“Here, finally, is the Barack Obama many of us thought we had elected in 2008.” – Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton
To many liberals that might have been true. They finally found their champion to ensure the equality of outcomes (not, as Obama would have you believe, the equality of opportunity) that comes from central economic planning.
“Of course, those productive investments cost money,” Obama said. “They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to pay their fair share.”
But is that the President Obama that the rest of us elected? Too often we forget that one of Barack Obama’s most quoted pledges during the 2008 elections was to enact a “net spending cut” on the federal level.
Take this quote from a CNN debate as an example:
“We have had over the last 8 years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. . . Here’s what I would do. I would spend some money on the key issues we’ve got to work on. But we’ve also got to make spending cuts. And what I’ve proposed . . . is cutting more than I’m spending so it’s a net spending cut.”
In another debate Obama is asked to name some specifics about where he would cut. Here’s his answer:
“But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments. So what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. . . Every dollar I have proposed I have proposed a different cuts. . . We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work, and I want to go through the federal budget line by line. Programs that don’t work we should cut. Programs we need we should make better.”
So as the Left cheers that their champion has finally arrived, ready to beat back the small-government numbskulls attempting to stop progress in its tracks, aren’t we right to wonder what happened to the candidate that promised us a net spending cut?
He’s still missing in action. In his place we’ve got the biggest deficit, the most debt, and the worst fiscal outlook we’ve ever had as a nation. Indeed, the president that Obama has morphed into would have appalled Obama as a candidate.
For instance, this past Obama achieved the milestone of adding just over $4 trillion to our national debt. And what’s more he accomplished it in three years. Now, here’s candidate Obama in a campaign event in Fargo, ND, laying the hammer down on President Bush for adding $4 trillion to the debt:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back – $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
What President Bush took eight years to accomplish, Obama managed in less than three. In fact, as of Halloween the total U.S. debt was $15.01 trillion – an all-time high – which also happens to be the size of our entire Gross Domestic Product. For the first time since World War II, when we were burning up resources for full-scale war mobilization, our national debt is equal to the size of our entire economy.
This isn’t the president we elected in 2008. But here’s an even scarier thought – if liberals are right, and last week’s speech at Osawatomie truly was the emergence of the real, liberal Obama, then just how quickly will our national debt shoot up in the next five years?
There’s only one sure-fire way not to find out. Don’t vote for him.