Fortunately I had already swallowed my drink of Mountain Dew before I read this . . .

. . . or I’d surely have spewed it all over the keyboard, monitor and desk.

From outgoing Speakess of the House Nancy Pelosi’s prepared remarks for today:

Democrats will judge what comes before Congress by whether it creates jobs, strengthens our middle class, and reduces the deficit — not burdening future generations with debt

This, from the Democratic leader who rammed through the 2009 Porkulus Plan, which left us with higher unemployment than the President said we’d have if we did nothing at all, but added nearly a trillion dollars to the deficit, and the national debt? This, from the leadership that rammed through a health care reform package that they claimed would save us $143 billion over the next decade, but has been demonstrably wrong on even the first, early portion estimates, before the plan even kicks in?

Remember this article and this little graph?

It was posted just yesterday! Yet the lovely Mrs Pelosi is trying to tell us, presumably with a straight face, that Democrats are going to judge forthcoming legislation based on whether it reduces the deficit and doesn’t burden future generations with more debt?

At the end of FY2007, the last federal budget passed by the last Republican controlled Congress, the national debt was $9,007,653,372,262.48. Since the Democrats took control of the Congress, more than $5,000,000,000,000 has been added to the national debt, an increase of over 55%, in just four years. Of that $5 trillion, $3.5 trillion has been added since Barack Hussein Obama became our President.

Then again, perhaps the new House Minority Leader was telling the truth, if she means that, in judging that legislation creates jobs, and reduces the deficit and doesn’t saddle the public with additional debt, she means that they’d vote against it.

12 Comments

  1. This, from the Democratic leader who rammed through the 2009 Porkulus Plan, which left us with higher unemployment than the President said we’d have if we did nothing at all, but added nearly a trillion dollars to the deficit, and the national debt?

    Dana is, of course, lying, as shown in this graph.

    The stimulus bill added only $145 billion to the deficit.

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts, however, will cost $544 billion over two years – and yet Dana supports that.

    So not only is Dana lying, he’s not really worried about teh deficit at all.

  2. Republicans have lost the right to complain about the deficit. You will grow it at any rate, at any cost, so that it can fatten your masters. Your principles flee in the face of their whims.

  3. From the related NYT article:

    There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

    The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.
    [...]
    The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

    You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle [37% - PiaToR], President George W. Bush’s policies [33%], policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend [20%], and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama [10%].
    [...]
    Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

    But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

    Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

  4. “But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague.”

    If you paid Republican leaders to mow your lawn, you’d come back at the end of the day to discover they’d trimmed a little patch around the mailbox.

    …and cut down all your old-growth trees.

  5. Well, I guess that we’ll see, won’t we?

    From what I saw briefly on the news this evening, it appears that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — how I love the sound of that title for her! :) — and the Democrats have adopted the theme that it is the Democrats who would be best at reducing the deficit. Given how much they did to reduce the deficit during their four years in control of the Congress, and their two years in control of Congress and the Presidency, I’d suggest that their record doesn’t exactly support their claims of today.

    Still, who knows? Having been chastened by the voters, maybe they have learned something and maybe they will propose major cuts in spending to reduce the deficit. Time will tell.

  6. phoen-
    the stimulus will add 145 billion per year. it’s in the article you linked to. read the article. some might say you are lying.

    massive debts began to incur in 2007, under the new democrat lead congress. congress is where all spending starts. obama was a part of this congress. he voted for many of the bills that are responsible for these debts during this time. democrats taking the executive branch merely openned the floodgates wider.

    clinton never had to deal with two wars. he got out before the economy tanked post 9/11 when the first bush tax cuts were implemented.

    and this posts’ numbers are accurate.

    not that obama should have extended the bush tax cuts. the deal he struck is worthless and will do nothing for the economy besides spend more money that we don’t have and maintain the level of uncertainty.

  7. Pingback: Democrats cutting spending? « Common Sense Political Thought

  8. phoen-
    the stimulus will add 145 billion per year.

    Jd, do you see where Dana mentions “the deficit, and the national debt”? And then I started talking about the deficit – without talking about the national debt? You know, the deficit – the year on year imbalance that adds up to the national debt?

    Gosh, don’t you look foolish?

  9. Well, I guess that we’ll see, won’t we?

    Indeed we will – but you, of course, won’t say a word relating to what we actually see.

    My prediction – the Republican spending hooflah won’t cut Federal spending more than a percentage point or two. What will reduce Federal spending will be economic recovery, if it comes.

    And the extension of the Bush tax cuts will keep the deficit high.

  10. Well, if the Porkulus Plan added only $145 billion to the deficit, just what else did our 44th President and his Democratic Congress add which raised the national debt from $11 trillion when he took office to more than $12 trillion by the end of 2009? What raised the debt from $12 trillion to $14 trillion in little more than a year?

  11. Well, if the Porkulus Plan added only $145 billion to the deficit, just what else did our 44th President and his Democratic Congress add which raised the national debt from $11 trillion when he took office to more than $12 trillion by the end of 2009? What raised the debt from $12 trillion to $14 trillion in little more than a year?

    Gee, Dana, I wonder what the link in my very first comment on this thread showed…?

  12. Well, I guess that we’ll see, won’t we?

    As it turns out, we are already seeing how the Republicans will address spending…

    The new Republican majority in the House is learning already that governing is harder than campaigning.

    They vow to repeal President Obama’s health reform. But they say they want to reduce the deficit, too, so one of their rules requires that any new legislation be paid for fully.

    Here’s the problem: The health care reform includes new taxes and a tough cut in Medicare spending. It actually reduces the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So if you kill health reform, the rules require that you find offsetting spending cuts or tax increases to plug that gap.

    So Republicans have decided to exempt health reform from the rule. That deficit they talked so much about during the campaign? Never mind.

    We haven’t seen this kind of hypocrisy in Washington since … a few weeks ago, when Republicans insisted on extending tax cuts to the wealthy and didn’t pay for that either.

    Prediction – in two years time, with the deficit just as high, we won’t hear shit from Dana about his comments made now.

Comments are closed.