Gay Patriot Header Image

How does Obama plan to pay for government programs he favors?

In his post on “Governor Romney’s selection of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate“, Walter Russell Mead asks what is perhaps the defining question of the Obama administration:

The fiscal trajectory does not look good; how exactly do Democrats plan to pay for all the programs they want to protect and extend?

The Democratic incumbent seem to want to have his cake and eat it too, increasing the size and scope of the federal government while asking only “millionaires and billionaires” to foot the bill.  Indeed, Keith Hennessey finds that “the Obama fiscal path and campaign message” relies “on the false presumption that everything will be OK if we raise tax increases only on the rich and make small, mostly painless spending cuts.”* (Via Instapundit)

Hiking taxes on rich people just won’t be enough to pay for his spending increases.

Despite asking for new programs, Barack Obama refuses to give the hard facts to the American people:  to avoid annual trillion-dollar deficits, we need  to either cut federal programs or find a way to pay for them.

And having witnessed American politics for the last thirty years or so, the Democrat is wary of raising taxes; he has seen how toxic such hikes are with voters.  No wonder that, during his 2008 campaign for the White House, he pledged not to raise taxes on a families making “less than $250,000 a year“.

Just a reminder that Mr. Obama blamed his predecessor for the debt accumulated in his term because that Republican gave us a number of programs “we didn’t pay for“.  Seems he’s continued that policy.

RELATED:  Glenn Reynolds quotes Iowahawk:  “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: math.

*The whole piece is well worth your time; Hennessey offers some suggestions on how the Romney-Ryan team can respond to Obama’s attacks.

Share

8 Comments

  1. “How will you pay for it?” seems like an obvious and pertinent question. Yet, this question seems to elude the Rom’s legions of well-compensated campaign advisors.

    Comment by V the K — August 13, 2012 @ 6:11 am - August 13, 2012

  2. Obama isn’t serious about paying for it. He wants his dictatorship by hook or by crook; therefore, he will beg China for buying more of America’s debt, print money, & more QE. This will collapse the system so the Democrats can bring single payer faster through ObamaTax.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — August 13, 2012 @ 9:30 am - August 13, 2012

  3. How does Obama plan to pay for government programs he favors? By seizing, “borrowing” and/or printing** the money, of course.

    Money is a fundamental social contract. It’s a claim on human labor; but not an absolute claim. A person accepts money in payment for her goods and services, only because she -feels confident- that others will accept it later at roughly the same value, when she goes to buy what she needs. And others accept it in turn, only because they feel a similar confidence.

    As with all social contracts, lefties view money as something to manipulate, and/or to seize by force, so that the lefty can get whatever it is that he wants, without having to do the work of making it possible.

    (**Taxation is seizing people’s money by force. “Borrowing” is in scare quotes here, because the money will not be paid back honestly; under Obama, U.S. borrowing has reached levels where it can be repaid by de-valuing or newly-printing currency; so the “borrowing” is only a slightly delayed form of printing. Printing new money is an indirect form of theft; a way to let people keep their money while still seizing the money’s -purchasing power-; when anyone except government does it, the government calls it “counterfeiting”.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 10:07 am - August 13, 2012

  4. Mead’s piece, this is interesting:

    Picking Ryan answers some questions that so far Romney had not been able to address: Who is Mitt Romney…? … he is a business-oriented, pro-enterprise Republican who stands for limited government, budgetary discipline and entitlement reform. The more Democrats attack the choice of a “radical” running mate, the more they contribute to Romney’s rebranding. Indeed, the more widely Dems denounce Ryan as an extremist, they more they undercut the very telling line of attack that Romney is a man without convictions…

    Mead is right. NOW we know who Romney is (or at least, who he promises/threatens to be).

    And to the extent that they Democrats attack Ryan as a grandma-killing fiscal extremist, the Democrats “change the subject” to the last thing they should want to talk about: Obama’s fiscal crisis. And they brand the Republicans as the grownup party, the party of honest fiscal math.

    The Democrats had better find SOMETHING ELSE to hit Ryan with – Fast. Any affairs? Drug history? Alleged mistreatment of women, school chums, or dogs?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2012 @ 10:36 am - August 13, 2012

  5. ILC has made Obama and Bernanke’s plan quite clear:

    “Borrowing” is in scare quotes here, because the money will not be paid back honestly; under Obama, U.S. borrowing has reached levels where it can be repaid by de-valuing or newly-printing currency; so the “borrowing” is only a slightly delayed form of printing. Printing new money is an indirect form of theft; a way to let people keep their money while still seizing the money’s -purchasing power-; when anyone except government does it, the government calls it “counterfeiting”.

    First, every sentient member of Congress understands this and, therefore, is tacitly going along with the game, unless he is openly fighting it.

    Second, for those not keeping up with the pseudo language of doublespeak, we are now calling this sham “quantitative easing.” And the doses of “quantitative easing” are labeled “QE1” and “QE2″and “QE3” and so on. However, the MSM thinks these are all cruise ships.

    You too can join the game. Buy a new car with 2% or lower manufacturer financing and get the longest of all possible terms they will agree to. You lock in today’s payment and pay off the loan with inflated dollars. Home improvements and mortgages also work the same way.

    What I can not shake from my mind is the Cloward-Piven conspiracy. As Jeannie DeAngeles summarizes it:

    The duo taught that if you flooded the welfare rolls and bankrupted the cities and ultimately the nation, it would foster economic collapse, which would lead to political turmoil so severe that socialism would be accepted as a fix to an out-of-control set of circumstances.

    When you attempt to understand the games which George Soros has played and is playing with various currencies, you have a better understanding of this critical and fundamental instruction from ILC:

    Money is a fundamental social contract. It’s a claim on human labor; but not an absolute claim. A person accepts money in payment for her goods and services, only because she -feels confident- that others will accept it later at roughly the same value, when she goes to buy what she needs. And others accept it in turn, only because they feel a similar confidence.

    As with all social contracts, lefties view money as something to manipulate, and/or to seize by force, so that the lefty can get whatever it is that he wants, without having to do the work of making it possible.

    A vastly weakened economy is the devil’s playground.

    Comment by heliotrope — August 13, 2012 @ 11:20 am - August 13, 2012

  6. Exactly, ILC and Heliotrope.

    In particular:

    (**Taxation is seizing people’s money by force. “Borrowing” is in scare quotes here, because the money will not be paid back honestly; under Obama, U.S. borrowing has reached levels where it can be repaid by de-valuing or newly-printing currency; so the “borrowing” is only a slightly delayed form of printing. Printing new money is an indirect form of theft; a way to let people keep their money while still seizing the money’s -purchasing power-; when anyone except government does it, the government calls it “counterfeiting”.)

    The twisted side of that is what the Obama Party is doing with entitlements, which is to collect money now, where it has a tangible and established value, in return for an IOU for future services to be granted at an undetermined time, at a rate and in an amount subject to change without appeal, and wholly at the whim of whether they decide you ultimately “deserve” that benefit or not.

    When I invest money, I expect a specific, unbreakable promise about what I am going to receive, and recompense if I don’t receive it. That’s what banks do, that’s what finance companies do, and that’s what I have to do with my own clients.

    Government doesn’t have to do any of that. It can force me to pay, make me accept an IOU in exchange, and then later change the terms of the IOU so that I get nothing — and then use the money I gave it to bribe people into voting against my protests.

    This is why the Founders wanted limited government in every respect. The power to tax is the power to destroy, because there is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that prevents the government from taxing you to pay for roads and then using it to buy Nancy Pelosi liquor-stocked airliners.

    This is why Obama and his supporters act like the Kardashian daughters and Paris Hilton. They have unlimited credit, will buy whatever they want, and don’t care whether it’s of value or not because they’re not paying for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 13, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - August 13, 2012

  7. Can we please stop pretending that the “loyal opposition” is anything but blind, insensate EVIL? Thanks for schooling us heliotrope and NDT. But just try explaining any of this to an Obama drone. I spent the weekend with one, and was on the brink of blowing my head off. However, being the good Catholic boy I am, that’s not an option.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 13, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - August 13, 2012

  8. Obama and most democrats are part of the “have your cake and eat it too” party. They believe there is a magic money tree that produces all the money they will ever need for every program they want to create.

    Of course there is no magic money tree, just tax payers and the Obama administration wants us to believe that only a few taxpayers are really going to be asked to contribute towards the spending.

    He also has this bridge in Arizone he wants to sell as well.

    Comment by Just Me — August 14, 2012 @ 8:37 am - August 14, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.