creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
14 May 2013
Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS

In case you're hiding under a rock, you should know that an audit conducted by the inspector general for the … Read More.

10 May 2013
There's Way Too Much Administration Smoke on Benghazi

A former National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, is representative of the arrogance of the Obama … Read More.

7 May 2013
The Most Incorrigibly Political and America-bashing President

President Barack Obama has to be the most partisan and most ideological president we've seen in a long, long time.… Read More.

GOP Must Launch Reality Offensive

Comment

How can anyone take President Obama seriously when he tells us our national debt is no big deal? Well, we have to take him seriously, because, unserious thinking or not, he has serious power, including the power to obstruct progress on reducing the debt.

I'm not making this up, of course, which is too bad because it illustrates why it is so hard for Republicans to work with this man. He neither views the fiscal world from the same lens nor shares the goal of significant debt reduction.

In an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Obama said, "We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it's going to be in a sustainable place."

Not only is that delusional on its face based on what we already know but there is no telling what kinds of financial strains his favorite monster, Obamacare, is going to have on the debt or what kinds of extraordinary circumstances might necessitate spending surges over the next decade.

But we needn't speculate about unknowns, because the knowns are horrifying enough. The enormity of our annual interest payments on the debt alone renders Obama's dismissiveness about the debt surreal.

Obama carried his bizarre insouciance about the debt into his photo op meetings with congressional Republicans as part of his cynically conceived "charm offensive." According to Roll Call, Obama indicated to Republicans that "balancing the budget over the next 10 years is not on his priority list."

Let's stop right there. Please tell me, you romantic advocates for bipartisan harmony, how the GOP can work with a man to solve an undeniable debt crisis when his blind apathy makes Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman look engaged?

House Speaker John Boehner framed the problem quite accurately when he summarized the parties' respective positions. "Republicans want to balance the budget. The president doesn't," said Boehner. "Republicans want to solve our long-term debt problem. The president doesn't. We want to unlock our energy resources to put more Americans back to work. The president doesn't."

So what does Obama propose to do about this non-problem that Republicans are coercing him into dealing with? Simple: He'll agree to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue.

Just swell. Tell me the last time Obama or any other Democrat at the federal level honored his commitment to reduce spending in exchange for tax increases? Republicans have repeatedly fallen for this ploy and given in to immediate tax hikes, only to see Democrats renege on their promises to cut spending.

But it's actually worse than before because we have abundant evidence that Democrats don't speak the same language as Webster's-friendly humans do when it comes to spending cuts.

To them, "cuts" doesn't mean "cuts" any more than "is" meant "is" to Bill Clinton. Obama's budget gurus are masters of budget gimmicks and double counting to achieve cuts on paper (call them "paper cuts") that are no more real than my professional basketball career.

In other words, even if Obama honored an agreement to impose "cuts" in exchange for yet more tax increases, he wouldn't be cutting anything, because his promised cuts are smoke and mirrors. To hear him tell the story, he's already made trillions of dollars' worth of cuts.

But you can bank on the fact that his coveted tax increases would be real and that they would further burden those still contributing to the economy, with no guarantee that they would increase revenues at all. They would, however, likely harm the economy and thus further expand the dependency state.

The recently released budget that Senate Democrats finally produced, four years late, underscores the Democrats' unseriousness about the debt and spending cuts. The proposed budget would extract nearly $1 trillion more in new taxes and supposedly include an equal amount in cuts. But true to Democrats' form, the proposed "cuts" include $240 billion in war spending that wasn't projected and $242 billion in saved interest expenses on the debt based on fantasy debt savings from the tax increases.

Republicans need to launch a 24/7 public campaign blitz explaining Paul Ryan's new budget, which is based on real and specific numbers and proposes to balance the budget in 10 years and make structural changes to our entitlement programs to put them on a sustainable path.

Democrats and liberal journalists are already out in force, savaging Ryan and the other Republicans — again — for their good faith effort to save the nation from a Grecian-style bankruptcy.

I am convinced that if the Republicans will strike back with as much fervor as Obama constantly hits them and take their winning case to the people, the people will finally learn the truth: that Ryan's plan would not throw seniors or the poor under the bus and is, in fact, their best chance for the future and certainly the best hope currently on the table to restore America's solvency.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "The Great Destroyer," reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
But why are you so convinced? You've mentioned how Obama is not serious about debt reduction. I'll give you that, he's not. But how do you know for sure that the American people are for debt reduction when so many of them get "free stuff"?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:24 AM
Re: Chris McCoy;... Sir, the commonwelath itself is so much free stuff... Since there has been the income tax, the support of government has been taken off the commonwealth which has always been sold cheap in order to be taxed...The effect of taxes on labor have been to lower its cost, and to raise the cost of money, and to raise the price of property beyond what anyone working can pay for it except with a mortgage and a great deal of interest...Even while the necessity of working harder for wages and profit and taxes -lowered wages, the lower wages of men forced more women into the workforce, lowering wages still further... All the while, competition for foreign markets increased, and wars for markets or defense of them presented their inevitable bill... And what should be a blessing for any society: Automation, when it was turned to higher profits simply reduced the labor necessary in every product, and this did not mean more free time for workers, but less workers working more and harder for less gain...
Those people thrown onto the support of the government by choices of self interest by rich people are not there for free stuff, and may well feel put upon having to ask for what they get...Those people having little may realize their children need a good education in order to claw their way into a better life; and while it is unlikely they will ever recieve the quality of education those with money can afford, it cannot be argued that only the educated person benefits from his education... It is easier to say that the whole society benefits from educated people and general education as long as those so educated are not deprived of their morals as the price of education...
It could well be argued that a lot of the costs essential to employment are the burden of working people, but because of the multi state structure of our society, that we must bear the burden of taxes businesses dump onto local populations...I pay for roads I little use, but because I use them a little, paying for them with gasoline taxes and auto registrations does not amount to much... But the roads I help to build need to be built for great weights, far more than I could possibly bring to bear... Does it help that no other state in the area allows such great weights or large loads without an army of officers following, and an expensive permit process??? We let our roads get trashed for business and their benefit, and see the cost loaded onto average people who need little to get around or supply their needs... They use our infrastructure and when the cost gets too great, they move on and leave us with the junk... So who wants free???
People deprived of jobs are deprived of a means of self expression... Creation can be recreation, but it has to be able to pay for what it destroys and burns up, like the fuel and time getting there, gloves, or other consumables... On the one hand our tax structure has driven wages down, and on the other hand the desire for profit has loaded the cost of refuse humanity onto the government; and if all of this were charged to those making the profit, it would take all of the profit out of what they do because it increases, short term, their profits...
On the one hand; to have a good society the society must be able to afford some luxury... Leisure is the beginning of philosophy... But too much of people doing nothing is as bad as too few people doing nothing because the basic cost of each life is the same, and it is better if each person supports themselves...
The national debt is not a real problem... It is a problem exactly proportional to the unwillingness of the rich to admit that capitalism is a bust, as the Marxist said it was long ago...Do the rich think the poor and working people can pay??? No; and they know better... They know their profits cannot support the country either, and empire costs more than it brings in... The terrible national debt is simply a ruse to see if the American people are stupid enough to give up the commonwealth and all their civil rights as the price of discharging that debt that will no sooner be paid, than run up on them again... It ain't my debt... It is not my economy or I would run it better... It is not my country, or I would govern it better...
The reality of which Mr. Limbaugh speaks is simple enough... The bankruptcy of the government as the front of the economy is only the symptom of a failure of free enterprise which has been free to load its losses and expenses onto government to keep itself in the black... All you need to do to cure the problem is take government away from business and the support of business, and begin with government to tax business and govern business...If you want to drive down the price of property and money; then tax it, and you will see the rich part with it cheap...Making that stuff a bank of wealth only means none of the common people will have any of it...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:25 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Limbaugh
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 15 May 2013
Ben Shapiro
Ben ShapiroUpdated 15 May 2013
Joseph Farah
Joseph FarahUpdated 15 May 2013

24 Nov 2007 Reports of Bush Insider Defections Greatly Exaggerated

7 Jan 2011 Pelosi's Final Tall Tale as Speaker

29 Jun 2007 Babbin: "In the Words of Our Enemies"