What Was The [Expletive Deleted] Point?

First they promised to cut $100 billion, then said what they really meant was that they’d hold out indefinitely for $60 billion, then they totally caved in to the Democrats, compromising on $38 billion, and in the end all we got was a lousy $352 million in cuts. What a gyp, shame on the spineless Republicans.

Budget deal: CBO analysis shows initial spending cuts less than expected

A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Although that analysis dampened enthusiasm for the deal among many Republicans on Thursday, the House and the Senate approved the measure with bipartisan support. President Obama is expected to sign the bill Friday, officially ending the prospect of a government shutdown.

The findings from the budget office warned that the deal may never come close to delivering on its promises. The analysis found that $13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to ever be tapped.

See also:
U.S. Budget Analysis Shows Smaller Savings
CBO Says Budget Deal Will Cut Spending by Only $352 Million This Year
Forget $38B: Budget only cuts $352 million this year
Deal Approved but Debate Continues Over Actual Extent of Spending Cuts
Budget cuts too small for many conservatives
Spending cuts fall short of $38 billion: CBO
How Washington Turned $38 Billion Into $352 Million
CBO: 2011 Budget Cuts Far Less Than Promised
Editorial: Washington’s $38 Bil In ‘Cuts’ Are Bogus

This is insane, the United States is $14 trillion in debt, the world bond markets could decide to cut up our national credit card at any given moment, the laws of mathematics dictate that the American economy will completely collapse by 2037, and these congressional buffoons spent the entire last month arguing over cutting $352 million?

The 2012 elections can’t come fast enough. We need to start with a new President and Republicans taking control of the Senate and keeping control of the House. It’s apparent that one party rule, with a party that’s serious about restoring fiscal sanity (and that ain’t the Democrats), is going to be required to stop this country from careening off the cliff of financial ruin.

/and, if that doesn’t work, we’ll have to get us some new Republicans starting in 2014

Obama Pounds 3.8 Trillion More Borrowed Nails In America’s Economic Coffin

We’re quickly nearing the tipping point where the interest payments alone on our debt will swamp our ability to pay them, yet Obama’s stomping the spending accelerator down to the floorboards with a record setting budget proposal, for the second year in a row.

Just wait until interest rates rise and watch how much more the interest on our debt is going to cost as we borrow even more, that is if anyone will still be willing to lend to us.

/Michael Ramirez

Obama to veil $3.8T budget with massive deficits

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.8 trillion budget on Monday that will increase spending in the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a number of government programs.

The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.6 trillion, according to a congressional official who had access to a White House summary document. That deficit would easily top last year’s then unprecedented $1.41 trillion gap.

The congressional source, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the budget’s official release, said the deficit would remain above $1 trillion in 2011 and would average 4.5 percent of the economy over the next decade, a level that economists consider a threat to long-term economic prosperity.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011

See also:
Deficit climbs to record under Obama’s budget
Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit
Obama’s 2011 budget underlines depth of US woes
Shadowed by deficits, Obama pitches economic plan
Budget reflects dire realities, Obama says
Obama’s budget illustrates dire fiscal straits
Breaking Down Obama’s Budget
Hard choices to come with fiscal year 2011 budget
Tax Proposals in the 2011 Budget: What’s In It for You?
Obama’s budget: Impact on your taxes
Obama Budget, Jobs Plan Get Early Tests on Hill
Obama’s budget proposal draws rapid fire from legislators

So, in the face of an obviously unsustainable deficit and debt trajectory, why does Obama insist on submitting a budget with record spending and record deficits? Why does he propose a fig leaf of a spending “freeze”, when drastic spending cuts are clearly called for? I think James Clyburn sums up this insane Democrat mindset best.

“We’re not going to save our way out of this recession,” the majority whip added. “We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.”

Most economists believe that, really? The reality, as proven by history, is that only the private sector can create a sustainable recovery. Massive government deficit spending only creates a temporary boost, while crowding out private investment and adding to the national debt, which, in turn, sparks long term economic pessimism and turmoil. Eventually, this downward spiral will completely collapse in a national default.

/the time to stop the dangerous and reckless economic train wreck that’s looming is now, so vote like your standard of living depends on it, because it does

Better Than Nothing

There’s little argument that the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is questionable and needs to be addressed. All our nuclear warheads are at least 20 years old and some date back to the 1970s. None of them have been tested since 1992. Nuclear warheads are complex systems and, unless it’s certain that they’ll operate as intended, they’re not an effective deterrent.

In my opinion, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program is the obvious and preferred solution to the nuclear arsenal reliability question. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees. However, because of Obama and his administration’s vehement antipathy to nuclear weapons in general, the RRW program is dead in the water. So, for now, I guess we should be grateful that it looks like the Obama administration might be prepared to do something, albeit grudgingly, to address the U.S. nuclear arsenal reliability problem.

2011 U.S. Budget to Fund Refurbishing of Nukes

A reliable replacement for the now-dead Reliable Replacement Warhead program will be funded in U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget, said the woman most responsible for killing the RRW in 2008.

Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said the budget Obama plans to send to Congress Feb. 2 includes “very crucial investment” in the Stockpile Management program. She declined to disclose specific dollar amounts.

Stockpile Management will do what RRW was supposed to do, Tauscher told defense reporters on Jan. 13.

Just three years ago, Tauscher led successful efforts to kill the RRW. At the time, she was a congresswoman from California and chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. Her subcommittee blocked funding for the program in the 2007 and 2008 Defense Authorization Acts.

Tauscher left Congress and joined the Obama administration last June.

The Stockpile Management program would permit the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to “refurbish” aging nuclear warheads to ensure that they still work and are safe, Tauscher said. During refurbishment, features could be added to the warheads to make them theft-proof and more environmentally friendly, she said.

But the warheads cannot be “improved” in the sense that they are made into more effective weapons, and they cannot be tested by exploding sample warheads.

That is essentially what was intended with the RRW, Tauscher said.

But the RRW evolved into “a toxic concept” after officials in the Bush administration touted it as a program to improve existing warheads, Tauscher said.

“We don’t want people believing that we expect to go out and build new weapons,” she said. Thus the RRW program became “dangerous” when it came to be perceived as a program to “modernize” rather than “refurbish” warheads.

“We had to get rid of RRW,” Tauscher said. The perception that the United States was improving its nuclear arsenal undermined U.S. efforts to convince non-nuclear countries not to seek nuclear weapons and to encourage nuclear-armed nations to shrink their inventories.

Under the Stockpile Management program, the NNSA would maintain the nuclear stockpile without adding to its capabilities, without testing and “without causing people to be concerned about what we are doing,” Tauscher said.

Stockpile Management would provide for a “safe, reliable and effective stockpile until we can get to nuclear zero,” she said.

Projecting the proper nuclear image is critical to advancing Obama’s nuclear disarmament goals, she said.

See also:
Obama to seek major increase in nuclear weapons funding
Obama to boost spending on maintaining nuclear stocks
Obama Administration to Increase Nuclear Spending
Obama to seek more funds to secure N-arsenal
After pledging to ‘reverse’ their spread, Obama increases nuclear weapons budget
The President’s Nuclear Vision
Biden Sends A Message On Nukes
Debate heats up on Obama’s nuclear agenda
Nuclear Bomb Update Effort Slowed by Posture Review, Science Studies
No Nukes . . . For US

/as Reagan said, trust but verify, let’s see what happens to this modest proposal when Obama’s budget hits Congress

Obama Adds Astronauts To The No Fly List

No Shuttle plus no Constellation program equals U.S. manned space flight grounded.

White House won’t fund NASA moon program

NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there, if President Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases its budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was to return humans to the moon by 2020. The Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to return to the moon. There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases.

“We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” one administration official said.

Instead, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama’s plans, NASA will look at developing a “heavy-lift” rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low-Earth orbit. That day will be years away.

The White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program designed to someday enable human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system.

See also:
Obama aims to ax moon mission
Obama to End NASA Constellation Program
US plan to return to moon ‘is dead’: administration advisor
White House killing NASA’s moon mission, reports say
President Obama to Propose Abandoning NASA’s Moon Plan
Obama to suggest end of NASA moon program
Speculation about NASA’s future swirls in advance of Obama’s budget request
Battle brewing over Obama’s NASA plan
NASA Workers Anxious About Obama’s Commitment to Space
Rebel Engineers Sit With NASA to Chart Future of Manned Space
Good Night Moon
Obama Says, No Moon For You!

To put things in perspective, Obama and the Democrats are now talking about wasting another $80-200 billion on another unnecessary, worthless “stimulus” after already wasting $1 trillion on the first worthless “stimulus”. Just yesterday, Obama announced that he was passing out $8 billion for unprofitable choo choo trains!

NASA’s annual budget is less than $20 billion, yet these out of control, tax and spend peons can’t dig in our taxpayer pockets for a few measly billion dollars more to fund something worthwhile, U.S. manned space flight. I guess they can’t figure out how funding space exploration translates into buying Democrat votes.

/the moral of this story is, if any of your children are dreaming of growing up to be an astronaut, they’d better learn how to speak Chinese and/or Russian