President Barack Obama Is The Least Fiscally Responsible President in Modern American History

By Frank Hill

Progress...?

Our last post comparing President Barack Obama's record on the budget deficits and national debt to the worst losing record of any Duke University head football coach in history struck a nerve with some people.

Here's one way to see if you are truly 'unbiased' or not when it comes to looking at President Obama's fiscal record with a completely objective eye:  Every time you see Obama's name below, substitute the name 'George Walker (Bush) 43' and see how you would feel if you thought the deficit conundrum of the past 4 years were 'all (Bush)'s fault!'

Some people do, you know...

We have added a citation for each and every recitation of the many ways that President Obama has been fiscally profligate over the past 4 years.  Click on them at the end of every accusation and see for yourself what the actual facts are before you get all agitated about it.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once famously said:  'You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts.'
If we are wrong about Obama's desultory fiscal record as Budget Commander-in-Chief, we will be willing to stand accused and apologize profusely.
But if we are right, and you say you think you are a fiscal conservative, you will have to admit that you can not, and will not, vote for him this fall because you want to believe he is a 'fiscally responsible' President.
Because he most definitely is not based on the facts below.  Sadly for us as a nation.
  • $5 trillion of new debt being loaded up under the Obama (Bush) presidency on your children, children's children and children's grandchildren to be paid back one day, somehow. (go to this Debt To the Penny website and type in the dates of Obama's (Bush) Presidency from 1/20/09 to today and you will get the total)
  • More debt in 4 years accumulated under President Obama (Bush) than in any 4-year time in American history (Stephen Bloch)
  • President Obama's (Bush) budgets have garnered exactly zero votes in the House and the Senate in the last 2 years he has submitted them.  Zero.  As in DOA- 'Dead on Arrival'. SDOA is more like it:  'Stone Dead On Arrival' (Budgets)
  • Obama's (Bush) bailout of the Detroit automakers now looks like it will cost the America taxpayers $25 billion in losses due to the swooning stock price of GM. (GM Bailout)
  • Obama's (Bush) $1 trillion of economic stimulus didn't stimulate any economic growth or new jobs that anyone can really put a finger on.  (CBO)  (The Grumpy Economist)  (who knows?)
  • The one time when President Obama (Bush) actually had full discretionary authority in his own hands to reduce future deficits by over $3.7 trillion, he blinked.  He could have not signed the extension of the Bush 43 tax cuts as of December 31, 2010 and every tax rate would have reverted to the Clinton-era tax levels President Obama so admires.  Boom! $3.7 trillion in lower deficit projections for the next 10 years. President Obama (Bush) had it in his power to do this...and he whiffed. (Obama Signs Extension)  (CBO Estimate of Bush Tax Cut Extension)
  • President Obama (Bush) created the Bowles-Simpson Commission to come up with a viable solution to our nation's most pressing problem.  They did it and presented it in December 2010.  President Obama (Bush) took one look at it and punted the ball on first down and then ran out of the endzone faster than Forrest Gump. Obama (Bush)  didn't even have the guts to introduce his very own commission's recommendations in the next year's budget submission to Congress. He whiffed. Again. (The Chicago Guys Made Me Do It!)
  • Between signing the W tax cut extension ($3.7 trillion) and not agreeing to the Bowles-Simpson recommendations of $4 trillion in deficit-reduction, President Obama (Bush) allowed close to $8 trillion in new debt to be created over the next 10 years.  Congratulations!  Those are two of the biggest whiffs on fiscal discipline in modern American history!  $8 trillion in more debt for our youngsters to deal with. (2+2=4; $3.7T+ $4T= ~$8 Trillion, give-or-take a few billion here and there)
  • Obama (Bush) could have vetoed the $1 trillion stimulus package as President...but...he introduced it in the first place! So how could he have vetoed his own bill?  (Ezra Klein says it was actually between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion!)
  • Obama (Bush) could have vetoed Obamacare that is now estimated to cost 'only' about $2.2 TRILLION more than when first scored by CBO when passed in March 2010 but, hey!  wait a minute!  That was his bill as well!  A President can't veto his own legislation, now can he?  (Chuck Blahous) ($2.6 trillion)
  • Obama's (Bush) Cash for Clunkers program might go down as one of the most-misguided federal public policies of all time, almost close to Gerald Ford's 'Whip Inflation Now!' (WIN) campaign. 'Clunkers of Legislation' would be more appropo of most of the Obama term in the White House.  (Clunkers)
These are just 'facts', not 'opinions', or 'bromides' or 'spin-doctoring'.  Just plain facts, ma'am.

You make your own decision.  If anyone can convince us that President Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative based on these facts above and wakes up every single day trying to find ways to balance the budget and reduce federal spending first and foremost, we will vote for him in the upcoming election.

We promise.  Being a fiscal conservative in these times of exploding debt and deficits is that important to us.

However, if you can not refute the totality of these charges listed above, don't even try to convince us.

Over $12 trillion will be added to the national debt totals and passed on to your kids and grandkids to pay for as a result of the actions and inactions of President Barack Obama.  If you are cool with that, that is your problem.

Not ours.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

5 comments:

  1. It's why I am voting Gary Johnson for President, not Mittens the rEPublican statist.

    10's of millions more should.

    Connecting dots should be easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is entirely your right and freedom to do so, Mr. Rat Nat.

      HOWEVER, please be advised that a vote for Gary Johnson this year is most definitely a Vote For Obama and not a vote for Romney.

      In effect practically then, it is like a 4-pt swing when your team misses a snowbird layup in basketball and then the other team hits a buzzer-winning shot at the other.

      If you are willing to risk your vote in this critical election, that is what you are doing.

      Save the protest vote for 2016.

      Otherwise, you will be just as 'bad' as the millions who voted Obama into office in 2008 and are trying to do so again in 2012.

      That is just the plain bottom line this time around.

      Delete
    2. The beauty of living in MA., a deep blue Obama stronghold is I need not worry. I get to vote my principles. Neither Obama or Mitt (Flipper) Romney is good for America.

      Johnson 2012

      Delete
  2. well...I just hope Johnson doesn't peel away votes in the 7-9 swing states

    maybe if he was just on the ballot in the blue states!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very nice article, I just posted your link on my FB in reply to a lib who assailed me with insults and cursing (imagine that) when I posted a picture and quote of Barbara Steisand saying Obama was the MOST fiscally conservative president in recent history with "IDIOT" stamped over her picture...lol! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.