Tag Archives: political parties

Another Look at the Senate Democrats’ Budget

Posted on by
Reply

The Heritage Foundation has looked at it.  As has already been pointed out, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray’s (D, WA) budget has little good in it; although it does preserve the sequester cuts in their magnitude and general allocation.  However.

Cynically, it raises taxes on Americans—and amazingly, on our businesses, which already are subject to the highest rates in the world—by a shade over $1.5 trillion.  This isn’t new, but their budget is worse than originally thought.  The Democrats’ guess (and I use that term advisedly) of getting $155 billion per year over the next 10 years is based on their erroneous static analysis.  A dynamic analysis, which includes the actual and ongoing effects of taking this much money out of the economy, indicates that this “budget” would only get $88 billion per year.  Heritage’s graph below illustrates the year-by-year revenue flow.                                          

This only exacerbates the impact of the Democrats’ continued increases in spending on our debt and on our economy.  Their 5% increase in spending, in every year of those same 10 years, increases the Federal budget deficit, and it contributes to a continued explosion in our national debt—to the tune of $7 trillion more added to an already ruinous level.

But that’s all to the good, anyway, right?  The Democrats say so.  The Senate Republicans have a different analysis.  Overall, they point out that this budget would

  • Lower GDP by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
  • Cut job growth by an average of 853,000 jobs each year.
  • Slash after-tax incomes by $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  • Shrink household income by $1,512 per year.

They also look on a state-by-state basis, and the outcome is clear and even starker (it’s important to note here that the state-by-state analysis was done by the Senate Budget Committee’s staff economists, not by Republican staffers).  Here are the outcomes for, oh, say, California and Texas.

California:

For the state of California these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

Texas:

For the state of Texas these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

There are no states—none—in which the Budget Committee’s staff economists projected gains in personal income, household disposable income, or job opportunities.  Every state suffers losses as a result of this Democrat budget.

Incoherent Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama has it.

Here’s an illustration of that incoherence, vis-à-vis Israel and Iran.

Vice President Joe Biden, on 4 March:

Let me make clear what that commitment is: it is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  Period.  End of discussion.  Prevent—not contain—prevent….  Big nations can’t bluff….  And President Barack Obama is not bluffing.

Here’s Secretary of State John Kerry, on 5 March:

[Red] lines have been drawn before and they’ve been passed.  …  [President Obama] would like to see the P1+5 process and negotiation process be able to work and avoid any consideration of any kind of military action.  …we are prepared through P5+1 and negotiating process to engage in a serious proposal that they would make to prove their program is in fact a peaceful program.

Commander US CENTCOM, General James Mattis before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on 5 March, in answer to the question, “In your professional opinion, are the current diplomatic and economic efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability—are they working?”

No, sir.

Then he testified that he was working on “other options” at Obama’s direction.

Obama knows he’s better than any of his expert advisers, but does he, or by extension do any of his advisors, have any idea of what he’s doing in this arena?

Obama Sequester Cluelessness

Posted on by
Reply

Here are two examples.

DHS Budget Undersecretary Rafael Borras, just last Tuesday, on the sequester:

There was an expectation that the sequester would not come to pass.  We’re doing everything we can to limit the impact.

House Democrats are whining about President Barack Obama and his administration being hectored about the sequester’s budget impacts before his Cabinet and agencies have had a chance to begin dealing with it.  Also last Tuesday, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D, VA) bleated

Did we expect [the sequester] to kick in within 19 days?  No!

Crap.  They’ve had 19 months since the sequester was passed—and signed into law by Obama.  On what basis do these folks think a law was not to be obeyed?

Gun Control Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Colorado has passed its gun control bills into law.  Included in that set is a limit on the size of semi-automatic rifle ammunition magazines to a maximum of 15 rounds.  In response to Magpul Industries’ statement that they would leave Colorado if the bills were passed, those good Democrats passed an amendment:  Magpul could make any size magazine they wished so long as the larger ones were not sold in Colorado.

State Congressman Mark Waller (R) has the right of it, noting the Democrats’ monumental hypocrisy.

[Y]ou can sell [magazines] at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.  …a monumental inconsistency in their thought process.

Yeah.  Can’t sell normal magazines in Colorado, but feel free to sell them in, oh, say, Newtown, CT.

That’s the problem with interfering with freedom.  The damage is far-reaching, and it’s tough to do without the dishonesty of hypocrisy.

More Obama Sequester in Action

Posted on by
Reply

A few of items.

Congressman Ted Poe (R, TX) is wondering about sequester cuts to tuition aid for our military veterans while we continue to send education aid to Pakistan.  The Marines, for instance, had spent $47 million tuition aid in 2012, while nearly $13 million went to Pakistan for “higher education.”  And then, post-sequester, the Obama administration committed another $37 million to the Pakistan program.

Hmm….

And there’s this example of Obama cynicism.  Recall that the US Department of Agriculture would be forced to “furlough” a significant portion of its meat inspectors, among other personnel.  In the meantime, though, and again post-sequester, the Obama administration

continues to pursue a “partnership” with the Mexican government to “raise awareness” about food stamps among immigrants from that country.

In complete disregard for current immigration law that says immigrants can’t come in unless they are, or can reasonably be expected to be, self-supporting.

And this:

School officials on Native American reservations across Minnesota are forced into making cuts to their current budgets in anticipation of sequester cuts.  These  are programs that had been making progress, improving high school graduation rates by the small, but concrete, 3% per year.

But in post-sequester DC, a six-figure income position was created for a former aide to Congressman Charles Rangel (D, NY) with the important title of Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African-Americans.

Apparently some uses for post-sequester money are more important than others.  Especially when there’s political gain to be had.