creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Ben Shapiro
Ben Shapiro
27 Aug 2014
Those Who Go Unsung

The vast majority of Americans have never met Phil Weinberg. But that isn't because he's unimportant. It's … Read More.

20 Aug 2014
The Great Racial Disconnect on Police

On Monday, Rasmussen released a poll of Americans regarding the guilt or innocence of Officer Darren Wilson, … Read More.

13 Aug 2014
Let's Get Serious About Mental Illness

Robin Williams' suicide this week shook up people across the political spectrum — and for good reason. … Read More.

Obama's Budget: It's My Money, America

Comment

On Monday, President Obama released his budget to the world. As per his usual Orwellian arrangement, Obama called this budget his attempt to implement "fiscal responsibility." Obama's attempt at "fiscal responsibility" works about as well as Madonna's attempts at virginity.

Underlying his massive $3.8 trillion proposal, which also calls for tax increases amounting to nearly $2 trillion, is the overwhelming sense that President Obama thinks this is his money to spend. How else to explain his blithe assurances that his budget will ensure that everyone "gets a fair share ... does their fair share ... plays by the same rules"? Did we suddenly elect him third-grade teacher of the United States? Or does a dictator determine what a "fair share" means?

Here's what Obama really means by fair: He gets re-elected, and you get shafted. His budget cuts virtually nothing and increases the budget in a variety of eye-opening ways. Obama's team requests $1 billion for the Social Security Administration, for example, just to "ensure benefits are paid to the right person and in the right amount." Apparently, the SSA has been sending checks to people who aren't disabled — and now it wants to spend money to stop that practice. The Dewey Decimal System was invented a century ago to stop confusion with regard to books. Now it takes us $1 billion to stop the government from sending checks to the wrong people.

Obama insists that this $1 billion investment will result in $47.9 billion in savings. Somehow, I doubt that math. When my wife goes to Macy's and then calls, telling me how she's saved several hundred dollars, I know to get ready for a big hit on the monthly credit card. The same holds true with government "savings." When they're saving us money, they're really just spending it.

It's not just Obama's money-wasting ideas embedded in this plan. It's blatant class warfare and campaign rhetoric. Take, for instance, his Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee: a 10-year, $61 billion excise from financial firms "to compensate the American people for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street, as well as to discourage excessive risk-taking."

First, you have to love it when the president of the United States names proposals after whoever he's going to blame.

Next time, he should propose the It's Bush's Fault Fee, directed against wealthy people across the country. The very title of the initiative shows Obama's motive: He wants Wall Street to take it on the chin for their bad behavior, ignoring the role of government in pushing and promoting that behavior.

Second, Obama has no constitutional authority for anything like this. In the budget, Obama contends that the Troubled Assets Relief Program provided for measures taking money back from the banks — but his proposal itself does not even stipulate that those being taxed have to have been recipients of TARP money to begin with.

Finally, the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is predicated on the notion that the banks owe everybody a lot of money. They do. But not according to Obama, whose administration has been claiming for years that the TARP money was paid back, and actually turned a profit for the taxpayer (So where's my check?). If they have, why does Obama now claim that he needs the banks to pony up to the table I order at to make taxpayers whole?

Obama packed his budget with such idiosyncratic idiocies. He cut a weather satellite system for the Pentagon but funded one for the Department of Commerce. He says he's going to cut subsidies for the oil and gas companies, but he's raising them for more non-existent green energy production, which will presumably fuel our unicorns. He wants to provide $800 million to our terrorist friends in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but wants to cut our defense budget.

What makes him think he can do all this? Well, it's his money, stupid. You're just working for him. So work harder. His palms are itchy.

The American people are not nearly as stupid as Obama seems to believe. Just because he says that $3.8 trillion worth of mostly useless spending is vital doesn't mean it is. Just because he says it's fiscally responsible to continue revving up spending doesn't mean it is. And just because he says he respects our money doesn't mean he does.

Ben Shapiro, 28, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and Editor-At-Large for the Breitbart websites. He is the four-time bestselling author of "Primetime Propaganda." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
And just because you're edjamacated doesn't mean you're smart. The only people getting shafted (if that is the case) are those that have been doing the shafting. You're quite content to keep the status quo, let the wealthy keep their money and let the rest of us fight it out.
Your statement: "What makes him think he can do all this? Well, it's his money, stupid. You're just working for him. So work harder. His palms are itchy."
If your sarcastic quote could be attributed to any recent President, look no further than the Bush years. What about the Reagan years? oh my, with his help we had the Savings & Loan crisis and the '87 stock market crash. That trickle down theory? Must have dried up somewhere around your pocket. It never quite reached the pockets of me or mine. To continue: The federal budget ran a deficit every year Gerald Ford was President. And Nixon, well, enough said.
The White House is a glass house, throw a stone and who knows what you'll hit.
Comment: #1
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:11 AM
The only people getting shafted (if that is the case) are those who have been doing the shafting. You're quite content to keep the status quo, let the wealthy keep their money and let the rest of us fight it out.
Your statement: "What makes him think he can do all this? Well, it's his money, stupid. You're just working for him. So work harder. His palms are itchy."
If your sarcastic quote could be attributed to any recent President, look no further than the Bush years. What about the Reagan years? oh my, with his help we had the Savings & Loan crisis and the '87 stock market crash. That trickle down theory? Must have dried up somewhere around your pocket. It never quite reached the pockets of me or mine. To continue: The federal budget ran a deficit every year Gerald Ford was President. True to the GOP Republican "I have mine so screw you" credo, when New York City was in trouble on his watch, he refused the bail out! Did it matter that the mayor of New York City was a Democrat? Well, you decide. Nixon,... well, enough said.
The White House is a glass house, throw a stone and who knows who or what you'll hit.
Comment: #2
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:28 AM
Some would defend this President by attacking Nixon. He left office 39 years ago. Why not drag Fillnore into the discussion of this supposed current event? One comment brought up Reagan, left office 24 years ago. "Trickle down", a term originating from the left? "It never quite reached the pockets of me or mine." Really? In 24 years you've accomplished, managed, and retained nothing? Through 4 presidents? Are you getting any traction with this one? I've had two fairly successful careers in that time, and a third during the latter 7 years of the 70's. Maybe the " me or mine" referred too are neither "edjamacated" or smart. Or thrifty. Or dilligent. Certainly not happy that America didn't purchase them a Rolls Royce, stock the refrigerator, pay the electric and tip the maid. Adhere to Sanger's principles if this is the best you and yours can do. A lot of us are not rich but are not complaining. This President has plenty of shortcomings, unless 8% unemployment, the best number of his term, is suddenly indicative of great success. There is room for criticism from educated and successful people, and yes we know Henry VIII wasn't the ideal leader.

The glass house is in Dearborn. Throw a stone into the Potomac and you risk drowning a liberal's brain.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom
Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:12 AM
"Some would define stating facts as an attack" was said recently by one of the Republican nominees. Some would say I got mine, stop whining cause you didn't get yours. Others would say I did get mine and I honor the principles of altruism for those who didn't have the same good fortune. Some place greater value on people than things and some place greater value on things than people. Some have no values but we all have value. To each his own.
Comment: #4
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:20 PM
I would tolss in the circular file comments made by any dweeb still harping on Bush. Your fine article makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Yvonne Prelutsky
Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:34 PM
Did you know that Republicans give 35% more to charity than Democrats? Look it up. It's easy to talk about altruism if it is only a word, or merely a demand placed upon others. Can't give if you forgot to take care of yourself. Maybe in order to truly value others one must first truly value self. Don't kid yourself that you would take a bullet for a stranger. To stick up people and demand altruism from them is still robbery. Robbery is for the un-principled, even if you want to call it altruism. As a liberal would say, "Who are you to tell me how to live my life? You can't tell me what is right or wrong!" You know that is what they would say, but they won't return that honor, no they will call others unprincipled and chide them for not valuing people, or being altruistic enough to suit the liberal at hand. Altruism. Don't liberals adore their isms?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Tom
Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:21 PM
If history is an indication of things to come, think about the first 150 years of this contry. No federal income tax. No 73,000 page tax code. And we were the worlds economic and military superpower. Now that taxes and the federal reserve have had decades to take their destructive toll, we are now 16 trillion in debt and Red China is number 1. Look at Europe. Broke as broke can be. How? Welfare states, entitlement, and out-of-control spending. The same path we are headed down.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:32 AM
Actually, about half of that money that the gummint wants to give away isn't our momey--it was borrowed from the Chinese. We only get to pay the interest on it.
Comment: #8
Posted by: partsmom
Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:44 PM
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
Ben Shapiro
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 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 2 3 4 5 6
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
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 2 Sep 2014
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 1 Sep 2014

7 Oct 2009 Obama in Afghanistan: Losing a War to Reassure his Re-Election

19 Feb 2014 The Left Preaches the Great Apocalypse of Global Warming

20 Jul 2011 Rick Perry's Christianity is Good for America