How Bush isn't responsible for the FY 2009 budget

Lets talk about the United States budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

The left has tried repeatedly to blame Bush for the FY 2009 budget, and most of the time, this would be completely legitimate.  After all, when Obama came into office, it was in the middle of FY 2009.  So logic would dictate that whatever budget was in place when he came into office, he had no say over.  Moreover, one would think that the previous president had his voice in the FY 2009 budget.

But then you'd be wrong.
Let me explain.  As soon as the Democrats came into office, they started ignoring Bush's budget.  By the time Bush turned in his FY 2009 suggestion, it was dead on arrival.
Then the Democrats proposed their budget.

They loved their budget compared to the president's budget, because it didn't involve cuts:


When the Democrats proposed their budget, Bush similiarly declared it dead. This is from Feb 2009,  Bloomberg:

Democrats postponed work on the appropriations bills last year after they were unable to reach an agreement with former President George W. Bush on how much to spend on domestic programs. Bush had demanded lawmakers freeze most domestic spending. Most federal agencies, except those related to defense, have been funded by a stopgap measure that expires March 6.

Democrats did vote on the "idea" of the budget in March of 2008.  However, it was a non binding budget... meaning, it meant nothing.  According to USA today:

Democrats gave final approval on Thursday of a budget blueprint for 2009 that rewards domestic agencies and the Pentagon with generous budget increases while leaving wrenching decisions about curbing Medicare costs and increasing taxes to the next president.

The House approved the $3.1 trillion budget plan by a 214-210 vote; senators passed the measure Wednesday. The nonbinding measure does not go to President Bush but instead sets guidelines for future action by Congress.

The House-Senate compromise relies on questionable assumptions to predict a small budget surplus by 2012 after seven years of deficits under the Republican president.

Wait... what was that?

The next president actually will inherit a deficit in the $400 billion range, or higher, under current estimates. Some Wall Street economists fear record deficits of up to $500 billion.

Republicans lamented the lost opportunity to tackle the biggest budget challenge: the rapidly spiraling cost of Medicare, Social Security and the Medicaid health care program for the poor. The Democratic plan would not impose any cost-cutting on them.

Democrats are generous, however, in the near term with the annual spending bills passed by Congress. Over the five years of the Democratic plan, appropriated spending would rise $241 billion. In line for large increases are education, energy and public works.

Huh.   Okay.
Here's the vote in the house:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	214	14		7
Republican		196		3
Independent
TOTALS	214	210		10

It appears as though the Republicans were solidly against the Dems non-binding budget proposal.
And of course, the vote in the Senate:
Where you'll find that only 2 Republicans voted for it.

So instead of freezing spending, Democrats passed parts of the budget piecemeal in order to keep the government going.  But that's not all.  Democrats waited until Obama got into office, and then passed the final portion of FY 2009 under him... in March 2009!  Again, via Bloomberg:

The U.S. Congress gave final approval to a $410 billion spending bill that includes an overall 8 percent budget increase for some federal agencies and thousands of congressional pet projects.

The Senate approved the so-called omnibus measure on a voice vote, sending it to President Barack Obama for his signature. Moments earlier, the bill cleared a procedural vote 62 to 35. The House approved the plan Feb. 25.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said before passage that he was “very” surprised at how long it took lawmakers to reach agreement on the legislation. He said the bill will provide needed funding increases for federal agencies that saw too many lean budgets during former President George W. Bush’s administration.

Please note that Harry Reid wrote that there were "too many lean" budgets under GWB.  Now, with Obama in charge, he was much happier, and fatter.

HR 1105 caused a little bit of a ruckus over the pork laden in it.
But you might wonder who actually voted for it?
Well, here's the roll call of the House:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	229	20		4
Republican	16	158		4
Independent
TOTALS	245	178		8

Huh.  Seems kinda lopsided.  Like.... like there were a ton of Republicans voting against it.
But maybe that was just the house?

Here's the final cloture bill in the Senate:

Of the 62 "Yeas", only 8 were Republicans.
Which means this bill swept through, despite Republican opposition.

If you say that either Bush or Republicans were responsible for the FY2009 budget, you are beyond wrong.  You're in that special category of dishonesty or ignorance.

Pick one.

MYTH: President Bush was never questioned by reporters on the Iraq war

There is a myth that has been spread that the press never challenged Bush on the Iraq war.
This, of course, is completely goofy.
Here is just one press conference... just one... where the president was challenged. Here are some of the questions reporters asked:

" Since you made it clear just now that you don't think that Saddam has disarmed and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort, are we just days away from the point at which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum, a two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?"

"Mr. President, you and your top advisers, notably Secretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all of the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein and that they have been sharing their intelligence as well. If all of these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?
And in relation to that, today, the British foreign minister,
Jack Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending the resolution perhaps with an eye toward a timetable, like that proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more support with any members of the Security Council.
Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?"

"Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?
And if I may, during a recent demonstration many of the protesters suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace.
I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies."

"Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place.
And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisers have shared with you about worst-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?"

"Thank you, sir. May I follow up on Jim Angle's question? In the past several weeks your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N. and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets into anti-war protests.
May I ask what went wrong that so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?"

"Mr. President, to a lot of people it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt — most people I would guess — that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm.
And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country — as much as half by polling standards — who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us."

"Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?"

"Even though our military can certainly prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at least slightly more challenging for us, and therefore at least slightly more likely that American lives will be lost? And if they don't reverse course, would you stop backing their entry into the European Union?"

"As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?"

"Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground, or the journalists? Will you be able to do that and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?"

"Mr. President, good evening. Sir, you've talked a lot about trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about their own lives, about how to spend their own money.
When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the administration surely has costed out various scenarios. If that's the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know what to expect, sir?"

"Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?"

Now would you feel okay saying that President Bush was never questioned on the Iraq War by the press?

Debt: Bush v. Obama

I just did some simple research to find out the debt, Bush vs. Obama.

When Bush came into office on 1/20/01, the debt was 5.7 Trillion.
The debt when the democrats took over congress on 1/3/2007 was 8.5 Trillion.

That makes Bush responsible for approximately 2.8 Trillion of debt.

The democratic-run congress then ballooned that debt in only 2 year's time to 10.6 Trillion on January 20th, 2009, the day Barack took over.

Bush & the Republican led congress added 2.8 trillion of debt for the 6 years that they were in power, or approximately 460 billion a year.

Congress spent 2.1 Trillion over two years, or roughly 1.05 Trillion a year with the Democrats in charge and Bush as a lame duck president.

But that's nothing to what happened once Obama took office.
On January 20th of the next year, our debt was 12.3 trillion.
In one year, the Democrat-run congress with Barack at the helm gave us 1.7 Trillion of debt in one year... more then triple what the Republican led congress was racking up under Bush.

SOURCE:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Freddie & Fannie, a brief history on financial regulation

I've been reading a lot of praise by those on the left for the Obama administration regarding their push for financial reform.

Its ironic for me to hear them blaming George Bush for 'not doing' anything. Particularly when he was the force that tried to get something done.

The New York Times was the first one to give the Bush administration credit for trying to oversee Freddie and Fannie. They did so way back on September 11, of 2003.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

Most of us know what happened during that attempt to regulate the industry. But in case you don't, here's a short video lesson:

The Wall Street Journal was kind enough to sum up the whole sordid saga in a commentary provided by Karl Rove. Some highlights:
Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.
I like to fact check, so I looked it up.
After all, if you're going to quote Karl Rove, someone isn't going to believe you. This is what the 2002 FY budget of George Bush said, in his first year in office [my emphasis in red, added]:

Uncertainties about the Federal Government’s liability
have increased in some areas. Consolidation has
increased bank size, and deregulation has allowed
banks to engage in many risky activities. Thus, the
loss to the deposit insurance funds can turn out to
be unusually large in some bad years. The potential
loss needs to be limited by large insurance reserves
and effective regulation. The large size of some GSEs
is also a potential problem. Financial trouble of a large
GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets,
affecting Federally insured entities and economic
activity.

Interesting, huh?
Its almost like... Republicans were on top of this the entire time.
Not convinced yet?
Read this quote:

There is some evidence that the mortgage industry
has seen an increase in the number of predatory loans.
Predatory loans, which carry excessive fees or other
unfair pricing structure, harm unsuspecting buyers.
Predatory loans are more prevalent in the subprime
market where conventional loans are made to higher risk
borrowers. The Government can improve mortgage market
efficiency by squeezing out predatory practices
through increased regulation and disclosure. In addition
to predatory lending, the mortgage industry also has
seen increased incidences of fraud.

Sound familiar?

The president urges patience with Iraq

Every once in a while, I run across something that I need to archive.
Like this article:

In his weekly radio address today, [the president] once again framed the war in Iraq as a battle against al-Qaeda and urged the American people to give his troop surge strategy more time to be successful. The president started off this week by giving listeners a preview of his speech at the American Legion national convention this week.

I thought it was interesting to hear the president urge for more time. Especially considering that at the time the president was asking for more time, Senator Obama was criticizing the war.

You see, this was President Bush, in August of 2007.

To be fair to Obama, I have to quote him at length:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq's leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

That's not all he said. Please read the complete speech.
Its also important to note that this was not a one time position of the president. A month later, in September 12, 2007, he said:

I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.

It is now July of 2010.
As Barack said, "...I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006."
He basically opposed it until he was in office.
Now I wouldn't blame him if he actually turned around and said, "You know what? President Bush was right to stay in Iraq"
But Barack won't do that. Its not that he isn't smart enough to realize that Bush was right. Clearly, he does. Its either that his ego is too big for him to realize it, or he drowned himself in his own pronouncements that Bush was wrong that he made people believe him. And now, he can't admit it, or Bush looks smarter then he is.

There are a lot of people that I do not want as my leader. The very first category is the one who cannot admit when they were clearly wrong.

Bush vs. Obama, Katrina vs. BP

According to the public policy center, Bush wins.
Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with

Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.

Oh, hilarious.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Thank you Democrats for at least some consistency.

If Obama were a security guard

Picture, for a moment, that Obama was a security guard.

A massive theft occurs under his watch. When it happens, Obama blames the security guard who was fired 15 months ago. He tells us that the former security guard had lax security measures and poor security practices, which is why things were stolen under Barack's guard. He further tells the owner of the stolen goods that he's really going to get tough now. That he's learned from this theft, and he won't get fooled again.

How would you react?