The release of the mid-year budget review from the White House has been delayed.  It really comes as no surprise anymore that the Obama team meant “transparency for thee but not for me.”

As a democrat, it’s ok to harp about Republicans, scream, and whine when you feel as though they aren’t being transparent enough.  Then campaign on empty slogans of hope and change, but once in office do nothing of the sort.  As they say to the victor goes the spoils and in this scenario, the spoils include hypocrisy and a lack of information disseminated to the American public. 

The White House said Monday it was delaying the release of the annual midsummer US budget update, but refuted suggestions it was trying to put distance between its own optimistic predictions and the sour state of today’s economy.

“Because of the unique circumstances of a transition year, we are — like President George W. Bush in 2001 — releasing the Mid-Session Review a few weeks later than as is usual in non-transition years,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

When all else fails, as this administration has demonstrated, play the victim and take no responsibility for your actions.  The greatest leadership characteristic is finger pointing…/sarc.

Funny, I thought that Obama was going to stop using old Bush policies and was going to create “change we could believe in?”  Seems like those old Bush policies are convenient when he needs to get away with something, such as bad budget numbers/forecasts from his office.

The White House has run so far over budget in only the first half of the year, that they would prefer this report was covered up and never released.

The report is traditionally published in mid-July. This year’s version is expected to include massive deficit projections as the administration of President Barack Obama stewards a costly overhaul of the US healthcare system.

The CBO is projecting a $1.9T budget deficit, but that’s not exactly accurate.  The accurate approximation is a $4T deficit – which is unprecedented in this nation’s history.

Share on Facebook

No wonder why California has massive amounts of debt – This has to be the biggest bunch of nit-wits I have seen yet!

Too bad it wasn’t these cow tales – mmmmm….

Share on Facebook

California just can’t seem to beat the habit of government spending.  The latest proposal coming out of the state legislature originally had $11B in cuts to state services, but that proposal was shot down.  So while California burns, literally and figuratively, the state legislature sits there battling back and forth on “to cut, or not to cut.” My advice to California: cut the fat and start doing what’s best for your constituents and your state not your lobbyists, special interests, and your own pockets.  I know it’s difficult for politicians, since so many have forgotten who they really work for, but it’s about time to start voting all these people out of office and voicing our concerns.  California will be bankrupt before the legislature comes to a decision on the $24B budget, how sad is that?

“All of the cuts that were rejected by the majority party that the governor proposed are things that unfortunately have to be done,” he said. “We can’t afford some of those things when we’re talking about revenues that are back to where we were in 1999 or 2000.

Moody’s Investors Service has warned that California could face a “multi-notch” downgrade in its credit rating, citing the state’s expected massive shortfall for fiscal 2010 of more than 20 percent of its general fund budget and limited options for plugging it.

Schwarzenegger and lawmakers face the task of closing a $24.3 billion budget deficit for the state’s fiscal year beginning on July 1.

Besides the idiocy coming out of California, Massachusetts has also created a plan to house the homeless in motels.  They aren’t housing them in motels because they are overwhelmed or  out of room at shelters.  No, they are paying for them to stay in motels due to complaints that the shelters didn’t have enough amenities to satisfy their needs, like kitchens, living rooms, etc.  Are you kidding ME? These people are jobless, don’t pay taxes, and just become leeches on society.  Not everyone, but the majority.  What would be the incentive to me to make a better life and find a job if the government enabled me to live the way I have always lived and be lazy and complacent?  This is the exact same problem with bailouts, welfare, unemployment benefits, and entitlements in general.  This has become insane.  This is not the innovative, hardworking American society that I studied and read about in school.  This is not what my parents taught me or what those in our military have fought for.  I’m appalled by the idiocracy that we are now calling our government and our country.

Housing Massachusetts’ homeless is costing tax payers around $2 million per month. It costs an average of $85 per night to have families, including nearly 1000 children, stay in motels.

The Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness admits that the use of motels for the homeless is not ideal, but is the best that can be done at this time.

Homeless advocates are worried that families are not getting the support of shelters with living rooms, kitchens, and play areas.

Share on Facebook

As Michele Bachmann points out the devil is in the details:

What the Administration would like for you to think is that by enacting this policy, Washington wouldn’t be able to spend a dollar unless they save a dollar and the national debt would cease to swell as it has these past several months.

However, this is really a charade – and the details tell the story. First of all, this PAYGO has no impact whatsoever on entitlement spending — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which make up a very sizable portion of the budget.  They’d continue to grow on autopilot.  In fact, even if this PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would continue to grow 6% a year without offsets.

Second, this PAYGO includes an enormous $3.5 trillion loophole.  The President’s proposal specifically exempts a wide array of expensive policies.  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget remarked that, “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.” And, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has criticized the plan, adding, “I’m not for waiving PAYGO for $3.5 trillion of items, much of which I think ought to be paid for.”

And more from the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same “paygo” promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is “very simple,” the President claimed. “Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

WSJ, Obama and the politburo have no respect for middle America, of course they think we are stupid!

That’s what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that “the first thing” House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that “Republicans had let lapse.” By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

Nancy Pelosi strikes me as the fiscally responsible type, the type that really cares what happens with taxpayer money.  Well, I guess she does care, but that’s only when it’s used to pay for her botox injections and her flights back and forth to San Fran. in military aircraft.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won’t tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget.

Does this not provide incentive to the government to create more entitlements to try and prove that PayGo was put to good use?  New entitlements on top of too many old entitlements…

This loophole matters, because on the very day Mr. Obama was hailing paygo the House Appropriations Committee was gleefully approving a 12% increase in 2010 nondefense discretionary spending, the third year running that Democrats have proposed double-digit increases. Or consider that the 2010 budget resolution included a $2 billion increase for low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change that should be subject to paygo. But Congressional Democrats simply classified it as discretionary spending, thereby avoiding the need for $2 billion in cuts elsewhere. C’est-la-paygo.

Mr. Obama’s new proposal includes even more loopholes. There’s an exception for Congress’s annual alternative-minimum tax “patch,” which is worth at least $576 billion over 10 years; for any of the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama decides he wants to extend past 2010; and to protect against planned cuts in Medicare doctor payments. These carve-outs alone spare Democrats from having to come up with some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts or new taxes. To add insult to profligacy, the rules also allow the Administration to run huge early deficits for its looming health-care bonanza, and only pay for it later — say, after 2012.

The President also revived the myth that paygo was somehow responsible for eliminating budget deficits during the Clinton years. In fact, that brief era of balanced budgets was due to: mid-decade spending reductions by a GOP Congress elected on a balanced-budget pledge; an excessive cut in defense spending to 3% from 5% of GOP across the decade; and an unsustainable revenue boom due to the dot-com bubble. But harking back to the 1990s lets Mr. Obama avoid having to defend his own spending record.

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama’s spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for “fiscal discipline,” even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

Ahhh yes, more Kabuki theater, as Michelle Malkin so succinctly puts it.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

We are so Scr—d!  It’s like a game of chess they are playing – no concern for the country, just for their own political interests.  If Obama is ousted in 2012 it makes it that much harder for the incoming administration to resolve the mess he created.

Share on Facebook

California made its voice heard today when a proposal for higher taxes, being passed as ‘solvency’ for California, was rejected via a vote by the people. 

California has been engaging in various protests, tea parties, tax revolts, what have you, over the course of several months to make a point to the state legislature, as well as the rest of the country.  Folks, I hate to say it, but with our current out of control government and spending practices in D.C. the rest of the nation could very well end up like the state of California and sooner rather than later!

Ahhhhhnold tried to pass another budget measure which would increase taxes on anything from cigarette butts to pets to raise revenue for the state.  This didn’t fly with Californians – quite interesting for such a blue state!  Maybe some of the citizens are beginning to realize that the progressive/liberal policies enacted through the state legislature have done incredible amounts of damage.  The unfortunate outcome may in fact be that the rest of the states will have to bailout California, which could set a horrible precedent for any other state going through tough economic times. 

California voters overwhelmingly rejected five of six budget referendums yesterday which would have approved higher taxes as a means to patch budget woes in the Golden State. Had the measures passed, the state would still have faced a $15.4 billion deficit. With the failure of the measures, the state now grapples with $21.3 billion in red ink.

Out of control spending and high taxes driving business out of state are at the core of California’s budget problems. Now voters in a tax revolt have overwhelmingly rejected more of the same from California lawmakers, choosing instead a path that could force budget cuts and spending restraint. Imagine that.

The only measure on the ballot that passed was one that bars state officials from receiving a pay increase during tough economic times.

Left wingers are up in arms over the voters’ decision, because they loves taxes and government control!  So leave it to the nasty, hateful liberals to call those who voted against the measure a moronic mob!  The only morons I see are those who continue to vote for these liberals who implement horrible and irresponsible policies that cause these disasters and hurt California citizens.

Share on Facebook

Thank you Captain Obvious… err… I mean Obama!

Ironically enough the debt and the borrowing that Obama is concerned about will mostly come from his irresponsible spending habits within his first 100 days.  When Dick Morris mentioned that Obama’s first 100 days would come back to haunt him, he was right!

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

That calls for a big “DUH!” but that is simple common sense, something that is much like an endangered species in the halls of D.C.

The amusing part of all of this is the fact that Obama is just simply unwilling to look in the mirror and realize that he has quadrupled the debt and increased our deficit more than any other president in history.  He has spent more in his first 100 days than all presidents throughout history combined – and that includes Bush to all you liberals.

Obama continuously uses the blame Bush rhetoric for having to take “drastic” measures, but as any intelligent human being should realize, when the government and politicians make things out to be a crisis, yet you don’t really feel that way (unlike a physical attack against your country), you should be incredibly wary.  Politicians lie, they lie to pass an agenda, and Obama is a genius when it comes to manipulation, deceit, and drama.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending.

We are now learning that the supplemental spending for war funding and emergency funding that is sitting in the House and Senate are both over $90 billion at this point.  There will most likely be a compromise of some sort between the House and Senate but I believe that the real amount of additional appropriations will most likely stay above the $90 billion threshold.

Let’s not forget that under the Obama administration and this radical left Congress that government is growing and the private sector is shrinking.  Entitlement programs are growing because liberals know that the more you can put your thumb over people and oppress them by getting them “hooked” on entitlements and the government, the more they will win votes… that’s just cruel.

The issue is that we are going to go bankrupt quicker by upping the ante on entitlements.  Entitlements themselves are already unsustainable.

Baby boomers — that 70-million-strong population lump — begin officially retiring this year. That means the government’s bill for retirees’ pensions and health care has no where to go but up, for decades to come.

Everyone knew this day would come. And virtually every economist and actuary who had run the numbers could tell you, within a few years’ certainty, the system was going bankrupt.

But all this seemed to happen in the distant future. Last year, both political parties virtually ignored the topic during their presidential campaigns. It became a non-issue issue.

Well, thanks to a profligate federal government, which will double the national debt to $11.5 trillion in just four years, and a recession that has weakened federal tax revenues, we can no longer ignore the problem. The day of reckoning is at hand.

The Social Security Board of Trustees reported Tuesday that costs will exceed revenues in 2016 — a full year sooner than expected just last year. And total assets — including more than 70 years of “surpluses” built up in the “trust fund” — will be completely gone by 2037 — four years earlier than in last year’s report.

The deficit over the next 50 years is expected to be about 2% of taxable payrolls — up from 1.7% last year. By the way, changes in the last year alone have added $5.3 trillion in costs to the program.

Long-term, unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare top $53 trillion — about four times the size of current GDP. Taxes must either rise or benefits shrink by that amount to close that gap.

Maybe we could try to work on some issues that really matter, those that could possibly destroy people’s lives?  Instead of criticizing private social security accounts, maybe we should revisit the idea and work from there.  Many economists argue that private accounts of some sort would be more cost effective and better for everyone.

We also cannot forget that Obama and his lefty contemporaries want to reform health care and create a possible single payer system.  Many do not believe that the single payer legislation will get passed, but something that makes the private sector compete with the public sector by providing a choice.  The issue that I have/see with this “competition” is how the government can become so forceful and, as it has done in the past, force out of business anything competing with it.  Either way, any additional programs provided by the government must come out of taxpayers’ pockets, so medical care will never technically be free – it will only be free to those who don’t work or pay taxes.  This is the crux of the problem.  Health care provided by the government will just increase our debt to China even more…

Obama is concerned with China?  He’s concerned with owing the Chinese more and more?  Well, maybe if we took a look at the recent auto industry news regarding GM it would be evident that all we do is take China’s money, give China jobs, and all in all are in the pocket of China.

As thousands of General Motors workers await word on more U.S. plant closures, reports that the company plans to import Chinese-made vehicles to the U.S. have created a political problem for the automaker and the White House.

The reports, which GM will neither confirm nor deny, could mean trouble because GM is supported by $15.4 billion in U.S. government loans, largely due to the Obama administration’s desire to preserve the company’s 90,000 U.S. jobs.

The United Auto Workers charged last week that the Detroit automaker intends to almost double over the next five years the number of vehicles it imports to the U.S. from Mexico, South Korea, China and Japan.

“GM should not be taking taxpayers’ money simply to finance the outsourcing of jobs to other countries,” Alan Reuther, the union’s Washington lobbyist, wrote in a letter to U.S. lawmakers.

Maybe if the Unions were not allowed to lobby on Capitol Hill to force the hands of Democrats and completely crush the auto industry, this would not have been a problem and the outsourcing of jobs would not have been so enticing to the ailing auto giants.  But why would Democrats ever put the good of the country or an industry over that of a big donor?

I have an idea for all who read this – let’s attempt to elect someone who is for the people, by the people – not bought and paid for.  Let’s elect somebody who is honest and integrity means more to them than politics and agenda… Stop electing these corrupt, pathological liars and maybe we can get our country back on track.

Share on Facebook

President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It’s one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president’s budget.

Think along with me here folks… Each illegal immigrants, studies show, cost Americans roughly $1 million dollars.  Democrats are trying to push through a new Amnesty bill for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants.  $1M x $12M = More than $400M! The logic of Democrats make absolutely no sense at all.  They never plan ahead or measure the possible long-term repercussions of their actions.  Obama sees money that can be cut now – so he doesn’t, or can’t, look beyond that.  This action will actually cost us more money in the end.

Obama cuts abstinence-only programsout of the budget as well.  Many argue that abstinence is not realistic in today’s society, but that has become more the norm due to Hollyweird and others advocating sex on a regular basis. Sex sells and sex is becoming the norm.  My personal belief is to teach both and emphasize that the only sure fire way to avoid getting pregnant and contracting an STD is abstinence.  What doesn’t make sense to me is the budget cut for this.

The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters “Just Say No to Sex.”

President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.

He’s taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

“It’s about time that evidence-based management – and sanity – return to family planning programs,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).

Think along with me again.  The more young unwed mothers you create, the more welfare recipients you create. The more welfare recipients you create, the more loyal Democrat voters you create.

Thus, Democrat sex-education must always focus on getting teenagers to have more sex, not less.

Another important point to note – see what I bolded above?  How is this a tax cut?  If he is replacing the PAIR of programs that each equaled $100 million with only one program worth $110 million then it is, but the writing is very vague and misleading here… the question is if he is going to replace both programs with two other programs worth more money than the previous ones…

A picture of what his budget cuts really look like in the scheme of things:

Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.Overall, New Yorkers say Obama’s budget helps the city – but raised several red flags.

One is Obama’s plan to cut $600 million from the federal terrorism insurance program.

Maybe that’s what New Yorkers should be focusing on – not sex! Wake up!

Share on Facebook

We all know that Obama is bought and paid for by the unions and he once again proves that he is in their pocket.  He makes these grandiose overtures to try and pass off budget cuts of historical proportions or market himself to appear to be improving the national debt.

Those who research and do our homework know that those overtures fall flat, especially when one of the largest cuts from the federal budget is the 9% budget cut of the union regulations department.  This comes from the Department of Labor via American Spectator:

…buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.

Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient “workload” for the office.

Instead of using the money to make sure unions play by the rules, the Obama administration proposes shifting resources to the department’s Wage and Hour Division, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — all areas of the agency focused on regulating businesses.

Not like union regulation matters anymore when the Department of Education is growing at a rapid clip and the UAW owns GM and Chrysler.  I guess the unions can all manage themselves – no corruption there/sarc.

Half of the budget cuts under Obama will actually come from the defense budget:

About half of the cuts are in the Defense Department’s budget, and the White House readily concedes that Defense Secretary Robert Gates already had proposed much of this as part of a new, and bigger, Defense budget that he is seeking. Defense is growing, not shrinking.

Funny how a recent Rasumussen Report just showed the majority of Americans do not believe the unions or the government will manage the auto industry well.

Another funny side note:  Bush actually cut more from the budget than Obama.

President Obama announced fewer budget cuts and for a lesser dollar amount than President George W. Bush did in his final budget – and is counting on being able to eliminate some programs that his predecessor repeatedly tried, but failed, to slash.

Obama administration officials said they’re convinced they’ll have more luck eliminating programs such as Even Start, an early childhood education program that Mr. Bush put on the chopping block year after year but which both Democrats and Republicans in Congress refused to cut.

Share on Facebook

If this happens and I mean a big IF, I hope that none of them are swindled when speaking to the silver tongued “One.”   I have a feeling that he wants to talk to them and possibly persuade the Tea Party leaders to stop this major grassroots movement.  But I thought that this movement was insignificant? HA!

The National Leadership Team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition today accepted President Obama`s invitation “to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

The invitation was extended by the Presidentat a Town Hall Meeting held in Arnold, Missouri today. Michael Patrick Leahy, a member of the National Leadership Team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, said ” We want to broaden the scope to address the President`s runaway march to socialist-statism, and the rampant across the board irresponsible spending he is promoting with his $787 Billion Stimulus Plan and his $1 Trillion Annual Deficit, his takeover of General Motors, Chrysler and the Banks .”

Kellen Giuda, organizer of the New York City Tea party attended by 12,000 and of Parcbench said, “I think a constructive dialogue with the President would be a great opportunity for him to acknowledge that, yes, many Americans have a problem with the way Washington is handling our taxpayer dollars and also that we are concerned about health care and social security reform. I am happy he is open to a discussion. The Tea Parties are protesting against fiscal irresponsibility and any dialogue we can have will hopefully bring a better public understanding of our country`s finances. Health care and social security reform is a large concern to us.”

The National Leadership Team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition includes 25 of the more than 900 local organizers of the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Parties held across the country, which were attended by more than 1 million Americans. Members of the National Leadership Team includes Judson Phillips, organizer of the Nashville Tea Party attended by 10,000, James Dickey, organizer of the Dallas Tea Party, attended by 5,000, and JoAnn Abbot, organizer of the Washington, DC Tea Party attended by more than 3,000. The full list of the 25 members of the National Leadership Team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition can be found here.

Share on Facebook

The Senate passed the 2010 budget resolution, 53-43, Wednesday without any Republican votes, giving President Barack Obama another high-profile victory before his 8 p.m. press conference to mark his first 100 days in office.

The House voted 233-193 earlier in the day to back the $3.4 trillion budget blueprint, which sets limits for legislation to follow, including the annual appropriations bills.

Four Democratic Senators, including newly minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), opposed the budget resolution. Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) also voted “no.”

Specter had objected to the inclusion of fast-track rules that will allow the Senate to pass health care reform with a simple majority vote.

Awww isn’t that sad that Specter, the traitor, is whining about the budget and voting against it while almost all of his contemporaries voted for it.  He is also upset about the reconciliation language – something that can destroy the entire democratic process for large legislation items, like health care.

The blueprint sets the stage for a wholesale reform of the nation’s health care system, continued tax cuts for the middle class and higher tax rates for those making more than $250,000. It also predicts the largest budget deficits in the history of the country, although the blueprints presume that those deficits will drop significantly within five years.

Farewell America, it was nice knowing you – I really wish we could have had more time together ~ at least we almost made it to the 30 year relationship… I hope we can still be friends, please keep in touch!

Yours Truly,
CrabbyCon

Final blueprint vote count:

Share on Facebook