Email This to a Friend
POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Congress the Most Profligate of Bush Years
The Democrats have already brought change to Washington — at taxpayer expense.
There’s a reason the media, as shown here, glossed over the most basic elements of the full fiscal-year results for Uncle Sam when they were released last week: spending spiraled out of control more than any other single year during the Bush administration.
And guess who’s in charge? Is it a coincidence that the 2007-2008 fiscal year represents the first year for which the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) Congress had full budget-passing responsibility? I think not. But the folks in charge of delivering the news don’t want us to get any crazy ideas while the attempted coronation of Barack Obama is in full swing.
Here is how federal spending has grown during the past seven fiscal years (the analysis starts in fiscal 2002, since the final budget passed during the Clinton administration covered the 2001 fiscal year; source data: 2007 and 2008, 2005 and 2006, 2003 and 2004, 2001 and 2002):
House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s rule during three Bush administration congressional terms has been portrayed as overindulgent and heavy on pork-barrel spending. That characterization is mostly accurate, though there is some justification for increases that occurred during the earlier years.
Fiscal 2002 was certainly affected by post-9/11 homeland security-related responses. Whether you agree with the decisions to fight them, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were certainly key components of the increases that took place in 2002 and 2003. But after that, the excuses for spending growth are pretty thin. It is not without reason that many inclined to support George Bush over John Kerry in 2004 held their noses in the voting booth.
Fiscal 2005 and 2006 were particularly odious. The Hurricane Katrina response was a blank check that generated staggering waste. Pork-barrel spending went into overdrive, culminating with a “Republican” senator, Ted Stevens, threatening to resign if he didn’t get his $200-plus million Bridge to Nowhere. (Mr. Stevens and the Alaska GOP may learn in two weeks that resignation would have been a marvelous idea.)
George Bush’s shared culpability for initiating and/or acquiescing to all of this should, of course, not be ignored. Time after time the president had chances — and failed — to pull out his veto pen.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Tom Blumer owns a training and development company based in Mason, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati. He presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies, and runs BizzyBlog.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
26 Comments
1. Douglas Bogle:Never fear Obama is here.
95% of the American people will not get an increase in taxes, until I get into office.
A POR controlled govt will be worse than a Chavez controlled Vzla. ( Example of a new socialist govt, 10 year+ – rule based on socialist veiws )
What will POR cut to balance the budget, oh ya, our defense.
Never fear Obama is here.
Oct 24, 2008 - 3:47 am 2. smf:Drill baby Drill. Our elected officals have been talking about an oil independent country for 20 years, It’s about time. Wake up Americans
Oct 24, 2008 - 5:35 am 3. anon:“Drill baby Drill. Our elected officals have been talking about an oil independent country for 20 years, It’s about time. Wake up Americans”
We’ve been awake… it’s just that drilling won’t significantly affect our energy supply. Sorry, I know facts have a liberal bias, but there you have it. The level of denial on the right is truly astonishing. I almost wish you could have a small country to demonstrate on – one where you could drill and pollute and carry around weapons all of the time and provide no services (with no taxes) and have the 10 commandments posted everywhere (and still not be able actually to name them) and enact all the other truly bizarre policy that springs from the unholy marriage of Ayn Rand and Dobson.
Oct 24, 2008 - 6:30 am 4. BizzyBlog » Latest Pajamas Media Column (’POR [Pelosi-Obama-Reid] Congress the Most Profligate of Bush Years’) Is Up:[...] timed to appear on the same day as today’s Never Find Out post on earmarks, my latest PJM column notes the free-spending ways sanctioned by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (with the unfortunate [...]
Oct 24, 2008 - 6:49 am 5. K T Cat:You’ve got it almost all correct, except the part where you look at the Bush years. It’s not the presiden’t debt. It never was.
Oct 24, 2008 - 7:29 am 6. Dark Jethro:“We’ve been awake… it’s just that drilling won’t significantly affect our energy supply.”
You have no way of knowing the effect because we have been kept – by legislative fiat – from finding out just how much we have.
Or is your argument that increased supply, in general, will not help our supply problems.
Until alternative technologies can provide the base load of our energy needs, increasing supply is the only answer. The only way to increase supply is to pump more out of the ground, or buy it from somebody else, it is that simple.
Talk about denial.
Oct 24, 2008 - 7:57 am 7. MarkD:On topic, who could have known that government spending increasing at this rate was unsustainable? Or that the cure for what’s ailing our economy is for the government to spend more?
The Republicans acted like the Democrats and we the people paid the price. The Democrats have proven they are even better at spending money we don’t have than the faux Democrats.
It will end, and end badly. Anyone who blames one party for this is an ignorant partisan hack I pity the young. They will inherit this mess.
Oct 24, 2008 - 9:48 am 8. BDelsol:Facts have a liberal bias?
I noticed anon’s post didn’t actually have a single fact in it. That’s pretty typical of liberal arguments, which are usually fueled by emotionally-charged attacks that have little to do with the argument at hand, except that they vilify republicans/conservatives. The great thing about that is you don’t actually ever have to defend your point of view or come up with a rational argument. Nice trick.
Oct 24, 2008 - 9:52 am 9. mnotaro:Obama’s “tax cuts” are going to cause people to lose more money, not make more money…. and when that happens, the unemployment rate to rise higher than it’s ever been before! His left wing illuminati economic plan are going to get this country into trouble!
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:00 am 10. Sandy Salt:Here Here MarkD, you hit it on the head.
This has been and always be a career politician issue. They hopped into bed with every lobbyist around to line their collective pockets, while taking from our children and grandchildren. I have yet to see Obama’s spending cut plan (scapel), but as sure as the sun rises it will be defense and defense again. He is not willing to say it because he doesn’t want to scare the public before the election. Of course the public closes its eyes and thinks they are invisible when it comes to this plan.
If you want to avoid further financial ruin, you seriously cut federal spending and find a way to pay down the national debt. You don’t cut any additional taxes or increase any spending. If we want to derail our economy further you keep cutting the tax base and spend like there is no tomorrow. Then the dollar won’t be worth squat and jobs will be harder to find then a virgin cheerleader.
Since, we are assured of a Pelosi-Reid Congress and a Presidnet that will either green light every proposal or one that will reach across the aisle to ensure our destruction we are in a no win situation in this election.
As patriotic americans, I suggest a 1% federal sales tax that is strictly for national debt reduction that Congress would not be allowed to touch. Food and gas could be exempted to prevent additional hardship on the poor, but everyone would be asked to pay the same and what could be more fair.
I know more taxes is never popular, but most people realize that you can’t get there from here the way things are now. Plus, no one wants to pay more taxes if Congress is in charge of the money because they know it will be pissed away or pocketed by them and their croonies.
If you have a better plan then lets hear it.
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:16 am 11. Grim Traveler:Instead of POR, it’s more like O(bama)P(elosi)R(eid), or O(ne) P(arty) R(ule).
Oct 24, 2008 - 12:03 pm 12. Quote of the Day:Hey, it works for Russia, China, Iran, Venezula….
Why can’t it work for us?
[...] From Fark.Com as the introduction to this story on Pajamas Media about Federal Spending [...]
Oct 24, 2008 - 12:03 pm 13. myth buster:I abhor the idea of a National Sales Tax and a Federal Income Tax coexisting- too much temptation to raise both. However, if we went entirely to a National Sales Tax, we could raise the same amount of revenue as we already do, and give American’s a $320+ billion break on compliance costs, which is twice the size of the 2001 tax cuts. That would stimulate the economy without draining revenue even in the short term. Read up on HR25/S1025.
Oct 24, 2008 - 2:25 pm 14. Is Bush To Blame For The Bad Spending Policies Of The Last 8 Years? « Tai-Chi Policy:[...] 24, 2008 Posted by taoist in Congress, Government, Politics. trackback Certainly somewhat. But see for yourself which of the last 8 years have been by far the worst, spending wise. And then try and continue to blame it on the [...]
Oct 24, 2008 - 3:31 pm 15. You didn’t need that money anyway! « Bryan’s Basement:[...] for Frank,Pelosi and Reid and their pals it’ll all be smooooth sailing as soon as both houses of Congress are [...]
Oct 24, 2008 - 4:54 pm 16. Scott Ott:Come on, let’s round out that acronym.
Oct 24, 2008 - 7:27 pm 17. Dave Surls:Pelosi-Obama-Reid-Kennedy
#16
LOL
Oct 25, 2008 - 3:05 am 18. SAF:I think it is the nature of large masses that a large event is required to move them onto a different trajectory. One would think of 911 as being such an event but it was clearly not large enough as a significant percentage of Americans either think Bush did it or we deserve it but in any case they don’t see terrorism as an important issue. We will see effective anti-terrorist actions when 80%+ in this country believe terrorism is a very crucial issue. It might take NYC being vaporized for that to happen, unfortunately.
And the same is true of financial matters. The MSM has effectively hidden many of the causes of the current financial mess from the American public. Perhaps four years of Obama and a democratic congress will awaken the country. In Argentina they just nationalized their equivalent of individuals 401ks. It will be interesting to see if they wake up or become an oppressed population under a dictatorship.
Oct 25, 2008 - 4:05 am 19. cris:The fix is in. Never before has a candidate been afforded a cost free monopolization of the media, as has the Con-Man. It is appalling that this guy was carried like he was, anyone else with his very questionable character, sleazy history, lack of accomplishment, blatant dishonesty and mysteriously amount of missing personal documentation (birth certificate, college transcripts and thesis etc.) would have been forced out of the race, two years ago. The epic proportion and this scam is unmatched in the history of presidential elections.
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:50 am 20. Paul from Florida:POOR. PelOsie, Obama,Reid.
Oct 25, 2008 - 1:06 pm 21. brad G:Ha ha — ” the unholy marriage of Ayn Rand and DObson” — how would someone come up with that combination to explain whatever it is he/she is aiming at? The energy problem is going to be a huge issue in this country in a few years. It isn’t only that drilling for oil (and one writer was right on: who knows how much we have? Its not like anyone has measured it with new hi-tech equipement in a number of years!) goes completely nowhere as environmental whacko groups litigate without resistance from our courts: its that this very obstacle happens to almost every method of acquiring energy that anyone initiates. Over 50 upstart coal burning facilities trashed their plans over the past year or so– that is very vital energy, that produces electricity! That amount of electricity will not be available — and it has to be. The consequence is going to be periodic brownouts and massive inconvenience, too millions of people. Nuclear power plants are supposed to come online, but I am assuming these too will be hit with mindless lawsuits from the deny humanity ecoids. The major problem in our society is not pollution, or the incredible fallacy of global warming, but the foolishness of a society that is being assaulted by the horror religion of environmentalism. That’s the real pollution.
Oct 25, 2008 - 3:58 pm 22. Marc Malone:People get the kind of government they deserve. – Renee Descartes
The PORK acronym was clever and FUNNY!
One Party Rule. That’s “The One” to you, pal!
Oct 25, 2008 - 5:47 pm 23. BizzyBlog » The POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Congress: Most Profligate of All During the Bush Administration:[...] This column originally appeared at Pajamas Media on [...]
Oct 26, 2008 - 6:39 am 24. JL:SandySalt, while you have a sound idea on a flat 1% sales tax under the stipulations that congress can’t touch it, you must remember that the Social Security program was also meant to be both voluntary and kept away from congress as well. Of course, it didn’t happen. 2 of the most recent examples were LBJ and Clinton, who both took funds from the SSA and added them to the general fund, thus creating the illusion of a balanced budget, both with congress’ approval. So while this plan sounds good in theory, the problem is that we cannot and have never been able to trust our government to keep their hands out of our money.
And on drilling, we have an idea of how much we have. The MMS states around 139 billion known barrels of crude located off shore, in ANWR, and in other locations around the U.S.. Of course, that does no good when we have a congressional majority who would rather take a vacation and go on book-signings during an energy crisis than help the people who elected trusted them with leadership, while continuing to smooth over the issue with the ‘it’s not enough, it won’t help, it’ll kill polar bears’ excuse, and not using any facts to back their claims. If they did choose to seek the facts, they would find that a) we have more than enough to help our immediate needs, b) the very passing of such legislation to access our own oil would drive the price of crude down due to market speculation of more supply coming (much like what happened with Bush’s executive order enacted back in July) and c) the technology that has been developed in the drilling process allows underground and out of sight drilling, which will have a minimal effect on animal and plant habitats on the surface of the land, thus making the environmentalists’ claims of big unsightly oil platforms outdated. The Dem congress and their fans need to realize that our energy solution is a 2-part strategy: address the needs we have now, and to seek alternatives to address the needs we have in the future. A solid plan for energy cannot exclude either of these steps.
Oct 28, 2008 - 9:02 am 25. The Historian:UNI-PARTY GOVERNMENT: A BAD IDEA
One party rule is ruinous, as explained at this link:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/10/uni-party-government-very-bad-idea.html
Oct 28, 2008 - 10:13 am 26. GayPatriot » 2008 Presidential Campaign pulls attention from Incompetent 110th Congress:[...] only thing the Democratic Congress has been able to do has to be to increase federal spending at levels even greater than those of the preceding spendthrift Republican Congresses. Having scored his congressional colleagues in the past for spending money “like a drunken [...]
Oct 29, 2008 - 9:55 am