<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>danmitchell's Diary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell</link>
	<description>Just another RedState: Where the VRWC Conspires Online weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:14:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Do 19 Percent of Americans Really Believe a Giant New Entitlement Program Will Reduce Budget Deficits?</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/25/do-19-percent-of-americans-really-believe-a-giant-new-entitlement-program-will-reduce-budget-deficits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/25/do-19-percent-of-americans-really-believe-a-giant-new-entitlement-program-will-reduce-budget-deficits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><a class="user" href="/users/danmitchell/">danmitchell</a> (<a href="/danmitchell/">Diary</a>)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/?p=6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A recent <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1398">Quinnipiac poll</a> (see final question) reveals that Americans understand, by an overwhelming 72-19 margin, that Obamacare will lead to higher budget deficits. While this is good news from a political perspective, I can&#8217;t help but wonder about the 19 percent that actually think a new entitlement program will produce lower deficits. Somehow, I suspect these people are not Redstate readers, but here&#8217;s a video just in case any of them are cyberstalking.</p>
<p><object width="500" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oUx0S6Foss?version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oUx0S6Foss?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="500" height="400" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1398">Quinnipiac poll</a> (see final question) reveals that Americans understand, by an overwhelming 72-19 margin, that Obamacare will lead to higher budget deficits. While this is good news from a political perspective, I can&#8217;t help but wonder about the 19 percent that actually think a new entitlement program will produce lower deficits. Somehow, I suspect these people are not Redstate readers, but here&#8217;s a video just in case any of them are cyberstalking.</p>
<p><object width="500" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oUx0S6Foss?version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7oUx0S6Foss?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="500" height="400" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/25/do-19-percent-of-americans-really-believe-a-giant-new-entitlement-program-will-reduce-budget-deficits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blame Obama for Reckless Spending, but not for the FY2009 Deficit</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/23/blame-obama-for-reckless-spending-but-not-for-the-fy2009-deficit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/23/blame-obama-for-reckless-spending-but-not-for-the-fy2009-deficit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><a class="user" href="/users/danmitchell/">danmitchell</a> (<a href="/danmitchell/">Diary</a>)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cato]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><em>From the diaries by Erick</em></p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/">recent post </a>on Cato-at-Liberty, I suggested that advocates of limited government should not attack Obama for the record FY2009 deficit. My argument was based on two points. First, the real problem is government spending, so that is where we should focus on energies. Fixating on deficits can be helpful, to be sure, but it also can unwittingly aid the other side since it enables them to offer a &#8220;solution&#8221; in the form of higher taxes. My second point was that Obama is largely not responsible for the FY2009 budget, which began on October 1, 2008.</p>
<p>This second point has led to some spirited &#8211; and conflicting &#8211; responses, with <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#/posted.php?id=833720436&#38;share_id=201265591702&#38;comments=1#s201265591702">Bruce Bartlett attacking me from the left </a>and <a href="http://www.redstate.com/mustango/2009/11/19/cato-institute-writer-declares-stimulus-bushs-fault/">Mustango attacking me from the right</a>.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s deal with Mustango&#8217;s criticisms. He argues that budgets are passed by Congress, presumably implying that Nancy Pelosi, et al, should be blamed. The Speaker of the House is a complete statist, so I&#8217;m a big fan of anybody who points out her flaws, but since President Bush supported all of the wasteful spending adopted in the last year (as well as the first seven years) of his presidency, he also must bear responsibility for the results.</p>
<p><span id="more-3"></span></p>
<p>The second criticism is that I was letting Obama off the hook for his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKE16Exh9k">pork-filled stimulus</a>. That&#8217;s definitely not the case. My blog post specifically noted that Obama bears part of the responsibility for the FY2009 deficit, but since less than $200 billion of so-called stimulus was allocated in FY2009, that is rather trivial compared to a budget deficit of more than $1.4 trillion. And even if the extra spending from the omnibus spending bill is added to Obama&#8217;s tab, his total is still less than $250 billion.</p>
<p>Bruce Bartlett&#8217;s disagreements are harder to address, largely because I have a hard time believing anybody could read my post and conclude that I was being &#8211; as he wrote &#8211; a shill for the GOP. Bruce seems to think I was blaming Obama for all post-2009 deficits, even though I never made such a claim. What I did say, and completely stand by, is that Obama &#8220;is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t care if somebody has an &#8220;R&#8221; after their name of a &#8220;D&#8221; after their name. If they increase the burden of government spending, they should be criticized.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>From the diaries by Erick</em></p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/">recent post </a>on Cato-at-Liberty, I suggested that advocates of limited government should not attack Obama for the record FY2009 deficit. My argument was based on two points. First, the real problem is government spending, so that is where we should focus on energies. Fixating on deficits can be helpful, to be sure, but it also can unwittingly aid the other side since it enables them to offer a &#8220;solution&#8221; in the form of higher taxes. My second point was that Obama is largely not responsible for the FY2009 budget, which began on October 1, 2008.</p>
<p>This second point has led to some spirited &#8211; and conflicting &#8211; responses, with <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#/posted.php?id=833720436&amp;share_id=201265591702&amp;comments=1#s201265591702">Bruce Bartlett attacking me from the left </a>and <a href="http://www.redstate.com/mustango/2009/11/19/cato-institute-writer-declares-stimulus-bushs-fault/">Mustango attacking me from the right</a>.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s deal with Mustango&#8217;s criticisms. He argues that budgets are passed by Congress, presumably implying that Nancy Pelosi, et al, should be blamed. The Speaker of the House is a complete statist, so I&#8217;m a big fan of anybody who points out her flaws, but since President Bush supported all of the wasteful spending adopted in the last year (as well as the first seven years) of his presidency, he also must bear responsibility for the results.</p>
<p><span id="more-3"></span></p>
<p>The second criticism is that I was letting Obama off the hook for his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKE16Exh9k">pork-filled stimulus</a>. That&#8217;s definitely not the case. My blog post specifically noted that Obama bears part of the responsibility for the FY2009 deficit, but since less than $200 billion of so-called stimulus was allocated in FY2009, that is rather trivial compared to a budget deficit of more than $1.4 trillion. And even if the extra spending from the omnibus spending bill is added to Obama&#8217;s tab, his total is still less than $250 billion.</p>
<p>Bruce Bartlett&#8217;s disagreements are harder to address, largely because I have a hard time believing anybody could read my post and conclude that I was being &#8211; as he wrote &#8211; a shill for the GOP. Bruce seems to think I was blaming Obama for all post-2009 deficits, even though I never made such a claim. What I did say, and completely stand by, is that Obama &#8220;is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t care if somebody has an &#8220;R&#8221; after their name of a &#8220;D&#8221; after their name. If they increase the burden of government spending, they should be criticized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.redstate.com/danmitchell/2009/11/23/blame-obama-for-reckless-spending-but-not-for-the-fy2009-deficit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

