Obama Reveals Ambitious Budget Plan; Blames Republicans That It’s Not More Ambitious

3 Shares
$50 bills and flag

President Barack Obama unveiled a $3.9 trillion spending proposal for the 2015 fiscal year Tuesday, calling on Congress to approve $56 billion in new “stimulus” spending in excess of Congressionally set limits, while blaming resistance from Republican lawmakers for not aiming even higher.

The election-year proposal is keyed to assuage the public’s demand for more job opportunities after five years of rhetoric from the Administration, and it includes more than $300 billion in new infrastructure spending throughout the remainder of Obama’s second term. It also would authorize spending that exceeds Federal budget caps for the next seven years, by a cumulative $370 billion.

Despite the proposed bloat, the President didn’t hesitate to blame Republicans in the House of Representatives for checking his gargantuan spending appetite down to one that’s simply huge.

From the White House budget summary:

In last year’s Budget, the President included a compromise proposal intended as a show of good faith to spark additional negotiations with Congressional Republicans about the nation’s long-term deficits and debt and to encourage all parties to come together to remove the economically-damaging sequestration cuts. Although that compromise proposal remains on the table, given Congressional Republicans’ unwillingness to negotiate a balanced long-term deficit reduction deal, the President’s 2015 Budget returns to a more traditional Budget presentation that is focused on achieving the President’s vision for the best path to create growth and opportunity for all Americans, and the investments needed to meet that vision.

What Obama’s proposal doesn’t mention is its spend-and-print philosophical underpinnings, which the President laid bare during last year’s government “shutdown” theater. “It does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficits. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent,” Obama said at time, urging the House to raise the Federal debt ceiling.

That infantile, intelligence-insulting subversion of logic (and shifting of blame) rivals that of the teenager who demands that his parents pay off the note on that new car he purchased — but can’t (or won’t) pay for himself — before it’s repossessed by the bank. “I already borrowed the money; it’s only right that we pay it off — never mind that I wouldn’t listen to my shoulder angel, who advised me not to take the plunge, back when I still had the luxury of choosing wisely. The parents are the bad guys because they want me to default on my debts. And since I’m still credit-worthy, I might as well cross the street and shop for a boat…”

And, as The Washington Times observed last fall, Obama’s complicity in ensuring that the Federal debt balloons is anything but passive: It is he who signs off on whatever Congress approves, and Obama has demonstrated that he and his majority of Senate Democrats will accept nothing less than a superabundance of the best.

“The president rarely mentions that he, by law, approves congressional spending, and his argument glosses over the nation’s burgeoning total debt,” the Times’ Dave Boyer noted last October. In a story Tuesday, the Times crunched the numbers on where the Federal deficit will stand in 10 years if, at present rate, its growth isn’t checked. It projected a near-tripling of the Federal deficit, from $10.6 trillion in 2009, to $27.5 trillion by 2024. Is the President’s role in all this simply to close ranks with his party caucus over spending increases and to sign off when his Congressional servants finally bring him the bill he wants?

Obama’s new budget proposal gives you your answer. The Congressional midterms can’t come soon enough.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.