The more time that goes by, the more Democrats twist themselves into pretzels in their continuing effort to get ever more creative as they search for an alternative label for our current spending problem. These days the Democrats just can't seem to bring themselves to say that we have a spending problem, probably because they're the ones who are doing most of the spending. First when had that perennial gas bag from the People's Republic of Maryland, Steny Hoyer, say that what we have is a "paying for problem" and now we that blithering idiot from Iowa, none other than Tom "Better Red Than Dead" Harkin, who just yesterday said that the U.S. government does not have a spending problem, what America suffers from is "a misallocation of wealth." A misallocation of wealth? Now is that progressive/liberal/Democrat lingo or what? And I'm curious about how it is, exactly that this "misallocation of wealth" played any part in creating what has now become our massive $16 Trillion debt. I'm just not making the connection here, Tom.
Harkin, apparently quite eager I guess to tell us how he views things, said, "I look at it this way." He made his rather asinine assessment during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Budget Control Act of 2011. It was that little legislative nightmare, by the way, that included the automatic spending cuts now being referred to as being "sequestration". And apparently never getting tire of the sound of his voice, this doddering old dolt went on to say, "We’re the richest nation in the history of the world. That kind of begs the question doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke?" Ok, whoever thinks that makes sense, raise your hand! Come on Tom, really? I've got a better question for ya? What do you suppose would happen if a group of patently corrupt politicians were to completely set aside, for their own political purposes, purposes that ran completely contrary to why it was that they were sent to Congress, were to choose to focus on creating new and very costly, ways of expanding the size and scope of our government?
Tom, in what I assume was an attempt to portray himself as being pretty darn clever, then asked what I'm sure he meant to be nothing more that a rhetorical question, "Is it a spending problem?" Because he was pretty quick to respond before anybody else had the chance to jump in to say 'YES!' He went then went on to describe things as he sees them saying, "No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth." He went to say, "All of this wealth that’s been built up by hard-working Americans has been accumulated into fewer and fewer and fewer hands all the time." Is this not just abut the most perverse way of looking at our current "spending problem", as well as how it is that we managed to get ourselves over $16 Trillion in debt? Come folks, is this really how people out in Iowa think? I suppose the one good thing is, is that this idiot is running for reelection. Hopefully next time around Iowans can to better, but I'm certainly not going to holding my breath.
Sequestration, which seems to have nearly taken on a life of its own, is really nothing more than a set of automatic spending cuts that target defense and non-defense spending. Originally proposed as part of the Budget Control Act by Barry "Almighty", the cuts were designed as an attempt to force Republicans into raising taxes by holding defense spending hostage. Republicans have said they are now prepared to allow the sequester cuts to go through, emphasizing that if Barry wants to avoid them, all he needs to do is to propose a specific plan with real cuts in spending and not coupled with more tax increases. John Boehner said at a recent news conference, "We’re weeks away from the president’s sequester and the president laid out no plan to eliminate the sequester and the harmful cuts that will come as a result of it." I'd feel much better about the Republicans being able to stick to their guns if there wasn't such a history of them going squishy at the last minute. And I'm sure that's what Barry is counting on happening this time as well.
The amount of spending cuts in 2013, $44 Billion, or the equivalent of approximately 4.5 days worth of federal spending. On average, the government spends approximately $9.7 Billion per day in 2013, meaning it would take approximately 4.5 days to spend the $44 Billion that would be cut by the sequester, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This idiot, Harkin, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, spewed what has become the typical pabulum heard from congressional Democrats as he criticized a U.S. tax code that he said benefits wealthy people and then proceeded to warn of cuts in federal spending that allegedly will hurt children, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled and even the middle class. This is all nothing more than a ploy by Democrats like Harkin, to apply pressure Republicans in the hopes of forcing them to cave, once again, on their objection to increasing taxes. Because Democrats have no intention of making any meaningful spending cuts unless it's to further gut our military.
"I tell you we’ve got to get back to a better, rationale system of revenues and spending in this country and back to our obligations," Harkin blathered on. Even with sequester, and he knows this, our obligations will be met. Anyway, he then said, "I just feel very strongly, that it’s not just appropriations that’s causing this problem. Adding finally that, "It’s the lack of the revenue that we should be taking in to meet our obligations as a country." But Susan Collins, one of the RINO girls from Maine, who said she supports tax increases for the wealthy and opposes letting sequestration commence, took issue with Harkin’s views on federal spending. "It’s very difficult to follow the eloquence of my colleague from Iowa," Collins said. Now the fact that she chose to describe Harkin's idiotic rambling as being eloquent should tell you all you need to know about Ms. Collins. But she went on to say, "The fact is, however, I believe we do have a spending problem and the $16.4 Trillion dollar debt is ample evidence of that." Well' it's hard to disagree with logic like that.
So this little hearing included three less than stellar members of Barry’s prize winning cabinet: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet "Our Borders Have Never Been Stronger" Napolitano, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as OMB federal comptroller Danny Werfel and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. All of these folks were singing from the same sheet of music as they testified about the apparent destructive affect $44 Billion in sequestration this year would have on the federal government, ranging from the reduction of U.S. border security, loss of low-income housing, and a larger student-to-teacher ratio in public schools. This amount is such a pittance, in the big scheme of things, is difficult to take any of what these people say seriously. And $44 Billion is nowhere near the amount that NEEDS to be slashed from our current level of insane spending. But it does make quite clear the fact that Barry is not serious about making any amount of spending cuts, no matter how 'trivial.'
No comments:
Post a Comment