Hey! Let's Blame it all on the Tea Party!

When Obama's popularity plummeted as he pushed one power grabbing policy after another, The White House decided to blame Bush.  When that didn't achieve the desired response they blamed the GOP in general, "the party of no!" for blocking all their initiatives (when, in fact, the Dems have a majority...).  Now the strategy is apparently going to be "Blame the Tea Party" because they are "shouting loudly" and are mysteriously funded, and are extreme!

Jay Cost has an excellent response to this tactic:

For the swing voters who determine elections, it's clear by now that the midterm is going to be about the deeply unpopular policies of President Obama.  Attacking the Tea Partiers is not going to distract them because the Tea Partiers have had nothing to do with those policies.  

Buy they can try it.  In fact, go for it.  I'm betting it will backfire on them.  People are sick and tired of Team Obama blaming everyone else for his missteps.  So, go for it. 

Vodkapundit has the best quote response to this strategy, and Stacy McCain, the best video.

Meanwhile, I'll be over here ticking off the days until November.

Obama? Mary Landrieu Would Like a Word With You About the Budget...

Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D.) finds some things in Obama's budget that she doesn't like. Landrieu never endorsed Obama during the presidential primary but she did vote along with him 81% of the time while he was in the Senate (which wasn't actually a very long period of time).

One of her concerns is Obama's tax increases for domestic oil producers:

"Such tax hikes would increase our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, reduce the competitiveness of U.S. energy companies and negatively impact thousands of Louisianians who work in the industry," she said. "It is precisely when oil prices are low that we must most vigilantly work to increase domestic energy production to prevent another price spike when the economy recovers. The course of action proposed in the president’s budget would compromise America’s energy security, weaken our economy and reduce the supply of natural gas, which could undermine our efforts to clean our air and reduce carbon emissions."

She's also unhappy that he has not fully funded the 11th LPD-17 ship that was to be built in Avondale:

"While the 10th ship is funded in the budget, delaying the 11th ship greatly increases the likelihood that it will never be built," Landrieu said. "This is unwise from the standpoint of our economy and our military preparedness, and I will fight it at every step in the process. While I support trimming excess spending from the federal budget, we cannot shortchange national defense programs that protect our troops in a time of war and sustain American manufacturing jobs, particularly those at Avondale.”

The energy provision is troubling on several fronts but what concerns me most is that the Obama seems determined to focus soley on alternative energies while needlessly restricting domestic energy production. He's restricted offshore drilling; refused to open new areas for exploration such as ANWAR and also shut down any hope of developing nuclear energy with his decision to cut development of the Yucca Mountain site.

He wants to decrease dependence on foreign oil yet is giving us no viable options to do so.

The delay of funding of the LPB-17 until 2011, some say, ensures that the ship will never be built. At the very least it reflects Obama's overall attack on the defense budget. The defense cuts have been tragic and I'm afraid we'll be paying for those later.

We're involved in two wars. North Korea is launching missiles. Iran is developing a nuclear program. The Taliban is resurging. Pakistan is falling. We're about to release Gitmo terrorists into the U.S. We're alienating Israel and Britain. China is harassing U.S. Navy ships.

And his answer is to cut defense spending? Why? Beause we're going to make nice with the world and they'll love us.

While I've never been a fan of "Katrina Mary" Landrieu, I do agree with her on these two budget issues. But what I hope she sees is that they, along with the other budget items, indicate a dangerous pattern for the U.S. I also hope that her disaccord with Obama is reflective of an awakening awareness that his policies are dangerous.

Barry's Budget

Be sure to go check out Keith Hennessey's budget post! And check out his graphic below:


He isn't too impressed with Barry's budget cutting.

(H/T: Instapundit)

OMFG

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," he said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation."

I'm told he even said this with a straight face.

Obama's Budget Cuts, Visualized

Via American Spectator (Philip Klein)

The Blame Game

This quote from Obama in the New York Times caught my attention:

“With the fiscal mess we’ve inherited and the cost of this financial crisis, I’ve proposed a budget that cuts our deficit in half by the end of my first term,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s why we are scouring every corner of the budget and have proposed $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.”

I wonder how long will this "we've inherited" line actually play? Does Mr. Obama truly hold previous administrations 100% responsible for our current situation? Didn't he say the other day that "I'm responsible, the buck stops with me"? He was referring to the AIG bonuses, but isn't that part of the "fiscal mess" in which we find ourselves? Geithner is in no way responsible for that fiasco?

The point is, it's time for Obama to quit blaming the previous administration for everything, accept the responsibility for the economy, and fix it. He wanted the job, he wanted the responsibility, he campaigned for it, so stop blaming everyone else and take care of it.

Most of us learned in elementary school that blaming someone else does not solve the problem or make it any less your responsibility. You own it now, Mr. Obama. You won it.

Which brings us to the budget, speaking of a financial mess, and the proposals Obama can't blame on Bush. Obama has proposed a $3.6 trillion dollar budget, historically huge by all accounts. Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a frightening assessment of the Obama budget proposal. They expect another $1 trillion dollar increase over the already predicted $3.6 trillion dollar proposal.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are already demanding changes in the proposal and some think, gasp!, that he's over reaching. Trying to do too much.

There are many things in this budget that are troubling, one of which is the cap and trade proposal. This policy will inevitably make energy costs soar to frightening levels. The anticipated revenue to the government from energy providers is expected to exceed $645 billion over 8 years. Do we think those costs won't get passed on to the consumer?
And don't forget that higher energy costs don't just appear in your electric and fuel bills, but also at the grocery store, among other places.

In September 2008, Obama said “And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes" [emphasis mine].

Yet in November 2008, Obama signed the SCHIP expansion bill which incresed the federal excise tax on tobacco by 156 percent.

It's all just "words," right?

With his words, is Obama laying the groundwork for an excuse when this administration spreads too thin and fails to achieve its glorious promises and utopia for all? "What a great president he could have been if only he hadn't inherited that pesky economic crisis! It's all George Bush's fault!"

Drop the blame game and the finger-pointing, Mr. Obama, and get to work.

Update: Ed points out that Cap 'n Trade will probably get pushed back to 2011 and that the focus this time will be on health care.

Buyer's Remorse

John McCain's rant on the Senate floor against the earmarks we have been forced to swallow lately was right on target. His frustration was exactly what many Americans have been feeling as we railed against the Porkulus bill, the Omnibus bill and the budget. The Tea Party protests around the country have not been without notice. Some folks, but not quite enough yet, are even expressing "buyer's remorse" with regard to Mr. Obama.

McCain called out Obama over the earmarks. He quoted Mr. Obama's line from the debate in Oxford:

“'We need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.' That’s the quote, the promise of the president of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, Miss. So what is brought to the floor today — 9,000 earmarks.…So much for change.”

You can hardly blame him for being angry; the earmarks are ridiculous. This was the bill that had funding for tattoo removal for gang members, promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, lobster research, Mormon cricket research, seals in Maine, and termite research in New Orleans, just to name a few.

McCain dismissed budget director Peter Orszag's remark that "this is last year's business" and that the president is ready to "move on." McCain rightly points out that THIS president will sign it, so it is THIS president's responsibility. At a time when the economy is tanking and people are losing jobs, this spending is nothing short of an insult to the American people, so no wonder McCain is a tad riled up.

He is not the only one riled up. Fox News reports Cuban born Senator Mel Martinez (R.-FL.) isn't happy either. The Omnibus bill eases restrictions on travel to Cuba and extends credit for increased trade to the island nation, all moves that Martinez says will not benefit the Cuban people as the measure exacts no positive actions in return.

"'As we consider changing U.S. policy toward Cuba, why are we doing this without asking anything?" Martinez implored his colleagues, suggesting that the U.S. should, for example, demand the release of political prisoners."

Former Obama supporter David Brooks is now saying of the budget,

"So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new. "

And Christopher "Sorry Dad, I'm Voting For Obama" Buckley is expressing doubts:

"The strange thing is that one feels almost unpatriotic, entertaining negative thoughts about Mr. Obama’s grand plan, as if one were indulging in—call it—the audacity of nope. It is on the one hand clear that something must be done about our economic woes. But that is very different from saying that spending these vast, oceanic sums of money is the right corrective to a decade of fiscal incontinence."

It all begs the question, how much will the American people take before the revolution begins? You're going to suggest it's "too early" to pass judgment, aren't you? How long should I wait, then? Until the stock market hits 3,000? Until our health care system has been dismantled, destroyed and dominated by harsh socialistic regulations? Until the tax rate hits 55 or 60% on all of us? Until my energy costs triple because of the cap and trade restrictions? Until terrorists, encouraged by our ever weakening stance on terrorism, come calling?

Can I pass judgment then? Or am I supposed to keep "hoping" for the best?

Tilting at Windmills

A clear example of politician-double-speak: when Obama says he isn't going to raise taxes on anymone making less than $250K, he's not telling you that the utility companies will jack your rates up to a European socialized-country level.

From Larry Kudlow at National Review:

"Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

"And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge tax increase on all blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, and new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less."

I mean, when he imposes his "cap and trade" system on us, you think oil companies aren't going to pass this along to us? After all, he promised to "bankrupt" the coal industry, and by golly, he's going to do it.

Basically, this cap and trade system will require companies to buy credits if they exceed greenhouse gas limits. As Sara Goss points out in American Thinker, "companies don't absorb costs, they pass them on to the consumer." Utility bills will double, or even triple.

From the Shreveport Times:

To raise about $30 billion over 10 years to pay for other priorities, Obama wants to impose a new excise tax on offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, cut tax breaks and increase royalties.

Independent Petroleum Association of America President Barry Russell said Obama "delivered a devastating blow to the American oil and natural gas industry today."

"Ninety percent of the oil and natural gas wells developed in the United States are done by small, independent businesses — not so-called 'Big Oil' — so tax increases hurt these companies most," Russell said. "This budget hurts our ability to be competitive with other nations in the growing world energy marketplace."

Russell said the budget proposals, coupled with the administration's recent move to delay a five-year plan that would determine the sites of the next offshore lease sales, "is not welcome news, especially for the majority of Americans who favor increased American oil and natural gas production."

Off-shore drilling is a high-risk enterprise and to remove all incentive further increases the cost of production.

Obama wants us to resort more to "green energy" - I get that. But it's not in place yet. Start-up is expensive. It's not proven it works. If he wants to develop these things, fine, but why, especially during a recession, would you kill any more industry than we already have? Or deny and penalize a technology that we know works? I don't think he'll offer a bailout to the coal industry so they can buy their cap and trade permits.

We must have a reliable energy supply. Windmills aren't it. Energy producers get slammed in the new Obama budget proposal. The result will be "lower energy production or increased cost to the consumers."

More Pork, Please

Ray Charles and "Here We Go Again" is the theme music for this post.

Congress is preparing to lay their new $410 spending bill on us as the new budget cycle begins. Republicans are deriding the bill as "the cherry on the stimulus sundae" but you can be sure they have their own earmarks in this one as well.

The budget process begins Thursday as Obama releases his 2010 budget plan. On top of the Porkulus bill, this might truly be too much to take!

Last night Michelle Malkin posted a link to Capitol Hill staffer Tom Jones and his twittering of the bill; he's going through it with a fine tooth comb and identifying the pork.

Some of his findings?

awesome $200K #pork for "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" amazing. $$$ to get rid of gang tats. pg283

$5.8M earmark for "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate... for the planning and design of a building & an endowment" p.232

omnibus has $95,000 earmark to "combat obesity" - how about less pork?

earmark to the stars?? $2M for "for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" Really? pg. 332

National Council of LaRaza gets $473,000 earmark in #omnibus from Sens. Bingamen and Menendez

Follow his twitters and see what he finds today!