Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.

36 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

The question isn't "Who's in charge here?" The question should be "Who is responsible?"

Same answer.

Tennessee Jed said...

This, more than anything else indicates why Barrack Obama does not deserve re-election. He has never been nor continues to be willing to get serious about cutting expenses. I happened to watch a video at Breitbart of O'Reilly, Mary Catherine Hamm, and Juan Williams. Two things jumped out at me. 1) Juan had a hard time trying to defend B.O. He has taken to using O'Reilly's tactic {sic} shout down the person your debating. 2) Both O'Reilly and Williams are asses. Mary Catherine is so much better than either one. :)

CrisD said...

Good Morning LawHawk,
Underlying liberal thought is that "the natl debt doesn't matter." My husband and I have heard this with our own ears from a liberal professor, a liberal neighbor and recently from Bob Bechle (liberal Fox commentator).
My husband and I actually challenged
the liberal neighbor who seemed aghast that we did not "use" credit cards (have outstanding balances). The liberal professor explained that going into debt was for an "investment."

But back to the budget-what are we ? at over 1,000 days?

BevfromNYC said...

"The liberal professor explained that going into debt was for an "investment."

And this professor means investment in what? Credit card companies and debt consolidators? My head explodes...

T-Rav said...

I got robbed this morning. But it's okay; the money he took counts as an investment. (I didn't really get robbed.)

AndrewPrice said...

The budget is a real obscenity, totally political tool. Fortunately, it's DOA in the House.


Don't forget, Star Trek Tuesdays. Today we're ranking the worst films.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Can't argue with that.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I tend to agree. Too little debate, too much shouting and browbeating. I almost feel sorry for Juan Williams. He seemed to have a mini-epiphany when NPR cut him off for daring to feel uncomfortable around Arabs in full dress on airplanes. He even criticized Obama (mildly) for awhile. Now he's back to his old Obama talking points, and just seems pathetic.

LawHawkRFD said...

CrisD: Good morning to you. I came from a family which lived entirely within its means. My dad kept his business books, my mom kept the household books, and a couple of times a month, they checked each other's figures to make sure we were solvent. You didn't buy what you couldn't pay for immediately or within a very short period of time (real property being the only exception). When I went away to college, I carried those lessons with me, and couldn't believe that every professor from history to economics to political science believed that debt meant little and the national debt was actually a good thing.

At the end of the day, my parents were right and the professors were wrong, but those professors had far more influence on today's electorate than my parents. It also explains why Democrats love to say "investment" when they mean "spending" with inadequate income to pay for it.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Didn't they call Biden "the Senator from HSBC?"

rlaWTX said...

meanwhile, the evening news has reports on how bad it is when consumer credit spending is up and consumer savings is down...

I guess if you add enough zeros, all the math principles change!

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: They've been blaming the Republicans for so long they've actually come to believe it. But even so, they can't seem to point the finger with much conviction. The rule is that when you run out of semi-believable propaganda, just start making things up.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I admire a man with a healthy attitude and a sunny disposition. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I can already hear the Obama refrain. "It was just a proposal, open for discussion, but the obstructionist Republicans won't even talk to us."

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaTWX: That's the thinking. And remember that the gummint is there only to help us, so we must forgive their bad accounting and profligate spending. It's all for our benefit, ya know.

tryanmax said...

I think much of the problem comes of the fact that few of those in congress, the Senate especially, have to worry about balancing their personal budgets. Why would you when you can reliably shift whatever tab needs paying to the taxpayers or some lobbyist? If neither of those work, you can always reluctantly dip into your coffers stuffed through insider info. 0bama's financial experience is in sweetheart deals and political favors. No wonder he can't balance a budget.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Absolutely on target. And let's not forget all the bad check scandals. These people have been living on paper for so long that they actually have no concept of what "other people's money" is.

BevfromNYC said...

It is also amusing that, when last we had the "payroll tax" discussion, the Repubs were trying to stand firm with a year extension as agreed to in earlier discussion, but had to "compromise" with a "let's just extend for 60 days and revisit". NOW Obama is asking the Repubs to extend through the end of the year like what should have been done in the first place. But then I guess we wouldn't have gotten all of those budget cuts from the "Super Duper Bi-Partison Super Committee Budget Cutters Society". Oh, yeah, we didn't get bupkus...

I know we say this over and over, but does Obama think our memories are THAT short?

tryanmax said...

Bev, what are you talking about? ;)

If those stupid Republicans would have just extended the payroll tax cut for a whole year like 0bama wanted in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. This brinksmanship garbage is just a trick to try and make 0bama look bad. It won't work though, ha ha! /sarc

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: It gives him the opportunity to go on with his mantra: "Once again, I saved the economy from collapse by forcing reluctant Republicans to extend payroll tax cuts." He's like the kid who murders his parents then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. He spouts this crap without even the faintest hint of irony.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Wash, rinse, repeat.

T-Rav said...

Incidentally, LawHawk, I'm a little disappointed with your piggy bank. A much larger section than that should be reserved for blow.

T-Rav said...

And here I thought I was being crude.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I knew somebody would catch that. It's supposed to mean "cash to blow on incidentals" but it was inevitable that someone (like me, for instance) would give it the other meaning.

rlaWTX said...

I had missed the crude pig possibilities entirely!

StanH said...

Bev: That would be “Budget Reconciliation,” it only requires 51 votes, Barry and his minions depend on people not knowing this as to perpetrate the continuing lie.

In many ways it’s a brilliant strategy, by not having a budget, you don’t supply the stick for your opponent to beat you with. This another attempt to diminish “The Constitution” by fiat, everything is working as planned.

Man I’d love to write the ads for the RNC against this regime, I would have the democrats pilloried on the Washington Mall, by November.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Yep, two possibilities of finding the colorful version of what that meant, and our people found them. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: And it's also part of their agenda to bring everything down to simple majorities. They don't understand or simply dislike the idea of brakes on their agenda.

patti said...

It's stuff like this that makes. me. pitchfork. happy.

i'm beyond words these days.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Tar and feathers are good, too.

tryanmax said...

Are rails still in fashion?

Individualist said...

Hey Lawhawk

Have you heard this one...

What did the LA Rasa representative say to the Union Enforcer....

"Budgets....
We don need no stinkin Budgets...."

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I don't know. But if they're not, we could bring them back.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: Isn't that from The Treasure of Obama's Madre?

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

Are we sure it was not Obama's Abuela (grandmother - incase I got the word wrong). As a typical whitle woman she would have treasure right!

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: You're right. Grandma was the typical white person, and mom was the atypical white person. Mom and grandson both lived off the Treasure of Obama's Grandma.

Post a Comment