Dems Reject GOP Call For Reduced Spending
By Wyatt Earp | March 26, 2009
Senator Kent Conrad, spending our money like a drunken sailor.
I mean, what’s the difference to the Democrats, anyway? Obama’s proposal for next year includes $3.7 trillion of spending. That’s trillion with a “T.”
And to think, people crucified President Bush – and rightly so – for spending $700 billion on a bailout.
WASHINGTON – Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee defeated a Republican attempt Thursday to reduce recommended spending across hundreds of programs over the next five years as they moved toward approval of a blueprint that preserves President Barack Obama’s top priorities.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said his proposal would save $200 billion by freezing spending on non-defense domestic programs for the next two years and allowing modest increases in the future.
But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the committee, said it went too far, adding the budget he prepared already provides for less spending than the president wants.
Will someone please ask Barack Obama’s teleprompter to inform the president that spending $3.7 trillion to get out of a recession is madness?
The House and Senate plans both call for spending less than Obama’s $3.7 trillion proposal for next year, mostly by ignoring his request for an additional bailout of the financial industry, with additional savings plotted for future years.
The House plan foresees a deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2010 but would cut that to $598 billion after five years. The comparable Senate estimates are $1.2 trillion in 2010 and $508 billion in 2014.
Obama’s budget would leave a deficit of $749 billion in five years’ time, according to congressional estimates — too high for his Democratic allies — and would grow to unsustainable levels exceeding 5 percent of the economy by the end of the decade. (H/T – AP)
So, Obama thinks that a $749 billion deficit is acceptable? This is hardly “change we can believe in.” It is fiscal lunacy that will ruin this country before the end of his first (and hopefully, only) term.
Topics: Politics | 5 Comments »
March 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Yeah, the reduced spending just flies in the face of the change we “believe” in. Wasn’t what they said when they weren’t in power, but who remembers that far back anyway?
Here’s hoping the Jimmy Carter II sinks to the bottom in three years hence.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Does this surprise anyone?
March 27th, 2009 at 8:22 am
And here come reperations. Having family that fought and died in the Civil War, for the North, to help free the slaves (true the initial real purpose was to preserve the Union), and then their descendants have to pay reperations as if their sacrifices meant NOTHING, seems like it might be grounds for another one. But hey I haven’t had my morning coffee yet.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.George W.Bush
This says it all>
March 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Morgan – Oh, make no mistake: Obama is going to serve two terms, and it will take decades to recover.
Admiral – Not me.
Jon – I say, sit back, watch Obama ruin the country, and enjoy the ride.
Rick – All of this spending AND a tax raise. It’s socialism at its finest!