It’s the Spending, Stupid

The federal government expects to take in about $2,900,000,000,000 in revenue this coming year. The interest due on the debt during that time will be roughly $246,000,000,000. That leaves around $2,654,000,000,000 to spend without adding a dime to the national debt.

To give you an idea of how much federal government that money would buy, consider that is 96% of what the government spent in FY2003 (corrected for inflation).

Could you get by with 4% less federal government than you had 10 years ago?

UPDATE–I could get by with 100% less TSA.

OK, Here’s the Fourth One

The WaPo fact checker only awarded three Pinocchios to the White House for their defense of the President’s spending record. That’s too kind, so here’s the fourth one.

The idea that spending has been flat or even gone down under President Obama is … is … is … well, it’s bizarre. Federal spending for FY2008 was under 21 % of GDP. In FY2009, it was over 25 %. That’s not a decrease; that’s not “flat;” it’s a massive increase.

Is it November yet?

UPDATE—Even if one considered the TARP and other financial bailout deals as separate, one-shot expenses, spending has gone up significantly under the present administration. Ed Morrissey has details on the AP’s fact checking.

Why the Senate Won’t Pass a Budget

Back in Februray, 2010, the President signed the Pay-Go Law that “requires” new spending to be “funded” with new revenues or cuts in other spending. Less than a week went by before the Democrats were looking for various work arounds.

You see, if they have to really pay for their pet projects, there isn’t enough money to go around. If they work from an honest budget … oh, never mind.

Remember the good old days when we took eight years to add $4,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. During the last three years, we’ve added $4,500,000,000,000, running up debt at around 3X the previous rate.

According to what we were told by Candidate Obama in 2008, that wasn’t supposed to happen. Video here.

Is it November yet?

They Told Prof. Reynolds That If He Voted for McCain …

… That we’d see anti-Darwinism in the White House.

The Instapundit suggests that if the Rep. Ryan’s budget is “Social Darwinism,” then the President’s budget must be “Social Creationism” because it shows no evidence of intelligent design.

Well, the current spending is certainly creating huge deficits ex nihilo.

D. O. A.

The House of Representatives voted down the President’s budget 414 to 0. Since the Republican majority is not nearly that lopsided, I guess we can call that a bipartisan rejection.

UPDATE–Ed Morrissey points out that the President did no better last year when his budget went down 97 to 0 in the Senate.

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress. In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership. Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves …