Free Markets, Free People
The Washington Post is just shameless. How else would you describe this:
The federal budget deficit soared to a record $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September, a chasm of red ink unequaled in the postwar era that threatens to complicate the most ambitious goals of the Obama administration, including plans for fresh spending to create jobs and spur economic recovery.
Still, the figure represents a significant improvement over the darkest deficit projections, which had been as much as $400 billion higher earlier this year, when the economy was wallowing in recession.
Or said another way, 1.4 trillion in new debt isn’t so bad – some guy earlier this year thought it would be 1.8 trillion.
Here, let’s do the graphics and decide how much of a “significant improvement” this is:
A few paragraphs later after trying to sell everyone on how this chasm of difference has actually ended up being beneficial, the Post mentions:
At about 10 percent of the overall economy, the gap between federal spending and tax collections is the largest on record since the end of World War II, and bigger in nominal terms than the past four years of deficits combined. Next year is unlikely to be much better, budget analysts say. And Obama’s current policies would drive the budget gap into the trillion-dollar range for much of the next decade.
Geithner is mentioned saying that “deficits are too high” and Peter Orszag is quoted saying:
“The president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path.” As Obama draws up his second budget blueprint, due to be delivered to Congress in February, Orszag said, “we are considering proposals to put our country back on firm fiscal footing.”
Are “we”? Cap-and-trade. The take-over of the health care system. Government owned auto companies. Trillion dollar deficits for at least a decade. A doubled money supply and $533,000 jobs?
The Post manages to destroy all the happy talk, though, in what must have been an inadvertent fit of journalism contained in one sentence:
Orszag has already instructed federal agencies to identify spending cuts for next year’s budget, but the report comes as lawmakers contemplate proposals that would drive spending even higher.
And, of course, the guy right smack dab in the middle of encouraging all of that higher spending is the same guy Orszag is claiming wants to put the country back on “firm fiscal footing”.
If double-talk were money, this administration would be running a surplus. And the Washington Post isn’t so bad at it either.
One of the reasons Democrats are pounded on their seeming lack of interest in National Security are things like this:
President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department — a move critics say will loosen export controls and potentially benefit Chinese missile development.
The president issued a little-noticed “presidential determination” Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.
Now the folks at Commerce say, hey, don’t worry, we’ll make sure they don’t get the good stuff:
Commerce officials say the shift will not cause controls to be loosened in regards to the export of missile and space technology.
Eugene Cottilli, a spokesman for Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, said under new policy the U.S. government will rigorously monitor all sensitive exports to China.
Except this is exactly the same set up which, under the Clinton administration, enabled China’s missile and rocket program to make its own “great leap forward”.
Let’s summarize – previous setup under Commerce: rocket and missile technology manages to find its way to China. Setup is changed to where the entity charged with national security must approve such sales: technology transfer stops.
So why, then, would you abandon something that works and re-erect the setup that didn’t?
Well, one could logically conclude, among other things, that you’re not real serious about national security – that’s why.