Story #5: Byron York: Entitlement Spending Isn't the Problem
RUSH: I mentioned in the previous hour that Byron York, a week ago last Monday, had a piece posted at the Examiner: "Spending, Not Entitlements, Created Huge Deficit -- It's conventional wisdom in Washington to blame the federal government's dire financial outlook on runaway entitlement spending. Unless we rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the conventional wisdom goes, the federal government is headed for disaster. That's true in the long run. But what is causing massive deficits now? Is it the same entitlements that threaten the future?
"Yes, say some conservatives who favor making entitlement reform a key issue in the 2012 campaign. 'We're $1.5 trillion in debt,' Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said Sunday, referring to this year's projected deficit. 'Where's the debt coming from? It's coming from entitlements.' There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion."
Now, stop and think of this. In 2007, which was a Bush year, the deficit was $160 billion. Four years later, "according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion." From $160 billion to $1.4 trillion in four years. So the question is, is that because of entitlement spending, that somehow Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid just go wild the last four years? Social Security hasn't, as you know, they've been saying there hasn't been any inflation. So there had been no COLAs, cost-of-living adjustments. So how do you go from $160 billion-dollar deficit to a $1.4 trillion deficit? How do you do that?
"Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere." It's in the Oval Office. It's with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
"A lot of the higher spending has stemmed directly from the downturn. There is, for example, spending on what is called 'income security' -- that is, for unemployment compensation, food stamps and related programs. In 2007, the government spent $365 billion on income security. In 2011, it's estimated to spend $622 billion. That's an increase of $257 billion. Then there is Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans. A lot of people had lower incomes due to the economic downturn, and federal expenditures on Medicaid -- its costs are shared with the states -- went from $190 billion in 2007 to an estimated $276 billion in 2011, an increase of $86 billion. Put that together with the $257 billion increase in income security spending, and you have $343 billion. Add to that the $338 billion in decreased revenues, and you get $681 billion -- which means nearly half of the current deficit can be clearly attributed to the downturn.
"There is no line in the federal budget that says 'stimulus,' but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government," and raised the baseline. So the point of Byron York's story here is that while a lot of people, including Republicans, are focused on entitlements, we gotta get entitlements under control, they are 60% of the budget. No question that's true, but they are not the reason we have gone up to 14.3, now 16 because of the debt limit being raised, $17 trillion national debt. It is not entitlements that have done this, it is the Democrat Party. It is Barack Obama. And I think this is fascinating point.
Now, it might take an issue away from the Republicans who are focusing on entitlement reform, but then again it might be helpful. Entitlement reform is a "third rail." I mentioned to you earlier, Celinda Lake, respected Democrat pollsterette, says that there's a 10% chance that Obama won't be the nominee. Well, now, if you look at the entitlement spending here, you cannot explain all of this. The regime wants to focus on entitlement reform, they want the Republicans to take the blame for it, and yet Obama proposed some entitlement reform as part of the raising of the debt limit deal -- and that's when the Democrats started defecting, and that's when there was real anger from people like Pelosi and Reid and the Reverend Jackson and Sharpton.
When he actually mentioned cutting some entitlements, that's when all this scuttlebutt of genuine anger from the left at Obama began. Now we're at a point where Celinda Lake says there's a 10% chance he won't be the nominee, pull an LBJ? Ten percent is 10%. That's 90% he will be, but it is being discussed. Entitlement reform and his willingness to entertain that has caused real friction between him and his buds on the left. So if the focus of this is spending, which is the reason for the Tea Party and its existence and its growth -- and believe me, the Tea Party is continuing to grow; and believe me on this: The Tea Party is drinking tea. Heh heh.
I happen to know from TwoIfByTea.com, our tea. We have evidence. But anyway, the point is that if the focus can be taken away from entitlement spending and properly put on Obama in the campaign, it takes all this danger of being associated with entitlement reform, third rail of politics, off the table. I think it would be a brilliant move for the Republican presidential nominee, whoever it ends up being. Go ahead and talk about entitlement reform. Over the long haul, it obviously has to happen. But it doesn't explain this massive indebtedness. Obama is solely -- and the Democrat Party is solely -- responsible for that, and that is a point worth being made and pounded until people understand it instinctively.
So basically what Byron York is saying in his piece, in a nutshell, the increase in spending was from unemployment, Medicaid, and the stimulus -- and Obama wants to extend all of those. That's how he's gonna get us out of the recession. That's what his plan is! His jobs plan is coming next week. Everybody is waiting with bated breath. Remember that? It's his big jobs plan, and you know it's going to be Stimulus 2. I have not forgot -- I predicted it before I left on vacation -- and it's gonna be double. I'm telling you, he's gonna request a stimulus in the range of 1.5 to $1.6 trillion. The Republicans will oppose it, which is exactly what Obama wants. So he can say, "Look, my plan would work except they're standing in the way of it. Republican obstruction! They don't want help for the unemployed, they don't want help for the sick." I know that's what the plan is, and then it's gonna get really vicious once we have a nominee. Mark my words. Don't doubt me.
_______________
My Schedule of Regular Posts:
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday throughout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment