Do you want a balanced Federal budget?

If so, consider this:

When you review transcripts of campaign speeches and debates, you will find that when Mitt Romney uses the word “balanced” it is almost always followed by, or in reference to “budget”. But when Barack Obama uses the word “balanced” it is almost always followed by “approach” or “way”, and Obama is not talking about a balanced budget at all. Obama is, rather, talking about “balancing” spending cuts with tax increases.

Let’s look at the transcript from last night’s debate.

The word balance(d) was mentioned 9 times. Let’s see who used it and how…

Obama used the word once:

We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts so that we can invest in education like yours.

Note that Obama did not say that we have to reduce our debt (which he complained about vociferously when it was $9 Trillion under Bush, but is over $16 Trillion now). Obama said we have to reduce our deficit, which is the annual budget shortfall. A balanced budget would eliminate annual deficits, but we need budget surpluses to actually reduce our total debt.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

– Barack Obama July 3, 2008

Obama in 2008 promised to “cut the deficit in half”, but instead he more than doubled annual deficits. Now he won’t even promise to cut deficits, let alone balance the budget. The most he’ll say is “We’ve got to reduce our deficit”. Well, Obama signed the FY 2009 budget which resulted in the first annual deficit over a Trillion dollars in this nation’s history. And his Vice-President, Joe Biden, has been President of the Senate for the entire time that the Senate has failed to pass a budget for FY 2010, failed to pass a budget for FY 2011, failed to pass a budget for FY 2012, and so far failed to pass a budget for FY 2013. Obama should be directing Biden to preside over the Senate on a DAILY BASIS until they pass a budget.

Next, look at how Obama used the word “balanced”. He wants to balance so-called spending cuts with tax increases, and call that a “balanced” approach. But the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts led to increased revenues (FY 2007 revenues were up 44% over FY 2003 revenues, and that is HUGE), so it’s logical to assume that reversing the Bush Tax Cuts will have a reverse effect… that revenues would actually go DOWN, not up. But as Obama made clear in a 2008 Democratic Primary debate with Hillary Clinton, his motivations regarding tax policy are not driven by the effect those policies would have on revenue, but rather are driven by his intention to impose his concept of “fairness”.

Data from the IRS shows that even though the Bush Tax Cuts lowered rates for everyone who paid taxes, the “wealthy” top 10% now pay an even higher percentage of the total tax bill than they did before the Bush Tax Cuts. For the last five years for which data is available (2005-2009), the top 10% has been over 70% of the tax bill.

But Obama believes that they aren’t paying their “Fair Share” and we need to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts just for them, and make them pay an even greater % of the total tax bill. See The Parable of 10 Men in a Bar. Stop attacking the “rich guy”… you can’t even pay half the bill without him.

Next take a closer look at what Obama calls spending “cuts”.

We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts so that we can invest in education like yours.

If “cuts” made in one area of the budget (whether it be a household budget or a government budget) are then used to “invest” in another area of the budget, then those aren’t really cuts at all. It’s just changing where you are spending money, and does NOT help “reduce our deficit”.

It is a fact that the last budget produced by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President (George W. Bush) was for Fiscal Year 2007 and produced a deficit of LESS THAN $161 BILLION.

That was better than the results achieved under President Bill Clinton for each of his budgets that were produced by a Democrat House and Democrat Senate (FY 1994 and 1995) which produced deficits of $203 Billion and $164 Billion. It wasn’t until Clinton had budgets produced from a Republican House and Republican Senate that we were able to actually get to a budget surplus.

Even with inflation, George W. Bush and the Republican Congress produced a FY 2007 budget with a smaller deficit than Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress produced for either FY 1994 or 1995.

It wasn’t until Clinton got a Republican Congress that smaller deficits and even surpluses were created.

The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts led to smaller deficits, and it wasn’t until Bush got a Pelosi-Reid Congress that deficits started going back up again.

If you doubt any of those statements, go look at the data yourself.  The data comes directly from the  White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB):


The FY 2009 budget was passed by the Nancy Pelosi House, Harry Reid Senate, signed by Barack Obama, and produced a deficit over $1,400 BIllION (over $1.4 TRILLION).

Barack Obama has presided over four straight years of deficits over $1 Trillion each year. He has utterly failed to cut the deficit in half. Remember that the last budget produced by a Republican House, Senate, and President, for FY 2007, produced a deficit of less than $161 Billion. I dare Obama to get the Senate to pass a budget for FY 2013 that cuts that deficit in half to under $81 Billion. He won’t even commit to a budget that produces a deficit less than $1,000 Billion.

Now, let’s look at the 8 times that Mitt Romney used the word “balance(d)” in this last debate:

I want to get us on track to a balanced budget, and I’m going to reduce the tax burden on middle-income families.

Getting us to a balanced budget.

I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years, and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years. When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That’s math that doesn’t add up.

I know what it takes to balance budgets. I’ve done it my entire life.

Number three, I’m going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t. President Obama was right, he said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right, but then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years. And his forecast for the next four years is more deficits, almost that large.

If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will.

That is what “balanced” means to Mitt Romney. A balanced budget.

While “balanced” to Barack Obama means raising taxes and pretending to cut in one area, only to “invest” that money elsewhere.

If you are comfortable with our total national debt having increased $7 Trillion dollars under majority-Democrat control (from $9 Trillion to $16 Trillion), with $6 Trillion of that coming during the Obama Presidency, then vote for him and see the national debt top $20 Trillion in the next four years.

But if you voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008, believing their promises of “fiscal discipline”, and have been deeply disappointed in their broken promises, then it’s time to vote Republican at every level on your ballot. Remember, this is what Democrats promised in 2006 in order to win majority control in Washington, D.C:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

And here is what Nancy Pelosi promised on January 4, 2007 when she became Speaker of the House:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

– New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House from January 4, 2007 to January 3, 2011. How much new debt was created during Pelosi’s 4 years as Speaker? Over $5.3 TRILLION!

And how much new debt that has been created since the Democrats took majority control on January 4, 2007? Over $7 TRILLION!

It’s time for a NEW DIRECTION.

It’s time for a CHANGE.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, “Look, I’ve created 5 million jobs.” That’s after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans.

There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.

The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he’s put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.

You might say, “Well, you got an example of one that worked better?” Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period — the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan’s recovery created twice as many jobs as this president’s recovery. Five million jobs doesn’t even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked. He’s great as a — as a — as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That’s wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn’t been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That’s what this election is about. It’s about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “Balanced”

  1. Aussie says:

    I just noticed that stupid head had his eyes closed again. It was a very brief look but I am sure I saw him with his eyes closed. The man is such a jerk!!

    Closing his eyes like that is really bad body language….. extremely bad…. it is a real turn off…. not that I was not turned off anyway.

  2. Speaking of body language…

  3. ROMNEY: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.


    ROMNEY: Your eminence Cardinal Dolan, Mr. President, Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Schumer, Al and Ann Smith, thank you for your invitation. Thank you for your extraordinarily warm welcome. Ann and I appreciate your friendship very, very much. Thank you.


    Now Al, you are right, a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. We, uh… blue jeans in the morning perhaps, suits for a lunch fundraiser, sport coat for dinner, but it’s nice to finally relax and to wear what Ann and I wear around the house.


    I’m glad to be able to join in this venerable tradition. And of course I’m pleased that the president is here. We were chatting pleasantly this evening as if Tuesday night never happened.


    And I credit that, of course to the cardinal. He is — it’s taken New York’s highest spiritual authority to get us back on our best behavior.


    I was actually hoping the president would bring Joe Biden along this evening, because he’ll laugh at anything.


    Of course this isn’t a night for serious politics, and it was especially nice to see President Obama and Cardinal Dolan sharing the dais despite their differences. I’m sure the cardinal has no hard feelings, and we might get an indication of that during dinner to see if the president’s wine turns into water.


    Or for that matter, whether my water turns into wine.


    I’m pleased to once again have the chance to see Governor Cuomo who’s already being talked about for higher office. A very impressive fellow, but he may be getting a little ahead of himself. I mean, let me get this straight, the man has put in one term as a governor. He has a father who happened to be a governor, and he thinks that’s enough to run for president.

    Of course we’re down to the final months of the president’s term as president…


    …as President Obama surveys the Waldorf banquet room with everyone in white tie and refinery, you have to wonder what he’s thinking. So little time, so much to redistribute.


    And don’t be surprised if the president mentions this evening the monthly jobs report where there was a slight improvement in the numbers. He knows how to seize the moment, this president. And already has a compelling new campaign slogan, “You’re better off now than you were four weeks ago.”


    You know, with or without all the dignitaries that are here, the Al Smith dinner surely lives up to its billing. Usually when I get invited to gatherings like this, it’s just to be the designated driver.


    Your kind hospitality here tonight gives me a chance to convey my deep and long held respect for the Catholic church. I have special admiration for the Apostle St. Peter, to whom it is said, “Upon this rock, I will build my church.” The story is all the more inspiring when you consider that he had so many skeptics and scoffers at the time who were heard to say, “If you’ve got a church, you didn’t build that.”


    Of course only 19 days to go until the finish line, a campaign full of surprises. The debates are very exciting. Just the other night we had a very fun debate. Candy Crowley was there, and was happy to welcome us, but people seem to be very curious just as to how we prepare for the debates. Let me tell you what I do. First, refrain from alcohol for 65 years before the debate.


    Second, find the biggest available straw man and then just mercilessly attack it.


    Big Bird didn’t even see it coming.


    And by the way in — in the spirit of Sesame Street, the president’s remarks tonight are brought to you but the letter ‘O’ and the number $16 trillion.


    Campaigns can be grueling, exhausting. President Obama and are each very lucky to have one person who is always in our corner, someone who we can lean on, and someone who is a comforting presence. Without whom, we wouldn’t be able to go another day. I have my beautiful wife Ann, he has Bill Clinton.


    We got a big dose of the Biden charm last week, I tell you that, in his debate with Paul Ryan. I’m not sure that all that carrying on had quite the effect that Joe intended. Because afterwards I heard from the Federal Election Commission, from now on whenever he appears on TV there’s a recording of me afterwards that says, “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approved this message.”


    Of course rules of fairness have to be enforced, because what other safeguard do we have, besides the press?




    …now I never suggest that the — that the press is biased. I recognize that they have their job to do, and I have my job to do. My job is to lay out a positive vision for the future of the country, and their job is to make sure no one else finds out about it.


    Let’s just say that some in the media have a certain way of — of looking at things. When suddenly I — I pulled ahead in some of the major polls, what was the headline? “Polls Show Obama Leading from Behind.”


    And I’ve already seen early reports from tonight’s dinner, headline; “Obama Embraced by Catholics. Romney Dies with Rich People.”


    Of course the president has put his own stamp on relations with the church. There have been some awkward moments. Like when the president pulled Pope Benedict aside to share some advice on how to deal with his critics. He said, “Look Holy Father, whatever the problem is, just blame it on Pope John Paul II.”


    Of course the president has found a way to take the sting out of the Obamacare mandates for the church. From now on, they’re going to be in Latin.


    We have very fundamental and sound principles that guide both the president and me. He — he and I, of course, both feel the pressures and tensions of a — of a close contest. It would be easy to let a healthy competition give way to the person on the penny, but fortunately we don’t carry the burden of — of disliking one another.

    Our president has had some very fine and gracious moments. Don’t tell anyone I said so, but our 44th president has many gifts and a beautiful family that would make any man proud.

    You can oppose…


    In our country, you can oppose someone in politics and make a confident case against their policies without any ill will and that’s how it is for me. There’s more to life than politics.

    At the Al Smith Foundation and the Archdiocese of New York, you show this in the work you do, in causes that run deeper than allegiance to party or to any contest at the moment. No matter which way the political winds are blowing, what work goes on, day in day out by this organization and you. You answer with calm and willing hearts and service to the poor and care for the sick, in defense and the rights of conscience and in solidarity with the innocent child waiting to be born. You strive to bring God’s love and every — in every life.


    I — I don’t presume to have all your support and on a night like this, I’m certainly not going ask for it, but you can be certain that in the great causes of compassion that you come together to embrace that I stand proudly with you as an ally and friend.

    God bless you all and God bless the United States of America.

    Thank you.

  4. …the president’s remarks tonight are brought to you but the letter ‘O’ and the number $16 trillion

    On a more serious note, let’s remember what Barack Obama had to say when HE was the challenger, and the Incumbent President had a total national debt over $9 Trillion…

    “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

    – Barack Obama July 3, 2008

    On the day Obama said that, July 3, 2008, the Total Public Debt Outstanding was $9,492,245,770,798.70 (under $9.5 Trillion)

    Now, on 10/17/2012, the total national debt is $16,193,100,189,055.25 … nearly $16.2 Trillion.

    Let’s compare Obama’s results now vs. Obama’s promises as a new President:

    Fiscal Responsibility Summit
    Washington, DC
    February 23, 2009


    Remarks of President Barack Obama

    My Administration came into office one month ago in the depths of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in generations. We recognized that we needed to act boldly, decisively and quickly—and that is precisely what we did.

    Within our first 30 days in office, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery package in history to create or save 3.5 million new jobs, provide relief to struggling families, and lay the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. I laid out my housing plan to break the cycle of falling home values and rising foreclosures that has devastated so many communities. And we put forth a Financial Stability Plan to start shoring up our banks, so we can free up credit, jump-start lending and restore confidence in our financial system.

    These are extraordinary—but necessary—measures to address this economic emergency, and they will come at a cost. This Administration has inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit—the largest in our nation’s history— and our investments to rescue our economy will add to that deficit in the short-term. We also have long-term challenges—health care, energy, education and others—that we can no longer afford to ignore.

    But I want to be very clear: we cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next Administration, or the next generation.

    We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt—one in every ten taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spent on education that year. More than seven times what the VA spent on health care for our veterans.

    So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road as our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes, and our children and grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they are saddled with our debts.

    That is why today, I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.

    This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we have long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay—and that means taking responsibility right now, in this Administration, for getting our spending under control.

    We’ll start by being honest with ourselves about the magnitude of our deficits. For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception—a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending and the shortfalls in our revenue and hope the American people won’t notice. Budgeting certain expenditures for just one year, when we know we’ll incur them every year for five or ten. Budgeting zero dollars for the Iraq war—zero—for future years, even when we knew the war would continue. Budgeting no money for natural disasters, as if we would ever go 12 months without a single flood, fire, hurricane or earthquake.

    We do ourselves no favors by hiding the truth about what we spend. In order to address our fiscal crisis, we must be candid about its scope. That is why the budget I will introduce later this week will look ahead ten years, and will include a full and honest accounting of the money we plan to spend and the deficits we will likely incur.

    To start reducing these deficits, I have committed to going through our budget line-by-line to root out waste and inefficiency—a process my Administration has already begun. And I will soon be instructing each member of my cabinet to go through every item in their budgets as well. Already, we’ve seen how much money we can save. For example, the Department of Agriculture has moved some of its training programs online, saving an estimated $1.3 million a year. They’re modernizing their financial management system, saving an estimated $17.5 million. And they’re saving tens of thousands of dollars by cutting back on conferences and travel and other small expenses that add up over time.

    We will replicate these efforts throughout the federal government, eliminating programs that don’t work to make room for ones that do—and making the ones we keep work better. We’ll end the payments to agribusinesses that don’t need them and eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq. We’ll end the tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas and stop the fraud and abuse in our Medicare program.

    And we will reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that we followed during the 1990s—the rule that helped us start this new century with a $236 billion surplus. In recent years, we’ve strayed from this rule—and the results speak for themselves. The pay-go approach is based on a very simple concept: you don’t spend what you don’t have. So if we want to spend, we’ll need to find somewhere else to cut. This is the rule that families across this country follow every single day—and there is no reason why their government shouldn’t do the same.

    Now, I want to be very clear: while we are making important progress toward fiscal responsibility this year, in this budget—this is just the beginning. In the coming years, we will be forced to make more tough choices and do much more to address our long-term challenges, from the rising cost of health care—the most pressing fiscal challenge we face—to the long-term solvency of Social Security.

    In the end, however, if we want to rebuild our economy and restore discipline and honesty to our budget, we will need to change the way we do business in Washington, DC. We cannot fall back into the same old habits, and make the same unforgivable mistakes: The repeated failure to act as our economy spiraled deeper into crisis. The casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting. The costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses. This is exactly what the American people rejected when they went to the polls this past November.

    They sent us here to usher in a new era of responsibility in Washington—to start living within our means again; and being straight with them about where their tax dollars are going; and empowering them with the information they need to hold their representatives accountable.

    That is why I have called this summit today, and why I have invited leaders from both sides of the aisle: because we all have a role to play in this work. Because I believe it is time for a frank conversation about the fiscal challenges we face—challenges that concern every single one of us, no matter where on the political spectrum we fall.

    So today, I want all of you to start talking with each other and exchanging ideas. I want you to question each other, and challenge each other, and work together not just to identify problems, but to identify solutions.

    That is the purpose of the breakout sessions that are starting right now. I know that each of you brings a wealth of expertise and experience on a broad range of topics, and I appreciate your willingness to participate in these sessions. I expect that this process will be engaging and productive, and I look forward to hearing the results when you report back later this afternoon.

  5. As you watch the video and it pans out around the 2 minute mark, you can see where Barack Obama is in relation to Mitt Romney and Katie Couric.

    Watch carefully Katie Couric’s reaction when Mitt Romney said the following:

    Of course we’re down to the final months of the president’s term…

    Katie laughs, then looks over in the direction of Obama, and her composure changes completely. The smile disappears from her face, she looks down, and runs a hand through her hair.

    I think that when she looked at Obama, he was scowling in displeasure at both the statement itself and the laughter it evoked from those who support him. I have to believe that Obama was NOT HAPPY, and Katie knew it the instant she looked at him. She felt shamed for laughing at that line, and her body language shows it.

  6. zmalfoy says:

    And yet, RP, she laughed. Yes, she thought bad about it, but it still struck her as humorous, and that is, in context, quite an amazing thing. And, I thing, telling.

  7. “Fiscal cliff” negotiations are akin to a Thelma and Louise trilogy
    posted at 1:01 pm on November 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey


    Forward over cliff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s