The Budget, Partisans and Bin LadenDear Mark: President Obama has introduced his budget for fiscal 2011that includes $1.6 trillion in deficit spending. Obama continues to blame George W. Bush for the mess we are in because of the budget deficit he inherited. How do I defend against this argument? — Budget Buster in Boulder Dear Buster: It is difficult to defend the Republicans during the Bush administration, as they virtually did nothing to rein in Congress's addiction to spending over his two terms. Unfortunately, President Bush did in fact leave President Obama a deficit of about $450 billion, but not the $1.3 trillion figure Obama bandies about. Not to make excuses, but Bush's deficit included two wars and the economic fallout from the 9-11 attacks. Don't forget the culpability of Democrats, as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress in 2006. Simply put, President Obama has inflated his "inheritance" in order to make his proposed $1.6 trillion deficit seem more palatable to the public. The $1.3 trillion figure Obama cites is full of "fuzzy math." He includes the $750 billion TARP bailout, but technically he can't use that number anymore because his administration constantly brags that TARP has been paid back with interest. The $1.3 trillion figure also includes the earmark-laden $410 billion 2009 Omnibus spending package the Democrat-controlled Congress passed and that Obama himself signed into law. How can he blame Bush for that one with a straight face? I can't begin to calculate where Obama's $787 billion stimulus package fits into his "inheritance." Obama was sent to the White House to "change" the spending habits in Washington not enable them, yet his $3.8 trillion proposed budget is long on tax increases and short on deficit reduction.
Dear Mark: I am confused about the terms partisan, bipartisan and nonpartisan? Politicians make them all out to sound bad. What is the difference? — Inquiring in Indiana Dear Inquiring: Here's an illustration. Party "A" says the sky is blue, while Party "B" says the sky is red. "A" takes "B" outside and shows "B" that the sky is in fact blue. "B" attacks "A" for being partisan. "B" then tells "A" that they can both call the sky purple and the country will think they are bipartisan. "A" knows the sky isn't purple and refuses to support the legislation. "B" then accuses "A" of practicing partisan politics and obstructing progress. Meanwhile, a nonpartisan think tank comes out with a study proving the sky is blue. Party "B" then attacks the think tank for being partisan because one of its directors once was an official with Party "A." Does that help? Dear Mark: Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is at it again with another tape. This time, he has the nerve to lecture us about global warming. Why doesn't he just stick to what he knows best, terrorism? — Target the Terrorist in Tacoma Dear Target: Bin Laden is looking for any issue that could divide our country, and his PR firm must have told him that climate change is a hot-button issue here in the states. Apparently, the tape also revealed bin Laden's pick for the Academy Awards ("Avatar") and his thoughts on the current season of "American Idol." The al-Qaida leader must have a good internet connection in his cave. Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to marklevy92@aol.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
