Obama's numbers just don't add up

[unixronin]

I've been observing for some months now that Barack Obama, while insisting he's going to balance the budget, is promising to spend far more money than he can actually come up with sources for.

Here's what Obama says:

Obama also made his own stunning claim on spending: That all of his promises on energy, health care and education are paid for with his budget cuts.

"I'm cutting more than I am spending, so that it will be a net spending cut," Obama said.

CBS News analyzes the reality of the Obama infomercial here.  According to CBS, Obama's budget numbers come up about $90 billion short — and that's using their estimate of $60 billion of lost tax revenue.  Use Obama's higher number of a $130 billion reduction in income tax revenue, and that budget shortfall jumps to $160 billion.  His claim to balance the budget seems to be based in the idea that, unable to decide whether to spend the $90 billion he hopes to save by leaving Iraq on roads, teachers or schools, he can simply spend it on all of them.  The problem with this idea is that to make it work, he has to spend that $90 billion more than once.

At that, it's unclear whether CBS included Obama's promised stimulus package in their numbers, as Obama didn't mention it in his infomercial.  That's another $188 billion there.  (Or has he quietly dropped his stimulus-package promise, hoping no-one will notice?)

Barack Obama is big on talking about change.  I've yet to see any clear explanation of what he proposes that change will be, unless he means he's not a Republican.  His budget plan looks no different from anyone else's — it's full of unfunded promises that he can't deliver on without ballooning the debt even further.  Not that McCain's significantly better; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Obama will increase the Federal deficit — not the debt, mind you, just the annual deficit, already sitting at $400 billion — by $281 billion over four years, while McCain's stated plan increases it by $215 billion.  (The first article linked above mentions some of the holes in McCain's fiscal plans.)  Neither of those plans take into account that the federal government just assumed about a trillion dollars in new liabilities.

I don't see the change.  We're being asked to exchange Republican-business-as-usual for Democratic-business-as-usual.  We're not getting any realistic promise of fiscal responsibility.  We're not getting any promise at all of an end to pork.  We're not getting any promise to stop the continued erosion by the government of civil and Constitutional rights in the name of security.  And both candidates are slinging the same old mud and FUD.

I don't see a change here.  It's just another empty slogan.  Swapping Republican for Democrat isn't a change.  It's just the other side of the same coin.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Because McCain is a non-entity. Sort of a placeholder. Very few people really take him seriously in the first place (And actually, you'll see I mentioned above that his budget plans are no better baked than Obama's. About the best I can say of McCain is that I don't think he'd do as much harm as I fear Obama may. Yet for all his nebbishness, he's not that far behind Obama in the polls. What does that say?)

But ... well, there's this sort of messianic cult of personality around Obama. He may not be doubted, he may not be questioned, anything he says is true even when his own record contradicts it. Mention "Change" and the audience cheers with Pavlovian fervor, but ask them — or him — "What change, specifically?" and nobody seems to have an answer. But that's OK, because he's Obama.

It bothers me. It bothers me a lot.

I have an anonymous quotation in my quote file that says, "Patriotism defined as 'love of my country' is all very fine, until you define 'love' as 'blind worship' and 'my country' as 'the man in the White House'." And that's what I see with Obama: something approaching worship. It's enough that he's Obama. His budget doesn't add up; but that's OK, he's Obama. He has no executive experience; but that's OK, he's Obama. He picks one of the most consistently anti-freedom members of Congress as his running mate; but that's OK, because he's Obama.

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

Ok, I believe I understand. I freely admit I'm concerned about Obama's budget, and I'm not in agreement with his stand on gun control and gay rights. But I do support him, and not in the "I'm voting against everyone else" sort of way.

I have been wanting to write a "Why I support Obama" sort of post for a while. I'll see if I can put my thoughts in order and do that today.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm not even sure I can sort out clearly what Obama's position on gay rights is. He seems to be both for and against.

[http://users.livejournal.com/crossfire_/]

He says one thing and his campaign hints at another. This is standard Democratic equivocation when it comes to "the gay vote": we need your votes, but we can't *wink* support *nudge* your agenda *wink wink*.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

This is SOP for his entire campaign. Say one thing, hint at another and his supporters will make up any position that they like anyway.

I cannot count the number of times over the last year that serious Obama supporters have explained to me that 'Obama doesn't really believe , he .' about some sticky issue or another.

Basically he's just 'change' and people fill in the blank about what they want changed and go from there.

IIRC, it was the Chicago Tribune that noted back in 2005 that Obama (who was saying he definitely would not run in 2008) had to run in 2008 because he didn't have any real Senate voting record and that was a tactical advantage that wouldn't last.