Rep Michael Burgess response
Uploaded by MichaelCBurgessMD on Jan 25, 2012
This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address.
Sen. Toomey responds to State of the Union address 2012
Here is an excellent piece from the Heritage Foundation:
What Would Obama Do? Insights from his budget – J.D. Foster What is President Obama’s vision for America, truly? What would he intend in a second term if re-elected? We need not wait for yet another soaring presidential speech to illuminate and clarify. We now have much of the answer to these questions in black and white from his own Administration. The answer is provided in the budget he released this morning. The answer, in short, is more of the same—only more, and less. In summary, Obama’s vision for America according to his own budget is: To add about $3 trillion more in national debt to the roughly $5.5 trillion he added in his first term. To increase federal spending by half a trillion dollars between 2012 and 2016, from $3.8 trillion to $4.3 trillion. To ignore the 2012 budget deficit (projected at $1.3 trillion), allow spending to grow substantially in the years immediately following, and then take sterner measures in some distant future—read: He intends to leave the pending fiscal disaster to his successor. To step up his economy-defeating and self-delusional ideological tax hike war. To hope Congress ignores his tax policies and the economy somehow continues to strengthen on its own. Ultimately, to live up to the moniker of tax-and-spend liberal. There is more, like a tax plan to turn the ownership of America’s largest companies over to foreign ownership. Once again the President has trotted out the liberals’ favorite lines about “investment” when referring to huge jumps in infrastructure spending. The budget also includes a smattering of public-relations-oriented micro policies like a community college proposal that give the President a chance to talk about something on the campaign trail, indeed anything, except the real issues facing America. There is also some good news in the budget. While spending goes up rapidly over time, there are at least no new efforts to pump up the economy and waste taxpayer dollars with another debt-based stimulus. Has the Obama Administration learned this will never work, or is the deficit now simply too large for them to try it again? In truth, a President’s second term is rarely a time of bold initiative and action. For the most part, it’s a time of marking time and continuing and completing policies laid out in a first term. It is also an exercise of denying the opposition power. But there have been notable exceptions. In his second term, President Reagan managed to slow the growth of spending substantially and to sign into law in 1986, the last great tax reform effort. President Clinton signed the landmark welfare reform into law, somewhat begrudgingly perhaps and at the point of a Republican policy bayonet perhaps, but he signed it nevertheless. President Bush tried mightily and failed spectacularly to turn Social Security from a fiscal disaster to a sustainable program for generations to come, but at least he tried. President Obama’s budget lays bare and strips away any pretense that a second Obama term would be marked by bold leadership to address problems like high unemployment, massive budget deficits, and vital entitlement programs headed for financial disaster of Greek-like proportions. As this message sinks in, the Administration will no doubt try to establish an alternative narrative of fear-mongering leavened with promised leadership. But the true picture is painted in black and white in his own budget.
______________
I am glad there is no more efforts in this budget to try another stimulus effort like before, but the sharp cuts that are necessary to balance the budget are not in this budget. Instead of adding 5.5 trillion to the debt like we did in the last three years we will add around 8 trillion.
