by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS
As a Jewish guy, I hardly pay attention to the leaders of other religions, but Pope Francis has won my admiration since his election this past spring. So it was somewhat dismayed when I read his recent Papal Exhortation published last month. In one section, Pope Francis seems to very nearly reject the idea of “trickle down economics”, a position that, if indeed true, would be devastating to the world.
Being in finance and business for decades, it has become abundantly clear that free markets are the best path to prosperity. So what to make of Francis’s thoughts?
My Catholic friends tell me that Francis’s discussion follows the the same path of Catholic Social Teaching — under which economics loosely falls — from the last several Popes, and therefore he hasn’t said anything new or different on the topic. This sentiment was echoed in Peggy Noonan’s piece published in the WSJ regarding Francis’s publication. Noonan was cautiously optimistic that Francis wasn’t rejecting free markets and she welcomed the conversation he has created.
On the other side of the aisle, Francis was blasted by some fiscal conservatives over a particularly thorny paragraph:
“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”
Here, it’s easy to see on the surface that the language Pope Francis employs — that trickle-down theories “have never been confirmed by the facts” of being successful — can be confusing. This is a very valid criticism. Certainly, the world has seen economic gains in numerous places where trickle-down economics has been practiced, including Pope Francis’s Argentina, but he seems not to discuss them.
A second reading suggests that “Free markets aren’t what Francis is criticizing here, but rather the lazy idea that “trickle down” economics somehow lifts people from poverty by its own volition, much as a sale at Wal-Mart somehow lifts people from poverty. Does it?
Francis — as well as any causal observer of any video showing Wal-Mart shoppers fight over $500 televisions — would disagree. Francis condemns a consumerist culture that is merely keeping up with the Joneses as it were (or in Francis’ words, “ we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle”) and simply views human beings as participants in the spectacle of consumerism as something abhorrent… “they fail to move us” as Pope Francis rightly mentions.
So what do the leaders of conservative finance and economics do about Pope Francis? Obviously he will be writing more during his pontificate. Clearly, the world is watching and his remarks and actions speak volumes not just to Catholics any more.
It’s worth it to remember that Pope Francis is not an economist first and foremost. That being said the sweeping generalities seen in his exhortation were ripe for wide interpretation. Don’t forget, the liberal media is always waiting in the wings for a statement or a sentence (this time paragraph 54) that “shows” the Pope is on their (liberal) side — in this case the issue was economics.
Pope Francis is a speaker of freedom, and in that should be included economic freedom. We have a potential opportunity to educate the Pope and ally with him about the truth about economics and the free market. Will the world listen?
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, POLITICS
The NY Post had a good piece today by William McGurn on the state of the union (pension system) in Detroit, making the case for Detroit to switch to defined contribution plans for their union workers. McGurn is right on the mark that the such a move is critical for the city’s revitalization. Dispensing with this one particularly enormous financial burden which has added greatly to the city’s fiscal insolvency would change the city’s finances for the better going forward. However, he seems skeptical that such a radical change could ever be achieved.
There is a way to implement a change to a defined contribution system. Even though the city of Detroit is billions of dollars in debt, the emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, has the opportunity to make to make it happen.
Orr is currently at odds with the unions over the total amount that union’s two pension system are underfunded. Using the actuarial projections provided by the unions, the funds are only short by $650 million, while Orr’s calculations show that the underfunding is a good $3.5 billion. Who is right? Orr believes he is correct and some independent studies seem to back his assertions. In actuality, it doesn’t necessarily matter who is correct, because the conflict actually provides a solution for the city.
If the unions wish to argue that their pension liability is merely $650 million, the city should wholeheartedly agree to fully fund their request — with one important condition. The unions must either a) agree to a fixed annual contribution to the defined benefit plans going forward, or b) (the better solution) cease using a defined benefit plan and move to a defined contribution plan going forward for all of their employees. In either case they must take full ownership, responsibility, and management, from here on out.
Once the unions pensions are fully paid up with the $650 million from the city, they will be in a position to take over the management of their funds. Let the unions use their expertise and earn the 8% that they maintain should be readily achievable. If they can do it, their members will continue to thrive-as-usual, ultimately collecting the pensions that have been promised to them for work up to this point. If they can only earn 3-4 or 6%, it will be on them to explain to their own members why their numbers are suddenly now off.
Even though $650 million sounds like a large number to pay off and fully fund the union pensions, it is a small amount to pay for the fiduciary freedom that comes with not having to manage an incredibly complex, risky, and fiscally unsound system. Such a move will contribute greatly to the long term health of the city of Detroit.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Obamapologists have been pointing to the shrinking budget deficit as proof that the economy is heading in the right direction. There is a sense of desperation afoot to find something, anything, that can be positive news upon which Obama can rebuild his reputation. For the non-economists out there, a declining deficit does indeed sound indicative of a healthy economic rebound. However, the main reasons for this current shrinking deficit have absolutely nothing to do with Obama, nor do they affect the economy in the way it is being spun.
The first major reason for the deficit reduction has to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government entities have given at least $140 billion, its “profit”, to the US Treasury so far in 2013. But this “profit“ was principally interest collected on mortgages which a) should have been earned by the private sector which the government took over by underbidding the private sector using taxpayer money, and b) by basically deciding that the private shareholders of Fannie and Freddie shouldn’t receive any part of the profit even though they had purchased – with their own money – substantial shares in the companies. These profits were required to be handed over to the US Treasury after the 2008 bailout conservatorship was amended with this change in 2012. Whether or not such action was legal is another question entirely.
The second large source of revenue was the frenzy of end-of-year tax paying in 2012. Remember the fight over the “Fiscal Cliff”? Because of the very substantial increase in individual tax rates for higher income earners, these individuals were able to accelerate 2013 income (including salary and bonuses) and dividends into 2012 to get the lower rate. Even more importantly, individuals that had gains on stock and real estate that they might not ordinarily have sold for years, all were dumped by the end of 2012 to get the lower rates. It should be noted that tax rates on dividends and capital gains for high income earners went up 59% – so much for Obama’s “the wealthy can pay just a little bit more”. The FY of the federal government runs October 1 to September 30, so those tax transactions, necessitating taxes to be paid by April 15, 2013, were recorded in the current fiscal year.
The Fannie/Freddie contribution and the end-of-the-year tax activity account for substantially all of the revenue increase and corresponding deficit reductions. They are one-shot deals, and are therefore not an indication of a rapidly growing economy.
Moreover, the most important thing to remember is that even with a lower deficit right now, Obama is still running huge annual deficits. Certainly no credit for deficit reduction should go to the Obama Administration, when total deficits still run over 4% of the GDP and are overwhelmingly higher than any of his predecessors in the history of our country (except during World War II). If true and lasting spending cuts, including entitlements, are not soon brought under control, we will be rapidly moving towards becoming Greece.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, POLITICS
De Blasio’s recent mayoral victory was a sad day for New Yorkers. Electing him was proof that the constituency in NYC is morally, philosophically, and educationally bankrupt. And if the mayor sticks to his positions that he declared as candidate De Blasio, NYC will be financially bankrupt as well.
A strong argument can be made that the entire election was a public service union push. For four years now, the public service unions have waiting to negotiate their contracts until Bloomberg was out of office. The time has come for the unions. De Blasio, from a position of patronage, will roll over and give the unions huge back-end and retroactive pay increases and benefits both undeserved and unaffordable. New York City could easily find itself in the same fiscal categories as Detroit and Chicago.
Why have the unions been willing to work without a contract for virtually all of the Bloomberg tenure? A little known clause of the anti-strike Taylor Law is the Triborough Amendment.This provision mandates that if a contract expires before a new contract is in place, the benefits of the expired contract continue, unchanged, until the new contract is finally negotiated. NYC is the only place in the country that has such a clause, which renders it difficult to negotiate anything from a position of austerity.
Bloomberg understood the ever-expanding costs of public service union wages and benefits, and sought to restrain them during the economic downturn. Over the past four years, the unions have steadfastly refused to engage in contract negotiations that would bring their costs in line.Why should they? They could continue to accrue the unaffordable and unreasonable benefits of the expired contract that they could have no hope of getting with Bloomberg under a new contract. Then they could help elect a new mayor who is philosophically aligned, financially naive, and seemingly irresponsible enough to give them what they could only dream of in a new contract.
De Blasio won the election by a huge majority, despite the fact that he is so far left as to be an avowed supporter of the likes of Cuba and the Sandinistas. He clearly espouses policies — such as higher taxes, more spending and regulation, attempts at government imposed income redistribution, and curtailment of police activity — which will ultimately hurt the poor and economically disadvantaged more than anyone. And if he tops it off with crony contracts with the public service unions, New Yorkers will have dug themselves a hole virtually impossible to get out of.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
In case you missed it, Harry Reid displayed the most incredible mind reading skills this past week during an interview on Nevada Public Radio.
As reported by Roll Call, the Senate Majority Leader explained that, “The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress,” He went on to declare that “Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more.”
He also went on to announce that the only way there could be some sort of Congressional “grand bargain” would be under the conditions that the Republicans would have to agree to more tax revenue:
“They have their mind set on doing nothing, nothing more on revenue, and until they get off that kick, there’s not going to be a grand bargain on — there’s not going to be a small bargain,” Reid said. “We’re just going to have to do something to work our way through sequestration.”
For those who are short on memory, the Republicans agreed to tax increases on the wealthy immediately after we went over the “Fiscal Cliff” last January. Obama did not get his $250K threshold to raise taxes to 39.6% for “upper earners”, but he did get a $400K single/$450K married couple threshold. January 1, 2013 was the original sequestration deadline. With the Fiscal Cliff deal, the sequestration decision was booted again for two months.
Fast forward to the end of February with sequestration talks and the March 1 deadline looming. The White House and liberal media began discussing in earnest the possiblity of more taxes, especially after it was pointed out by Bob Woodward that sequestration did indeed originate with Obama.
After the Republicans didn’t blink on sequestration and the cuts went into play, Investors Daily revealed on March 1 that Obama’s “sequestration” plan was $1 Trillion in new revenue. That was followed up by Pelosi’s announcement that same afternoon that there would be “no sequestration deal without new taxes”. But sequestration stayed, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.
Here we are now, post-government shutdown. Obamacare is failing badly. Obamacare was supposed to be a source of revenue for the government over 10 years with its myriad of taxes — except that no one is signing up. The Democrats look bad, and the Congressional Dems are warming to the idea of a one-year delay, the very thing that many Republicans have been calling for ad nauseum.
What is Harry Reid to do? Why, talk about sequestration, of course. Let’s talk about how billions in cuts have been made to the government because the Republicans have “refused to compromise”. Let’s put the blame game back on them and off of the Democrats who voted hook, line, and sinker for Obamacare. Let’s stir the pot and talk about how tough sequestration is for everyone. Ergo, we need to fix the government budget with more revenue.
Pay attention folks. The Democrats are frustrated because of Obamacare right now. In the coming weeks, we’ll see renewed energetic playbook buzzwords talks of a “balanced approach”, a “compromise”, and a “grand bargain” approach to budget discussions…except that the only approach from the Democrats will be a firm call and firm stand for more revenue via tax increases.
Leviathan is wounded. And hungry. And he’s coming for your wallets.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY
Right before the government shutdown, Detroit received a pledge for a $320 million federal “aid package”. The Obama Administration wants to make it perfectly clear: this is not a bailout. That word is too toxic during this time of fiscal instability in Washington. This is relief. A stimulus. It is a hand-up, not a hand-out, and, as the NY Times reports, this will not be the only federal infusion that Detroit receives to get back on its feet.
Some questions immediately come to mind:
1) Various news agencies reported that the funds are being scraped together mainly from agencies such as TARP, FEMA, Homeland Security, and HUD. Who authorized this aid package?
2) Much of the funds are for projects that are similar to projects already funded by alternative sources, such as the Ford, Kresge, and Knight Foundations. The funds will not be used in anyway with regard to debt structuring. Why are federal funds duplicating projects already in motion?
3) Detroit already receives 71 federal grants for operation and it still couldn’t manage to avoid bankruptcy. Clearly, Detroit has been malfunctioning for years even with government intervention, so Why are we propping up this city even more?
4) What is to prevent other cities who are struggling financially for reasons to call for aid? After the aid to Detroit was announced, at least one Congressman, Jerry McNerney, went on the offensive. He wrote to the White House asking why aid was not extended to Stockton, California, a city which declared bankruptcy last year, “and suffers from many of the same problems as Detroit”. Will this type of federal aid package for cities become a slippery slope? Will it be a pick-and-chose/reward scenario? How about a carrot dangled to cities?
A recent WSJ article on the aid noted that with federal money comes strings. “Grants from the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Departments will require the city to pay prevailing union wages, which will jack up costs. Prevailing wage is an economic compensation theory that requires municipalities to pay more-than-market wages. The end result of paying prevailing wages means that Detroit will get less with their our money. Even now, prevailing wage theory is hotly contested in NYC, a form of unionism for those workers who are non-unionized. Isn’t this type of overpayment what helped get Detroit into the mess it is in in the first place?
Furthermore, this cash fund may impact pension reforms that city manager Kevyn Orr is trying to accomplish. The pension managers insist that pensions are only underfunded by $634 million, while Orr is arguing closer to $3 billion. Part of pension restructuring and cost savings proposed by Orr were expected to be re-diverted toward blight abatement. With the arrival of this federal aid package — much of which is supposedly for the blight problem — you can expect that pensioners will argue that their pensions do not need, or need less of, the chopping block. That is a pity, as it undermines real pension reform so badly needed in Detroit.
What Kevyn Orr really needs to do to forge a path of prosperity in Detroit is to completely fund the pension system according to what the pension managers say they need ($634 million vs $3 billion), in exchange for complete government removal from the pension system; Impose a switch from a defined benefit model to a defined contribution model and be done with it. Let the pension heads grapple and manage their own funds now. Such a bold fiscal move would give Detriot a much more solid path to economic revitalization than any aid package can do.
There was no emergency that necessitated the use of federal funds being injected into the city of Detroit. No Katrina. No Sandy — only decades of fiscal irresponsibility, corruption, mismanagement. This “non-bailout” only undermines the task of this city, and potentially others, to make hard decisions about money, taxes, pensions, and budgets. It is a band-aid where a tourniquet (or maybe an amputation?) is needed. In a city rife with every kind of unimaginable fiduciary irresponsibility, the idea that the city of Detroit should be entitled to receive any more federal tax dollars is wholeheartedly repugnant.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY
The tactics that the Democrats used in 2012 regarding the Bush tax cuts is the same strategy being deployed by the Republicans in 2013 and Obamacare. Yet this time around, the Republicans are getting vilified for it.
Let’s get this straight. In 2012, the Republicans wanted to permanently extend the “Bush tax cuts” for all. These cuts had been temporarily put in place in 2001 and 2003 and were renewed in Congress in 2010, making it the “law of the land” for roughly ten years.
However, the Democrats refused to have consider an across-the-board clean tax cut for all. Instead, they insisted on an exception. They demanded that Congress raise the rates on the high incomes earners by letting the tax cuts expire for them, and pushed for only extending the cuts on the lower earners. Their rationale? A revenue raiser. (Those high earners need to “pay their fair share”).
Then, the Democrats argued that if the Republicans did not agree to their request, all the tax cuts would lapse and it would be the Republicans who would be responsible for also raising the rates on the other 99%.
Fadst forward to late September 2013. The shoe is on the other foot and the Republicans make a demand about a law that has yet to go into effect (vs the decade-old tax cuts), using the same methodology as the Democrats did less than a year ago. And now the Republicans are the bad guys for insisting on a delay for one year on the healthcare law for which 100% are affected.
Now that the government is shut down, the Republicans are offering clean CRs areas by area. Yet the Democrats are refusing every bill. They insist that it be a Clean CR for everything — the same way the Republicans were lambasted for insisting that the tax cuts should be made cleanly and permanently for everyone.
What’s worse, the same argument that the Democrats made about raising the rates on the 1% (to raise revenue) is the exact same effect that a one-year Obamacare delay could give our economy. It has been estimated by the CBO the CBO that such a delay would have saved $35 billion in over ten years. How is this not a good thing this time around? Folks, a double standard is in effect.
Isn’t this current shutdown the epitome of hypocrisy? The Democrats insisted on shutting down the government to prove it could run healthcare. And they did so on the backs of you and me. The Republicans need to continue to follow the Democrat’s example and resolve in 2012 and hold their ground on this monumental issue.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
On the eve of the government shutdown, Obama remarked that “I shouldn’t have to offer anything”, and that he’s always ready to have a conversation:
“Steve when you say what can I offer? I shouldn’t have to offer anything,” Obama said. “They’re not doing me a favor by paying for things that they have already approved for the government to do. That’s part of their basic function of government; that’s not doing me a favor. That’s doing what the American people sent them here to do, carrying out their responsibilities.
“I have said consistently that I’m always happy to talk to Republicans and Democrats about how we shape a budget that is investing in things like early childhood education, rebuilding our roads and bridges and putting people back to work, growing our economy, making sure that we have the research and development to stay at the cutting edge and that deals with some of our long-term debt issues. But we’re not going to accomplish those things if one party to this conversation says that the only way that they come to the table is if they get 100 percent of what they want and if they don’t, they threaten to burn down the house”
So, let’s do a trip down memory lane to see how Obama’s grand budget ideas have turned out in the last few years.
President Obama’s proposed FY2012 budget was voted down by the Democrat-led Senate 97–0. Not one Democrat or Republican Senator would sponsor it, put his name to it, or vote for it. And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.
Obama’s proposed FY2103 budget was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 414-0. That was a $3.6 trillion budget proposal that included, among many things, tax hikes and increased energy spending. No Democrats would even vote for that one either.
Obama submitted his FY2014 budget late by two months, in April of this year. By that time, the House had already created and voted on a budget, as did the Senate (first time for the Senate in a few years). OBama’s FY2014 budget was $3.8 trillion this time, and managed to upset both sides of the aisle — the Republicans because it containted more tax hikes, and the Democrats, because it made systemic changes to Social Security. Incidentially, Obama’s budgets were late 4 out of 5 budget cycles, 2010 being the only year he submitted it on time.
So here we have arrived at a government shutdown. Obama’s recent budgets have been continuously and unilaterally rejected by both the Senate and the House, by both Democrats and Republicans, and we are 1616 days without a budget. So please Mr. Obama, don’t offer us anything more. Your ideas have been tried and found wanting. Get out of the way.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Do as I say, not as I do. That is the modus operandi of President Obama. He whines to everyone that he despises these Congressional deadlines, and that it is patently unfair of the Republican to let things slide to the last minute. However, that is precisely what he wants. In the time between one deadline to another, Obama himself never presents a plan for anything. It’s disingenuous.
Obama complains that decisions should be discussed and negotiated and worked out, and points a finger at a “do nothing Congress”, but in fact, he wants everything to be done at the last minute. We know this to be true by his leadership, or lack thereof. There is no dealing with cuts or budget items in between crises, unless it is an executive order circumventing the normal process. He continuously talks and talks and talks about how he is “willing to discuss” but then brings nothing to the table as a starting point for discussion.
Classic Obama — full of hot air, no substance; plenty of blame, but no true action. And no, ruling by Executive fiat to avoid being to “no” in Congress is not leadership. The fact that Obama facilitates no discussions or presents no working actionable items in between various deadlines proves that he is not about leading by example. The last-minute scrambling is his backdrop for grandstanding. It’s about perpetuating crises as leverage for outrageous policies that the majority of Americans do not want.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Supporters of President Obama continually try to rationalize his decisions on the basis of some philosophical and moral philosophy. In fact, it does seem clear to most rational thinkers that, in fact, the President chooses the most politically expedient position at the moment. Nothing makes this clearer than Obama’s all-over-the-lot positions on the debt ceiling.
CNS News released an excerpt” from President Obama’s speech given on September 18 at the Business Roundtable in D.C. During his discussion, Obama remarked,
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
However a speech given in 2006 by then-Senator Obama on the occasion of raising the debt ceiling under President George Bush paints a completely different picture. Back then, Obama actually laments that that Federal spending has not been reduced, which he in turn blames for an increase in deficits, therefore resulting in more money borrowing and a need to raise the debt ceiling:
“Tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them”
What else did Senator Obama say? He also described Bush’s increase of federal debt by $ 3.5 trillion over 5 years to be “reckless fiscal policies”, and a sign of “leadership failure”.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion”
Yet in merely three years of Obama’s Administration, from 09/30/09 – 09/30/12 (the last year for which figures were available), the debt increased $ $4.1 Trillion, from $1,909,829,003,511.75 to $16,066,241,407,385.89. These numbers were taken from Treasurydirect.gov. Obama’s own fiscal policies have proven to be worse.
So because we are in so much more debt, we need to raise the debt ceiling yet again. And we find Obama at his recent speech rationalizing the need to raise the debt ceiling in order to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States for the future:
“And I have responsibilities at this point not just to the current generation but to future generations, and we’re not ‘going to set up a situation where the full faith and credit of the United States is put on the table every year or every year and a half, and we go through some sort of terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having about some particular issue of the day. We’re not going to do that.”
But what was did Obama think about his responsibilities to current and future generations and the full faith and credit of the United States back in 2006? As a Senator, Obama used that same argument against raising the debt ceiling
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
It’s quite clear: What Obama said and thought as a Senator during the Bush administration in 2006 versus what Obama says and thinks as the President in 2013 regarding the very same topic, the debt ceiling, yields two very different sets of conclusions. When Obama argued against the debt ceiling as a Senator, we were at $8.5 Trillion in federal debt created in a span of 200+ years. A mere 7 years later, we have managed to double that number, with 5 of those 7 years under Obama’s watch. The explosive growth of federal debt under President Obama is gross fiduciary negligence.
The full text of Obama’s 2006 speech is here.
An interesting thing to note about Obama’s 2006 speech against the debt ceiling. The original text of the speech should be in the Senate archives online, but it was removed months ago after an NRO article drew attention to it in January 2013. Shortly after that article ran, the link to the speech came back as an “error”.
Unsurprisingly, the link has yet to be fixed as of this morning. When the link originially disappeared, the Heritage Foundation was able to get a copy of the text from the Government Printing Office (gpo.gov). They dug it up there because the online Senate file was scrubbed.
And after the NRO article ran, I reproduced it here in its entirety. It almost sounds…..conservative. Obama-the-President wouldn’t like that.
