’s pockets and forcing them to pay for compulsory government “charity” is false philanthropy and should not be considered noble.

By increasing the eligibility and benefits of these anti-poverty programs, the government is luring more people into long term dependency. A record number of people being dependent on government programs will be harmful to America’s future prosperity. Instead, we should all strive to generously give to private charities that have a more successful track record of helping the poor. In order to revive self sufficiency and independence, lawmakers should also immediately foster job growth by cutting taxes and reducing spending.

HAPPY COST OF GOVERNMENT DAY!

Originally posted on August 19, 2010 on FreedomWorks’ website.

Today, Americans will “celebrate” Cost of Government Day! In 2010, the average American worked until August 19–or 231 days– to earn enough income just to pay for the cost of federal, state and local government. In total, government spending now consumes 63.41 percent of all income in the United States.

Each year, Americans for Tax Reform’s Center for Fiscal Accountability calculates Cost of Government Day. Due to major increases in government spending in 2010, August 19 is the latest Cost of Government Day ever recorded:

The Center for Fiscal Accountability breaks down how many days it takes the average American to pay for different components of government spending:

The Cost of Government Day for each state is based on varying spending burdens.

Those states with the earliest Cost of Government Days:

Alaska- July 28
Louisiana- July 28
Mississippi- July 31
South Dakota- August 2
West Virginia- August 3

Those states with the latest Cost of Government Days:

District of Columbia- August 29
Maryland- September 4
New York- September 10
New Jersey- September 14
Connecticut- September 17

Enjoy the rest of your 134 days this year! Finally, the average American has paid off his or her share of the cost of big government spending.

PRESIDENT OBAMA TOUTS “SUCCESS” OF AUTO-BAILOUT

Originally posted on August 2, 2010 on FreedomWorks’ website.

Last week, President Obama continued his propaganda filled Summer of “Recovery” tour by touting the “success” of the auto-bailout in Detroit. According to Obama, the growth of the auto industry has proven that the auto-bailout worked as planned,

You are proving the naysayers wrong. If some folks had their way, none of this would have been happening. They said, ‘You should just walk away and let those jobs go.’

A new White House report claims that the auto industry would have lost 1.1 million jobs without the bailout. White House press secretary calls the bailout a “success story” that has allowed the industry to re-hire 55,000 workers. While it is true that the bailouts helped automakers expand their payrolls, it also took away over $60 billion from taxpayers. Ultimately, the bailout prevented jobs from being made in other industries in the private sector.

Back in 2009, President Obama’s task force on the Financial Stability Oversight board reported that General Motors’ plan for the Chevy Volt would be too expensive to develop. According to the report, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle would be “likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term” and it will “be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers.” Despite the high cost and likely failure of the Chevy Volt, the Obama administration continues to support the project with American’s tax dollars.

While visiting the General Motors’ Hamtramck in Michigan, Obama took a test drive in the new Chevy Volt expected to hit car dealers in November.  Although Obama called it “pretty smooth”, the car may not be worth its steep price tag. The Chevy Volt that is priced at $41,000 requires premium gasoline, can only fit four people and has less room that its competitors.  According to a New York Times article,

So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car… Quantifying just how much taxpayer money will have been wasted on the hastily developed Volt is no easy feat. Start with the $50 billion bailout (without which none of this would have been necessary), add $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

This is not to say that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are not a good investment. The private sector is likely to invest in these initiatives if there is a potential profit to be made. However, taxpayers should not be forced to invest in General Motor’s Chevy Volt. Since everyone values different features in a car, the government cannot possible know what millions of Americans want or need. For this reason, every single car should be subjected to true market forces so that consumers can decide what cars are best. If a car manufacturer does not provide cars that the American people want to buy, they do not deserve to be rewarded by an involuntarily taxpayer bail out. While Obama claims that “we going to get all the money back that we invested”, it seems that General Motors has not learned its lesson by producing expensive cars that are not likely to be “commercially successful in the short term.”

Spending Limit Amendment Cannot Be Ignored

Originally posted on March 9, 2010.

Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Campbell (R-CA) last week introduced the Spending Limit Amendment to the U.S Constitution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that federal spending will not exceed one-fifth of the nation’s economy. The spending limit, if passed and ratified by the states, can only be suspended by a declaration of war or a two-thirds congressional vote. Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence released a statement in the Wall Street Journal explaining the excessive growth of federal spending within recent years:

In five years, federal spending has skyrocketed to 24.7% from 19.9% of our economy. That’s the highest level since World War II. Borrowing has ballooned the national debt to $11.9 trillion from $7.3 trillion, a five-year increase equal to the accumulation of debt between President George Washington and President Bill Clinton.

Due to the rapidly increasing national debt, Pence believes that limiting spending to one-fifth of the economy is a necessity:

With our nation facing a fiscal crisis, it is time to fundamentally change the way Washington spends the taxpayers’ money. Unless we change course, the public debt will consume the entire economy in less than fifteen years. Runaway spending and record debt will make future generations of Americans less free, less prosperous and less secure.

The following graph depicts how federal spending would likely drastically change under the Spending Limit Amendment:

Unfortunately, the Spending Limit Amendment continues to not receive the attention it deserves. The current level of government spending is unsustainable and simply cannot be ignored. As Rep. Hensarling and Pence declare, this is a “spending cap with teeth.” It is urgent that those who believe in fiscal responsibility call their representatives and ask them to vote for the Spending Limit Amendment for the sake of America’s future prosperity.

Obama’s 2011 Fiscal Budget: More of the Same

Originally posted on February 1, 2010.

Today, the White House released Obama’s remarks regarding his budget for the fiscal year 2011:

We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences; as if waste doesn’t matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation. We can’t.

No, it’s not April Fools day. That declaration did, in fact, come from big-spender President Obama. From a fiscal conservative viewpoint, it is impossible to find fault in that statement.  During Obama’s State of the Union address last week, heclaimed that Congress needed to restrain its spending in order to control the debt:

Understand if we don’t take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery.

Perhaps Scott Brown’s victory woke Obama up? Maybe the powerful Tea Party movement has finally attracted Obama’s attention?  Senator John Thune (R-SD) on CBS’ “Face the Nation” correctly declared that:

If you’re listening to the people in Virginia and New Jersey and Massachusetts, the angst is real. People are concerned with the taxing and the spending and the borrowing, and that’s been reflected in the ‘tea party’ movement.

Despite Obama’s words, his 2011 proposed budget is not fiscally responsible. In fact, his budget is a massive $3.8 trillion. Oh, and the budget’s PDF is 1420 pages.  The Wall Street Journal explains the fundamental differences in Obama’s new budget:

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) asserted that Obama’s proposed budget:

spends more than any other in history, creates the largest deficits in history, and imposes the largest tax increases in history – at a time when our country can least afford it.

According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) Obama’s budget calls for more reckless spending at the cost of tax-payers:

Regrettably, the budget the administration today submitted to Congress is nothing more than a plan for more of the same — a very aggressive agenda of more government spending, more taxes, more deficits, and more debt — with just a few cosmetic budget maneuvers to give the illusion of restraint.

Obama’s debt-increasing 2011 fiscal budget is more of the same. In order to rein in America’s debt and turn the economy around, it is imperative that the budget includes big tax cuts for all Americans to spur economic growth and even bigger real reductions in excessive government spending across the board.