Friday Night Bad News Dump

Obama was hoping you wouldn’t notice the new record deficit he set. It’s more than three times as large as the deficit was when Bush left office.

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit this year, 9 percent unemployment next year

New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

That’s actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.

The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.

The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 — a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don’t think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.

“The U.S. economy still faces strong headwinds,” the OMB report said. They include tight credit markets, a high inventory of unsold housing and retrenchment by state governments bound by balanced budget mandates. The European debt crisis has also had an impact.

See also:
Mid-Session Review
Budget of the U.S. Government

Federal budget deficit to exceed $1.4 trillion in 2010 and 2011
Forecast for 2011 Deficit Is Raised to $1.4 Trillion
Obama Budget Office Forecasts $1.47 Trillion Deficit This Year
Obama’s budget deficit heading further up
US deficit heads toward record $1.47 trillion
Federal deficit expected to reach record high
OMB: Economic pain will linger
US predicts record budget deficit
U.S. economy faces strong headwinds: White House
U.S. Trims ’10 Deficit Forecast as Economy Faces Headwinds
Republicans pounce on new OMB deficit predictions
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

And remember, these record deficit projections are based on rosy White House economic assumptions.

Real GDP is expected to rise by 3.1 percent during the four quarters of 2010 and to increase 4.0 percent in 2011. The growth rate is projected to rise to 4.3 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013 as the economy returns closer to its potential output level. Beyond 2013, real GDP growth is projected to moderate, declining gradually to 2.5 percent per year in 2018-2020.

If the U.S. economy falls short of these GDP projections, the now record deficits will become even worse. And you don’t even want to think about what happens if interest rates rise significantly and it costs the U.S. Government even more to borrow these incredibly humongous amounts of money.

/there’s no way that Obama can legitimately blame Bush for this budget mess anymore, although that won’t stop him from trying to revise history

Advertisements

The First Stimulus Has Been A Total Disaster So Naturally Democrats Plan To Waste Even More Borrowed Money On More Useless Stimulus

Hey, I know, the first “stimulus” isn’t working, so let’s spend more money we don’t have on a second “stimulus”. Nevermind that we haven’t even spent one third of the first trillion dollar “stimulus” yet.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

/Albert Einstein

STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment Unchanged by Projects

A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama’s first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an “urgent need to accelerate job growth.”

An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn’t matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.

With the nation’s unemployment rate at 10 percent and expected to rise, Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress including billions of additional dollars for roads and bridges — projects the president says are “at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth.”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the administration’s recovery program Monday, writing on his blog that “DOT-administered stimulus spending is the only thing propping up the transportation construction industry.”

Road spending would total nearly $28 billion of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to help lower the unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The Senate is expected to consider the House-approved bill this month.

But AP’s analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed the strategy of pumping transportation money into counties hasn’t affected local unemployment rates so far.

“There seems to me to be very little evidence that it’s making a difference,” said Todd Steen, an economics professor at Hope College in Michigan who reviewed the AP analysis.

And there’s concern about relying on transportation spending a second time.

“My bottom line is, I’d be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we’ve seen broader effects from the first stimulus,” said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who also reviewed AP’s analysis.

And what if your “stimulus” isn’t creating even a fraction of the jobs you promised? Well, as they say, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull[expletive deleted]!

White House Inflates Stimulus Job Creation With Accounting Gimmicks

The Obama administration is changing the way it counts jobs created or saved by stimulus spending in a way that will make the programs look far more successful.

Under the old rules, only jobs that were actually newly created or not lost because of stimulus money were counted. Now the administration plans to count all jobs for projects funded by stimulus money—even if that job already existed and the person was never in danger of losing the job.

The changes were made in a little noticed memo sent to federal agencies by OMB director Peter Orszag, according to a new report from ProPublica.

See also:
More Stimulus? Analysis Finds Funds for Roads, Bridges Has Had No Impact
Stimulus? There’s No Stimulus Here
Where Are The Stimulus Jobs?
U.S. road projects don’t help unemployment
Study: Road projects don’t help unemployment
No Unemployment Impact from Road and Bridge Spending
White House Changes Stimulus Jobs Count
White House changes how stimulus jobs are counted
Farewell “Saved or Created”: Obama Administration Changes the Counting of Stimulus Jobs
Counting jobs
White House panics on jobs
SUBJECT: Updated Guidance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Data Quality, Non-Reporting Recipients, and Reporting of Job Estimates

/Democrat’s “stimulus”, throwing money in the money hole, what’s the difference?

Obama Does A Happy Dance On The Raptor’s Grave

    Did Obama really say that a measly $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22 Raptors, the world’s premier air dominance fighter, was wasteful and that we couldn’t afford it? How wasteful is a $1 trillion “stimulus” fiasco that can’t be shown to have “created or saved” one job and spends money on ridiculous nonsense like $1.191 million for sliced frozen ham , $1.5 million on mozzarella cheese, and almost $17 million on canned pork? Or how about another trillion dollars for socialized healthcare that will degrade the overall level of medical care in this country and which the Congressional Budget Office has calculated will only increase our already unsustainable budget deficits and national debt, can we afford that?

    Are you [expletive deleted] kidding me, we can borrow trillions of dollars to fund every Democrat and left wing pet project ever conceived, trillions it’ll take a miracle for us to ever hope to repay, and yet we can’t spend a comparative drop in the bucket $1.75 billion to defend ourselves against the Chinese and Russians, because it’s wasteful and we can’t afford it? We can’t spend $1.75 billion to save tens of thousands of highly skilled F-22 Raptor design and manufacturing jobs, because it’s wasteful and we can’t afford it, but we can spend more than $50 billion to bail out inept car companies to save Obama’s UAW buddies and their gold plated pensions?

    Obama and the Democrats’ spending policies and priorities are not only depraved and thoroughly disgusting, they border on psychopathy and criminal insanity.

    Shooting Down The Raptor

    Defense Spending: The TARP bailout may hit $24 trillion, but the Senate says the F-22 is too expensive to build and maintain. So why are the Japanese so desperate to buy this “unnecessary” Cold War weapon?

    By a vote of 58-40, the Senate on Tuesday voted to remove $1.75 billion set aside in a defense bill to build seven more F-22 Raptors, adding to the 187 stealth technology fighters already in the pipeline.

    After some hope the production lines would be kept open, the Senate succumbed to arguments by the administration and others that the fighter was too expensive, too hard to maintain and not built for the wars America is fighting these days.

    President Obama welcomed the Senate vote, saying he rejected the notion that the country has to “waste billions of taxpayers dollars” on outdated defense projects.

    Well, the inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program now says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. Yet we can’t afford to build just seven more F-22s?

    Keeping the F-22 production lines open would be a real stimulus saving real jobs. Lockheed Martin, the main contractor, says 25,000 people are directly employed in building the plane, and another 70,000 have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a supporter of the program, says there are 1,000 suppliers in 44 states. That’s wasteful?

    Speaking to the Economic Club of Chicago last Friday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repeated his assertion that “the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need — a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios — specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet.”

    But the “F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict,” he added.

    Air dominance is not a “niche scenario,” and while we’re lucky the Taliban does not have an Air Force, other potential opponents do. It would prove quite useful over the skies of North Korea, if necessary, or in thwarting a Chinese threat in the Taiwan Straits. Gates forgets that it was high-tech “Cold War” weapons such as the stealthy F-111A that shattered Saddam Hussein’s air defenses and infrastructure and controlled the skies during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq.

    Retired Lt. Gen. Michael M. Dunn, chief executive of the Air Force Association, notes that in last year’s conflict in Georgia, the Raptor was the only aircraft in our inventory that could have penetrated the defended airspace and had a chance of surviving.

    The F-22 Raptor is also perhaps the only plane that could evade the sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system Russia has contracted to sell Iran. Russia’s S-300 system is “one of the most lethal, if not the most lethal, all-altitude area defense” systems, according to the International Strategy and Assessment Service, a Virginia-based think tank.

    Gates and the Pentagon prefer the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. But many believe its lesser abilities have been further compromised by making it a one-size-fits-all aircraft for all services in all conflicts.

    Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., in whose state final assembly occurs, says, “The F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time against peers with counter-electronic measures.”

    In an interview with Human Events, Japanese ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki said Tokyo wants F-22s to replace its aging F-4s and F-15s. Japan is facing an increasingly capable and unstable North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and the weapons to carry them. It also confronts a future superpower in China, with which it has territorial disputes.

    Japan wants the F-22 to deal with both threats. It will soon have to deal with fifth-generation Chinese fighter aircraft and aircraft carriers to carry them. Japan is wise to prefer the F-22, which can fly 300 to 400 mph faster and two miles higher than the F-35.

    We would be too.

    See also:
    Obama victory: Senate votes to kill additional F-22 funding
    Obama Praises F-22 Funding Shut-off; Sen. Chris Dodd Upset
    Senate Votes Against Funding For New F-22s
    Senate kills production of F-22 Raptor
    Senate votes against F-22 Raptor
    Senate strips extra F-22 funding from defense bill
    Senate Votes To Halt Production Of F-22 Fighter Jet
    Governor Rell blasts U.S. Senate vote to strip F-22 Raptor funding
    We Cannot Afford to Lose the F-22
    Obama Plucks The Raptor
    The Air Force Association (AFA)
    International Assessment and Strategy Center
    S-300 (missile)
    S-300PMU
    S-300PMU (SA-10) Air Defence Missile System
    Israel’s Red Line: The S-300 Missile System

    Well, hey, that’s another $1.75 billion that Obama can now spend on ham and cheese.

    /for the first time in my adult life, I’m not proud of my country

You May As Well Tell Us Now Because We’re Going To Find Out Anyway

Gee, Obama’s delaying the release of obviously bad economic news until after his “deadline” for passing his monstrous, budget busting healthcare plan. How convenient.

President Obama to Delay Release of Mid-Session Budget Review

The Obama administration announced Monday that its Mid-Session Budget Review would not be released this month, as previously scheduled, but rather would be pushed to August.

The Obama administration’s projections of economic growth, the deficit and the unemployment rate in preliminary budget estimates in February and May have since been proven overly optimistic. As the president pushes for the House and Senate to pass health care reform legislation before adjourning for the August recess, it could complicate matters to have an official White House acknowledgment that the economy is far worse that it had predicted – especially as moderate Democrats in the House and Senate balk at the cost of the proposals.

But the administration argues that’s not what’s going on at all.

“Because of the unique circumstances of a transition year, we — like President George W. Bush in 2001 – are releasing the Mid-Session Review a few weeks later than as is usual in non-transition years,” said Kenneth Baer, the communications director for the Office of Management and Budget.

President George W. Bush’s first Mid-Session Budget Review was released on August 22, 2001 while President Bill Clinton’s first Mid-Session Budget Review was released on August 28, 1993.

As Josh Gerstein of Politico points out a Congressional Research Service report from 2007 says “the law requires such a mid-session report ‘before July 16’ each year, but the deadline has been blown off by many presidents, with President Ronald Reagan being the most habitual violator in recent years.”

Congressional Republicans immediately pounced, however, saying the delay was evidence of “an attempt to hide a record-breaking deficit as Democratic leaders break arms to rush through a government takeover of health care,” as House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, charged in a press release.

Boehner said that the Congressional Budget Office “confirmed last week that the Democrats’ plans will increase health care costs and add hundreds of billions to the deficit. Try as they might, the White House cannot hide the fact that the policies of this Administration have buried our children and grandchildren under historic debt. Washington Democrats are spending with reckless abandon, yet by burying this budget update until after Congress leaves town next month, the Administration is not willing to own up to the consequences of this dangerous fiscal agenda.”

See also:
Administration Delaying Release of Key Economic Report
White House delays budget update
UPDATE 1-As economy bites, White House delays budget review
White House to delay budget update
Obama’s mid-session budget review to be out in August
Obama Delays Mid-Session Budget Review to Mid-August (Update1)
Waiting for the Mid-Session Budget Review
White House delays economic report
Deficit Deceit

Of course, there’s a good reason they might want to play hide and seek with the numbers. I mean, after the last set of projections, how much worse can the deficits get?

gr2009032100104

/they’re going to need a bigger graph

Spending Like A Drunken Sailor On Crack

So, Obama keeps saying that he’s going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Oh really?

Deficit Projected To Swell Beyond Earlier Estimates

President Obama’s ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would “not be sustainable.”

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

Projected Deficit

In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama’s budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

gr2009032100104

Now, does that look like Obama is going to cut the deficit in half or like he’s planning to spend like a drunken sailor on crack with someone else’s stolen American Express Gold card?

See also:
A New Era of Responsibility
Renewing America’s Promise

Obama Seeks Congressional Support for $3.55 Trillion Budget
Obama budget projected at $9.3 trillion in next 10 years
CBO: U.S. budget deficit to hit 1.8 trillion dollars this year
Deficit Projected To Swell Beyond Earlier Estimates
Great Obama bankruptcy?
Obama plan may ‘bankrupt’ US
Federal Budget Spending, National Debt, Deficit
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Maxing Out the National Debt Clock

/how long before China and the rest of the world just say no and stop funding our insane deficit spending addiction?

War By Euphemism

I [expletive deleted] you not.

‘Global War On Terror’ Is Given New Name

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase “global war on terror,” a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

Not so, said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman.

“There was no memo, no guidance,” Baer said yesterday. “This is the opinion of a career civil servant.”

Coincidentally or not, senior administration officials had been publicly using the phrase “overseas contingency operations” in a war context for roughly a month before the e-mail was sent.

Peter Orszag, the OMB director, turned to it Feb. 26 when discussing Obama’s budget proposal at a news conference: “The budget shows the combined cost of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other overseas contingency operations that may be necessary.”

And in congressional testimony last week, Craig W. Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, said, “Key battlefield monetary incentives has allowed the Air Force to meet the demands of overseas contingency operations even as requirements continue to grow.”

Monday’s Pentagon e-mail was prompted by congressional testimony that Lt. Gen. John W. Bergman, head of the Marine Forces Reserve, intends to give today. The memo advised Pentagon personnel to “please pass this onto your speechwriters and try to catch this change before statements make it to OMB.”

See also:
The war on terror, RIP
Obama Renames the War on Terror
The ‘War on Terror’ is Over! Well, Sorta…
It’s not a War On Terror, it’s an “Overseas Contingency Operation”
Overseas Contingency Operation Is The New Global War on Terror
Children In Charge

What a novel war strategy, winning by redefining the conflict and recasting it as something benign. WTF?

/henceforth, al Qaeda and the Taliban shall be known as overly playful Jihad kittens

The Blueprint For The Total Destruction Of The United States Of America

A New Era of Responsibility
Renewing America’s Promise

How can they possibly be serious about this abomination? Are the people who put this together on drugs or just enemies of this country?

/as if he hasn’t done enough damage in his first month, I can’t wait until Obama starts appointing Federal judges