President Obama's Weekly Address - April 6, 2013

The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama's Budget Address

The Country We Believe In

Eric Cantor is a Douchebag

It has only taken a matter of three months as the majority in the House of Representatives for House Majority "Leader" Eric Cantor to render himself completely irrelevant. His imitation of an adolescent power hungry school hall monitor was on full display today when he stated without hesitation that if the Senate does not act on the HR1 after the House passes the... wait for it... "Prevention of a Government Shutdown Act," the spending cuts in HR1 will become the law of the land.

I actually feel sorry for Cantor, being deprived by his parents as a child the pleasure of the lessons learned from Schoolhouse Rock on how a bill becomes a law. Add to that the fact that he's gotten this far in American politics without the apparent knowledge of how the American system of checks and balances works, and you see before you the de-facto running mate for Michele Bachmann's presidential aspirations. After all, you don't want to look smarter than your top of the ticket running mate (see McCain/Palin '08).

But as a refresher, here's a cartoon made that even 9-year olds supposedly understood.



But it seems Eric Cantor thinks that this is how to treat a bill.



Now you may think me naive to believe that this is not a political ploy by Cantor to try and deflect any blame from the GOP when the government shutdown happens. And it will happen. But I'm going to take Cantor at his word and believe that he is as moronic as he sounds if he thinks that non-action by the Senate of a bill passed by the House by a certain deadline will tacitly make both that bill and the bill it is referencing, passed by only one half of one branch of government and neither signed by the President, the law of the land.

Here's Cantor in his own words, pissing all over the Constitution.



Is it me, or does it seem that the majority of Republican party is going batshit crazy simultaneously? You really can't make this shit up. If you were to write this scenario as a screenplay, you'd be laughed out of Hollywood for being completely unrealistic... and that's the same industry that produced and released Showgirls.

Serious Republicans

Currently, there are over 500 amendments being added to the proposed budget in the House. FIVE HUNDRED?! Why so many? Well, here's a reason:

On Monday, [Representative Steve Womack (R-AK)] attempted to tack on an amendment to the proposed budget that would prohibit the president’s Teleprompter from receiving financial support.

This is some very serious politicking, huh? I suppose you get the government you voted for, don't you...

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 12, 2011

"It's Time Washington Acted as Responsibly as Our Families Do"

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 13, 2010

Exports & Earmarks

Why I Chose Correctly On November 4th

I am so glad John McCain is still a Senator and not a President. Here's a "tweet" I just received.

Here's my response.



This is just a reminder for those of you who don't remember the old curmudgeon yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

Specter Stripped of Seniority... And BITCHES About It!

Let me get this straight. Arlen Specter switches parties for political expediency, tells President Obama that he is "a loyal Democrat," that he supports the President's agenda, and supposedly worked out a deal with Harry Reid to keep his seniority on the committee chairs he holds.

Apparently, Specter still thinks that the backstabbing GOP ways are the modus operandi of the Democratic Party because within the first week of having a 'D' after his name, Specter has voted against Obama's budget, voted against the rewriting of the bankruptcy bill, backtracked on his "loyal Democrat" statement on Meet The Stretch and what apparently broke the donkey's back, when questioned if he cared about the absence of any Jews in the Republican Senate, made this amazingly stupid statement:

I sure do. There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

Arlen, just because the Democratic Party's symbol is a donkey doesn't mean you have to act like a jackass. You switched parties because your "loyal" GOP brothers gave you shit about your stimulus vote after 29 years as a Republican in the Senate and told you they weren't supporting you, and yet you want the courts to overturn the legal results in the Minnesota Senate election in which Al Franken (who is Jewish, by the way!) narrowly won the popular vote? This isn't Florida in 2000 all over again, Arlen. And then you have the temerity to say you misspoke because of all the hoopla surrounding your party switch?

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

New teammates? How fucking stupid do you think we are? Did you just wake up that morning and happened to forget that you were the focal point of one of the biggest political news stories of the year?; you forgot the waves you made by crossing to the other side what, like misplacing your keys when speaking of a Coleman win? You thought you were still a Republican? Let me rephrase that: You forgot to speak like a Democrat? Because we all know you are still a Republican at heart.

And it's that's last point that has caused the Senate to decide to strip you of your seniority. It only took you one week to blow it. You now have less seniority than Roland Burris for crissake! How does it feel, Arlen? Was it worth it? And still, you have the balls to bitch about it.

"It was understood that the issue of subcommittee chairmanships would not be decided until after the 2010 election. Some members of the caucus have raised concerns about my seniority, so the caucus will vote on my seniority at the same time subcommittee chairmanships are confirmed after the 2010 election. I am confident my seniority will be maintained under the arrangement I worked out with Sen. Reid."

Not so fast, many in the party said. Concerned with Specter's actions -- and possibly by his cocky insistence to David Gregory on "Meet the Press" that his seniority was an "entitlement" -- members decided to stash the 29-year veteran at the far end of the committee table.

There's still plenty of time to backtrack on you and support Joe Sestak in 2010, Arlen. If you fuck with the donkey, sometimes you get kicked in the head. Deal with it.

GOP Budget Plan: Surprised?

Would anyone really be surprised if they found out that the GOP "blueprint" budget plan as an alternative to President Obama's plan would cost more and actually raise taxes for the poorest families while giving yet more tax breaks to the top 1% of income earners? I didn't think so either.

Citizens for Tax Justice crunched the numbers (PDF). They conclude that a quarter of all households, most of them poor, would pay more taxes under the GOP plan, while the richest one percent would pay $100,000 less.

Here's the PDF.

(H/T DailyKos)

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 21, 2009

A Budget Equal to the Task Before Us

GOP Budget Message: "Homina Homina Homina"

Eric "The Squirrel" Cantor appeared on Meet The Press today to poo-poo Poresident Obama's budget while bringing up the fictional train from Disneyland to Las Vegas again, but he did say that the GOP was going to offer an alternative budget proposal.

MR. GREGORY: Are you going to vote for the president's budget?

REP. CANTOR: Listen, the budget process, as you know, David, is one that has just begun on Capitol Hill. There is a lot of, I think, reticence to embrace his budget on both sides of the aisle. This budget, frankly, doesn't have the focus that we need right now in this economy. The focus should be, job one, fixing this banking system and trying to get jobs created again.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But the, but the budget says there's $750 billion to help capitalize the banks. You, you have not offered a figure on what you think is necessary to do that, other than saying you got to do something to get private capital in.

REP. CANTOR: David, David, the Republicans will have a plan.

Meanwhile in Bensonhurst, Mitch "The Fish" McConnell was doing his best Ralph Kramden impersonation on This Week with George Snuffleupagus.

George Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed McConnell for a comprehensive Republican alternative budget. Each time, McConnell simply attacked Obama’s plan. He said that he and his colleagues would be offering amendments to “reframe” what the Democrats have proposed, but don’t plan on offering a comprehensive plan:

McCONNELL: [W]e are going to offer a number of amendments to the Democratic proposal. […]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But shouldn’t you have a comprehensive approach that lays out the trade-offs? If you just have rifle-shot amendments, you don’t have to make all the trade-offs that you have to make in an overall budget.

McCONNELL: Well, we’re just sort of getting down in the weeds here about procedure. Through the amendment process, we would absolutely reformulate the Democratic plan. Whether you have a comprehensive approach or whether you offer an amendment is something a parliamentarian can debate.

So what's the plan? Come up with an alternative, comprehensive plan to show you really want to play ball, or weaken the Democratic plan with crap ass amendments? Enjoy the wilderness, boys.

Earmark Hypocrites

There's something to be said for John McCain railing against earmarks. And he has every right to complain about wasteful spending tacked on to a budget that would bring monies home to certain districts. After all, McCain had not attached a single earmark to the bill, whether as a solo project or in conjunction with other Senators.

But what about some of the others that have taken the opportunity to take the stage, have the vapors and shake their fists in a rage over the outrageous "pork"?

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) “...At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means."

Senator Bayh had $1,118,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime."

Senator McConnell had $51,186,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R): "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

Senator Inhofe had $53,133,500 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Of the 35 Senators that voted against the bill, 28 of them had solo earmarks included in the bill. Of those 28 Senators, 27 were so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans and only one was a Democrat.

Here's the list:

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million) -Democrat
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

Total: $234 million. This is only for solo earmarks. This doesn't include co-sponsored earmarks that account for about $7.7 billion in spending.

But here's the thing: earmarks aren't necessarily a bad thing. You need that bridge repaired in your district? Want to add speed bumps by the grade school? Does the park that has fallen into disrepair need an overhaul to detract undesirables from loitering and provide a much needed playground in the area? All those are worthwhile items and earmarks can provide federal funding for certain needs that can't be afforded by local government revenues.

So why flip out over the earmarks and call them pork and wasteful spending? Well, how else to pose as a fiscal conservative and have soundbites ready for your next campaign commercial? How else are you suppose to show your Republican outrage at the way Washington works, wag your finger at President Obama and accuse him of not keeping campaign promises?

Speaking of campaign promises, let's get back to Senator McCain. Unless you live in a cave, you've probably seen the 15 second loop of McCain on the Senate floor waving his freak arms and shouting, "So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change" and all too stiffly, as if reading stage direction, slamming the bill with his hand. Well, like I said, McCain can argue against earmarks because he hasn't signed on for any, even though he can let other politicians in his state do the dirty work to the tune of $54.6 million in earmarks for Arizona.

But let's not confuse who made what promise. It was Senator McCain, while running for President who said he'd "make famous" the procurers of earmarks while waving his magic Sharpie™.



That was your promise, Senator McCain, not President Obama's. Besides the fact that your outrage at the earmarks this year account for less than 2% of the total bill. Are you saying that we can balance the budget with a 2% cut? I think I'll leave the economics to the professionals instead of listening to Mr. The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Still Strong.

President Obama promised transparent earmark reform and to scale back earmark spending to pre-1994 levels, when the Republican Party took over control of Congress. That year, Congress spent $7.8 billion on earmarks. The new $410 billion Omnibus bill? $7.7 billion in earmarks. Mission accomplished, if you will. Next year we plan to see the remainder of his promise to make all earmarks transparent and accessible.

Earmarks By The Numbers

The Omnibus bill currently being debated in the Senate is being attack by the right as just more pork with thousands of earmarks categorized as wasteful spending. But the people doing the most talking account for practically half of all the earmarks. That's right, almost half.

Bob Cesca: Okay, so it's time for another wingnut revolution (get a permit!) to protest the staggering amount of pork in the omnibus bill that's moving through Congress right now. So let's go, wingnuts. Get your little tea bags and your awesome signs and get going.

Here are the top three offenders (solo earmarks):
1) Senator Byrd (D-W.Va.) - $123 million
But Byrd supports the earmark system, so of course he's going to take advantage. He always does. But look...
2) Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) - $114 million
3) Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) - $86 million

Senator Inhofe? $53 million. Senator Cochran? $76 million. Senator McConnell? $51 million.

Could this be correct? I don't doubt that Cesca's numbers are wrong, but you'd think that the fiscally responsible Republicans would tone down the rhetoric if they were just as guilty of adding earmarks to the 2009 Budget. But I tend to forget that for the most part, they are idiots.

So here's what I found when breaking down the numbers (Excel file) provided by the non partisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense even further:

SOLO EARMARKS:
6 of the top 10 solo earmark procurers were Republicans for a total of $454.4 million.
The remaining 4 Democrats in the top 10: $312.9 million.

Of the 78 Senators asking for solo earmarks, 40 were Republican.
Of the 22 Senators that didn't ask for solo earmarks, only 5 were Republican.
Of the seven Senators that didn't ask for ANY earmarks, only one was Republican.

Total amount for 55* Democratic Senators: $681.3 million.
Total amount for 45* Republican Senators: $665.8 million.

EARMARKS (SOLO AND WITH OTHER MEMBERS):
Democrats: 3,956 earmarks for a total of $4.75 billion.
Republicans: 3,536 earmarks for a total of $4.6 billion.

PERCENTAGES:
Democrats: 52.8% of earmarks totaling 50.8% of the money.
Republicans: 47.2% of earmarks totaling 49.2% of the money.

So there you have it. The fiscally responsible Republicans in the Senate who have been front and center complaining about earmarks as pork account for basically HALF of the earmarks... with less members.

But we're supposed to take them seriously as they grovel at the feet of Rush Limbaugh, see Bobby Jindal as the future of the their party and play identity politics with their choices of Sarah Palin and Michael Steele.

* list includes members that are no longer in the Senate.

The Real Deficit

Ever wonder why no one made a big stink on the television invention about the vast amounts of money being used for Iraq and Afghanistan but wasn't included in the budget? George W. Bush would call it "emergency funding" or a "war supplemental" bill. They'd allocate billions and billions of dollars to the war on terror but not really show it on their balance sheets. They essentially had two sets of books. Well not anymore.

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

...Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”

The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”

“The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

VOTE!

This is the time. There has arguably never been a more important election in the past hundred years in the history of our nation, quite possibly even since our country was founded. I know that may sound over the top or melodramatic, but think about it. Think about how we find ourselves as a nation at this moment in our history.

We find ourselves in the middle of waging two wars that has spread thin our once mighty military to the breaking point. One side looks to end the war in a logical, careful fashion and bring our men and women in uniform home, while the other side would have us continue the war indefinitely; a war built on a false premise through deception and faulty intelligence against a country that never attacked us.

We find ourselves in the midst of a deepening financial crisis, with a booming budget deficit, a nearly ten TRILLION dollar national debt; record job loss and obscenely high home foreclosures that threaten the middle class in America which thrived only 10 short years ago.

We find ourselves falling prey to health insurance companies whose premiums have increased at twice the rate of inflation in just the last year alone. Over 47 million Americans (and rising) go without health insurance in the only industrialized nation that doesn't cover all of it's citizens, yet pays six times more per capita than any of its peers - the U.S. now spends more on health care than it does on food.

We find ourselves still addicted to oil. Our track marks will not fade away so long as we need 25% of the earth's oil production but only provide 3% of it ourselves. We are a nation that develops solar panels and ships them overseas to other countries. One side wants to find alternative sources of energy to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign sources while he other side thinks that increased oil production in the U.S. will ween us off of our need for the dealers cloaked in the suits of Big Oil.

I could go on and on, but after almost two years of debating and campaigning, you've probably heard it all. If you haven't, then you haven't been paying attention. If you come to this site on a regular basis, then you know where I stand on the issues and who I'm planning to vote for, but I'll leave you with some some poetic words written by the Rude One because if the issues don't grab you, maybe this will:

What we're witnessing this election season is the ultimate triumph of American assholism: don't you fuckin' tell us we can't change things. Maybe the end result of selfishness is self-empowerment, the belief that, yeah, goddamnit, we are important enough to transform this shit. Because this ain't about McCain, this ain't about Obama. It's about us. That's what Obama has tapped into, and that's what we have responded to. Barack Obama hasn't asked us to transcend our asshole ways. He's asked us to use them, to turn the tools of egotistical expression into weapons, to act like righteous motherfuckers to those who have power. Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground and the SDS were fuckin' jerks. The civil rights marchers were rude and impolite to the status quo.

Now is the time, this final confluence of events, that has allowed us to be able to say, "How dare you have done this to us. How fucking dare you." It's why for so, so many people race doesn't matter. It's why even the South and West are in play this year. Even an asshole can do what's right.

No policy talk here. No comparisons with McCain. Let's keep this clear: By making Barack Obama president, we return to a simple American idea, one that the Founders embraced when they were such jack-offs to the British: this land is our land, my land, your land. But it ain't fuckin' their land.

This is the time. Make your voice heard. Vote.

I'm Broadway Carl and I approve this message.

Another Smear E-Mail in a Never-Ending Series: Iraq Safer Than Chicago

Another pathetic attempt to make is seem like all is going well in Iraq, children are singing, birds are chirping, dogs and cats are happily coexisting and that if Barack Obama wins the Presidency, the US will become one major "combat zone" just like Chicago and worse than Iraq - oh yeah, and Obama's from Chicago.

Here's the ridiculously inane e-mail (as received):

The US should immediately pull out of Chicago!

CHANGE CHICAGO NOW!!!

Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq .

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike), Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley).....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois, and He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

Well, well... where to begin?...

As usual, the originators of these types of e-mail don't link it to any pertinent information to verify these numbers. The author doesn't specify what "six months" he's talking about. The number of US military casualties from January through June is 2008. The number for the year to date is 270.

Since I don't want to spend too much time on this, I was not able to find a homicide rate for Chicago for the current year. The total homicide rate for Chicago in 2007 was 442, a 6.2% from from the 2006 total of 471.

So let's just assume that the year to date number of 292 for 2008 is an average and close to correct. Is the author then trying to equate military deaths in Iraq to civilian deaths in Chicago? If we are acting as a police force in Iraq, shouldn't the author equate the military deaths in Iraq to police officer casualties in Chicago? If that were the case, then year to date the number would be US casualties - 270, Chicago Police - 2.

And if you're going to use homicide numbers in Chicago, shouldn't you use the Iraqi civilian casualties? Or do those innocent civilians not count?

The death toll of Iraqi civilians has been very sketchy depending on who's counting. From the Congressional Research Service updated on August 27, 2008:

...For some time, the United Nations attempted to release comprehensive statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths. From August 2005 to March 2007, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) published a series of quarterly reports on human rights in Iraq that included sections on Iraqi civilian casualties. On April 25, 2007, however, the Iraqi government announced its intention to cease providing civilian casualty figures to the United Nations. Ivana Vuco, a UN human rights officer, stated, “[Iraqi] government officials had made clear during discussions that they believed releasing high casualty numbers would make it more difficult to quell unrest.”

...In an interview with the Boston Globe, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, the chief U.S. military spokesman, said Iraqi ministry civilian death tolls estimates have risen from a low of 568 in December 2007 and 541 in January 2008 to roughly 721 in February 2008 and 1,082 in March 2008. “There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February,” Smith said, although “the numbers are still nowhere near what they had been last summer.” The New York Times reports that the Iraqi Health Ministry lists a total of 865 civilian deaths for July 2008 and 975 deaths for June 2008.

So, 975 Iraqi deaths reported in June as opposed to a claim of 292 deaths in Chicago for an unknown six month span. Kinda blows that e-mail out out of the water, doesn't it? And you'll forgive me if I believe that these "official numbers" aren't exactly accurate. With the reluctance of the Iraqi government to release their casualty numbers, the zealousness of the Bush administration to tamp down the numbers and use the surge as an end-all-be-all for success in Iraq, who knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed?

Here are some other estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths from the same congressional report:

Iraq Body Count - March 19, 2003 - August 22, 2008: 86,661 - 94,558
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count - April 28, 2005 - August 22, 2008: 43,099
Brookings Iraq Index - May 2003 - August 14, 2008: 113,616
The Associated Press - April 2005 - February 13, 2008: 34,832 dead - 40,174 wounded
The Iraq Family Health Study (the “WHO study”) - March 2003 - June 2006: 151,000
The Lancet, “Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq” - March 19, 2003 - July 31, 2006: 426,369 -793,663

And finally, this number from Just Foreign Policy.Org:

The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

As for the tax rate and the debt, the national debt $10 TRILLION and a yearly budget deficit of over $400 billion, but I'm not going to get into that portion of this stupid ass e-mail because for me, the main issue was the ludicrous idea that Iraq is safer than Chicago.

Maybe the originator of this e-mail should take a walk down a Baghdad street and compare it to a walk down a Chicago street. If given the opportunity, I'd bet my house they would pass on it.

The Moral High Ground and Family Values

Washington Post - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

Still not an issue?

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Bush Unveils Budget and Lunacy

Lame Duck Georgie the Loon has unveiled his spending plan for the 2009 fiscal year: $3.1 Trillion package. THREE. POINT. ONE. TRILLION. DOLLARS. And guess what it includes? Yes! Increased military spending, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and $196 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid.

Even with those savings, Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.

Democrats attacked Bush's final spending plan as a continuation of this administration's failed policies which wiped out a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with a record buildup in debt.

"Today's budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush legacy - it leads to more deficits, more debt, more tax cuts, more cutbacks in critical services," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.

..."The president proposes more of the same failed policies he has embraced throughout his time in office - more deficit-financed war spending, more deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest and more borrowing from foreign nations like China and Japan," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

The chimp is certifiable. And yet, somehow Republicans are always accusing Democrats of loose pocketbooks. Unbelievable.

Shut It Down

George W. Bush is completely insane. After Dems compromise on a budget that would give Raisinbrain an initial $50-70 billion for the Iraq occupation with no strings attached, the White House came out with a statement threatening to veto the bill even though they haven't even seen the proposal.

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said Saturday it's too much money for domestic programs - and not enough for the war.

"If Congress insists on sending the president a budget-busting bill they know he will veto and that will not become law, they should also pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government running and provides the troops in the field the funds they need," Nussle said.

Fuck you, Nussle.

I wish the Democrats in Congress had the balls to say, "Okay, President Dipshit. You want to veto a bill that would give you your blood money for your illegal occupation in exchange for some sorely needed spending at home? You want to screw border patrol, Homeland Security, hurricane and mortgage crisis relief? You want to give the middle finger to repairing our crumbling infrastructure? Fine, asshole. Then shut the whole goddamned thing down. It's either this bill, or no bill."

But of course, they won't do that even though 75% of Americans would support them. They'll posture and whine and hold news conferences and issue "strong statements," and then cave in to these neo-fascist thugs at the end of the day. January 20th, 2009 can't come fast enough. And don't be surprised when the day comes that we won't be trying to stop an illegal coup by these criminals before the changeover.

It's time to play chicken with President Chickenhawk. He doesn't like his $70 billion Christmas gift? Then SHUT IT DOWN.

Worst. President. Ever.

Are Dems Giving In Again?

Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place! Democrats are getting a half a trillion dollar package ready. Iraq war funding would be voted on separately.

NY TIMES: Congressional leaders are assembling a $500 billion package to try to resolve an impasse by providing President Bush with unfettered money for the Iraq war in exchange for new spending on popular domestic programs.

...Under this deal, the president would be given $70 billion out of a still pending request of nearly $200 billion for the war. The compromise is also likely to include provisions that address the mortgage crisis, as well as agricultural drought relief and other disaster financing.

Fair tradeoff? Who the hell knows? I'm just sick and tired of the whole goddamned thing.

The Senate would then add up to $40 billion for Iraq combat operations, with the expectation the final war spending total would produce enough Republican support to offset defections by House Democrats.

After the measure returns to the House for a final vote, Democrats opposed to the war are likely to vote against it but may not be able to stop it. The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.