federal deficit

We're already fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan and Syria, but now it appears the U.S. has entered a fourth theater:

The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.

How many wars can our country stomach, both financially and mentally? We're already talking about the enormous federal deficit, but we don't have any problem launching air strikes in other countries. These strikes cost hundreds of millions of dollars and is money we never get back, unlike bailing out the auto industry.

Caroline Baum from Bloomberg has some very interesting advice for Democrats this fall:

Congressional Democrats like to blame former President George W. Bush for just about everything: the lousy economy, high unemployment, trillion-dollar deficits, two wars - and probably the bedbug epidemic in New York City.

With the 2010 midterm elections 10 weeks away, Democrats are debating whether "blame Bush" is still a winning strategy almost two years into the reign of President Barack Obama.

In general, it's not. If the Democrats were smart, they would refocus their campaign and point a finger at Bush for the one thing they can rightly blame him for: the "biggest tax increase in history."

(emphasis added)

Baum gives good reasoning to this and reminds the country of something the Republicans don’t want them to remember:

In order to enact a tax cut of that size with the Senate evenly divided, Congress used the reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority, not a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.

If proposed legislation increases the federal deficit beyond the 10-year budget window, it is subject to a 60-vote point of order as provided by the Byrd Rule, named after the late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd. The rule was designed to prevent lawmakers from adding extraneous amendments to reconciliation bills. Everyone knew, or should have known, that this was a temporary tax cut (wink, wink) designed to put pressure on future Congresses.

And the tax cuts will do just that – raise the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window. Even Republicans like Eric Cantor admit that one. That is “pay to play” rules that the Republicans tout, but want to ignore when it comes to their agenda.

Bloomberg has this interesting yet troubling piece of news regarding Bush's
new budget:

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Under President George W. Bush's new budget, the
federal deficit would decline gradually until 2010 and then start rising
again, as the full impact of his requested permanent tax cuts and other
proposals is felt.

Bush's budget for the year beginning Oct. 1, presented to Congress today,
projects a decrease in the deficit to $183 billion for the year beginning
Oct. 1, 2009, from this year's record $423 billion.

If Congress makes Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, most of the
impact won't be felt until after 2011, long after the president has left
office. Some of the tax reductions are due to expire at the end of 2008 and
the rest in 2010.

While keeping the cuts in place would cost the government $178.6 billion
through 2011, the loss of revenue over the following five years, from 2012
through 2016, would be $1.2 trillion.

Article continues

here.

Now I am no economist but it appears to me Bush is trying to delay the bad
stuff until after he leaves office then let the next guy take the fall for it.
This also means a greater impact on us in the future and our children. Can we
imagine what a war with Iran would do to the budget?