Sunday, February 22, 2009

Obama's cutting pork? Now that's funny

So let me make sure I have this right.

Within a week of the Obamunists spending billions of dollars on condoms and various other non essential sundries, now we're going to get serious about the budget deficit.

Are you serious?

Obama will touch on his efforts to restore fiscal discipline at a White House fiscal policy summit on Monday and in an address to Congress on Tuesday. On Thursday he plans to send at least a summary of his first budget request to Capitol Hill. The bottom line, said an administration official Saturday, is to halve the federal deficit to $533 billion by the time his first term ends in 2013. He inherited a deficit of about $1.3 trillion from former President George W. Bush.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget for the fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1, said the deficit will be shrunk by scaling back Iraq war spending, ending the temporary tax breaks enacted by the Bush administration for those making $250,000 or more a year, and streamlining government.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

You could have started by using some of that discipline on that boated pile of pork you signed. You know, that pile of pork the prisoners at Gitmo claim is an abuse of their human rights from the smell.

More audacity of audacity here.....

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The AP reports this like running a half trillion dollar deficit is somehow fiscal responsibility. What is buried deep in their piece is that this supposed "discipline" only kicks in in year 4 of the Obama term.

Until then, the Obama administration already plans on keeping the current $1.3T annual deficit.

Maybe Jill the Journalist can explain why the headline isn't "Obama Plans ON Continuing the Record Deficit"? 2009, 2010 and 2011 seem more relavant than 2012 which is the year that the article headlines. Why does the AP seem to be satisfied with just reprinting the brief that Obama's press secratary hands out?

Jill? Any ideas here? Are you OK with your collegues' representation (interpretation) of "facts" (hopes)? Shouldn't the press be more focused on the current budget than on the theoretical one planned for 4 years?