Lack of Credibility on Fiscal Responsibility

How perverted have American perceptions become that our impudent government would now try to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the wake of the largest ever contribution to our national deficit? In the past year alone, our Congress has become the most fiscally irresponsible in our nation’s history. Barack Obama was a part of that Congress and now his administration has approved of it – while asking for much more.

The very thought of our current Democrat-run federal government attempting to reintroduce itself as a party of waste reduction and accountability is beyond laughable. In fact, it’s downright nauseating.

Leading the charge for fiscal responsibility is one of the most inexperienced executives in the country, but one of the most experienced “social reformers” – also known as socialists. Whether Obama is a Marxist, Fabian, or democratic socialist is a debate we can have at another time. All that matters is that he is one of the above, has no idea what he’s doing in the White House, and his plans for the economy are either intentionally destructive or he’s immeasurably inept.

On Monday, Obama spoke to his fiscal responsibility “summit” about cutting the federal deficit. No, he doesn’t plan to cut the total deficit which currently stands at over $10.5 trillion. His plan is to cut only the annual deficit he inherited, which is 1.3 trillion dollars – and he only wants to cut it in half by 2013.

If that’s not enough to make you laugh – or vomit, then perhaps these quotes from his summit will.

“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.”

“We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end.”

“You don’t spend what you don’t have.”

Really? Congress has been spending what it doesn’t have, in rather large quantities, for many decades. Where was this rhetoric when Obama was part of the process and voted on legislation that created more debt? Where was this rhetoric when he signed the $787 billion package just last week? We certainly don’t have the money for that. Such audacity and hypocrisy knows no bounds with this man.

And let’s be sure that we’re all of the same understanding: Obama has yet to propose his massive spending plans for healthcare and energy, which will undoubtedly require huge sums of money just to finance the transitions, should they be approved by Congress. His plans for those industries will nearly guarantee sustained deficits for years to come.

Like Obama has said repeatedly – what we have seen so far is only the beginning.

What is even more disturbing than hearing him claim the fiscal high ground is how he plans to cut some of the deficit. One of the areas he’s relying on to save money is the winding down of the Iraq War. But just last week he approved sending more troops to Afghanistan. Does Obama think the military is cheaper to support in Afghanistan than when it is in Iraq?

Perhaps he is counting on the savings from closing the Guantanamo detention facilities. Or maybe he’s relying on donations from Gaza, since he decided we will send over $900 million to repair the Hamas-controlled region after its recent conflict with the Israeli military.

We have already heard about one of his proposed ideas: allowing taxes to increase after next year. Suddenly, the old “tax-and-spend liberal” phrase has a renewed meaning. Instead of raising taxes by passing new legislation, the scheme is to allow tax cuts to expire and spend as much as humanly possible before it happens. It’s the new “spend-then-tax” ideology fit for a government that refuses to accept blame for any of its multitudes of failures.

One aspect of Obama’s rhetoric that goes unquestioned is his constant reference to improving government “efficiency” but he says little about what he means by “efficient.” That definition is left for the public to determine. However, we do know what efficient doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean the government can print absurd amounts of money because it doesn’t have a large enough revenue stream for its massive spending plans. It also doesn’t mean that politicians can request millions or billions of dollars for their own pet projects in federal legislation that has nothing to do with funding their local districts. It doesn’t mean the federal government can create new bureaucracies that will become just as large and inefficient as the ones we currently have – especially in vital industries like healthcare and energy.

How can Obama and his gang reasonably attempt to portray themselves as fiscally responsible, speak about government efficiency as a reality, and get away with it? That’s an easy one: Most of the public is too stupid to know any better.

It also doesn’t hurt that the “mainstream” media will do next to nothing to show Obama in a bad light or to damage his reputation – with them – as the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. They will not question Obama about his lies, incompetence, and endless contradictions. They can’t. They helped create him and his public persona, so if he turns out to be a disaster, then they’re just as culpable.

So, the charade will continue. Obama can pretty much say and do whatever he pleases without much recrimination. Even when something so obviously paradoxical is suggested – like efficient government and fiscal responsibility – he and his cohorts will skate free from any criticism.

But what is more insolent than anything else Obama said at the summit was his remarks during the question and answer session at the end of the day. A comment was made that Republicans don’t feel included in the House processes because of Nancy Pelosi’s authoritarian rule. Obama’s response was beyond preposterous and entirely off the mark. Here is what he said:

“I’m not in Congress so I don’t want to interject myself too much into congressional politics. But I do want to make this point, and I think it’s important. On the one hand, the majority has to be inclusive. On the other hand, the minority has to be constructive. And so to the extent that on many of these issues we are able to break out of sort of the rigid day-to-day politics and think long term, then what you should see, I think, is the majority saying, ‘What are your ideas?’ The minority has got to then come up with those ideas and not just want to blow the thing up.”

Now, I understand that Mr. Obama is no longer in the Senate, but just what exactly does he think the minority was doing throughout the entire debate over the recent stimulus bill?

These comments of his aren’t just audacious – they’re absolutely wrong and purposely antagonistic. He knows that alternatives to the stimulus were proposed in the House and that Pelosi refused to debate them. He also knows that Senate Republicans tried to amend the bill with essentially no support from Democrats. Obama stood in front of his former colleagues and the news cameras and intentionally distorted the truth about the Republican position and their efforts. I suppose this is what is meant by “post-partisanship.”

Any way the White House or the Congress tries to spin this entire fiscal fiasco will ultimately fall short of the truth. They cannot contain their perpetually out of control spending habits and they cannot subdue their contempt for their opposition.

Just yesterday, the House Democrats proposed a $410 billion spending bill for next year’s budget. It includes about an 8% increase over last year’s budget and contains even more earmarks, or “pork” spending. This will give Obama the perfect opportunity to prove to the American People that he is not a fraud. But don’t hold your breath; it’s doubtful that it will ever happen.

Sooner or later, the People will finally see Obama and the Democrat Party for what they truly are. Unfortunately, it will be much too late.