In recent months I have read or watched the Obama White House repeat the claim that it has drastically reduced non-defense discretionary spending by billions of dollars. That claim simply did not ring true – likely many others who heard the same claim felt much as I did. I sent a question off to a longtime Republican Insider about this, and here is their explanation of what Barack Obama has really done – and not surprisingly, this new Obama math adds up to yet another lie.
(Republican Insider explains the truth behind Barack Obama’s version of math…)
__________________________
UM: This week Carney told the media the Obama White House has “drastically” reduced non-discretionary spending to levels not seen since Eisenhower was president. Is this actually true? I am going to assume it’s not so are they just outright lying and the media is allowing it? Please explain.
Here is the word-for-word written response of Republican Insider:
The Obama team was repeating this one over and over again during the campaign, and with the exception of the first debate, the Romney camp didn’t hit back on it nearly as hard as they should have. As for the media, yes, they’re allowing the White House to continue to repeat what is the truth only if you ignore the reality of how they are actually coming to those #s. The media might call it a version of the truth. I think if more people knew what was really going on they would call it what it really is and that’s just another big fat lie by this White House.
Here’s what the Obama White House has done on this, which is actually what I call another example of abuse of Executive Power which has become so common with this administration. Heck, I’ll even come out and say the entire administration from the top down is just one big 24/7 abuse of Executive Power.
The president has taken discretionary spending and shifted it over to non-discretionary spending. Billions of dollars in spending that could have been reduced or eliminated has now been shifted into the category that says it can’t be touched. What used to be discretionary spending is now MANDATORY spending. Then he turns right around and tells the American people with a straight face that he has reduced discretionary spending to “historic lows”.
I’m glad you asked the question because for me it represents more than just a president giving a very shifty version of the truth. It represents how this White House has abused its powers from day one, and how the media and far too many Republicans, have sat back and let them do it. It’s why the 2014 election is going to be so important. It’s also why the Republican Party is in need of new voices like Rand Paul and others to steer it back to being a party that actually represents real conservative values and fights for those values in a way that gives us a chance to win. The good news is that shift is happening right now. That last few weeks inside the party has given me a lot of hope.
Ok, off my soap box for now.
-RI
Was this done by executive order? Any specific info on how this and related things are getting done would be very helpful out here “in the field.”
WHY would anyone believe a word this charlatan says.
Every word out of his teleprompter is parsed and poll tested to maximize it’s effect without regard for the truth.
WHY does anyone believe a word this charlatan has to say?
Every teleprompted word has been poll tested and parsed without regard for the truth.
Since there is no place to send tips:
CBD science:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/cbd-science-hplc-analysis/
Sweep the dirt under the carpet (Move the contents of category “A” to category “B”) Voila! Problem solved.
LOLOLOLOL
Ok, Obama is playing the oldest trick in the book right under Clinton’s ever present and watchful coaching. The lies and deception out of DC and America’s willingness to accept unconditionally just amazes me. DAMN IT FOLKS the flippin emporer has no DAMN clothes on and the screen of shelter of the beltway should be as transparent as an OPEN window!
Remember the BS that Clinton, with Gingrich’s help of course, balanced the budget?
Well, no, they didn’t… they actually raided SEVEN public trust funds to pay off the public deficit… yea, they “moved discretionary spending into the mandatory spending” category by doing so too.
You might enjoy this old story from 2000: http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/clinton%E2%80%99s-3-trillion-raid-on-social-security
If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt — meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve — we didn’t actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn’t decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That’s not retiring debt. That’s just shifting it from one lender to another