Obama and Libya: Living Within Our Means

One of the consistent, Orwellian Big Liews pushed by Obama has been this statement: "The Federal Government must learn to live within its means, just like the ordinary family has to do." NO ONE (and I mean no one) believes that Obama means this. It is just something he says because he thinks it makes people FEEL better about him (even as they don't believe he means it). He also knows that the mainstream media will not cricuify him on these obvious lies--often contradicted within the same speech--since Obama counts on the media to promulgate pro-Obama propaganda rather than attack his obviously false statements.

What does this have to do with Libya? See my previous article, where Obama did not even go to Congress to get approval for his military action in Libya. This includes a failure to request SPENDING approval for the extra money being spent on the Libyan operations. Obama evidently intends merely to take the money out of "slush funds" in the present defense appropriations--rather than present a supplemental funding measure. This should tell you how much FAT there is in ALL government appropriatiions, as should the Democrat/Obama assertion that CUTTING funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR, earmarks, etc. will NOT "save" any money (because the federal bureaucrats will just spend the money somewhere else). We SHOULD, of course, be determining , EVERY budget, what money should be spent based on specific budget items/requests, and NOT letting every federal agency have massive discretionary funds to move around as they see fit.

And we have not even gotten to the main point of this article. It appears--this came from an item I saw on Fox News, but feels right and is the kind of thing that usually gets reported correctly--that Obama's budget for next year contains money FOR LIBYA (Gadhafi). Yes, I assume that Gadhafi will no longer get such money, although who knows about Libya (or some favored group or groups in Libya). Yes, even though Gadhafi was supposedly "helping" us on terrorism, it is absurd to be giving money to Libya at a time we are supposedly learning to "live within our means". Nope. I am sorry. It is absurd. I can see Egypt--although I might question the amount. I can see Saudi Arabia. Libya, Syria, etc. are absurd (no information on Syria, by the way, but why not?).

Again, the point is that Obama, and the Democrats (not to mention the mainstream media) should be going through the budget LOOKING for areas to CUT. It seems obvious that there are many areas we could do without. We should NOT fund Planned Parenthood and NPR (CPB). Let George Soros and George Clooney do it. And we should REDUCE the budget of the agencies involved by those amounts. We should AGREE (that is, Congress shoud vote for) on what we are willing to spend money on, and we should NOT spend momey (because spending is all in a few bills that control the whole government) on items on which we cannot agree. In other words, every spending item should require a VOTE, and not continue unless we can break a filibuster or override a veto (based upon the EXTORTION of a government shtdown if spending is "cut". Spending should be AUTHORIZED, and not continue unless "defunded". Think of it. Those funds for Egypt and Libya MIGHT be included in these massive "continuing resolutions", if only because no one has bothered to delete them.

Unless we require our people in Congress to justify every item of spending, rather than to justify every CUT, we will never "leearn to live within our means, like an ordinary family". In the ordinary family budget, you have to allocate SPENDING to fit your income (item by item, setting priorities), and you cannot do that if you set your spending at twice your income and then require the whole family to agree on EACH CUT. That is insane, but it accurately describes where we are as a country.

P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).