Let's ask again: Didn't these people run against Pres Bush's deficits?
As we celebrate Pres BO's 100 days, we are astonished with the level of spending and the deficits that we will be financing.
Albert Hunt, a pro BO pundit, wrote this:
"The context is a looming policy and fiscal clash: Obama’s economic, energy, health-care and education initiatives are expensive, and the U.S. faces trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
The president can make a compelling case that these priorities are urgent and can help revive the economy.
Still, those initiatives, and a strong economy, may be unattainable without fiscal discipline elsewhere."
George Will reminds us of Carter:
"His budget calls for doubling the national debt in five years and almost tripling it in 10.
If the necessary government borrowing soon causes a surge in long-term interest rates, the result will be the 1970s redux—inflation and stagnation.
If so, the 44th president will be remembered not as the second iteration of the 32nd (Franklin Roosevelt) but of the 39th (Jimmy Carter)."
Another Carter presidency for the Democrats?
BO's 100 days have been:
1) style over substance, i.e. lots of teleprompter;
2) apologies all over but no Euro troops in Afghanistan; and,
3) budget deficits that will freak out the markets, i.e. 10% of GDP.
At some point, and it won't be long, the BO machine will hit some turbulence. Let's hope that the "yes we can screamers" brought their "Dramamine".
