Budget forecast a lie!

HankHill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
293
Location
With your mom
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:55 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House, Congress, Republicans
From NBC’s Ken Strickland
It was obvious to most Capitol Hill insiders why President Obama wanted Republican Judd Gregg as a member of his cabinet: He's one of the sharpest money-minds in Congress.

But instead of getting Gregg's counsel within the administration, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner found himself today of the receiving end of Gregg's fiscal conservative wrath.

In a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee Gregg dressed down Geithner with facts, figures, and charts. While always keeping his cool, the exchange was somewhere between a mother's scolding, a drill sergeant's questioning and an attorney's cross examination.

In his opening statement, Gregg politely called the administration's budget forecast a lie.

"The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ahh, is truly spurious," he told Geithner.

President Obama himself gives Gregg's comments a sense of stinging credibility. When the president introduced Gregg as his nominee for Commerce Secretary last month, he said Gregg is known for is fiscal discipline.

"He shares my deep-seated commitment to guaranteeing that our children inherit a future they can afford," Obama said.

Today, the president's compliment of Gregg turned into an attack on Geithner. Gregg said the budget is essentially "putting on our children's backs a debt they can never get out from underneath."

He added pointedly, "I think we're putting at risk not only our children's future, we're clearly putting at risk the value of a dollar and our ability to sell debt."

When Gregg withdrew his nomination, he said he and the administration were "functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."

Gregg's opening monologue today would indicate that was a gross understatement.

"The argument that this budget doesn't have tax increases [on everyone] is, I think, an 'Alice in Wonderland' view of the budget," he said.

He challenged the budget's math on cutting the debt: "When you take the deficit and quadruple it and then you cut it and half, that's like taking four steps back and two steps forward. That's not making any progress; you're still going backwards."

Gregg questioned why any foreign country would continue to buy up U.S. debt: "Because if I'm in the international marketplace, and I'm looking at this budget, I'm saying to myself, ‘Where's the discipline? Where's the containment?' There isn't any."

In his withdrawal statement last month, Gregg said, "I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the president's proposals."

The budget doesn't appear to be one of them.

I appreciate someone out there with the quihones to nail it to this little punk tax dodger Geithner... Even Obumbler likes Gregg's fiscal views, but Gregg obviously didn't want any part of Obumbler's future socialist America!
 
Werbung:
These days with all the resource and energy problems, balancing the budget or paying off the National Debt is like trying to formulate the ever-elusive Unified Field Theory. It's actually been getting worse over a few decades now except that we're nearing a limit cycle. If Protectionism arises in a big way (and that's looking like more of a probabilty every day), then our goose is literally cooked. They dynamics right now are getting too complex for anyone to truly get a grip on.
 
Werbung:
"The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ahh, is truly spurious," he told Geithner.

He's right, of course. The plan is nothing more than rhetoric, just like Bush's statement during the Kerry debates that he had a plan to cut the deficit in half in four years. Not only that, but he's gone Bush one better by promising to cut in half a deficit that is more than double the one that Bush didn't cut in half four years ago.



"He shares my deep-seated commitment to guaranteeing that our children inherit a future they can afford," Obama said.

He picked a funny way to show that "deep seated commitment." If he wanted to guarantee our children a future that they could afford, he'd have had to change the borrow and spend policies of his predecessor, not expand on them.
 
Back
Top