Bill Seubert

Following now-Senator Scott Brown’s supermajority-busting win of TedKennedy’sSeat™ in Massachusetts, the Democrat rats are quickly leaping from the Obama sinking ship. The latest “run away” moment comes on the heels of the Obama FY2011 budget proposal. Unsurprisingly, the POTUS continues his trillion dollar deficit extravaganza, even after his laughable attempt to feign fiscal responsibility by recommending a so-called “spending freeze.” as part of his proposal.  This week, it was revealed that one of the rats abandoning the Good Ship Barry is none other than Missouri’s Democrat Secretary of State and presumptive Dem candidate for Kit Bond’s U.S. Senate seat, Robin Carnahan.

It’s been fun to watch the leftist bloggers lament about how their man-god has betrayed them.  Earlier this week, Robin Carnahan expressed her “disappointment” in Obama’s “lack of fiscal discipline”, and the Huffington Post was right there to document it.  HuffPo quotes Robin:

“From where I stand here in Missouri, I’m disappointed in the President’s budget recommendation. Budgets are about setting priorities and it’s time Washington started making fiscal discipline and tackling the long-term budget deficit higher priorities.

As you might expect, the HuffPo blogger was none too pleased with her newfound opposition to their Fearless Leader

But for an Obama White House that is touting the deficit reducing measures it has thrown into the budget (from spending caps, to prospective cuts in defense programs, to “restoring some balance to the tax code”) comments like Carnahan’s don’t help.

Now you might think that we fiscal conservatives might welcome statements of this kind.  If it came from someone we could trust, that might be the case.  But those of us in Missouri are accustomed to politicians who try to talk a good game, yet plant themselves firmly in Barack Obama’s lap.  Senator Claire McCaskill is a pro at trying to sound tough but she always returns to her leftist voting ways.  Claire makes statements that pretend to be “independent” or “moderate”, yet always manages to vote with the Left, displayed by her none-too-stellar 14% lifetime rating from the ACU.  And Robin Carnahan seems to be following suit – trying to sound moderate…but who believes it?  Surely not those who witnessed her speaking under the Obama Logo

Ms. Carnahan’s rebellion begs the question:  ”what exactly do you oppose from President Obama’s budget?”  She is very nondescript in her opposition. Can she identify specific areas of the budget where she’d like Obama to cut back? What does she find objectionable?  She has yet to oppose any of Obama’s initiatives, such as the failed “stimulus” spending or the near-deceased ObamaCare initiative.  And Robin, have you talked to your bro, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan, about this?  I fully expect Robin would be as “low maintenance” as Russ, and certainly she’ll be persuaded to change her tune once Rahm, Robert and the gang hear how she’s wandered off the ranch.

I don’t think that HuffPo’s Stein has much to worry about with respect to Robin Carnahan.  Despite her tough talk, she’ll be back in the fold eventually.  She’s terrified to tell Missourians what she believes because she knows they won’t like it.  That’s why she chooses not to talk about health care or terrorism or any of the policy positions that sunk Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.  She knows that Roy Blunt is far closer to Missourians’ attitudes about fiscal responsibility, with his support for bills such as 2005’s Deficit Reduction Act and his opposition to bloated budgets even during the Bush administration.

But most importantly, we must keep in mind this worth-a-1000-words picture:

It’s a reminder:  the $1.85T deficit is OBAMA’S DEFICIT and Robin Carnahan will support every major Obama program that is generating these massive deficits that are going to bankrupt the United States and burden your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren for decades to come.

Teh Twitter is abuzz with posts on the rumor that Barack Obama will be announcing a “spending freeze” on discretionary spending during the State of the Union address.  Pay close attention to the words:  discretionary spending.  The word on the street is that his request will exempt “the Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and homeland security” from this so-called “freeze.”  There are a couple of key items to consider:

1. What exactly does he mean by “freeze?”  Does it mean “freeze the level of spending at the bloated 2009 numbers”?  Or does it mean “don’t increase these programs any more in 2010 than we did in 2009?  Or does it mean “stick to historic growth levels, rather than Obama-caliber spending increases”?  Inquiring minds want to know.
2. Discretionary spending means non-entitlement spending.  When you subtract out entitlements:  Medicare & Social Security, and then you subtract defense-related spending, there is precious little left.  In fact, it comes out to less than fifteen percent of the federal budget.*  Barack Obama’s so-called “stimulus” program totaled around $750B – that’s almost 50% greater than the entire non-defense discretionary budget for 2009. Freezing 15% of the federal budget is a drop in the bucket.  (see page 8 of this PDF)

Note one other key item in that Federal Budget PDF document.  As of the year 2017, “Net Interest” – the interest paid on the national debt – exceeds ALL non-military discretionary federal spending.  If Barack Obama wanted to have a real impact on the federal budget, both now and in the future, he would cease and desist from these so-called “stimuli” that are doing little or nothing to fix the Obama Recession.

To propose a spending freeze of any sort is good political theater for Obama, but it will have virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America.