The "Bush" Deficit Explained

October 21, 2010

This is an excellent article debunking the myth that George W Bush caused the Obama deficit. Pass this along.

Philip Edwin Coffman writes:

This is from the President of the State Banking System of Ohio. This is a great lesson to understand as we enter the fall elections. Politicians on both sides have a way of making things sound good, and even though true, are very misleading.... Progressives are killing this country, and we need to change course, but let's make sure we are dealing with a full deck. Don't believe everything you hear. Check it out before making up your mind. We will be deciding this country's financial future............

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, ... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY2008 and FY2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets..

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, Unless each of us sends it on!This is your chance to make a difference.

WE THE PEOPLE . . . . . DODGED A BULLET TODAY

by Ken Phenix on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 11:24pm

McDonald v The City of Chicago was heard by The Supreme Court this morning. The case not only challenged Chicago's gun ban but also caused the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States to come under scrutiny. The high court upheld the right of all American citizens to bear arms. I cannot however, share in the excitement. Frankly this scares the begeezes out of me. This potential assault on the 2nd Amendment was thwarted by only one vote. FIVE TO FOUR! There are four Justices sitting on the Supreme Court, sworn to uphold The Constitution who would willfully and deliberately place in jeopardy one of our primary inalienable rights. Had this decision gone the other way many more municipalities would surely have been emboldened to pass similar legislation. THIS is contemporary liberalism and I want no part of it. I see this as a close call and hopefully a wake up call. I was already resigned to the inevitability of Elena Kagen's confirmation but no longer. What little we know about her, by design I'm afraid, includes her refusal to allow US military recruiters on the Harvard campus and that she believes free speech should have limits. We must not allow by any and all means legal and constitutional any of Barrack Obama's nominees to be confirmed. As demonstrated today, the repercussions of critical decisions rendered by these social ideologues could be felt for decades and our steadfast, not "living", not changing founding document would not survive intact.

Socialism: Get Used to it

by Ken Phenix on Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 5:27pm

That's what one of my good friends posted on facebook recently. "Wake up and smell the coffee, socialism is here to stay in America." What a thought provoking remark, I thought. I thoughtfully skipped past the obvious gloat in citing the recent election as a clear rejection of socialism by the people and began to muse curiously about how an American citizen could possibly prefer to live under a socialist form of government. I hear those who embrace socialism say it's all about fairness, so no one goes without and their solution is to have the government tax wealth away from those who produce and re-distribute that wealth to those who do not. To them, it is "fair" to have some "go without" more of what they have earned just so they can feel good thinking THEY made a contribution to making the world a better place. Why not just open your own wallet and give - like a conservative? Charity is an attribute of the heart of an individual, not government. The United States of America was founded on individual liberty and freedom and at least half the people want to keep it that way. Where is the "fairness" in transforming America and foisting socialism on those of us who do not want it?

I have an idea. It's so simple! Instead of compulsory redistribution of wealth, let's have voluntary redistribution of PEOPLE! So, you like socialism? Fine. We'll pass the hat and pay your way to the socialist country of your choice. If you like capitalism and our free society, well pay your way . . . . . . oh wait, we don't have to. More people are already trying to come here to live the American dream than any other country on the planet. Hummm, I wonder why that is but I digress. This is totally fair! Do we have a deal? We'll go on being the land of the free as founded and you socialist wannabes can be happy living under the care and control of the socialist, Marxist, totalitarian or communist regime of your choice.

Victoria's Secret

(copied from facebook) Sunday, February 20, 2011 at 2:45pm

Well somehow we got ourselves on the mailing list. The new Victoria's Secret catalog arrived the other day. There it was, plain as day on the kitchen counter. Temptation got the better of me and I opened the cover. I perused its glossy pages replete with example after photographic example of beauty and artistry both natural and enhanced, until one caught my eye. I fixed my gaze on the image so striking, so shapely, so reminiscent of something so dear to my heart - got me all excited - had to go get my wife and show her too.

http://kphenix.smugmug.com/Motorcycles/MOTORCYCLES-STUFF/IMAG0258/1192515663_7LPtu-XL.jpg

Isn't she beautiful?!!

Is "The Donald" Obama's Trump Card?

(copied from facebook) June 5, 2011 at 10:58am

I never paid much attention or gave much credence to the "birther" issue other than noting the "kudos to Kagan" confirmation after she fended off all the suits as solicitor general. This is just too tidy though: Donald Trump comes on the scene making noise, demanding to see the document, spouting all the right rhetoric in all the right places from Fox News to The Vue. He sold out speaking engagements under the guise of entering the Republican Presidential primary. In a flash, a long form Hawaiian birth certificate is made public. Trump beats has chest for the press, withdraws his potential candidacy and returns to his glamorous life as a real estate tycoon slash reality tv star. Too tidy indeed. Obama himself couldn't have engineered a more perfect means to lay the issue to rest before his campaign for re-election begins. Oh wait. Could that be it? Of course not. However, if Trump was a true conservative, conservatism could be served by his wealth and influence in far better ways than by constraining himself to political office. It would be like George Soros running for President as a Democrat. Trump is neither conservative nor liberal. He's a ranking member of the opportunist party - a businessman and that's fine. But why help Obama perpetrate a ruse of this magnitude? Is there something of equal magnitude in it for him? I'm drawing no conclusions, only asking questions but it seems to make sense. This little observation of mine was brought to the fore again as I stumbled upon a radio interview of Jerome Corsi reminding me that there are so many more unanswered questions and gaps in Obama's past, school records, passports, Indonesian dual citizenship, adoption and so on. But Trump is satisfied so we can all go back to our mundane little lives until called upon by Obama on election day, right? Alright. No. Here's Trump having lunch with Sarah Palin. Here's Trump on Greta's show attempting to discredit the new Republicans and all the great progress they have made since last November. What? Republicans in self destruct mode? Palin doesn't know what she's doing? The Ryan budget plan is political suicide? "If the Republicans put up a stiff, I'll come back and run as an independent." says Trump as he breaks his promise not to do exactly that. Trump on the ticket as an independent would be the picture perfect plan to get Obama re-elected. No Donald, I'm not buying it. Anybody rember a businessman named Ross Perot?

Remembering Spanish Culinary History - and Our Own

(Copied from facebook) Saturday, July 23, 2011

I caught an interesting "Splendid Table" interview on our local NPR affiliate with author Claudia Roden. Her new book celebrates the rebirth of regional Spanish cuisines almost lost during the rule of fascist dictator Francisco Franco. Roden scornfully detailed how Franco had banned local artisanship altogether and demanded bland standardized mass production instead. Franco instituted the socialization of the entire food supply of Spain. I couldn't help but draw a comparison to present day dietary controls under the guise of health conscious political correctness. Sugar, Sodium, trans-fat, fried food and fast food have come under legislative scrutiny - all for the common good. The thing about history is to not allow the same mistakes to be repeated. Could you imagine The United States of America without the Monte Cristo, the happy meal, the Chicago dog, Tex-Mex fajitas, New York pizza . . . . . or PAELLA? I can't. Keep your nanny state regulation writers out of America's kitchens, thank you.

http://www.harpercollins.ca/books/The-Food-of-Spain/?isbn=9780061969621

Podcast available at: splendidtable.org

GLOBAL CLIMATE SCEINTISTS ARE "WARMING" THE BOOKS

Most of the media is either still ignoring "Climate-Gate" or immediately went into "damage control" mode but the blogosphere is absolutely abuzz.

Please spare me the "status quo" "throwing in with the oil companies" speeches. Of course I believe we should all be good stewards of our precious planet and strive to perfect cleaner sources of energy. There is however, no logical reason to do so at the expense of our economy. Real "Green" solutions will come from private sector innovation rather than government intervention (restriction and taxation). Example: At a time when Chrysler is all but gone and GM has been brought to its knees, why does Obama insist on ramping up CAFE standards? Obama is in Copenhagen right now with plans to offer a binding promise to reduce US greenhouse emissions by 83% without so much as running the idea by our Congress. Is anybody naive enough to think China or Russia will make any such concessions? Help me out here, these economically devastating decisions are based on what again?

Our children are being taught that global warming is fact, not scientific theory and certainly not political agenda. Conversely, The British High Court after finding numerous errors recently ruled that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" could only be shown in schools with a preface identifying it as a political film and NOT a scientific documentary. Al Gore has turned this global warming scare into a global multi-million dollar business, won an Academy Award and received a Nobel Prize based on what again?

Climate change activists say the debate is over but "Climate-Gate" is real and it's big. Phil Jones has already resigned and Michael Mann is under investigation. Will their respective universities willingly give back all those millions in climate change research grant money? Not likely. Even NASA scientists who receive much of their funding for climate research may be culpable. Yet when asked by CNN’s Ed Henry about the matter, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the question as silly. Debate over? No, I believe the debate and the controversy are just beginning.

My point is simply that our leaders should not be making policy decisions, laws, cap and tax bills or global treaties that will surely negatively affect our standard of living and even our very sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . based on what again?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FX-JhDJR44