In an interview on 60 Minutes, Barack Obama justified his administration’s bankrupting spending spree on circumstances beyond his control. Throwing his hands up and claiming he didn’t want to have to do it, he told Steve Kroft he was forced to because of an emergency situation:
“…we were taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government. It was because we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn’t go off a cliff.”
Really? That’s an interesting explanation considering back on February 24, 2009, Obama had a strikingly different tone about his bankrupting policies:
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor’s moment came at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on day three of the new Administration. He handed President Barack Obama a list of ideas to fix the economy. Pointing to a small business tax-cut item, Obama said: “We disagree on tax policy.” When Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
So the arrogant community organizer in chief has gone from “my way or the highway” to “I didn’t want to do it, I had to do it”.
Nevertheless, the new talking point is now that Democrats had to blow your grandchildren’s future due to an emergency situation. Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with Dianne Sawyer, has apparently gotten the talking points, too:
She predicted Obama will serve eight years, and in language Obama used almost word for word earlier in the day at his press conference, said he will “demonstrate to the American people that what we had to do in the short term is because we had an emergency situation; some interpret it as too activist. It was an emergency and it saved us from a depression.”
Nevermind that the emergency was created by the Democrats, themselves.
Is there anyone out there not suffering from brain damage that thinks Democrats would’ve spent any less had the economy still been trucking along like it was before Democrats took control of Congress in 2006? Of course, not. Afterall, elections have consequences, right?
So let’s look at some of the items Democrats spent your grandchildren’s money on in response to this emergency:
$246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
$150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
$75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”
$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
$500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
$6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.
$160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
$5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
And much more… And this list doesn’t even include the millions of dollars in stimulus checks sent to dead people.
Or the Multi-trillion dollar healthcare fiasco that will raise healthcare costs. Addressing an emergency… or creating one?
Let’s not forget the emergency date night Obama and his wife went on, costing taxpayers several hundred thousands dollars.
Just this week, the University of New Hampshire announced that is has received $700,000 from the federal government to study… cow burps. Emergency, huh?
And the latest emergency? Obama and his wife had to take a vacation to Asia. The cost has been disputed (but we know he didn’t use Travelocity) around $2 Billion. This includes a handful of jumbo jets, some warships, several five-star hotels fully booked and enough pomp and circumstance to even make Roman Emperors blush.
Just remember all of this when Obama claims his liberal spending policies with your money is not something of his choosing, but simply his response to an economic emergency.
Elections have consequences.