Mt. Vernon Register-News

Opinion

January 24, 2013

York: Once a critic of deficits Obama now goes for broke

WASHINGTON, D.C. — “You don’t have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing gap between revenues and expenses,” said Sen. Barack Obama during a Nov. 3, 2005, debate on the Senate floor. At the time, Obama had been a senator for less than a year and the federal budget deficit was in fact shrinking, from $248 billion in fiscal 2006 to $160 billion in fiscal 2007. Still, Obama seemed deeply concerned about the deficit, and he appeared to believe it when he said the only way to close the shortfalls was to force Congress to pay for what it spends.

A few months later, on March 16, 2006, Obama returned to the same theme – “You don’t have to be a deficit hawk ...” – in a sobering floor speech as the Senate considered whether to raise the nation’s debt ceiling from $8.184 trillion to $8.965 trillion. “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Obama said. “It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

The deficit, Obama argued, handcuffed government in many ways. The money paid in interest on the debt was money that could not be spent on education, transportation, disaster relief or many other worthy causes. And borrowing so much from foreign countries meant America’s economy would be “tied to the whims of foreign leaders” who might not wish the best for the United States.

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally,” Obama concluded. “I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama made good on his promise. Joined by then-Sen. Joe Biden, Senate Democratic leaders Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer and indeed every other Democrat, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. Republicans, who controlled the Senate with a Republican in the White House, voted for the increase, which became law.

Later, as president, Obama admitted his ‘06 debt ceiling vote was a political maneuver. “That was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country,” Obama told ABC in April 2011. “As president, you start realizing, ‘You know what? We can’t play around with this stuff.’”

These days, Obama’s partisans defend that ‘06 vote by pointing out that Democrats weren’t in control back then and couldn’t have actually blocked a debt limit increase even if they had wanted to. So Obama could “play around” with the vote.

But did Obama’s words sound like a man who was playing around? In that ‘06 Senate speech, he made a cogent and convincing case against deficits. If he didn’t believe a word of it, he didn’t show it.

And now, under his own administration, the problem is so much worse. The budget deficit that headed from $248 billion to $160 billion in 2006 and 2007 shot up to $458 billion in 2008 and $1.4 trillion in 2009 as the economic crisis took hold and Obama became president.

In 2010, the deficit was $1.3 trillion, then another $1.3 trillion in 2011, then $1.1 trillion in 2012. It’s projected to be above $1 trillion again in 2013, extending Obama’s record of presiding over unprecedented trillion-plus deficits.

And now President Obama, who in 2006 balked at raising the debt ceiling to $8.965 trillion, is demanding that Congress, without question, negotiation, or condition, raise the debt ceiling somewhere far above its current $16.4 trillion.

“There is ... no ready, credible solution, other than Congress either give me the authority to raise the debt ceiling, or exercise the responsibility that they have kept for themselves and raise the debt ceiling,” Obama said at his recent news conference. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”

But the interest on the debt, now vastly higher than when Obama addressed the issue in 2006, is still money that can’t be used for education, transportation and other priorities. And the money borrowed from other countries, also vastly more than in ‘06, leaves the U.S. even more at the whims of foreign leaders.

Did the president believe what he said back then, or does he believe what he is saying now? Who knows? But perhaps the Barack Obama of 2013 should listen to the Barack Obama of 2006. He was an emerging Democratic superstar back then. And no wonder – he made a lot of sense.

1
Text Only
Opinion
  • City wastes money Editor:In the paper Wednesday it was reported that someone with the City Of Mount Vernon had responded to the concerns of about 40 people that came out in support of the Henningers on 42nd St.The statement in part was; as stewards of the tax-payer’s

    August 22, 2014

  • The right presidential reaction As the tumultuous situation in Ferguson, Mo., entered its second week, President Obama stood before the nation and offered a mild, balanced plea. There is “no excuse” for excessive use of deadly force by police, he observed at a Monday news conferenc

    August 22, 2014

  • HIGHWAY TO THE DANGER ZONE Remember MacGyver? He was the fictional secret agent of 1980s television who would get out of world-threatening jams using only duct tape and a Swiss Army knife. Listening to Pope Francis in Korea the other day, I had some flashbacks to the prime-ti

    August 22, 2014

  • Keeping up with the Comcast call-center fiasco I’ve been intending for a while to write about the Comcast call-center fiasco, but it’s hard to keep up: the story just gets weirder and weirder. Following the now-viral recording of the telephone call in which a customer service representative essen

    August 21, 2014

  • System needed for choosing House In the original conception of our Constitution, the House of Representatives was to be the branch of government that best reflected the will of the people. House members cannot serve without being elected — vacancies are not filled by appointees — an

    August 21, 2014

  • Dems plead for more money I’ve been getting a lot of email from Democratic fundraisers lately. They seem very worried about November’s elections.First came the highly publicized “Impeachment Red Alert” campaign, in which the Democratic congressional committee warned that Repu

    August 21, 2014

  • Why Obama shouldn't go to Ferguson On Monday, ABC’s Ann Compton asked President Barack Obama whether he would visit Ferguson, Missouri, amid the continued unrest. Obama didn’t give a firm answer, but he did suggest it’s probably not a good idea.“When they’re conducting an investigatio

    August 20, 2014

  • Food stamps' $80B secret spending program Imagine a government program that has exploded in size, is the subject of bitter partisan haggling and spends almost $80 billion a year in secret.No, not the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Homeland Secu

    August 20, 2014

  • Vouchers provide greater choice I was chatting the other day with a fellow who, along with his wife, homeschool his children. We joked about the stereotype: Moms in denim skirts.But then he expounded on the benefits his youngsters have derived from being taught at home: a customize

    August 20, 2014

  • A rare experience Alexandra Petri’s editorial, “What exactly are we seeing in Ferguson” is well written and did something which has increasingly become a rare experience for me. Her article caused me to think!Petri makes the case for media coverage of American events,

    August 19, 2014

Twitter Updates
Facebook
Stocks