CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Our $15 trillion national debt

The U.S. national debt now exceeds $15 trillion.

When Obama took office the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08 or $10.6 Trillion -- a $4.4 trillion (41.5%) increase during the Obama Presidency.

On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." Watch the video.

It should be noted that Obama of course got his facts wrong when he falsely claimed President Bush increased the national debt by $4 trillion "by his lonesome." When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress on January 3, 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. So the Democrats must get some of the credit for one of the four trillion candidate Obama tried to blame on Bush.

President-elect Obama warned us when he predicted "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term:

 “And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Washington, D.C., 2/23/09)

Obama Broke His Promise To Cut The Deficit In Half:

• “President Barack Obama Plans To Cut The U.S. Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By The End Of His First Term …” “President Barack Obama plans to cut the U.S. budget deficit to $533 billion by the end of his first term by increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending for the war in Iraq, according to an administration official. Obama wants to reduce the deficit because he’s concerned that over time, federal borrowing will make it harder for the U.S. economy to grow and create jobs, said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.” (Hans Nichols, “Obama Plans To Reduce Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By 2013,” Bloomberg, 2/21/09)

• Even If Every Part Of Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal Was Enacted, The Deficit At The End Of His First Term Would Still Be $1.33 Trillion, Over Double What He Promised. (“The President’s Plan For Economic Growth And Deficit Reduction; Table S-3,” Office of Management and Budget, 9/19/11)

• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Said Even If Congress Enacted The President’s Budget “We Would Still Be Left With A Very Large Interest Burden And Unsustainable Obligations Over Time.” GEITHNER: ““You’re absolutely right that with the president’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and reduce those deficits to three percent of GDP over the next five years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time.” (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Remarks Before Senate Budget Committee, Washington, D.C., 2/17/11)

Obama Racked Up Three Record Deficits:

Even though tax revenues were up 21% in fiscal year 2011 over fiscal year 2010, Obama's ever increasing spending resulted in the third highest deficit in the last 65 years:

• FY2011’s Budget Deficit Was The Third Highest In The Last 65 Years, Behind Obama’s Previous Two Record Deficits. “At 8.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the $1.3 trillion budget deficit that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects for 2011 will be the third-largest shortfall in the past 65 years (exceeded only by the deficits of the preceding two years).” (“The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update,” Congressional Budget Office, 8/24/11

• FY2009: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.416 Trillion, The Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010,” Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)

• FY2011: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.299 Trillion, The Second Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/11) 

• FY2010: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.291 Trillion, The Third Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010,” Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10

How much is $15 trillion?:

• $15 Trillion Is More Than The Value Of All The Goods And Services Produced In The United States Last Year. (“Gross Domestic Product,” Bureau Of Economic Analysis, BEA.gov, Accessed 11/3/11)

• 15 Trillion One-Dollar Bills Would Wrap Around The Earth’s Equator Over 58,000 Times. (“Earth: Facts & Figures,” NASA, Accessed 11/3/11) 

• In FY2010, The Bureau Of Engraving And Printing Produced $974 Million Worth Of Currency. At That Rate, It Would Take 15,400 Years To Print $15 Trillion. (“Annual Production Figures,” Bureau of Engraving And Printing, Accessed 11/3/11) 

• It Would Take The Average Household Over 300 Million Years To Pay Off The National Debt On Their Own. (Press Release, “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,” US Census Bureau, 9/13/11) 

• To Pay Off $15 Trillion In Debt, The Federal Government Would Have To Devote Every Dollar Of Revenue To Paying Off The Debt For 6.5 Years. (“Monthly Budget Review,” Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/11)

Can we afford another five years of the tax too much, borrow too much and spend too much Obama regime?

Senate Democrats approve another $500 billion debt limit increase

Senate Democrats gamed Republicans and saved their unpopular President from issuing a veto to get his request for another $500 billion in the national debt.

Last night, after the Obama's "pass this bill" speech, 52 Senate Democrats voted not to consider the Resolution disapproving President Obama's request to increase the national debt.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.

One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), voted with the Republicans. Two Republicans, Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Scott Brown (Mass.), voted with the Democrats.

This was the vote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled to force GOP attendance.

If the resolution of disapproval had passed, Obama would have had to veto it to get the debt limit increased to $15.19 trillion.

 

Obama's 'Trillion-dollar deficits for years to come' catches up with us

By now you have no doubt heard the "unprecedented" news that Standard & Poor's downgraded the long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America From AAA to AA+.

You have also seen the Liberal/Progressive left try to blame the downgrade on the GOP. Why, because the downgrade will:

• Raise the interest rates the government pays to finance the still growing national debt. 
• Raise the interest rates we pay for mortgages, student loans, credit cards etc.
• Increase costs for businesses and consumers.
• Slow economic activity. 
• Increase the risks of a double dip recession. 
• Result in less tax revenue.
• Result in fewer jobs.

It is president Obama and his Obamacrats that have earned the credit here, with their never ending and all to successful efforts to spend, tax and borrow too much.

President-elect Obama warned us when he predicted "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

Remember the federal deficit was about $455 billion for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2008.

Reid's trillion dollar gimmick

Harry "the only compromise is mine" Reid's so-called budget cuts are based on the false assumption that we would keep spending the same amount on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for ten more years even though President Obama has already started to withdraw our troops.

That's right, the Reid plan is based on cutting spending that was not requested and will not be spent. 

Congressman Paul Ryan explains this Democrat smoke and mirror budget gimmick:

Remember after the Obamacrats increased spending by 29%, it has now been It's 822 days since the do nothing Senate Democrats last passed a budget.

The Senate Democrats refused to allow an up or down vote on the House-passed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. The Obamacrats also refused to allow an up or down vote on a second House-passed bill that would raise the debt ceiling -- the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

Do the Democrats really fear losing reelection that much?

Where is President Obama's plan to raise the debt ceiling?

The White House press corps actually did its job today and asked Press Secretary Jay Carney to show us President Obama's plan to raise the debt ceiling.

Things got interesting as Carney danced around the fact that Obama has failed to propose a plan to raise the debt ceiling. Carney spent 10 minutes trying to explain why they can't release a plan. Watch Carney try to explain it all away:

It took the White House press long enough to ask Carney the "tough" question. Why couldn't the question have been asked sooner in this process? There were plenty of opportunities along the way.

The House passed Cut, Cap and Balance to address Obama's debt ceiling crisis. President Obama promised to veto it if the Senate should give it an up or down vote and actually pass it. The statement promising to veto Cut, Cap and Balance Act asserts that Obama has "proposed a comprehensive and balanced framework" to raise the debt ceiling. So why can't Carney show us the plan?

Speaker Boehner, despite Obama's veto threat, continued to discuss a deal to increase the debt ceiling with Obama. Instead of closing the deal, Obama blows it up by asking for another 400 billion in "additional tax revenues." Boehner finally says enough and ends the discussions with Obama.

Boehner carries on and attempts to make a deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. President Obama, with his approvals tanking, insists that any deal to increase the debt ceiling must extend the limit past the 2012 presidential campaign. That effectively kills any bipartisan plan to increase the debt ceiling.

Boehner and Reid propose separate last minute plans to raise the debt ceiling. The President endorses the Reid smoke and mirrors plan and threatens to veto Boehner's two stage plan.

Obama fears losing reelection more than default

President Obama, fearing losing reelection more than default, threatens to veto any last-minute debt package from Congress unless it extends the nation's borrowing limit beyond the 2012 elections.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told ABC's "This Week" that Obama demands that any agreement to increase the debt ceiling extend beyond the 2012 elections.

Obama's chief of staff, Bill Daley, confirmed the veto threat. Daley was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if Obama would veto a plan that doesn't extend the limit into 2013. Daley answered, "Yes."

So a stubborn president Obama is willing to veto what by all accounts is the going to be the only viable option to meet his administration's August 2 deadline for avoiding default so he doesn't have to debate the issue during his reelection campaign.

Obama's veto threats don't sit well with Republicans. 

Speaker John Boehner told Fox News Sunday that it is no longer "physically possible" to get everything done before the Treasury Department’s August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling. Congress is now working on a two-stage debt-limit vote -- in order to raise the debt ceiling immediately while tackling deficit-reduction later.

Boehner also criticized Obama for insisting that a debt ceiling deal be timed to last beyond the next election season:

"The president’s worried about his next election, but my God, shouldn't we be worried about the country?" Boehner said. "I'm not worried about the next election. I told the president months ago: Forget about the next election!"

Boehner is right, President Obama should be more worried about the country than his reelection. Sadly, it appears Obama continues to put political expediency above all else.

We all recall the infamous "don't call my bluff" kerfuffle at the White House a couple of weeks ago, when Obama threw a temper tantrum and walked out of the debt ceiling negotiations. Witnesses said Obama shoved his chair back during negotiations and declared: 'Enough is enough. According to Eric Cantor, Obama went on to say: "Don't call my bluff. This may bring my presidency down but I will not yield on this."

Obama just might have been right about his presidency. After adding nearly $4 trillion to the national debt since he became president, Obama's insistence on more and more additional "tax revenue" prevented him from making a so-called grand bargain to increase the debt ceiling. And now he is willing to risk default with a veto because he wants to kick the problem down the road, past the presidential election. No wonder Obama's approvals are tanking.

Obama blows $800 billion in additional tax revenue

Blame Obama's insatiable insistence on more and more taxes for the collapse of the debt ceiling negotiations.

In the Los Angeles Times, Peter Nicholas and Lisa Mascaro tell us that on Sunday, July 17, Obama and the Republicans had agreed upon "$800 billion in revenue increases." 

On Tuesday, July 19, the Gang of Six unveiled its deficit reduction proposal that included more than $1 trillion in tax revenue. Claiming the Gang of Six proposal “changed the dynamics of what they could do,” the White House then insisted it needed an additional $400 billion in new tax revenue.

It was this last minute demand for another $400 billion in new tax revenue that the Republicans blame for the collapse of the debt ceiling negotiations. 

In his "hastily arranged" Friday evening press conference, "a visibly irritated" Obama said "it's hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this deal." Obama might find it hard to understand why Boehner walked away from this deal, but I don't. 

Insisting on a 50% increase in a major item is no way to close a deal. The Republicans had already offered, and Obama had agreed to, $800 billion in "added tax revenue." Obama blew the deal by suddenly insisting on an additional 50% increase in tax revenues. 

Speaker Boehner, in his news conference, explained that it was Obama’s insistence on more taxes led to the breakdown in debt ceiling discussions:

• The White House Insisted  on Raising Taxes, Moved Goalposts

The discussions we’ve had broke down for two reasons.  First, they insisted on raising taxes. We had an agreement on a revenue number – a revenue number that we thought we could reach based on a flatter tax code with lower rates and a broader base that would produce more economic growth, more employees and more taxpayers, and a tax system that was more efficient in collecting the taxes that were due the federal government. Let me just say that the White House moved the goalposts. There was an agreement, until the President demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people. I can tell you Leader Cantor and I were very disappointed in this call for higher revenue. Second, they refused to get serious about cutting spending, and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.

• Obama Sought a Clean Debt Limit Increase

You know, until recently the president was demanding that the Congress increase the debt limit with no strings attached. As a matter of fact, the Treasury Secretary sent me a letter two days after we were sworn in in January demanding that we give him a clean increase in the debt limit. I immediately responded and told the Treasury Secretary that the American people would not tolerate a clean increase in the debt ceiling unless there were serious spending cuts attached and real reforms to the way we spend the American people's money. I went to New York City in May, gave a speech to the New York Economic Club, where I outlined the challenges we were facing and I made it clear that we would not increase the debt limit without cuts that exceeded that increase in the debt limit, that there would be no new taxes, and that there would be serious spending reforms put in place.

• If the White House Won’t Get Serious, We Will

I can tell you it’s not in the best interest of our country to raise taxes during this difficult economy, and it’s not in the best interests of the country to ignore the serious spending challenges we face. ... Now I want to say, this is a serious debate. It’s a debate about jobs, it’s about our economy, and frankly it’s also a big debate about the future of this country.  ... Listen, it's time to get serious, and I’m confident that the bipartisan leaders here in the Congress can act. If the White House won't get serious, we will.

You can watch Boehner's statement below:

If you care to watch Boener's entire press conference it is available here. Obama's is available here.

Paul Ryan shames the Wisconsin fleebaggers

Congressman Paul Ryan gets it exactly right concerning the Wisconsin legislators fleeing the state to avoid their duty to vote.

I didn't like the legislation that was moving through Washington the last two years -- I didn't like cap and trade, I didn't like ObamaCare, I didn't like the stimulus. But I didn't walk out. We stayed and did our jobs. We voted, we tried to amend, we made our debates . . . Elections have consequences. They won, we lost. That's the way it works. So I just don't understand this lack of respect for the rule of law." -- Congressman Paul Ryan

I have nothing to add but Congressman Ryan went on to talk about how achieving fiscal responsibility does not have to be a partisan issue.

Watch the video:

The Democrats are making a huge mistake here. They are taking another very unpopular stand just like they did with ObamaCare.

Just how broke are we?

Having had a chance to look at President Obama's new budget, which he had the audacity to say will "help us live within our means." It is clear Obama misspoke in his, I mean "Your Weekly Address."

Obama's budget proposes to spend $3.73 trillion, and includes another $1.1 trillion deficit. Worse, even with the Obama administration's optimistic projections, the national debt would increase by another $7.2 trillion over the next 10 years. 

In fairness, I must point out that President-elect Obama did promise us "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come." Who knew he meant it?

But I digress. Even without the additional $7 trillion plus in additional debt in Obama's proposed budget, you won't be able to believe how broke the federal government is.

According to Duquesne University Economics Professor Antony Davies, the debt and unfunded obligations of the federal government are greater than the "economic output of the entire planet." That's right, the entire planet.

Watch Professor Davies detail how much the federal government owes in the following video:

We do not  have a good frame of reference to understand the concept of a trillion. Professor Davies shared the following analogy to provide a frame of reference we can understand.

If the Federal government were scaled down to the size of the average US household, here’s what its finances would look like:

• The Federal government would earn $50,000 a year in tax revenue (the same as the average US household).

• It would be $325,000 in debt.

• It would pay almost $10,000 a year in interest on that debt.

• Last year, it would have spent $79,000.

• This year, it is hoping to spend $86,000.

• The $100 billion in spending cuts (that some politicians view as draconian) would be equivalent to the household cutting its $86,000 in planned spending down to a mere $83,700. Not a bad start, but the household has another $33,700 to go before it balances its budget.

Take a closer look at Professor Davies' chart:

  

• Germany's GDP - $3.5 Trillion

• Intergovernmental Debt - $4.63 Trillion

• China's GDP - $4.99 Trillion

• Japan's GDP - $5.07 Trillion

• U.S. Debt Held by the Public  - $9.46 Trillion

• U.S. GDP - $14.26 Trillion

• European Union GDP - $14.89 Trillion

• Unfunded Social Security Obligations - $15 Trillion

• Unfunded Medicare Obligations - $35 Trillion

• World GDP (excluding U.S.) - $43.97 Trillion

• World GDP - $58.23 Trillion

• Total Federal Debt and Unfunded Obligations - $64.09 Trillion

Professor Davies offers these notes of clarification: The numbers are approximate in that, due to data availability, individual numbers come from reports over the span 2009 through 2010. The unfunded obligations figures come from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees report. “Unfunded obligation” is (all in present value terms), the sum of all anticipated future SS and Medicare payments minus all future SS and Medicare tax revenues minus the current balance in the SS and Medicare trust funds. In short, it’s an amount of money the government would have to have on hand, today and in addition to future SS and Medicare tax revenues, in order to meet its anticipated SS and Medicare obligations for current and future retirees.

It is way past time that we stop this spend too much, tax too much and borrow too much fiscal insanity.

Obama's deficit reduction - a measly $400 billion over ten years

President Obama offers deficit reductions of a woefully inadequate $400 billion over ten years as he continues his "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

In this week's edition of his, or rather "Your Weekly Address," President Obama claims he is "proposing a new budget that will help us live within our means":

My budget freezes annual domestic spending for the next five years – even on programs I care deeply about – which will reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade.

That's right, a lousy $400 billion over 10 years. And that as Obama proposes another new budget that would spend more than $3.5 trillion and add another $1.5 trillion deficit to the national debt. 

The national debt was $10.6 trillion, when Obama became president. Today it is $14.1 trillion. The national debt has already increased 35.5 percent during the two years of the Obama presidency. 

Obama's freeze on "annual domestic spending" amounts to just about 10 cents of every dollar the federal government spends. Worse, the freeze maintains the Obamacrats irresponsible 24 percent increase in this spending over the past two years.

According to the Associated Press, Obama's new budget is "unlikely to even meet the president's own goal of getting the deficit down to 3 percent of the size of the economy by 2015." 

Obama is so out of touch with his proposed continued profligate spending. He actually claims his new budget "asks Washington to live within its means." Really, forty cents of every dollar he proposes to spend will have to be borrowed, further increasing the national debt. How is that living within our means?

Finally, in closing his, I mean "Your Week Address," Obama says this is "what families do in hard times." Does Obama really believe that in such hard times families can continue to borrow 40 percent of what they spend every year? Really?

As Senator Orrin Hatch said in the Weekly Republican Address:

The president’s proposal for a freeze in government spending might give the White House a nice talking point. But it is a totally inadequate solution to our nation’s spending problems.