Obama Doesn't Care About Debt

Democrats are willing to move heaven and earth for the things they do care about.

As you may have heard, Senate Democrats haven't bothered to present a budget in more than 1,000 days and counting—which, unlike many pundits, I don't find particularly upsetting, considering we've been free of a new Democratic budget for 1,000-plus days and counting.

This week, though, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offered up the House's budget outline, which—whether misguided, genius, flawed or whatever you might think of it—is a pretty earnest reflection of the concerns of about half the country. The primitive half. So the White House—where rational, enlightened grown-ups are represented—responded like so:

"The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility. It would shower the wealthiest few Americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000, while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers." It's a waste of time to point out how little of the above statement is true, because no matter what the topic is or how critical the consequences are, the White House is going to claim Daddy Warbucks isn't pulling his weight. It polls well.

Oh, and oil companies and hedge fund managers. The axis of evil.

Now, you may wonder, what on earth does block granting Medicare have to do with the biggest financial crisis of our lifetimes? What does a plan that allows seniors -- 10 years from now -- to use Medicare dollars in private plans or stick with the traditional government-run system have anything to do with a recession? How does reforming the tax code induce housing prices to bubble retroactively? What does altering the destructive trajectory of deficit spending have to do with fairness?

Nothing, of course.

The administration isn't serious about the debt, because like most politicians, Barack Obama doesn't care. Not a whit. Democrats are willing to move heaven and earth for the things they do care about. They were prepared to whip up political turmoil and put the presidency and Congress on the line to pass Obamacare. Yet they won't risk offering a budget, lest anyone glimpse their priorities. And we could tax all the millionaires into poverty, and it wouldn't make a dent without reforming spending.

No, of course, you can't blame any single administration or person for the array of decisions and autopilot spending that has put us on this course—but we can name the star performers.

The president once claimed that others wanted to kick "the can down the road." Well, the national debt has increased more during President Obama's three years of judicious rule than it did during eight years of a reckless George W. Bush. Whereas Obama once claimed that Bush deficits were "irresponsible" and even "unpatriotic," his latest budget projected a deficit of about $1.3 trillion, followed by a $901 billion deficit and then ones remaining in the hundreds of billions for 10 years after that—or until some new emergency needs additional spending.

Don't get me wrong; the Ryan budget isn't perfect. After all, it's brimming with superb non-starters, such as the repeals of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare and the complete privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it must also be pointed out that for many Republicans, fretting about debt is a newfound passion. Even today, Ryan's budget doesn't take on Social Security. The GOP won't go for real cuts in defense spending. On Medicare they're wobbly, and on farm subsidies some of them sound like members of the Fabian Society. So there is plenty of blame to go around.

But these days, we can see how utterly unserious Democrats are about the deficit and debt. They've offered no real plan. They're not even pretending anymore.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    They care not about debt because it was just the "cost" of making it all better.

    What better is exactly and who it is better for they cannot define though.

  • anon||

    Obama Doesn't Care About Debt

    There ya go, fixed that for you.

  • ||

    Someone should get the guy who did the honey badger video to super impose his voice over various videos of Obama doing things... like, "Look at this crazy fucker, he fires missiles into groups of people in Pakistan from unmanned drones, killing innocents, but does he give a shit? No, honey president don't care!"

    Or... not.

  • HMFIC||

    If you don't like the way our country does things then GTFO.

  • ||

    @HMFIC

    What a delightfully unthoughtful response. What is that all about? Too tough to engage in thoughtful debate?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You first, HMFIC.

  • Liberty||

    Harsanyi's columns are understood best if you read them in a really nasal voice. That captures the whine best. Imagine if Professor Frink began writing for Glenn Beck's site, and it all makes sense.

  • ||

    Thank you so much for your tightly-reasoned response to this article. Your finely-honed arguments help us to illuminate and sharpen the issues. Well done, sir!!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    For a poster named "Liberty"...

  • Jeffersonian||

    America isn't America if someone's not stealing stuff from someone else.

  • ||

    Your post is best read from right to left.

  • Bob||

    If it's not about Obama then Obama doesn't care.

  • anon||

    Don't get me wrong; the Ryan budget isn't perfect. After all, it's brimming with superb non-starters, such as the repeals of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare and the complete privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Uh, the only thing not perfect about that is that it doesn't cut/privatize SS/Medicare.

  • wareagle||

    of course, SS is being cut. It's being done through the payroll tax cut which has the net effect of defunding SS. Yes, I realize the outcome was not intended but, hey, give people an extra $40 per paycheck and it's all good.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter whether SS is funded or not. All that matters is whether old people vote. And they do.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's far worse than that. Democrats are all for cutting SS taxes because they know the resultant shortfalls will be made up with taxes on income. The latter are steeply progressive, the former regressive.

    See what's going on here?

  • Mike||

    Was this response sarcastic? Maybe they could simply raise the ceiling on SS taxes from the current $106K, which was only a high-end salary in 1982 or so.

  • Mike||

    Oops, $110K, it was $106K last year.

  • ||

    It is amazing that they aren't even trying to pretend. In their rhetoric, they don't pretend that any of their "ideas" actually add up to anything but ever growing deficits.

  • anon||

    Are you kidding me? That'd mean that people actually have to start paying for stuff again! We can't let that happen! MOAR FREE STUFFZ!!!111one /sic

  • Mike||

    To be fair, GW Bush, when handed a budget surplus, ballooned the budget while slashing tax rates, benefiting his wealthy donors. So it looks like the mainstream of both parties could give a hoot.

  • Old Mexican||

    And we could tax all the millionaires into poverty, and it wouldn't make a dent without reforming spending.


    It wouldn't make a dent even if you reformed spending, considering that the potential new revenue, even using the most sanguine of expectations, would not be enough to pay the interest on the debt.

  • ||

    The dent is coming when those Bush tax cuts expire and investing stock is no longer worth it. Investor would take all the risks while the gov gets 50% of the gains.

    Jan 2013 is when the next recession starts.

  • Mike||

    Too bad you can use investment losses to offset gains on your federal taxes! So sorry!

  • ||

    I'm talking about dividend income, not capital gains.

  • ||

    Of course the proposed budget is no good to the despotic mulatto, it doesn't fit his agenda. And of course, even if a subsidy-laden, welfare-state-expanding, tax-hike happy budget were proposed by a Republican he wouldn't take it. Even if he did, he'd almost certainly make it into a "Look at us be bi-partisan, it was my idea!" photo-op.

  • Tony||

    I'm sure Obama would prefer that Republicans hadn't exploded the budget. Since they have, it's a bit rich for them to use it as a political weapon, though hardly unprecedented.
    They obviously have no intention of seriously addressing it, preferring instead to bow in eternal fealty to unelected radical Grover Norquist.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Save that stuff for your stand up act. I bet it kills.

  • Mike||

    Actually, seeing as how Reagan was the Original Gangsta of gigantic budget deficits, and GW Bush slashed high end tax rates while waterboarding the budget surplus handed to him by Clinton, then to endlessly bow to the altar of Norquist... yeah, I have a hard time believing the so called opposition party is truly the party of fiscal sanity.

  • Tony||

    And despite the obvious bullshit of this post and the fact that I am a sockpuppet, many idiots will argue with me all afternoon. They also go out on sunny day to scold the sky for being blue.

  • anon||

    So, the question is, is that Epi or Sarcasmic impersonating you today?

  • ||

    I am pretty sure it is epi. And I say that with a red face, since I have gotten suckered into arguing with 'Tony' many times. In my defense, I have met many lefties who seriously argued even more absurd points, so it is difficult to tell the real thing from a fake.

    Points to you epi, if that is you.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Poe's Law: It isn't just for fundies anymore.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    I'm sure Obama would prefer that Republicans hadn't exploded the budget.


    It would help to explain just what budget are you talking about - there hasn't been a budget in 1000 days, just the spending.

    They obviously have no intention of seriously addressing it[.]>]


    Which "it"? The budget, or the deficit? Because if you meant the budget, the sole fact that Ryan issued a budget proposal means ipso facto they'r addressing it. If you mean the deficit, then you're just being disingenuous as NOBODY in DC is serious about addressing it, least of all the president.

  • Mike||

    I have a feeling he's referring to the fact that the budget deficit ballooned in the collective 20 years under Reagan, Bush and GW Bush.

    But I'm not defending the Dems... they are even more expensive in that they not only love global conquest at US taxpayer expense, they love social programs too, which would be fantastic except all the money to benefit the poor citizens of the USA is going to kill the poor citizens of country XYZ that we are supposedly "helping."

  • ||

    Obama would prefer that Republicans hadnt exploded the budget.....goddamn, how can you even make that shit up?

    I suppose if you practice inverting the truth enough it begins to get easier.

  • Tony||

    Pointless wars based on lies are not bought with fake trillions of dollars, and neither are pointless tax cuts for millionaires. The largest policy contributor to the US budget deficit are the Bush tax cuts, followed somewhat behind, but closely, by the Bush wars. Not acknowledging Republican responsibility for these numbers makes you more of a partisan hack than I will ever be.

  • LBJ||

    Pointless wars based on lies? Why didn't I think of that?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The largest policy contributor to the US budget deficit are the Bush tax cuts,"

    Wrong as usual.

    The only way ANY tax cut would ever be responsible for any deficit would be if it reduced total federal revenues below the amount needed to finance the specific activities that James Madison intended for the federal government to be doing in the first nanosecond that the ink of his signature began drying on the Constitution.

    Otherwise, ALL deficits are the result of too much government spending.

  • Tony||

    An argument so obviously ideological that it's meaningless.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And you're still wrong/

    It is a statment that is so absolutely factual you cannot refute it.

  • Mike||

    How about this? It's not 1791 anymore.

  • The Derider||

    What does the constitutionality of a law have to do with its budget implications? That's moronic.

  • Mike||

    Oh wow! So you are now holding this administration to a standard not required of any president since, say, Polk? Jackson? Ever used an interstate highway?

  • Luap Leiht||

    Yeah, right after I paid my gas taxes at the pump to fund it...

  • Tony||

    Fruthermore, letting the Bush tax cuts expire would solve all our problems, and would make social security and medicare completely solvent forever.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not a good Tony spoof. D+.

  • Tony Spoofer||

    Not gonna let me fool you again, are you?

  • Brian||

    Was Tony ever real? Sometimes he seemed... so... real! *sniff*

  • ||

    Um you seem to be the one making up numbers.

    First off, the current realistic estimates of the direct costs of the wars to date are somewhere south of 1.5 trillion.

    Second the total cost of the Bush tax cuts are estimated to be approximately $300 billion per year which after not quite 10 years of implementation (they went into effect in 02 and 04) comes out to somewhere around $2.5 trillion.

    1.5 Trillion + 2.5 trillion = 4 Trillion.

    Total Federal Debt = ~$16 Trillion.

  • ||

    Even that is overstating the case because there is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually caused any decline in revenue, that $300 billion per year number is based on simplistic calculations which assume that there is no change in behavior on the part of tax payers in response to tax law. Any Economist, will admit that the real amount that tax revenues were reduced as a result of the Bush tax cuts would have to be below that $300 billion CBO estimation.

    However when you go back and look at the actual government reciepts there is simply no evidence that there was any decline as a result of the tax changes, revenues increased every year by an amount that was in line with preexisting trends until the economy went off the cliff in 2008.

    Did the Bush tax cuts cut Federal revenue? Probably some, but probably by only a tiny fraction of the estimated $300 billion per year.

  • ||

    Best case scenario for your argument is that Bush's tax cuts and wars account for 25% of the Federal Debt.

    Oh and on the off chance that you actually know the difference between the deficit and the debt and you really meant deficit, it makes it worse for you. Bush tax cuts are estimated at $300 billion a year, Total war spending is about $150 billion a year, that is $450 billion a year when we have had deficits topping 1 Trillion a year for 4 years now

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Also, they weren't "Bush's wars" to begin with.

    The Congress authorized them and authorized spending the money on them. The Dems were all for it in the beginning when it popular to be so. Later, they flipped when the wind blew in a different direction.

  • Mike||

    Fat chance any of the chickensh*t politicians would vote against war, in that wonderful 9/11 sickness that allowed Bush's cronies, actually, make that Bush's handlers, to proclaim that anyone who wasn't for us was against us.

  • Mike||

    Not like they needed much arm twisting - to get reelected, all they'd have to say was, "I VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ!"

  • ||

    Honing my communication skills: move the fuck forward.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What about unelected radicals Warren Buffett and George Soros?

  • Mike||

    Buffett is a random (multi-billionaire) guy. Doesn't seem to be too political, doesn't have to be. Soros, however...

  • The Free Shit Brigade||

    Never cared much for the first amendment, but we'll fight tooth and nail for the free birth control that is now our most fundamental right thanks to President Obama!

  • anon||

    but we'll fight tooth and nail for the free birth control that is now our most fundamental right

    I really don't get how people don't hear that and immediately start yawning at these whiny cunts.

  • ||

    What are you on about? This women's health issue is a far more pressing concern than archaic crap like "rights" get your priorities straight!

  • wareagle||

    actually, Harsani is wrong regarding SS. It is being addressed, through reductions in the payroll tax. While I am all for people keeping more of their money, let's call that gimmick what it is: the SS Defunding Act. It's roundabout reform but give credit even when it is not sought.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    This is the only hopeful sign out there, IMO. By all means, let's eliminate the already fallacious idea that most SS and medicare recipients are getting back money they "paid in." Make it clear that the programs are welfare, pure and simple, and watch their political support start to wither.

  • ||

    What is the problem, wareagle? The government stole from you at the point of a gun and now you may not get to have the government steal from others and "return"it to you, with compounded interest? How unfair!!!

    Social Security is theft. Those who take stolen money and rationalize it because they had money stolen from them are not moral, they are simply thieves.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I think fraud or extortion are more accurate than theft. The Amish don't pay into socialist security. But the way they've rigged the game, if you don't have a Soc Sec number, you pretty much have to live like the Amish.

  • Luap Leiht||

    The Boomers are not simple thieves...they are exceptional thieves.

    Just ask my 11 year old daughter and 8 year old son.

  • ||

    The Democrats and Repubicans aren't going to reduce spending. If they did, they'd be voted out next election, after the actual regular tax-paying voters got tired of waiting for reform and return to sleep. The plundering of the treasuries is what fuels politics at all levels of government and it isn't going to stop until and unless enough people get mad enough long enough to throw these self-serving professional politicans out of office and keep the gravy train from running long enough so that the "businessmen" and "entrepreneurs" who depend upon the government at all levels for their profits find something closer to honest work. Gonna happen? Ain't gonna happen.

  • ||

    Look up the meaning before commenting.
    All businessmen are thieves?
    70% of all new jobs are created by those who you say "depend upon the government".
    Are you for real? Entrepreneurial growth would happen a hundred fold, if government would get out of the way.

  • shrike||

    Abolish the wages system

  • Luap Leiht||

    Sounds good to me. I'm pretty sure I could get everything I need for a comfortable existence by simply man whoring.

    That is, unless you out-compete me in that particular marketplace.

  • Matt||

    I wouldn't care about my debt... which i have none... if i could get loans at 2% interest and not be penalized at all for not paying the principal back until the end of the loan.

  • hermes sacs||

    sac hermes birkin hermès-Lorsque le programme au printemps de 2012, il est devenu clair, pastels lesaccessoires les plus importants, la tendance de cette saison, j’ai été un peu déçu.Pastels ne se sentent pas excité ou tendances printanières énergétiques sont souvent la il ya, j’ai fait une description mentale de ne jamais acheté à l’époque et les efforts, laissez-moi acheter votre saison.sac hermes birkin hermès- Puis, j’ai vu à la menthe à main en cuirHermès Birkin, a complètement changé mon esprit. Qui veut avoir deviné le prince des ténèbres Birkin sac pour apporter mon côté du soleil?

  • sac birkin hermes prix||

    Vous pouvez également obtenir python très cher à moins de 200 $ pour voir lebudget en fonction de vos goûts personnels et les accessoires. SiyouPer-centu2019ve un moyen peu plus généreux, et Proenza peuvent accueillir, et, bien sûr. Que vous soyez un ton neutre ou le néon, ou PS1s fans PS11s nousu2026didn’t laissez vous le savez, ces sacs est polyvalent?

  • sac hermes pas cher||

    Partout où je vais à New York ou à qui je parle avec, une fois les gens à trouver ce que je fais réellement pour gagner sa vie, sacs hermes prix la majorité d’entre eux me demandent essentiellement savoir où ils sont en mesure d’obtenir un sac Hermes, quelques choses que je pense de le sac Hermès qu’ils veulent acheter et si je suis propriétaire d’un sac Hermes moi-même. Une fois wePercentu2019ve noté plus sur BagThatStyle, il semble que se pose une nouvelle célébrité portant une tous les jours, et à en juger par les longues listes de pré-commande dans les magasins, aucun du hermès sac va réduire de sitôt.

  • hermes sacs||

    En gardant cela à l’esprit,hermes sacs j’ai fait quelques sluething Internet et de penser aux images les plus efficaces disponibles sur Hermes pré-automne 2011 Sacs à main.Cela inclut des tirs de prévisualisation-pratiquants qui ont été publiés sur Twitter et Facebook,hermes sacs et aussi un coup d’œil sur les images officielles marques de la collection. Si vous repérez tout ce que nous avons manqué la navigation sur le web, dites-nous et que nous allons ajouter ces téléphones de la galerie.sacs hermes kelly

  • Luap Leiht||

    Lorum ipsum right back atcha!

    Con Queso.

  • ||

    The Democrates are willing to steal heaven and earth for the they care about... There fixed that for ya

  • ||

    "... superb non-starters, such as the repeals of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare and the complete privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ..."

    Why are those non-starters? There can be no return to constitutional limited government without these first steps.

  • Luap Leiht||

    I think you answered your own question as to why those are non-starters.

    Constitutional limited government is not a place the federal government wants to go.

  • ||

    “The administration isn't serious about the debt, because like most politicians, Barack Obama doesn't care. Not a whit. Democrats are willing to move heaven and earth for the things they do care about. They were prepared to whip up political turmoil and put the presidency and Congress on the line to pass Obamacare. Yet they won't risk offering a budget, lest anyone glimpse their priorities. And we could tax all the millionaires into poverty, and it wouldn't make a dent without reforming spending.”

  • ||

    The above quote is taken from the article. Demonrats have no concern for to create a budget and are quite happy to arrive at a total fiscal collapse of the IOUSA. Think about that, and let it sink in. This is no incidental, no accident but willful destruction of a country’s economy and assests-personal and public. It is subversion and treason, as such a country then becomes more vulnerable to its enemies. The long standing dream of One World/Trans-national Progressives/Liberals/Democrats/Marxists/Communists/Socialists is to destroy nations and nationalism in order to create the Supra-national government, i.e., the United Useless Nations, much like the European Union, which has erased the power and autonomy of individual European nation states.

    Here's the Freudian Slip moment caught on video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement