In my humble opinion, this isn't okay. It is only worsened only by the blame game all parties continue to play. It's embarrassing, really. Can we just attempt to take some action forward to fix it rather than constantly trying to blame each other? It's almost as if our fearless leaders in Washington are reveling in our country's economic woes; they welcome this opportunity to point fingers at their political rivals. Stop pointing and do something.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.
The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.
Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the measure of the nation's total economy.
The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.
The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.
While the deficit would be a record in absolute dollar terms, Nussle said it would be below the 2004 deficit, 3.6 percent of GDP, and the record deficit of 1983, 6 percent of GDP, when compared with the size of the overall U.S. economy.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.
"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," she said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.
"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.
Nussle said the $170 billion, bipartisan stimulus, which congressional Democrats and Bush agreed to earlier this year, was a major reason the deficit was expected to reach record levels next year. The deficit projection for 2009 would have been only 2.2 percent of the economy, or $272 billion, if the stimulus package is excluded, Nussle said. Watch Nussle warn Congress not to increase spending »
"The determination was made that getting the economy back on track was a higher priority than immediate deficit reduction," Nussle said.
He said the OMB projects that the deficit would fall after the 2009 budget year, and he predicted that the government would have a surplus in budget year 2012, if the president's budget blueprint is followed.
"Near-term deficits are temporary and manageable if -- and only if -- we keep spending in check, the tax burden low and the economy growing," Nussle said, warning that congressional Democrats were planning to add billions of dollars in spending to the federal budget.
President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year. View a history of the government deficits and surpluses »
The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue in part because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.
A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history." Watch Conrad call the federal debt Bush's legacy »
Conrad, who chairs the Senate's budget committee, accused the president of "squandering" the surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.
"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."
But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in March projected the deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends September 30, would be $357 billion. It predicted the 2009 deficit to be $342 billion, if the president's proposals were adopted.
Both assumptions, however, were made before the economic stimulus package was passed by Congress and signed by the president this spring. The CBO said it would release revised deficit estimates in September.
The two major presidential candidates -- Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain -- used news that the United States' budget deficit will hit a record high as an opportunity to criticize each other's fiscal plans.
CNN's Brianna Keiler and Scott Anderson contributed to this report.
7.28.2008
Patriotism = love of country
Second perhaps only to the Fourth of July, presidential elections seem to stir up the patriotic roots in the souls of Americans. Candidates, in order to convince the American voter of their allegiance, stand in front of massive American flags, use an ample amount of red, white, and blue, and end most speeches with the phrase, “God bless America.” But to these candidates and more importantly, to people of America, what is patriotism? What does it mean to be patriotic?
One might think that a basic definition of patriotism would be universal across the States. Perhaps it is, and perhaps that basic definition is simply love of country. But are the means in which that love is expressed universal? Is one person’s patriotic act another’s? This is certainly a fairly complex question that I don’t have the answer to; however, I do have some thoughts.
Let’s look at this question through two lenses: Liberal and Conservative. I understand that these two labels can be fairly limiting and there is a much wider range of views on the political spectrum, but for this discussion let’s limit it to these two.
One might say that for Conservatives, patriotism is rooted in the past. It is a concept that is rich in traditions and imagery. Almost something tangible that you can hold in your hand, or rather, should hold in your hand. It is based on the belief that the history of America is close to perfect. Peter Beinart refers to this idea in a recent article in TIME magazine. Beinart suggests that the Conservative viewpoint of patriotism is one that only endorses behavior supporting the notion that America’s past is without sin. Essentially, dissent in any form is unpatriotic.
The other side of the patriotism issue is the Liberal view. Unlike the Conservative patriot, Liberal patriotism isn’t focused around imagery and blind loyalty. Patriotic liberals cling to the ideals of freedom and equality, the ideals that, at least according to the Declaration of Independence, are the driving force behind America. Liberals feel it their civic duty to question government and ensure it stays on a consistent track to form a more perfect union.
I’m obviously not an expert on this subject – these are simply my humble observations, more to come on this subject. In the meantime, can anyone guess which side I might subscribe to?????
One might think that a basic definition of patriotism would be universal across the States. Perhaps it is, and perhaps that basic definition is simply love of country. But are the means in which that love is expressed universal? Is one person’s patriotic act another’s? This is certainly a fairly complex question that I don’t have the answer to; however, I do have some thoughts.
Let’s look at this question through two lenses: Liberal and Conservative. I understand that these two labels can be fairly limiting and there is a much wider range of views on the political spectrum, but for this discussion let’s limit it to these two.
One might say that for Conservatives, patriotism is rooted in the past. It is a concept that is rich in traditions and imagery. Almost something tangible that you can hold in your hand, or rather, should hold in your hand. It is based on the belief that the history of America is close to perfect. Peter Beinart refers to this idea in a recent article in TIME magazine. Beinart suggests that the Conservative viewpoint of patriotism is one that only endorses behavior supporting the notion that America’s past is without sin. Essentially, dissent in any form is unpatriotic.
The other side of the patriotism issue is the Liberal view. Unlike the Conservative patriot, Liberal patriotism isn’t focused around imagery and blind loyalty. Patriotic liberals cling to the ideals of freedom and equality, the ideals that, at least according to the Declaration of Independence, are the driving force behind America. Liberals feel it their civic duty to question government and ensure it stays on a consistent track to form a more perfect union.
I’m obviously not an expert on this subject – these are simply my humble observations, more to come on this subject. In the meantime, can anyone guess which side I might subscribe to?????
Social Experiment
I had some interesting experiences during my quick trip to Seattle this weekend. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I do really like Seattle and hope to return and spend a bit more time exploring.
I’d like to share a couple of the more…let’s just call them socially intriguing experiences. Both of these experiences happened on Sunday. The first took place outside in a sort of public square area; I believe it is referred to as the “retail core.” We were sitting outside, passing some time until we had to make our way to the airport. About ten minutes after we sat down 5 people showed up and set up an easel with a large piece of paper that had some sort of markings that couldn’t really be distinguished as much of anything. These five people consisted of a 40 to 50 year old mustached man, three late teenage boys, and another boy who couldn’t have been more than 11 years of age. All of them wore suits. (I suppose it’s not an important detail, but the suits were in fairly rough shape.)
As I got a closer look I became convinced that I had seen the older gentleman and the youngest on Dateline or some news magazine. I seem to recall the story being about this young child who goes around preaching about the need for humans to be saved by Christ. Well, a few minutes went by and the preaching began. The four boys took turns standing on “stage” and, from what I could tell, shared their story of becoming saved and the importance of it. The resulting message: We will go to hell if not saved by Christ.
My thoughts during all of this, “I have a front row seat to a great social experiment!” I was enthralled with watching the reactions of the passersby. Hundreds passed, none stopped. Many reacted with nervous laughter, others rolled their eyes in annoyance.
There was a part of me that wondered how this man got these young guys to do this. I was uncomfortable with that piece of it; I wanted to some context as to who they were. Were these young, impressionable boys being used by this man, or perhaps a larger organization, to spread their propaganda? Were they truly speaking from the heart, had they been moved and saved by Christ? Or were both true? The possibilities are almost limitless, I suppose.
Well, that was one of the little interesting experiences I had in Seattle. I’m constantly fascinated with the life stories of people, for some reason this one really intrigued me. Perhaps because there is so much mystery surrounding the whole thing.
Oh, it’s time for the wonderful in-flight meal. More later.
I’d like to share a couple of the more…let’s just call them socially intriguing experiences. Both of these experiences happened on Sunday. The first took place outside in a sort of public square area; I believe it is referred to as the “retail core.” We were sitting outside, passing some time until we had to make our way to the airport. About ten minutes after we sat down 5 people showed up and set up an easel with a large piece of paper that had some sort of markings that couldn’t really be distinguished as much of anything. These five people consisted of a 40 to 50 year old mustached man, three late teenage boys, and another boy who couldn’t have been more than 11 years of age. All of them wore suits. (I suppose it’s not an important detail, but the suits were in fairly rough shape.)
As I got a closer look I became convinced that I had seen the older gentleman and the youngest on Dateline or some news magazine. I seem to recall the story being about this young child who goes around preaching about the need for humans to be saved by Christ. Well, a few minutes went by and the preaching began. The four boys took turns standing on “stage” and, from what I could tell, shared their story of becoming saved and the importance of it. The resulting message: We will go to hell if not saved by Christ.
My thoughts during all of this, “I have a front row seat to a great social experiment!” I was enthralled with watching the reactions of the passersby. Hundreds passed, none stopped. Many reacted with nervous laughter, others rolled their eyes in annoyance.
There was a part of me that wondered how this man got these young guys to do this. I was uncomfortable with that piece of it; I wanted to some context as to who they were. Were these young, impressionable boys being used by this man, or perhaps a larger organization, to spread their propaganda? Were they truly speaking from the heart, had they been moved and saved by Christ? Or were both true? The possibilities are almost limitless, I suppose.
Well, that was one of the little interesting experiences I had in Seattle. I’m constantly fascinated with the life stories of people, for some reason this one really intrigued me. Perhaps because there is so much mystery surrounding the whole thing.
Oh, it’s time for the wonderful in-flight meal. More later.
7.27.2008
Train ride
It's such a relaxing, pleasant experience. Watching the beautiful Washington landscape as you gently roll along to the clicking of the train.
Good times.
----------------------------
Sent via Sprint Wireless Palm Centro
7.26.2008
Seattle
We are in the state of Washington this weekend for a wedding. I haven't spent much time out here other than the stop in Seattle on choir tour in college. I remember liking it at the time, but I must say that after spending a bit more time exploring - I love it. I love the water, as most of you know, and being in cities that are on the water gives me such joy. Perhaps it's because I grew up on the water, but for some reason it just energizes me and provides me with a sense of contentment that it often hard to find.
In addition to my love of water, the vibe out here is incredibly comfortable. I find the people and the overall feeling to be fairly laid back and chill. It's sort of difficult to describe, but I get a sense of calm and ease from the people and the environment. Seattle is certainly a big city and fairly busy, but it really has a welcoming presence that I would think would make most people feel at home rather quickly.
I've had a wonderful (much needed) weekend so far, and I certainly hope to spend a little more time out here in the future.
Sent via Sprint Wireless Palm Centro
7.20.2008
Too busy?
Time flies when you live like an American. A friend of mine (Dayna) pointed out to me this past weekend that I hadn't blogged since March 14. I actually didn't realize it had been that long. The past few months have been extremely busy. I'm not complaining or anything, but life has been pretty busy this summer for some reason. Wait, now that I think about it, it seems that life is always busy. Is that really the case though?
When you run into to someone you haven't seen for awhile a
nd you ask that person how things are, the response usually includes something about how busy he or she is. When you or others feel bad about not being in better contact with friends or family, what is the usual excuse? Too busy. When we say that we really need to take better care ourselves and work out more, what's the excuse for not doing so? Too busy.
Is 'too busy' the default American excuse? Do we schedule ourselves until we have no time to do things that are truly important and perhaps even necessary? Are our priorities out of sync?
Perhaps some of those things are occurring, but I have to wonder if we even really are as busy as we think we are. Don't get me wrong - I know a lot of us have demanding careers, classes, and families. But I have to wonder, if I added up all the minutes in a day that I spend doing nothing, how much time would that be?
I might suggest that many people, including myself, waste more time throughout the course of a day than they realize. I am most likely worse than others; for example: rather than staring at the floor in the morning waiting for the coffee to get done, I could email a friend. Or rather than sitting on the couch for ten minutes when I get home 'decompressing,' I could use that time to blog!
Well, perhaps people are extremely busy. There is certainly something to be said for that argument. But in addition to my being fairly busy, I know that I waste a substantial amount of time that could be used for more productive tasks.
Maybe this will be a New Year's resolution; we know how well those usually work out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
