Budget Analysis — More of the Same

When I took office, our Nation was in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The only problem is that most economists have determined June 2009 as the end of the ‘Great Recession’ (according to the National Bureau of Economic Research) as you so apt to call it. So, that means — in layman’s terms — that the economy was on the rebound prior to your election and simply finished its recovery after your first four months on the job.

The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs a month… Our businesses have created more than 14 million jobs over 70 months, the longest streak of job growth on record. We have cut our unemployment rate in half.

This is something I keep seeing you say on TV, a whole of tweets, and just about everywhere I look I hear this same thing. What’s the old saying — “Thou dost protest too much”.

Too a lot of people what you said sounds impressive, but people need to realize that the unemployment rate is misleading. It is only a representative sampling of the population. There are so many ways for people not to count in the unemployment rate that it would need to be a separate post. It does not take into account the underemployment rate — people who are working but not at full time levels. It does not take into account the number of people who have stopped looking for work altogether which is right around 94–95 million people out of a total workforce of 157–158 million (as of January 2016).

Then we could make things really complicated and talk about the “real” unemployment rate.

“… We made the largest investment in clean energy in our history…”

This is one that always bothered me. The one thing you never seemed to mention is the number of businesses that have gone bankrupt, failed, or are in the process of failing — even with all of the federal money your administration gave them. There has been some debate over the number depending on where you get your information from — CNN, The Institute for Energy Research (which included mentioned of $4 billion of taxpayer money funding for India), Fox Nation (listing 36 companies), or CBS.

But there has been no green revolution and there certainly has not been a massive shift in the economy towards going green. In fact, you could easily find a number of sites that would describe this “investment” as a scam or crony capitalism.

“…made health care reform a reality… Nearly 18 million people have gained health coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), cutting the uninsured rate to a record low.”

Obamacare — definitely knew this would be part of the budget. My first question would be — Do you even know what this is supposed to do yet? Nearly 18 million you say — the one thing I do not see you include in your ‘speech’ is the number of people still without insurance. Nate Silver’s blog, 538, has that number at 33 million which included –

“…people who should have been able to access insurance under the law…”

The CDC had that number at 35.7 million as of August 2015. The one thing you also never want to address is that the costs it is supposed to control — has never been controlled in any country that has already implemented this — universal healthcare, an insurance mandate, or anything of the sort. AARP did a study of Western European countries and found that they are all suffering from increasing costs, fraud, waste, and an inability to maintain the financial viability of maintaining the system. Even the CBO has continually re-costed the monstrosity to the point it is in the trillions. Sanders’s plan would cost $14 trillion in new taxes — and it would still NOT control the costs.

So, no — I liked my old plan. It was better, cheaper, and provided me with access to better healthcare.

“…while dramatically cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters and setting our Nation on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

National debt is going to hit $20 trillion under your presidency and you have the unmitigated gall to say this kind of nonsense.

“…this Budget is about making sure our economy works for everybody, not just those at the top.”

Bringing everyone down to the same level does not improve the quality of life. It de-incentivizes the need for work, the need for productivity, because it is about some arbitrary definition of fairness that would be determined by the politician in power. This concept only breeds mediocrity — not empowerment.

“…while tackling our greatest challenges, including addressing climate change…”

Really?! The science on this is not settled — according to the scientists, and its impact is still suspect for a number of reasons. So, to focus our resources on something that is not even beyond dispute as our “greatest challenge” is an exercise in stupidity.

Second, we must work to deliver a fair shot at opportunity for all…

I am still waiting for someone to explain how people do not have a fair opportunity. Yet, when people provide anecdotal and/or personal success stories, people like you say — it does not work that way for everyone. Yes, it does. You just can’t admit you say this type of rhetoric to get votes and for no other reason.

“…all children should have access to high-quality preschool…”

According to what research are you basing this on? Also, how are you defining high-quality? There are way too many questions to list them all because once again this sounds like a talking point.

“…states and cities…place all students on a path to graduate prepared for college and successful careers.”

The problem with this is that you are a politician trying to solve education issues. There are a few political axioms that have to be debunked but I will start with the most basic of them all –

“Every child wants to learn.”

Nope, not even close. Some children simply have, nor see, the value of education. So putting states, cities, and most importantly teachers on the hook for this — will cause more quality teachers to leave the classroom than at any other point in our nation’s history. Every child can learn — and parents have to get their children to value learning long before they can be prepared for college much less a successful career.

I started looking through some of the other aspects of this budget pitch and found them to be laughable at best.

• Destroy ISIL — Do you even know what that stands for? The Levant means that they have control over Israel. I am pretty certain that Netanyahu has an issue with that claim. You may want to start with referring to them more accurately.
• An efficient Federal government — Really?? There are too many comedians who would have a field day with that one.
• Climate change as a national security issue — See above

And my personal favorite — Effective diplomacy. You mean like this –

ISIS was definitely contained then.