The President’s Budget – A Defining Moment

 

 This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/26/09. See the newspaper version here

“The practical implication of this is bankruptcy for the United States.”
-Senator Judd Gregg on President Obama’s Budget Proposal

Imagine that you are thirty years old, have a steady job, a house you worked to afford, and a beautiful family to support. Now imagine that your father comes to you and asks if he can take your children out for ice cream. You agree, but you don’t want him to feel burdened to pay for your children, so you give him your no limit American Express Centurion Card.President Obama Defends His Budget

A few hours later, your father returns with your children. “How was the ice cream?” you ask. “Fantastic,” he answers. “Oh, and while we were out I used your card to pay for $10,000 in medical treatments for a man who couldn’t pay for himself-he really needed the help. And I bought a $300,000 house for a lady who had wanted a house all her life. Doesn’t everyone deserve to own a house?” His voice begins to quiver with excitement. “And then there was a poor student who said he couldn’t quite pay for his college education. No one should have to take out a loan just to learn, right? So, I paid his tuition up front in full-it was only $90,000. Isn’t that wonderful?! Besides, you make a lot of money; why not help some other people out?”

Sure it’s wonderful; medical treatments, housing, and education are all admirable and important for society. But your father just spent $400,000 of your money on someone else. That was money you worked for and were saving for your children. Now, you are saddled with debt that will take decades to repay.

Last week, President Obama began the defense of his landmark budget proposal, taking a West Coast trip that began with two town halls and finished with an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. When he returned, he was the feature interview on 60 Minutes. His tour culminated Tuesday night, where he held his second prime-time news conference in the last two months (President Bush and President Clinton held only four each during their entire Presidencies). It is clear President Obama knows he’s in for a tough fight.Obama's Budget Breakdown

And justifiably so. Over the next decade, the Obama budget proposal increases spending by over $1 trillion, raises aggregate taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion, and doubles the publicly held national debt to $15 trillion. These are unprecedented numbers, extending the burden on American taxpayers, encouraging hyper-inflation through debt, increasing foreign leverage in our financial markets, and pulling money out of the private economy and into government bureaucracy. Said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, “[Obama's budget] may be the most irresponsible piece of legislation I’ve seen in my legislative career.” John McCain famously called the budget a form of “generational theft,” as we trade pet projects and policy initiatives now for massive debt for our children later.

What has the President’s response been to the criticism? First, as he said Tuesday, he deserves an excuse from the criticism because of the debt he inherited: “I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.” Nobody disputes that point-President Bush was hardly a fiscal conservative, and his liberal Congress spent wildly. But that does not excuse President Obama from prudent governance. We are already seeing the damages of such a wide deficit, and now he simply wants to double down? That is akin to saying that since your wife spent $5,000 on a new dress, sending you deep into consumer debt, you should then spend $5,000 on new golf clubs even though you can’t afford it.

President Obama’s second, and perhaps more indicting response, has been that he is spending on things that Americans need and deserve. This includes a $634 billion move toward socialized healthcare, as well as billions more in promises to finance student debt, expand welfare, lower mortgage payments, and fund an environmentalist cap-and-trade program. To pay for this expansion, President Obama says he will hike taxes on the wealthy (including thousands of small businesses), up the cost of investment through capital gains taxes, reduce key defense initiatives, and increase our debt to foreign nations. 

Like the grandfather who thought he was justified in spending his son’s money on other people, President Obama wants to put the debt for his social programs on the American taxpayer. He wants to redistribute wealth, and force Americans who earn money to pay for those who do not. And what we cannot pay for now, we will simply pass onto our children in the form of exorbitant national debt. In many ways, his budget proposal closely mirrors his stimulus package: Billions in pet projects, social policy initiatives, and government expansion.

At a time when we desperately need fiscal conservatism and economic answers, this budget speaks only of partisan politics. This may be a defining moment in American history. Will we set the stage for a socialized America for the next decade?

I sure hope that ice cream was worth it.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The AIG Mob

“The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things – resign, or go commit suicide.”

-Senator Charles Grassley

Last week, news of the AIG bonuses grabbed every headline, took on the full attention of Congress and the President, and dominated political dialogue.  Thousands protested the bonuses, even going so far as to launch death threats at the employees, and the scandal drew battle lines for class warfare. But why so much outrage? The bonus payment of $165 million was only 1/1,000 of the total amount burned up by AIG in the bailout. Most significantly, AIG used at least $20 billion of the bailout to pay European banks for credit default swaps–Americans expressed more outrage over $165 million paid to American workers than $20 billion paid to foreign banks.AIG Protesters

That disconnect was simply the beginning of a firestorm that needs to be called to task. The AIG Bonusgate, as it is now being called, highlighted a deeply troubling trend toward American populism. Populism, broadly, is the idea that what is most popular is what should drive government action. In American politics, this often plays out as political pandering, where politicians starving for reelection and popularity rely on polls, rather than principle, to guide their action. This type of politics leads to irrational and emotional governance, the outputs of which resemble mob rule. The AIG story was a case in point.

Following the unveiling of the AIG bonuses, Congress and the President spent the remainder of the week excoriating Wall Street, casting judgment on AIG, and fanning the flame of outrage among the American people. On Wednesday, Congress summoned AIG’s volunteer CEO, Edward Liddy, and spent hours blaming him for the payouts, attacking his integrity, and lambasting the company. Mr. Liddy, they forgot, works for a salary of $1 dollar a year, and volunteered to lead the company out of the rubble following Wall Street’s collapse. He was appointed to the position by the government, long after AIG’s missteps, simply because he wanted to help unwind the AIG mess at the service of the country.

Meanwhile, thousands stormed the streets of Washington and Wall Street with protest signs too vulgar to repeat, promising vengeance on the AIG workers who had profited from taxpayer dollars. CNN played phone messages from angry citizens threatening to kill the employees’ families if they did not repay the bonuses. Tour companies organized bus trips to the employees’ New York homes so that people could vandalize, terrorize, and threaten the workers directly. All the while, in an effort to save face, politicians encouraged the outrage. 

Then, in a coup de grace of sorts, Congress forwarded a bill to tax the bonuses at 90%, and wrote legislation to review and limit all bonuses at all banks nationwide. This was the final blow. They threw away all precepts of contract law, breaking the contracts signed by AIG employees simply because of public outrage. They pushed aside Constitutional law, which expressly prohibits special taxes on private citizens, as well as government intervention in private contracts and enterprise. They began to embrace big brother government, demanding control and notice of all future bonus payments at financial institutions. These were dramatic measures that have been drowned out by public sentiment, but must be reconciled.

Was it worth it? Was $165 million worth violating the enduring and essential rights of private citizens, contracts, and the rule of law? Were the bonus payments so egregious as to threaten the very fabricAIG Protesters of our financial system, challenge capitalism, and push down Wall Street? All this while ignoring the massive and pervasive government waste from President Obama’s stimulus, replete with pet projects and earmarked pork. Of course, this is not to dismiss the irresponsibility of AIG and its traders, nor to ignore the fact that these employees contributed to the economic downturn. But we must recognize the creeping danger of populism: Public emotion leads to extreme and unwarranted action.  

This is why our founders fought so hard to establish a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy, they wrote, fails for two basic reasons: 1. The majority have complete and unchecked power, and are therefore drawn to violate the rights of the minority for their own gain; 2. Emotion tends to overtake the public, and leads to mob rule, rather than just rule.

The question here is simple: How did last week’s events differ from what the founders warned so clearly of? The public was outraged, and the emotional response to government waste of taxpayer money is understandable. But that emotion seeped indiscriminately into our political leaders, who from both parties attacked Wall Street with venom and played on the fragile state of the American worker. They then violated the very law and Constitution meant to protect us from such irrational governance. We must be careful not to let emotion and populist rule govern us, or else we will quickly devolve from a Democratic Republic into a Democratic Mob.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The True Story of AIG

 This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/19/09. See the newspaper version here (go to pg. 23).

AIG BuildingLast October, we watched with shock and fear as the stock market began its sharpest downturn since The Great Depression. Market indices, which normally fluctuated between .25% and 1%, were suddenly thrown into whipsaw-like volatility, with shifts of 6% and 7% often occurring in the final hour of trading alone. Financial titans and landmark American companies once thought too large to fail fell almost daily: Bear Sterns; Lehman Brothers; Merrill Lynch; Wachovia; Washington Mutual, to name a few. At the bottom of the rubble was insurance giant AIG, a company that, just a year earlier, had been praised by analysts for its dominant cash flow and surplus capitalization. AIG’s stability was its hallmark (in 2007 it was ranked as the 47thmost valuable brand in the world), building its brand around the now ironic tagline, “The Strength to Be There.” The story behind its collapse is more telling than a simple $165 million bonus payout. What happened?

AIG, like many other financial companies, got caught in the complex web of derivatives trading. With real estate and housing investment booming, investors were scrambling to grab a piece of the profit. For an insurance company like AIG, this meant trading credit default swaps. Essentially, AIG would agree to take on the default risk of a group of mortgages (called a tranche) in exchange for a highly profitable payment from the investor. Investment banks would approach AIG with a group of AAA rated mortgage bonds, and would buy what equates to an insurance policy against the group’s default. This allowed investment banks and traders to buy up mortgages and loans without absorbing any of the risk–all of the risk was in AIG’s hands, and all of the profit was with the investment banks. Or so they thought. The problem was that once the housing bubble burst, and the underlying sub-prime mortgages came to bear, AIG owed billions of dollars in insurance payments to cover the defaults. The loss was so large and so sudden, that AIG did not have the capitalization to pay for the losses. Add to this the fact that the derivatives traders had leveraged the risk at a near 20:1 ratio ($1 million dollars of loss now equated to $20 million), and the powerful titan of AIG suddenly owed substantially more than it was worth.

AIG was unable to pay those investors it had promised to insure, so its investors had to scramble to cover their own losses. No one had the capitalization to do so, and the fabric of Wall Street was ripped to shreds in a few short months. Government officials felt they needed to do something, so they quickly passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The goal was to give taxpayer money to banks to help recapitalize them, allowing them to cover their losses or pass off toxic assets. AIG was seen as essential to this process, as it owed so much to so many–it was too important to fail. The government rushed in, took an 80% ownership stake, and poured billions of dollars into reviving the company.

Now, AIG has been thrown back into the spotlight for the recent revelation of its $165 million bonus payouts to the derivatives traders that invited all the risk. Why the outrage? Because people hate to see their money given away indiscriminately, especially to those who contributed first hand to the economy’s decline.AIG

But where was this outrage when the government issued more than one thousand times this amount to failing companies in TARP I and TARP II? This misallocation was equally egregious–taxpayer money was paying for someone else’s indiscretion. We were taking on billions of dollars of debt to bailout companies that placed bets with worse odds, and nearly equal consequences, to a game of Russian roulette. All because the government felt it would be for our greater good; that a bailout would lead to stabilization, stabilization to economic growth, and economic growth to a return of taxpayer money.

The AIG story unveils a company, and its web of financial partners, who took unprecedented risk and fell because of it. It also unveils a government that was willing, for the supposed good of the public, to pour its citizens’ money into a broken financial system. But if capitalism is to run its course, companies that take unwise risk must be allowed to fail. By placing taxpayer money into the inefficient hands of companies like AIG, the government has only prolonged the downturn at the expense of capitalism.

Perhaps most significantly, however, we have invited in the moral hazard of government control in the marketplace, and government control of consumer investment. As an investor, you would never pour your own money into a company like AIG, carrying such a toxic balance sheet that you would be assured long-term loss. The true outrage, then, should not be about the $165 million paid in bonuses, but instead about the nearly $1 trillion taken from taxpayers and poured into faulty investment. AIG and its financial partners fell because they took foolish financial risk–taxpayers should not be asked to pay for their mistake. The true sin came long before the bonus payouts; it was berthed the moment capitalism died.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Bush Paradox

Budget Increase per Presidential Term

Budget Increase per Presidential Term

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/20/09. See the newspaper print version here (go to pg. 22).

When President Obama was on the campaign trail, his message was simple and clear: Hope and change. But no one ever asked him, “Change from what?” The answer from most liberal circles, which persists with venom today, was that we needed to depart from the hated Bush Administration and its conservative ideology. Now, as debate over President Obama’s radical agenda rages, supporters of his agenda dismiss conservatism as tried and failed under the Bush Administration. The argument goes as follows: If President Bush embodied conservatism, and the majority of the country wanted him out of office, then surely we ought to try liberalism. If conservatism failed, then its opposite must succeed. But did conservatism really fail under President Bush? Was President Bush even truly conservative?

During the Bush Administration, something very strange happened to conservatism: It became inextricably linked with President Bush and the whole of his policies. Conservatism came to mean pro-war, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-environment, anti-global warming, anti-Europe, anti-science, pro-God (and only the evangelical version), pro-big oil companies, pro-wealthy Americans/anti-poor Americans and minorities, and pro-Israel. To most Americans, this is what made a conservative a conservative. And with the incredible polarization of the last eight years, you had to either support or hate each facet of the ‘conservative’ agenda. If you were conservative, it was unthinkable to believe global warming might be a legitimate problem, or that the Iraq War was possibly founded on faulty ideology. If you were liberal, it was necessary to bash President Bush, and the thought of tax cuts or welfare reform was supposed to make you cringe. As often happens in politics, conservatism was dismissed along with its headline leader as a failed and unpopular ideology. It was time for a change, it seemed, and in came President Obama with an agenda sharply departed from his predecessor’s.

One of the great political tragedies of recent memory is the demonization and polarization of conservatism in its tie with President Bush. Issues that have little or no relevancy to conservatism, such as climate change or the Iraq War, now color an ideology that has bred success in our country since its founding. The sad irony of the situation is that President Bush, while he accomplished many great things–national security and strong judicial nominations, to name a few–was not a true conservative. He expanded government programs, deeply widened agency bureaucracy, and spent more than any President since WWII. He came into office with a surplus, and left with a gaping deficit. President Bush was a part-time conservative, cutting taxes while spending heavily.  In conservatism, tax cuts are the result of small government, not the driver. Small government means less government spending; less government spending means less need for tax revenue; less need for tax revenue means lower taxes. President Bush, however, widened government while still cutting taxes. What does that do? It creates the type of inflation and instability that debunks efficient markets.President Bush

It is even more troubling that people look back on Bill Clinton and hail him as proof of liberalism’s success. Clinton was one of the most fiscally conservative presidents in our nation’s history (many argue the most), slashing budgets and restoring prudent spending to Congress. He left President Bush with a $120 billion surplus by keeping spending low and government relatively small. His restraint was indeed helped by a strong Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich, but you cannot ignore the bottom line results. At least in fiscal matters, Clinton was indisputably more conservative than Bush.

This all leads to two important points: 1. Conservatism should not be tied with the Bush Administration’s practice of “neo-conservatism”; 2. When practiced correctly, conservatism drives growth, liberty, and prosperity. Consider the four simple principles of Reagan-era conservatism: 1. Small government; 2. Low taxes; 3. Personal responsibility; 4. Strong national defense. These ideals brought the country roaring back under President Reagan, reinvigorating a stalled economy and downtrodden public spirit following the sharply liberal Carter era. Besides, who can’t stand behind low taxes and strong national defense? Who doesn’t want people to take responsibility for their actions, and for government to resist wasteful handouts? Who doesn’t want money to be in the hands of the efficient consumer and marketplace? Who doesn’t support individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Conservatism was never meant to be tied with a controversial Iraq War, Creationism, Christianity, or big oil. Those issues all have merit, but are not debated here. Conservatism was never meant to be polarizing or divisive, or even political. Rather, conservatism is meant to be the unifying answer to the undying question of government’s proper role in society. For conservatives, that answer is simple: Small and limited. And that type of government has never failed–it is the underpinning of what has differentiated our great nation since its founding.  

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Cramer’s Revelation

CNBC's Jim Cramer

CNBC's Jim Cramer

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia area newspaper) on 3/12/09, and in the Bucks County Courier Times on 4/6/09. See The Bulletin version here.

“I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat, exactly the kind I have supported all my adult life.”

 -Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money

A little over two years ago, then-Senator Barack Obama stormed onto the American political landscape as a breath of fresh air in a tired partisan environment. Democrats vowed to oust a Republican Party led by an unpopular president, while Republicans scrambled to defend their quickly fading majority. Emerging behind the scenes was a new voice, a powerful and charismatic orator named Barack Obama. As the Democratic primary edged closer, most commentators wrote off Obama as too young and inexperienced to be a serious contender in 2008. Popular wisdom penned him as the rising star of the party, who would likely be ready in 2016. But with Republican strategists and pundits focusing the entirety of their firepower on the larger perceived threat of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama brought his dazzling message to the national scene as the beloved underdog, ready to make history and promising hope.

The rest, of course, is history. Senator Obama soon became President Obama, and carried with him feelings of good will and hope for prosperity reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s Camelot. He had more political capital than any president in recent memory, wielding the weapons of anti-Bush sentiment, powerful rhetoric, and far-reaching promises. Some hoped he would be a savior of sorts, paying off mortgages and rescuing the poor. Most, however, viewed him as a brilliant and historic leader, a Clinton-JFK hybrid that would mend the domestic divide, rebuild international diplomacy, and move away from a now-demonized Bush Administration.

Like much of America, that is what Jim Cramer thought about Barack Obama. Cramer, a respected financial commentator for TheStreet.com, and famous energetic host of CNBC’s Mad Money, has been a Democrat all his life. He admits to millions of dollars in donations to the party, and gave his full backing to President Obama in the recent election. Now, however, like many others, Cramer is starting to have acute buyer’s remorse. In a recent and now very famous article (Cramer: My Response to the White House), Cramer expressed his dismay at President Obama’s recent policy initiatives:

“Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world’s morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.”

Obama 2008 Financial MeltdownCramer would later note that he thought Obama would be like Clinton, a centrist Democrat who wanted a balanced budget, with a mix of social and environmental programs, all under an umbrella of prudent governance. Instead, said Cramer, President Obama is unwisely pushing a far left agenda at a time of economic crisis.

The middle-of-the-road Clinton-JFK hybrid was not to be; instead we have a politician with a far left agenda, bordering on a type of European socialism not yet seen in this country. President Obama has made it clear that he wants to fundamentally change our nation, to move away from the ideals of capitalism, small government, and American opportunism that have defined us for centuries. He wants to redistribute wealth, raise taxes, and spend at unprecedented levels. He wants to pull back on defense spending, widen welfare, and nationalize the health care industry. He wants tight government control and regulation of the free market, strict environmentalist policy, and liberal judicial governance. America is no longer to be the land of opportunity, but is instead to be the land of equal results ensured by the government. America is no longer to be about the pursuit happiness, but instead about the government guarantee of happiness.

And maybe you’re okay with that. There are many Americans who believe in socialism, and believe that the government has the right answers and should control societal results. That is not today’s debate. Rather, it is vitally important to see what people like Jim Cramer are now seeing: President Obama is a man of extreme liberal policy. He wants to fundamentally change America–he is not John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton; he is not even Jimmy Carter. It is telling that David Brooks, a famous columnist for the New York Times and staunch Obama supporter recently wrote, “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” As you watch his incredible speeches, rich with intelligent prose and brilliant rhetoric, look past the style and to the substance. Read his stimulus package and budget, and carefully study each executive order. He made it clear in the Senate, when his voting record was the most liberal in the history of Congress, and he is making it clear now–he promised change, and that is indeed what we are getting.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

The Elephant in the Room

elephant1Some problems are simply too big to ignore, aren’t they? Some political issues should be so important that they demand the attention of both parties, right? For almost a decade, however, one of the most impactful economic and fiscal issues of our time has simply been pushed aside by both parties. At best, it has been the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge, but everybody knows is there: As of last week, the United States government had a $1.75 trillion budget deficit. Simply put, as a nation we owe more than we have-substantially more. The debt is damaging the economy, increasing our risk abroad, and placing a great burden on future generations.

When a government has a deficit, it needs to raise money to pay for spending initiatives, and each step in the process has potentially devastating results. Our leaders need to take a hard look at the consequences, and consider how the damage is spreading:

Increased debt to foreign countries: In order to finance massive deficits and raise revenue for government spending, one of the most commonly used methods is to sell debt to foreign nations. There was a tremendous example of this last week, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China to encourage them to purchase more U.S. Treasury Bonds. The current national debt stands at $10.6 trillion, meaning we owe close to 75% of our current GDP to foreign nations. In response to Secretary Clinton’s visit, the Chinese government, which already holds approximately $700 billion in U.S. bonds, will likely ramp up its holdings to close to $1 trillion. This should be worrisome. When any foreign nation holds that much debt, it increases its economic and fiscal leverage, especially when so deeply entrenched in treasury bonds. This gives a nation like China tremendous leverage in out financial system, as a massive sell-off of government debt would lead to hyper-inflation, massive revenue loss, and wide-spread instability in the market. This financial weapon may be the most potent in future questions of national security. Think of it this way: Would you want to be personally indebted to one billion strangers?

Higher taxes:The other option to finance a deficit, recently championed by the Obama Administration, is to raise taxes. Raising taxes temporarily brings more revenue back to the government to pay down debt and finance spending projects. The problem here, however, is that a higher tax rate pulls money out of the economy and into the government. This quickly suffocates investment and consumption, key factors of economic prosperity. In other words, the more money the government charges businesses and consumers to invest, the less they will invest. The more money the government takes from consumers’ earned income, the less those consumers will spend. When you cut investment and consumption, the economy stalls.

Inflation: The final option to finance government spending is for the government to print money. This has been happening for years, most notably with the recent TARP and bailout programs, where the government needed to generate cash to pay for its spending commitments. Since we are have a deficit, that cash is simply not there, so the government uses its ability to print money to provide necessary funds. However, when a government prints money, especially over the long term, inflation results. The more money circulating in the economy, the less each dollar is worth-this is a classic case of monetary supply and demand. Essentially, this means that each dollar you now have will be worth less in the future, unless your investments pace properly with the rate of inflation. But if you combine inflation with low investment and consumption, you have an economy in downturn with inflation rising rapidly. This, of course, is how economies fall into depression.

saupload_09_02_16b_budget_deficit

Who’s responsible? Both parties are to blame, as are their leaders. When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $128 budget surplus, one of the shining achievements of the Clinton Administration. At the end of the federal budget year for 2008, the Congressional Budget Office reported a deficit of $438 billion-the fastest eight year deficit growth in the history of the country. The Bush Administration was hurt by the post 9/11 recession, which greatly impacted tax revenues, as well as massive spending on the Iraq War, but a huge portion of the deficit came from costly congressional spending. Expensive programs like No Child Left Behind and Medicare drug supplementation, combined with President Bush’s reluctance to veto earmarks and pork-laden bills, created an environment of spending far from fiscal conservatism. Now, after inheriting an already massive deficit, President Obama recently pushed through a $787 billion spending stimulus and $3 trillion budget. Combined with the various bailouts and the TARP program, analysts expect the deficit to double by 2010.

The solution to the deficit problem is simple: practice fiscal responsibility. This means reigning in spending, aggressively eliminating earmarks and pork, and shrinking government bureaucracy. One of the great faults of the Bush Administration was its branding as ‘conservative,’ while it continued to widen the deficit and spend at unprecedented rates. We have gone nearly a decade without fiscal responsibility, and past Administrations, from Reagan to Clinton, proved that economic prosperity comes with fiscal conservatism. Our current exposure will only lead to greater economic deceleration, increased leverage from foreign nations, and market instability. We can no longer ignore the elephant in the room.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine