Average spending for the federal budget as a percent of GDP from Eisenhower through Bush was 20.0%.  In its first year, the Obama administration blew out the budget to 25% of GDP.  That was when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.  In order to lock in the 2009 level of spending, which included the allegedly temporary stimulus, the Senate has not passed a budget since April 2009, even though the Budget Act of 1974 requires it to do so every year (making Harry Reid a scofflaw). 

The whole article is worth a gander.


This post is in response to some videos surfacing that claim Reagan promoted the same kind of tax policy that Obama does now. I believe the key difference (and an important one) is in the beginning of the second paragraph:

What we’re trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It’s good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they’re rich and powerful. But it’s also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.

After all, we’re all citizens, equal in the eyes of the law, and equal in the eyes of God. You’re given a lot of benefits when you’re born in the U.S.A, but you’re given a responsibility, too, a responsibility to do your part and become a contributing member of the American family and an equal partner in America, Incorporated. When you pay your taxes, you buy your shares. And every year you get to vote on who should be on the board of directors.

There is more that illustrates the differences between Reagan and Obama and I don’t think it does Obama any favors to try and make the comparison.

Here is a video of the speech I quoted above. I did not find footage from the video used in the “Buffet Rule” video to check the context of those remarks.

I'm watching you...

This just struck me as funny this morning…

Jobs also criticized Americas education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

via Steve Jobs Biography Reveals He Told Obama, Youre Headed For A One-Term Presidency.

I am no disciple of Steve Jobs and I don’t necessarily weigh his words more than my neighbor’s words, but because he is so revered for his products I thought I would share his thoughts on education.

A spokesman for George W. Bush says the former president has declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend an observance at New York’s ground zero.

via Bush declines Obama invitation to ground zero – Yahoo! News.

This strikes me as the way diplomacy, or inter-party relationships, should work. Obama gets credit for inviting Bush, and Bush gets credit for letting Obama take the credit. Does Bush deserve more credit for Bin Laden than he is getting in the press? Probably, but sometimes life just ain’t fair.

For what it’s worth, I think if Bush showed up at the observance that it is entirely possible that he would have received more applause than Obama (especially if he was allowed to speak). Just my two cents.

(This post had yet to be determined when the news of Bin Laden’s demise became public on Sunday night. I confess that this is not the spelling that I  prefer. I’m not sure it really matters that I even have a preference about the spelling of a terrorist’s name.)

So, if you will indulge me a moment of late night pontification I have a few thoughts about the recently departed Usama/Osama that may add absolutely nothing to the public discourse but I thought I would share ‘out loud’.

First, I am glad he is gone. I would have preferred a capture over a kill, but not because I am squeamish about his death (I am abstaining from the discussion about the morality of his death and our role in it for the time being). Rather, I wish he were still alive in custody because he may have been extraordinarily informative had he been taken alive. Then again, he may have already outlived his usefulness to his friends and enemies.

Second, I am glad it happened. Would I have preferred it to have happened on “my teams'” watch? You bet. Does it really matter (from a national security stand point) who gets the credit? Not really. Three cheers for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

Third, could this be Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” moment? I am totally going with my meandering mind as it takes me far from my expertise, but hear/read me out. I read the text from his speech to the American public. It made me…well, I didn’t like it. Originally, I thought the opening was good but now I don’t even like that.

What struck me initially was that the guy just can’t get past himself. He needs us to know that he was the one who ordered a renewed focus on finding Bin Laden. Uh, duh…you are the commander-in-chief, remember? The military can’t do much without you at least authorizing it.

Now take this need to pin the success of this objective on his vision/determination and fast forward a year or two (or maybe just a few months). What happens when the terrorists are still coming at us from all four corners of the earth? Will President Obama be up to the task? Will he be able to deliver a focused vision to thwarting current and future threats against our nation? I hope so for our safety’s sake, but I am not bursting with confidence.

If he isn’t careful, then this moment of celebration could turn into a political liability for him. Even with a compliant media this could back fire just like George Bush’s ill-conceived “Mission Accomplished” banner.

Posted from WordPress for Android