(Non)Funding of the American Jobs Act: “Paid For” Doesn’t Mean Someone Else Will Find the Cuts!
Usually, when Democrats on the national level propose something that is misguided, irresponsible, stupid or – worst of all – presuming of stupidity on the listener’s part, it goes in one ear and out the other. As this item from the President’s speech Thursday night is all of the above in truckloads, however, there simply isn’t room to let it pass.
And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how:
The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about a trillion dollars over the next ten years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.
So it’s funded not because the President found a new “revenue” source or because he himself made room for it in the budget by identifying cuts. It’s funded because he assigned someone else – i.e., Congress – the task of making the requisite budget cuts???
He goes on to say,
And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan -– a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.
Again, absolutely no specifics at this point. But you go ahead, Congress, and identify half a trillion in budget cuts for my initiative. That way, you can get the political blame for those cuts and I’ll get the praise when the initiative is implemented.
This is not the proposing of responsible policy or the sharing of a vision. It’s the exposition of a fantasy, pure and simple. No amount of Presidential spam
After the president’s jobs speech before Congress Thursday night, his staff sent out 39 e-mails to reporters, each declaring that yet another Obama ally “backs the American Jobs Act,” as the subject lines boasted.
The e-mails came within a 1-hour, 5-minute period between 8:32 p.m. and 9:37 p.m. That’s an average of one every minute and 40 seconds.
can make it otherwise.
I have a new nickname for Pres. Obama: “Grady Little.”
Remember LCS Game Seven, 2003? (Sorry, I’d rather forget it, too)
End of the 7th, Sox up on Yanks, Pedro clearly outa gas…..Grady nevertheless sends him out to start the 8th. Yanks get a run on three hits….five outs from the World Series, Grady vists the mound…..leaves Pedro in! And the rest is (painful) history.
Apparently Grady’s motto was, “if what we’re doing now isn’t working, let’s do more of it.”
Anybody ready to join a “Draft Tito” campaign?
Worse, yet: The president isn’t asking Congress to find the funding in current expenditures. He’s asking them to find a reduction in projected spending that will cover the cost of the package over the next decade.
Only in the current fantasy land of the federal government is “this is will be paid for” anything other than an outright lie.
I wonder if the WH has figured out how this new spending affects the debt ceiling. Remember how BHO insisted that Congress raise the debt ceiling high enough that it wouldn’t have to do so again until after the next election? If Congress is to spend an additional $450 billion right away, with offsetting cuts spread over the next ten years, it stands to reason that we will hit the debt ceiling earlier than anticipated, possibly during the the 2012 election campaign.
I was listening to the speech while driving on Matt’s show, almost drove off the road, “right away.”
Either this is just another example of the elitist politician who thinks the taxpaying voters can’t see through his charade or a cunning plan to throw a new stimulus plan into the lap of Congress with a caveat of, “Here’s the plan. I’ll be the hero while you pay for it. Pay for it now or you’ll pay for it later in votes.”
Let me know if I have this right.
The President told Congress to “pass this now”.
The President told Congress to find spending cuts by Christmas.
Sounds like the old Wimpy line, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
So the pass this bill and then what if they don’t find the cuts? Hmm, what are the odds of *that* happening?
Sounds like the old Wimpy line, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
This line is popping up everywhere. I’ve already heard it numerous times from Republican law makers on a variety of “news” programs. So, Patrick, join the bleating herd.
Anybody ready to join a “Draft Tito” campaign?
Joe Maddon and the Rays would like to keep in his current position.
“I’ve already heard it numerous times from Republican law makers on a variety of “news” programs”
Undoubtedly you have, Phil, because it’s an accurate description of the funding approach that the President has proposed for at least two of his initiatives – the jobs bill and the deficit situation a month ago.
(Who’s Tito?)
Monique–
Not a citizen of “Red Sox Nation,” eh?
“Tito” is a nickname for Terry Francona, who succeeded Grady Little as Red Sox manager, leading them to World Series wins in 2004 and 2007 (so far).
Although his name is “Terry,” they call him “Tito” after his dad, Tito Francona, who played for several major league teams over a fifteen year career (1956-1970).
(And, for the record, Phil, I’m not sure how you can blame Francona for the current Sox slide . . . personally, I think it’s Bush’s fault!)
Sounds like the old Wimpy line, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
Good campaign commercial. What a disgusting, useless, corrupt a**hole he turned out to be.
Chicago’s version of David Sissyline.
Brassband
Bush actually helped the Rangers by leaving their organization to become Governor then President.
Monique
That’s what I like about you. You’re just everyday sheeple.
Sheeple? How ironic phil, we always felt that about you.
Say, how are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq paid for? Oops, didn’t mean to interrupt the faux conservative posturing over here.