Obama Administration Continues to Lie About Impact of Sequestration
A leaked email has the budget office telling an administrator to manage his budget in such a way that it does not contradict official claims about the impact of sequestration:
A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.
The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.
According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
And since we said the impact would be bad, you need to manage the budget to make sure the impact is bad.
Even if you have to lie. Which, they are lying. How are they lying? Here are a couple of examples:
Lie No. 1: Janitors got a pay cut. First, remember when Obama claimed janitors were getting a pay cut? There are new lies on that front. Glenn Kessler starts out by reminding us:
At a news conference last Friday, President Obama claimed that, “starting tomorrow,” the “folks cleaning the floors at the Capitol” had “just got a pay cut” because of the automatic federal spending cuts known as the sequester.
That story got four Pinocchios. But that was just the beginning. It was reported that janitors were having overtime cut, and the White House clung to that thin reed. Jay Carney said: “On the issue of the janitors, if you work for an hourly wage and you earn overtime, and you depend on that overtime to make ends meet, it is simply a fact that a reduction in overtime is a reduction in your pay.”
The thin reed just broke. Kessler reports today that janitors get almost overtime: “[O]vertime amounts to only [a] pittance of the overall pay — about $6.50 a week on top of wages of $1,000 a week. That’s much different from Carney’s claim of having to ‘depend on that overtime to make ends meet.’” Four more Pinocchios for that one.
Lie No. 2: We Must Cut White House Tours. This one starts to fall apart upon examination. It turns out the White House Visitors’ Office employs a staff of seven. And tours are self-guided. Meanwhile, the federal government is still hiring. And the White House pays a calligrapher — a calligrapher! — $96,725 a year. The Weekly Standard says: “In all, the White House appears to employ 3 calligraphers for a yearly total of $277,050.”
Clearly, the idea that tours need to be cut is a bunch of horse droppings. I like Louie Gohmert’s idea: until the tours resume, no money to take the President to or from a golf course. Ha.
Let’s do some Army of Davids stuff. What examples can you find of the White House lying about the sequester?
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:43 amI know this is not sockpuppet Friday, but I must express envy toward the current administration. I thought “Baghdad Bob” was bad, but these characters provide way too much competition. I used to hold the record as the world’s greatest prevaricator, but now that record is threatened.
Baron von Munchausen Phd (b48c12) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:52 amAssume that every word out of thier pie hole is a lie and you won’t make an ass/u/me.
firefirefire (b0457e) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:55 amsequestergeddon already feels very last week
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:56 amYou might be a Republican if you politicized Benghazi for months then minimized the sequester that cut $79 million from the Embassy security budget.
Since Republicans took control of the House two years ago, we’ve seen a threatened government shutdown, followed by a first-ever debt-ceiling crisis, followed by another threatened government shutdown, followed by another threatened government shutdown, followed by a “fiscal cliff,” followed by “the sequester,” followed by another threatened government shutdown, followed by another debt-ceiling crisis.
Dumb, obstinate, on the wrong side of history,
Dad (b17026) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:02 amSpending ourselves into oblivion would put us in the ‘right’ side of history, would it?
Icy (a71933) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:12 amRead the fine print on the calligrapher article…
They employ 3 white house calligraphers at a cost of $277,050 per year
sequestration my A$$.
To steal a line from the Joker “This country needs an enema and I know right where to stick the hose.”
MaaddMaaxx (981b21) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:13 amAnd make Barry pay his own grees fees.
Seriously folks, Barry and his whole staff need to be spanked and sent to bed without their supper.
f1guyus (647d76) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:16 amDad – spamming that same nonsense does not make it so.
When was the last time the Senate followed the law and passed a budget? Kthxby
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:17 amIt has ONLY been during the past two years that hitting the debt ceiling has been a crisis?
Icy (a71933) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:23 amYour selective memory over what Senator Obama said about GWB and the debt ceiling is very cute. I guess he had it wrong back then; so his flip-flop is okay, because the current “we don’t have a spending problem” position is the way to go. Right?
The impending sequester did not prevent the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from acting in late February to seal a $50-million deal to purchase new uniforms for its agents–uniforms that will be partly manufactured in Mexico.
Soon after this new investment in TSA uniforms, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Americans that the lines are already lengthening at airports due to the sequester.
Icy (a71933) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:26 amThe wrong side of history is 2 unpaid for wars. Just how long did you think it was going to take to repair that damage?
The U.S. budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 fell to $1.089 trillion, $200 billion smaller than it was in 2010, and nearly $300 billion smaller than when President Obama took office.
Dad (b17026) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:26 am“Dad” – do you even have a passing acquaintance with the truth?
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:37 amWhat do you think the truth is, JD.
You’ve simply got to expand your horizons beyond Fox News and Rush Limbaugh!
Perry (329aa5) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:41 amfood stamp isn’t in the repairing business
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:42 amWhat kind of leader works hard to score cheap, political points:
A useless POS empty-suit HACK!
The fight is ON for the ’14 Off-Year Election.
If the People allow the Dems to pick up just one seat in the House or Senate, they will deserve everything that will be coming down upon them.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
On another topic, the L.A. Mayoralty Race:
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:43 amCongratulations L.A., you’re going to have a run-off between tweedle-dum, and tweedle-dummerer.
The policies that they represent, that of the bureaucracy and PE Unions, is what has given L.A. the quality-of-life that it currently enjoys;
but they proclaim that they are the instruments of Hope & Change (where have we heard that before?).
Tell us Eric and Wendy, have you picked a date yet to file for BK?
Federal deficits:
Bush –
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
Obama –
Dad (b17026) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:43 amFY 2010: $1,293 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2012: $1,089 billion
FY 2013*: $901 billion (projected)
Only one problem Gramps, the FY-2009 expenditures under Bush were done under the authority of a CR. On Jan-21, the Congress presented Obama with all of the expenditures that Bush had threatened to Veto, then the Stimulus.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:51 amSo, once more, you’re wrong (and stupid).
FY-2009 was just another Reid/Pelosi/Obama Spend-Fest!
1* – Presidential control
2* – Senate control
3* – House control
D = Democrat R = Republican
Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted 1* 2* 3*
2001 $127.3 B Surplus $164.9 B Surplus R D R
2002 $157.8 B Deficit $201.02 B Deficit R D R
2003 $377.6 B Deficit $470.82 B Deficit R R R
2004 $413 B Deficit $501.21 B Deficit R R R
2005 $318 B Deficit $373.24 B Deficit R R R
2006 $248 B Deficit $282.14 B Deficit R R R
2007 $161 B Deficit $178.1 B Deficit R D D
2008 $459 B Deficit $488.82 B Deficit R D D
2009 $1413 B Deficit $1509.62 B Deficit D D D
2010 $1294 B Deficit $1360.67 B Deficit D D D
2011 $1299 B Deficit $1324.16 B Deficit D D R
2012 $1100 B Deficit $1100 B Deficit D D R
2013 $900 B Deficit $884.96 B Deficit D D R
Source: Whitehouse.gov – Historical Tables (Table 1.1)
—
rrteach (dcdaba) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:58 amBush –
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
Lie. You know it. We know it. That Dem budget was signed by Obama, and loaded with crap.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:00 amYou’ve simply got to expand your horizons beyond Fox News and Rush Limbaugh!
This is a standard leftist rhetoric trick. It is meaningless. And shows how silly you are. I could not tell you what time Rush comes on, what channel he is on, nor what channel FoxNews is on my cable. I don’t need Rush or Fox to know you and Dad lie.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:04 amThe leftists desperately do not want to talk a out Obama’s lies about the draconian reductions in the rate of growth.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:05 am(Perry’s?) Dad attributed FY 2009 spending to President Bush. However, the Congress, both houses of which were controlled by the Democrats, passed the annual appropriations bills for only Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs before the end of President Bush’s term; the rest was funded via continuing resolution, at FY 2008 levels, because the Democrats expected Barack Hussein Obama to win the election.
On February 23, 2009, the Omnibus Apprpriations Act was introduced into the House of Representatives; by March 11, President Obama signed it into law. It had already been festooned with all kinds of goodies and additions, and it was a substantial increase in federal discretionary spending without including the 2009 porkulus bill.
FY 2009 appropriations should have been signed into law by President Bush, had the Congress done its job on time.
The Dana who looks things up (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:17 amHere’s my favorite. Had the President proposed a budget, and had the President’s party in the Senate passed a budget, then the President would have something of a point that these cuts he’s now required would be automatic and non-discretionary on his part.
But because they didn’t do their jobs, the sequester gives him all the discretion he needs to determine which programs, projects, and activities he wants to cut and which ones not to cut. Congress doesn’t need to pass any new law giving him that authority which he threatens to veto.
The law he’s already signed does everything that the new law would have.
The Sequester Revelation Obama has the legal power to avoid spending-cut damage.
This is great! Recall that an “automatic trigger” was entirely a WH idea. And they deliberately went back to Gramm-Rudman to come up with that mechanism; sequestration.
Nobody looked closely at that mechanism. Not the people who wrote the bill; Congress. But not the people who decided to resurrect Gramm-Rudman in the first place; the WH. They never looked at what the rules under Gramm-Rudman were before they proposed it.
The GOP seems to have fallen into a manure pile and is about to come up smelling like roses. All they have to do now is read the law as it exists and they can call BS on these WH “bring the pain” cuts.
Obama’s hand isn’t being forced. That never was the case. But he has nothing to hide behind now; no excuses for making the cuts he chooses to make that the law he signed doesn’t even require him to make.
It’s a beautiful thing to see someone hoist on their own petard. But hoist on their own petard twice? First by not looking at the details of his own proposal. Second by being of the party that refused to pass a budget.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:19 amJD, you are permitting your ideology to destroy your creditability.
There simply is no denying the economy which President Obama inherited from day one in office.
Ask Hank Paulson!
Perry (329aa5) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:20 amDana – that was the bright line starting point for the Dems avoiding budgets for political reasons. Since that point, no budgets.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:20 amPerry – again, you lie. It is habitual for you. I never questioned the state of the economy. I, and others, pointed out that Dad’s numbers were BS.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:24 amJD, sometimes I suspect Perry honestly doesn’t know the difference between the economy and the stock market, or between the economy and the federal budget.
Or for that matter between the federal budget and the stock market.
Otherwise I doubt he’d write the gobsmackingly stupid stuff he usually does.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:28 amSee, Perry, I’m sticking up for you!
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:29 amWhy is it that no matter how bad it gets Good Ol’ Barry can get away with murd–, when will the sheeple stop taking BigPharma’s sleeping pills?
DJ6ual
DJ6ual (08c3a5) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:46 amhttp://www.pghcouponing.com
17, 19. 2013 projections are probably at least half of the likely expenditure.
The only caveat is the length of the shutdown. It is three weeks and counting and the ‘crisis’ has not yet bubbled up to page one.
“This is going to be great.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:55 am23. Comment by The Dana who looks things up (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:17 am
What you said was undeniably true. However, you conveniently chose not to mention the economic context of that time, when we damn near had Great Depression II when the President took office. This shortcoming is typical you, Dana!
What you snarkishly refer to as the “2009 porkulus bill”, actually the ARRA, popularly called the stimulus bill, what a godsend which helped to turn us away from a depression, together with the EESA of 2008, the bailout bill.
By virtue now of hindsight, we certainly did the right thing at the time on an emergency basis. There was not time to do otherwise, though at the time I wanted the stimulus to be larger re infrastructure repairs generating more jobs, a win-win scenario.
PS: Just like old times over here, eh Dana, though the odds against are yet more overwhelming? So?
Perry (329aa5) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:56 am25. “There simply is no denying the [hairline, forehead, eye spacing and nose] which President Obama inherited[].”
He is plainly Franklin Marshall Davis’ bastard. Drinking bud of Stanley, photographer of Ann, Marxist mentor of the Alien.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:01 amNobody looked closely at that mechanism
Obama’s a Big-Picture Guy, and can’t be bothered with the nitty-gritty of governing.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:02 amHis staff is composed of Morons, some with PhD’s, but Morons nevertheless.
So, Perry. You admit that “Dad”s figures were dishonest. You continue to be intentionally obtuse, accusing people of not acknowledging that the economy was in bad shape. And you ignore the failure of the pork laden Dem wish list porkukus, amazingly claiming we need more. The roads and bridges trope is especially funny, given the recent accounting showing that they are in good shape, compared to other points in history.
There is no end to which leftists won’t tax. And spend.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:04 amSpeaking of resemblances:
Did anyone else pick up on the facial comparison of our new SecState in his interview shown on yesterday’s Fox Special Report?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:05 amI swear, that with all that pancake they used, and his hair combed back, he looked like a dead ringer of G.Washington on the $1 bill.
A godsend.
We couldn’t parody you if we tried. And since that was inserted in he budget, that became the baseline for all subsequent spending. So that one time emergency expenditure has occurred every year since.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:06 amSince most of the history books will be written by kids saddled with the biggest default in human history, I rather doubt they will be kind to Ogabe or Shrub, Slick, Pere Booosh, or either major party.
Just sayin’.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:08 amOh, ADP said yesterday private industry created 198K jobs on the strength of, you guessed it, ‘seasonal adjustments’.
Since the Manufacturing PMI came out today at -2.0, all those charges of Industry sitting on the sideline athwart piles of cash are baseless slander, eh?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:14 amWell, the firearms industry is doing quite well.
Thank You, Barack Obama!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:16 amA summation of Perry:
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:19 amDad – The wrong side of history is Obama’s war on the private sector, success in America and future generations. Just how long do you think it is going to take to repair the damage of our worst and most divisive president in memory?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:24 amdaley, it will take at least the first two terms of the M.Obama Administration.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:27 amCharlie Cooke today says the 1.6 Billion rounds the DHS is stockpiling is just a tempest in a teapot.
Everyone knows any Federal agency with a letterhead has its own swat team. DHS is just ahead of the curve.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:28 amDad – Perry complained about lack of context. Obama is much better about not paying for things than Bush. He incurred more debt in one term than Bush did in two and spent it on things with no discernible benefit to the U.S. except temporary payback for campaign supporters. Labor force participation rates are at 30 year lows, the economy is flat. Truly we live in magical times under the Sun King.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:32 am“daley, it will take at least the first two terms of the M.Obama Administration.”
askeptic – Every American will be forced to do their part to have marvelously toned arms.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:34 amCurvee labor on all those shovel ready infrastructure projects should be just the ticket.
I can hardly wait until DHS arrives in their MRAPs to enlist us.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:42 amCurvee = corvee
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:43 am“Curvee labor on all those shovel ready infrastructure projects should be just the ticket.”
Steve57 – Digging holes and filling them in across the country that nobody can pay for.
Winning The Future
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:47 amWhere did Dad and Perry go?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:49 amDaley – doesn’t matter. They don’t actually respond, they just repeat the same lies, then move on to the next.
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:54 amPerry wrote:
Given that the point was being made to correct Dad’s assertion that the FY 2009 spending was entirely President Bush’s responsibility, there was no reason to mention anything else.
I argued, all along, that the best thing we could have done was nothing at all, and simply let the economy adjust on its own. Given that after all of the ramped up spending under President Obama has left us with an official unemployment rate which is still slightly higher than when he took office, and that our economic growth has been not only anemic, but measures as the worse recovery performance since the Depression, it would seem to me to be hard to argue that the President’s policies have been very helpful.
You assume, as the basis for your arguments, that we would have had another depression, but that can’t be proved, nor did any other country go into depression, save Greece, which was using the same methods President Obama tried.
The always accurate Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:04 amI keep expecting the next link to announce the end, but its like Archimedes’ race of Achilles versus the turtle.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=26623&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Bicycles raise the rider’s rate of respiration and need to be taxed accordingly.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:06 am“Daley – doesn’t matter. They don’t actually respond, they just repeat the same lies, then move on to the next.”
JD – Maybe we’ll get better chew toys next time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:13 amNuanced morality:
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/04/saudi-arabias-sharia-justice-system-to-execute-seven-by-crucifixion-and-firing-squad-for-stealing-jewelry/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:16 am54. Ah, that was Zeno’s Paradox, Archimedes came much later and in Sicily.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:19 amJust so you know, WH tours may be cancelled.
But the USDA is still underwriting the California Small Farm Conference March 10-12 at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center in Fresno.
Come enjoy the local wines and the dishes prepared by guest chefs. Here’s the schedule.
Good news. If you still want to go registration is available on site.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:23 am#SequesterThis Meat inspectors have to go, but fine wines are still on the USDA menu.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:26 amTo paraphrase Paul Masson:
We will release no whine before its time.
Sequester for thee, but not for me.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:45 amThe Little People may not visit the White House, or the Washington Monument (conveniently closed for maintenance/remodeling), but how dare you restrict the vital activities of the Nomenklatura!
USDA offices nationwide need to be visited by pitchfork bearing constituents (torches optional – tar & feathers mandatory).
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:47 amHave they furloughed the people at the Dept. of Energy whose it is to run around revoking oil drilling permits?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:01 pmAnd how about the people at EPA who conduct the Al Armendariz-style crucifixions?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:02 pmHauser’s Law:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/guest-post-look-us-taxes-and-hausers-law
So when Dwight E. saw rates rise to top at 90% we briefly spiked well above 20% revenues to GDP but the returns regressed to the mean.
So now, Succubus wants to ever increase rates to stay above the mean? Naw, he doesn’t even know what the ‘mean’ means.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:04 pmThe sequester is already exacting a toll in Europe:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/car-sales-plunge-10-in-germany-12-in.html
800K Federal employees will have to give a Ford a look see now that Audis are out of reach.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:11 pmDefinitive understatement:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/fully-prepared-for-currency-war-says.html
Japan got off the line first, usually an advantage, in the all out war, but China has enough foreign currency to buy the world’s gold twice over.
Spain has blown its heater and now receives the blindfold.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:20 pmMight be easier to make a list of non-lies.
htom (412a17) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:55 pmDon’t forget to note the War on Women part of that caligrapher story:
Particia makes $96,725.
Debra makes $85,953.
Richard makes $94,372.
Patricia is the Chief Calligrapher, and makes a mere $2,353 more than Richard, her male assistant. Richard meanwhile makes $8,419 than Debra, his female coworker.
Why does Richard make almost 10% more for doing the same job as Debra?
Sam (133e2f) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:02 pmWhy does Patricia make barely 2.5% than Richard when she has to supervise both Richard and Debra?
Why is the White House engaging in such blatant discrimination against women?
Why?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:08 pmMuslims do not believe in equality.
htom’s entire post said:
I think you already did.
The precise Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2013 @ 1:23 pmPerry wrote:
Really? We all know that you believe that to be the case, but we can’t know that a depression was avoided; we can never know what would have happened down the path not taken.
But we can measure what happened against the the claims made for the porkulus plan. Unemployment, we were told, would be held to a maximum of 8% — the CBO guesstimated 8.5% — but unemployment soared to 10.0%, and even now is officially at 7.9%. The graphs provided by the President’s minions indicated that the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% in July of 2012; kind of makes you wonder just how astute the President’s economists were.
More, those same economists projected that if we didn’t pass the pork plan, unemployment would top out at 9%; by the President’s own criteria, the porkulus plan not only didn’t work, but actually made things worse than if we had done nothing at all . . . which just happens to be what I was arguing at the time. Does that make me right in the eyes of the President and his apologists? Why, no, of course not: they simply move the goalposts and tell us that things would have been even worse without the stimulus plan, yet another unprovable assertion.
Moreover, if we look at the established facts, we can see that the current recovery, if we can call it that, has taken much longer and been far less successful than any post-recession recovery since the Depression. By the objective measures the President set when selling his stimulus plan, and by the economic record of past recessions, the Obama economic plans have been failures.
The Dana who's now home from work, writing whilst dinner is still cooking (af9ec3) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:28 pmA-freakin-men
JD (4f721c) — 3/6/2013 @ 2:49 pm==What you snarkishly refer to as the “2009 porkulus bill”, actually the ARRA, popularly called the stimulus bill,…which helped to turn us away from a depression==
No Perry. Please get the terms straight. The 2009 thing pretending to be an economic stimulus did not have to be a porkulus but Democrats made it thus. A properly targeted stimulus (instead of the one they passed that simply rewarded stupid money losing pipedream projects favored by Obama supporters, and poured money into the unions and pet companies AKA payback fronts of Obama contributors) actually might have been effective in helping us get out of the recession we’re still in at least partly because of the porkulus.
elissa (bd8b1c) — 3/6/2013 @ 4:45 pmJD, you are permitting your ideology to destroy your creditability.
Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:20 am
— Yeah, JD. Get yourself edumacated already!
Icy (a71933) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:06 pmRe: #17 and #19 … Fiscal year shenanigans and rewriting history
Dad and Perry both seem to enjoy swimming in the muddy waters of FY 2009. Wiki has the following summary of FY 2009:
The beauty of the Federal fiscal year is that it is so maleable and confusing to most people, particularly under hte one’s leadership which has been characterized by the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget, which is the normal way of demarking a fiscal year. In this case, Bush loaded the FY 2009 budget with $430B of TARP spending in October of 2008, just before the election. At that point, the budget (yes they had one in 2009) projected a deficit of $430B for the year based on the June 2008 budget passed by the House plus a bit more for TARP. Bush’s TARP expenditures are credited with increasing the deficit by $245B according to an early 2009 CBO report. The total TARP expenditures ended up at about $430B, including hte ones constributions. TARP is now mostly ($405B) paid back by the private entities who received support.
TARP has thus served two important purposes for hte one: it increased Bush’s portion of the FY 2009 deficit; and as it was paid back, it decreased the real deficits hte one is responsible for.
As 2009 unfolded, it became apparent that tax revenues were going to be much less than Bush anticipated (about $600B,) and expenditures were going to be much greater (about $400B.) The new administration did the only responsible thing as they were fine tuning their expenditures in the early part of 2009 … they blamed it on Bush and pushed ahead on the race to financial oblivion. After all, increasing unemployment benefits is one of the best investments Pelosi can imagine, and with this sort of leadership tempered by RINOs pushing Cash for Clunkers (yes that was in 2009 also) we entered an era of financial fantasy.
Dad and Perry need to find some new themes for their falsehoods. Bush is not responsible for the $1.4T deficit of 2009. hte one signed off on 2009 expenditures, and he is responsible for it. Indeed, the failure of this, his first encounter with a budget, may well be the reason hte one has been so reluctant to step into these dangerous waters ever since.
bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:44 pmThomas Sewell used to ask his students the following:
In light of the leaked email, seems like business as usual.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:42 am#67 Sam, pay for performance is the reason for the disparity. Like many in the WH, Debra often forgets to dot her ‘i’s.
Fred Beloit (9e81ce) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:55 amObama’s Sequestration is injuring the nation!
cerw (fafa86) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:44 amThe Administration’s Thin Complaints About the Sequester
I have a feeling these kidz in the WH who graduated from the Karl Marx Klown Kollege have never had to show their work before. And they really think these guesses they’re pulling out of they’re rectums are pretty durned accurate because, how couldn’t they be? They went to an Ivy League school.
Ahh, but in other news of the devastation wrought sequestzilla:
Source: Preparations underway for Obama vacation on Martha’s Vineyard
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 4:50 pm