Big Spenders Threaten Gains and 2014 Victory for GOP

by Jack Lee

If there is one monumental victory the GOP can claim, it’s that for the last 3 years they have forced Obama and the democrats in Congress to actually reduce government spending. This is almost unprecedented in our bloated bureaucracy that lusts for ever creative ways to spend.

Subscribers (liberals) to Keynesian style economics warned us that drastic GOP budget cuts would wreak havoc on the economy – and they were 100% wrong! The economy responded very favorably to the cuts, despite the $85b that is still being pumped into buying back government bonds and despite Obama’s bailouts. Those things diminished the gains made by cuts, they did not help and leading economists in major financial institution generally agree, including Thomas Mayer, chief economist at Deutsche Bank.

Between a bungled ObamaCare that threats to bankrupt America and the GOP that has opposed it and their holding the line on spending, they should have a clear path to victory in 2014. But, don’t bet your last dollar on it. The GOP are known incompetents and they have a remarkable way of shooting themselves in the foot just when victory is near. The biggest danger to their victory in 2014 is the big spenders in the GOP are still there. They and the big spenders in the Democratic Party see the mildly improving economic conditions as a license to return to their old ways, before sequestration.

So, the big two question are, will the Tea Party Republicans be strong enough to hold back the big spenders in their own party? Will the GOP continue to stand back and let the Democrats sink under the weight of failures in ObamaCare?

The following chart should be helpful in seeing where the blame lays for the deficit. It also shows how previous presidents managed to add to the deficit too and this is very clear for Bush 41, but Obama is the guy who took the deficit to new highs. This is something the dems would like to avoid dealing with, but it’s now historical fact and they’re trapped by it.
budget45890

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Big Spenders Threaten Gains and 2014 Victory for GOP

  1. Tina says:

    Jack in preparation for the coming election liberal economists are making calculations to prove deficits under Obama are lower or less than under previous presidents…usually GW Bush or Reagan.

    They accomplish this by using tricks which are often used to “prove” some point or position but seldom tell the whole story.

    An article by James K. Glassman in Forbes is informative on the subject of deficit spending. He uses three different methods for calculating average deficits under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama and explains the need for three methods:

    Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?”

    We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run.

    I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two

    The comparison chart for each, which can be viewed by clicking on the link, clearly show that Obama’s deficit spending has been much greater. (The 2013 year was not included)

    It needs to be said that these figures are not all a result of Presidential policies. Clinton benefited greatly from to economic assists: 1. The booming Reagan economy was not wiped out by the short recession that preceded his first term and, 2. The technological breakthroughs during the eighties meant that Americans were buying the high tech items in the nineties as competition made them affordable to the general public. This boom was followed by another boom when Clinton and the Republicans cut taxes in 1994. Too bad he played around with housing loan regulation or Obama would have begun his term on a much better note.

    Bush I and II were not as successful at working with Congress as Reagan or Clinton both of whom had to deal with strong oppositions in Congress. Bush II had the dot com recession, the attack on 911, and several very devastating hurricanes that pushed spending up. It’s amazing that his terms ended with deficit spending averaging 2.7% debt to GDP.

    I like this article because it explains how data can be manipulated.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Tina, the best I’ve heard for Obama is he raised it 72% and the worst was he doubled it. Either way he blew a lot of capital and weakened the recovery process. The GOP should have a landslide victory if they have decent candidates. ObamaCare, bailouts, QE’s, Solyndra, all these crazy presidential orders, our dumb foreign policy, Benghazi, Egypt, Iran, Syria, this presidency has made a mess of everything. The one concern I have at the moment is Hillary. She may have some leverage using Bill’s track record on spending and the fact dems could elect a female for the first time, but that’s not much to run on is it? I think it has some appeal to the low information voter.

  2. Peggy says:

    Jack, these will make you feel a little better about Hillary. There’s a really good GOP video on her lying about Benghazi, but I can’t locate it right now.

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/12/02/hillary-clintons-ratings-underwater/

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/15/why-a-hillary-clinton-victory-in-2016-may-be-far-from-inevitable-video/

  3. Tina says:

    Jack don’t forget she is also tied indirectly to government healthcare through what was called Hillarycare. Remember the big poster that described her plan was as complex and ridiculous in terms of bureaucracy as Obamacare is. Both look like a giant complicated maze.

    But we can never underestimate the extreme lefties…the end justifies the means.

  4. Harold says:

    A dollar is best in your hand rather than the government’s,

  5. Libby says:

    “A dollar is best in your hand rather than the government’s …”

    … until your water main breaks.

    The thing is, you also got to pony up for the main break two blocks over. Just … suck it up.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby I understand what you are saying. We can agree, we should all pay our fair share of taxes for those things best suited for government, like a military, building interstate highways and providing for enforcement of federal laws and such. Nobody here is against taxes per se’, We’re just against frivilous and pointless waste of our tax dollars, aren’t you?

      Michelle’s little vacation to Africa cost us about $100,000,000 dollars. That’s $100 million! And what did we get out of it? What freakin good did blowing through all that money do for anyone except Michelle and her enterage? And how many costly trips on Air Force One have the Obama’s taken during our Great Recession up till now? I heard it costs over $186,000 an hour just to fly the dang plane. Just because he’s president doesn’t mean he gets a blank check for family vacations. Thats insulting to the taxpayers.

      Now please don’t tell me to suck it up and pay…cause that’s just wrong and I don’t care who is spending it, wrong is wrong, I would be just as mad if a republican spent it. That money could have done so much good at home, it could have changed lives and she spent it like she didn’t give a rats behind what the little people thought…let them eat cake! But, this is just a tiny bit of the waste that goes on and it drives us up the wall with all the waste, fraud and abuse. That’s what we care about…not about legit taxation, but liberals never seem to get that part.

      “President Barack Obama’s tour of sub-Saharan Africa this month was supposed to make history as his first stay extended stay in the region, but a report by the Washington Post this week has shifted focus onto the trip’s price tag, which could reach upwards of $100 million.

      The entire security apparatus is required to be present on the ground at each of Obama’s stops, as his quick pace will leave little time for the entire detail to pack up and redeploy at the next location. The Post reports that this challenge has led to a requirement of 56 total support vehicles — 14 of them limousines and three of them trucks carrying bulletproof glass panels to cover the windows where the first family is set to stay. All of these will be flown to their various positions by military jet.

      Secret Service agents will also be flying to each of the African locations en-masse, ensuring that they have secured the premises prior to the first family’s arrival. The Post reports that hundreds of agents will be needed for the operation.

      WHAT FREAKIN GOOD DID THIS TRIP DO FOR AMERICA? The answer is nothing, not diddly squat.

  6. Dewey says:

    It costs money to protect any President.

    Spending let’s start with Corporate welfare. Millions that go to some of the most profitable companies in the world. ! out of 4 corporations pay no taxes at all. They get subsidies. How about this Privatization Tea Party scam where we pay companies more than it costs for the gov to run something then they ding the public for more profit.

  7. Tina says:

    We are talking trillions dollar budgets, debt soaring skyward and Libby worries about a water main in hometown America. Geez girl, a little perspective!

    I’ll pay, at the local level, for the water main. I will also have a lot more to spend in my community if I don’t have to contribute to state and federal waste, fraud, excess, and misuse of funds!

  8. Tina says:

    Jack: “how many costly trips on Air Force One have the Obama’s taken during our Great Recession up till now?”

    That would be how many costly trips…during our Great Recession, slow moving economic recovery, QE, and war!

    Dewey if you were even remotely familiar with the actual Tea Party instead of that cartoon creation in your noggin, you would know we are also against corporate welfare. Most of us want big reforms in the tax structure and smaller more efficient government. Heck corporations would like to be rid of the loopholes and complex tax forms…less lawyers and expense!

    The complex tax code is hurting all taxpayers!

    According to an article in Forbes business ans individuals spend a lot on tax preparation each year:

    National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson branded growing tax code complexity as the most serious problem facing both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service and called on Congress to enact tax reform and then institute a regular “sanity check” over future tax code changes.

    As a measure of how unwieldy the law has become, Olson’s staff found the tax code had grown to 3.8 million words as of Feb. 1, 2010, compared to the 1.4 million words the Joint Committee on Taxation reported in 2001. (That doesn’t include tweaks Congress made to the tax code in 2010—some 579 in all, according to a count kept by tax publisher CCH, a division of Wolters Kluwer.)

    While the burden of complying with all those words has been calculated in different ways, Olson multiplied the IRS’ own estimates of how much time taxpayers spend collecting data for and filling out each individual tax form by the number of forms filed to estimate that Americans (both individuals and businesses) spend 6.1 billion hours a year complying with the code. That’s the equivalent of more than 3 million workers toiling away full time, all year. By way of comparison, the Federal government employs the equivalent of 2.1 million full-time civilian workers and Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, has 1.4 million workers in the U.S., although not all are full time.

    Complexity is also raising individual taxpayers’ out-of-pocket costs for filing their 1040s, Olson noted. About 60% of individual taxpayers now pay CPAs, enrolled agents, H&R Block or other services to prepare their returns while another 29% use software, such as Intuit’s TurboTax. According to a recent IRS study, the median individual taxpayer (as measured by income) spent $258 in 2007 for tax prep, up from $220 in 2000, in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars.

    That’s more money that doesn’t go toward creating jobs or growing the economy! It’s money that could be used for college or braces…a knee surgery or Christmas or Hanukkah presents! It could be used for retirement investment or health insurance…and it’s all being wasted on bureaucracy, fraud, waste, cronyism, corporatism, favoritism.

    What is fair about that?

Comments are closed.