The VA’s socialist paradise?

The VA system worked for everyone but the patients — and the whistle-blowers. The daughter-in-law of a Navy vet in Phoenix who died after never getting follow-up for his "urgent" case was told, in lines that perfectly capture the spirit of socialized medicine: "It's a seven-month waiting list. And you're gonna have to have patience."

But the bureaucracy acted with alacrity when its reporting scheme was at risk. In St. Louis, the former chief of psychiatry says he was put under administrative investigation when he complained about wait lists. A whistle-blower who worked in Fort Collins, Colo., alleges that she and a colleague were transferred when they refused to hide wait times.

http://nypost.com/2014/05/25/the-vas-socialist-paradise-the-left-used-to-love-it/

Don't we all know this is inevitable with federal bureaucracies?  If not - kindly remove your head from the sand.

Here's the part we should all take offense to - they will pontificate about how unacceptable this is, then they'll make some pretty little speeches, then they'll turn their attention to the next little whatever, then all the same problems will be there to be rediscovered in ten years - at which point the cycle starts over.  They know it, I know it, you know it.  Why bother with the charade.

Mitt Romney, the 'Say Anything' Pol of the Republican Party

Considering the Republican Party itself, members of it should view the 2012 results with relief. Not only were Romney's promises about what he would do about China easily more economically crippling than anything President Obama proposed, it should also be said that Obama's re-election was the best thing that ever happened to the freedom movement. Indeed, the electorate got to see up close the horrors of big government in the form of Obamacare's implementation, and the long-term result will be a more skeptical electorate about politicians who define themselves through promises made with the money of others.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/13/mitt_romney_the_say_anything_pol_of_the_republican_party_101048.html

A la George Will - it it axiomatic that anyone running for the job is too mentally ill to be qualified,and if anyone was willing to take the job but not willing to do what is required to get it (lie cheat or steal) - we wouldn't vote for them.

What Planet is this Person From?

"It's kind of shocking that foreign policy, which used to be nonpartisan, now becomes partisan so quickly."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-little-r-s-p-e-c-t.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

It's hard to take such a comment seriously.

Wendy Davis, Classic Texas Four-Flusher | RealClearPolitics

This woman should be a politician, no doubt about it.  She's perhaps the perfect example of what politicians need to be good at.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/26/wendy_davis_classic_texas_four-flusher_121348.html

These days, The Texan doesn't need a man to come to the little lady's rescue or lead her out of the wilderness. Today, The Texan is a woman herself. In Wendy Davis's case, it's men that got her in this fix. She was a single mother, born into poverty to another single mom, this one with a sixth-grade education. Like her own mother, Wendy was abandoned as a teenager. But she aimed to overcome all that. On the strength of academic scholarships and student loans—and her own brains and grit—she traded the trailer park for Texas Christian University and Harvard Law School. Next stop: the governor's mansion in Austin.  That's the story line, anyway, and it's real bootstraps stuff. But is it true?

JFK’s Berlin blunder - The Washington Post

No wonder he was so frustrated he sought solace with the interns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jfks-berlin-blunder/2011/08/12/gIQAGOcxBJ_story.html

Khrushchev treated Kennedy with brutal disdain. In excruciating pain from his ailing back and pumped full of perhaps disorienting drugs by his disreputable doctor (who would lose his medical license in 1975), Kennedy said that it was the "worst thing in my life. He savaged me." British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said, "For the first time in his life, Kennedy met a man who was impervious to his charm." Kempe writes, "From that point forward Khrushchev would act more aggressively in the conviction that there would be little price to pay." Kempe says that when Robert Kennedy met with his brother back in Washington, "Tears were running down the president's cheeks."

As Khrushchev turned up the temperature on Berlin, Kennedy studied the modalities of conducting a nuclear war. On July 25, he gave a nationally televised address, referring 17 times to the U.S. commitment to West Berlin, although the entire city was under four-power (U.S., Soviet, British, French) rule.

On July 30, in a Sunday morning television interview, Sen. William Fulbright said: "I don't understand why the East Germans don't close their border because I think they have a right to close it." He was wrong regarding the four powers' rights, and five days later he apologized for giving "an unfortunate and erroneous impression." But Kennedy, who did not dispute Fulbright's mistake, evidently welcomed it.
After Aug. 13, an unsympathetic Kennedy, who never asserted the indisputable legal right of free movement of people throughout Berlin, told New York Times columnist James Reston that East Germans had had 15 years to flee to the West. Reston wrote that Kennedy "has talked like Churchill but acted like Chamberlain." 

The hatchetmen win: Harry Reid’s muscle move | New York Post

The extremely peculiar rules governing the United States Senate just got a little less peculiar. After a historic vote yesterday, it will now take 51 votes — a simple majority — for most presidential nominations to be approved by the 100-member Senate.

One senator responded with outrage to the idea. The American people, he roared, "don't expect . . . for one party — be it Republican or Democrat — to change the rules in the middle of the game."

His name is Barack Obama.

Sen. Obama spoke those words in 2005 about a Republican proposal to do something very much like what happened yesterday — a proposal thwarted by a bipartisan deal struck by a so-called "gang of 14" that left the old order in place.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/22/the-hatchetmen-win-harry-reids-muscle-move/

Politicians - saying and doing what it takes to keep or get power, whatever it takes.

Do What It Takes, Whatever It Takes

The second aspect of this that Republicans find hard to swallow—as they should—is the Democrats' hypocrisy. Perhaps hypocrisy is too mild a word. When George W. Bush was president and Democrats were in the Senate minority, they did everything they could to sabotage his judicial appointments.

They used stalling tactics, the filibuster, and outright character assassination. Obama took great pride in appointing a Hispanic to the Supreme Court, but Bush wanted to do it first. He couldn't even get the brilliant Miguel Estrada appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals—the same panel that Democrats have now gone nuclear over.

Comparing the quotes of Democrats then to Democrats now—and we're talking about the same people—is a case study in situational ethics. In 2005, when Republicans invoked the very same idea he has now rammed through the Senate, Harry Reid said the filibuster "serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

He wasn't the only one. Here's then-Sen. Obama back then: "[A] change in the Senate rules would change the character of the Senate forever. … You would have, simply, majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

And here is Sen. Chuck Schumer: "We are on the precipice of a crisis, a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated, by the nuclear option. … It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum."

The two most prophetic Democratic senators were Dianne Feinstein of California and a certain small-state senator with national ambitions named Joe Biden.

"The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority," said Feinstein. "It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then legislation."

"I say to my friends on the Republican side," added Biden: "You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing." 

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/24/the_nuclear_option_and_the_fallout_to_come_120755.html#ixzz2laLB3H9C 

Biden it would seem never has to worry about saying something that he does not believe, since he believes whatever is necessary in that moment.

To Win or To Fight for the Ideal

Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is serious question whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/29/the-hungry-and-the-well-fed/

Not THAT Kind of Guy

Now, in what way is this remotely true? Don't get me wrong, I think McAuliffe's answer is basically right. And for all I know he won't pressure the Redskins to change their name. But is that because he's the sort of guy who doesn't tell businesses what they should do? Or is it because he's the sort of guy who says what audiences want to hear about their beloved football franchise? If the question was about businesses that refuse to comply with Obamacare's requirement to pay for birth control, would he still be the sort of guy who doesn't think politicians should be telling businesses what to do? Is he for no environmental regulations? Against all zoning? Is he now against civil-rights laws that tell business who. they must serve, hire, etc.?
I support some of those laws and I'm dead-set against others, but I'm not the issue here and I'm not the guy running for governor promising to never tell "businesses" what to do. The man made millions off his connections to government, exploiting government's ability to tell businesses what to do. At the heart of his various greentech boondoggles was the idea that he and his partners could get rich(er) off the opportunities created when government tells businesses what to do. Terry McAuliffe coming out as an opponent of politicians telling businesses what to do is like the pope coming out against priests forgiving sins and giving communion.

Here he is on his own website pandering on the issue of equal pay for women. We can have an argument about the merits of those arguments and the often bogus statistics behind them another time, but let's assume he's sincere that he will do everything he can to "close the gap." Uh, how does he intend to do that without telling businesses what they should do with their businesses?

Oh, and since he up and made me visit his unctuous website, let me make one last related point to this whole liberals are libertarian thing. These are the first words on the issues page for "women" on his website: "I strongly believe that women should be able to make their own healthcare decisions without interference from Washington or Richmond."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359572/terry-mcauliffe-redskins-and-big-lies-liberalism-jonah-goldberg

The lying liars and political but blushless lies they tell!  If they were not willing to say what's required, whatever is required, they'd be former politicians or wannabe politicians.  

The Lying Liars and the Hate Lies They Tell

There's only one problem. Shepard, according to Jiminez, was not killed because he was gay. His murderers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, attempted the "gay panic" defense in court -- suggesting that Shepard had come onto them and provoked them into murderous rage. But that wasn't true. Jiminez, who is gay, reports that Shepard dealt methamphetamine, and that one of his murderers was a sex partner. Even gay-journalistic icon Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Jiminez's work.

But the left cannot let its mythology go. And so The Matthew Shepard Foundation released a statement decrying Jiminez's book: "Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law. We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or conspiracy theories. Instead, we recommit ourselves to honoring Matthew's memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it."

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/09/19/matthew-shepard-trayvon-martin-and-the-power-of-leftist-myth-n1704035

These facts, if true as reported in this book I have not read, highlight an approach that is both perverse and easily recognizable.  I've never met anyone who would kill someone for being gay or for being black.  The talk about hate is the talk about a percentage of the population that is small, poor, and un-influential.  This is not a widespread and significant problem, as evidenced by the apparent fact that the supposed poster child for this "national" problem was killed by gay people in a dope deal, and there's not been a documented incident since - correct me if I'm wrong, I mean I'm sure there's some homicidal maniac who's killed a gay person somewhere, but most of the murders in the nation result from domestic violence and intoxication mixed in the same deadly brew that's been killing people since beer was invented, and/or the drug war's gift to our nation of a violent underculture fighting for drug dealing turf.  

But we can't talk about the unintended consequence of the drug war, while we can make up fantasy about dead drug dealers who were gay ....

Politicians Are Worthless ... But I Repeat Myself

Always fascinating to see a person who has chosen the public arena despite conflicting compulsions - the compulsion to stand in public and proclaim one's virtue and good intentions and trustworthy wisdom, which is instantly compromised by one's compulsion to engage in some juvenile delusion of sexual encounters in a public forum.

What makes this one so freakish is Weiner's unwillingness to acknowledge the contradiction between asking for people's trust as a leader while being so publicly untrustworthy.

He owes much more to his wife and family than to any voter - who could delude themselves into believing that Weiner will be a good leader when he cannot even master the seemingly simple task of not being a complete buffoon, and a liar, in his sex life?

In the end, the joke is on the voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/huma-abedin-steps-into-high-profile-role-as-anthony-weiners-chief-defender/2013/07/24/7b375bee-f47a-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html

Sleeze or Leader, Your Pick

This is not merely a "private matter." It's about public fitness for office. Anthony Weiner thinks he should be put back in political power because he effectively champions "middle-class" values. Middle-class New Yorkers who value decency, honesty and safe work and online environments for your young daughters, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/07/lying_liar_anthony_weiners_underage_girl_problem_118726.html#ixzz2a5Brdu4K
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

If you want to be a leader, it might be a good idea not to be sexually compulsive.

Lying Liars and the Lies That Get Them Elected

Ellsberg shopped the classified report around town, including to eventual 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, but found no takers in government. Neil Sheehan, a former UPI war correspondent who covered defense and diplomacy for the New York Times, was another matter. Sheehan knew a good story when he saw one. So did his editors, and Sunday morning, June 13, 1971, the paper began publishing excerpts. Soon, the Washington Post would join the Times.

Among other things, the Pentagon Papers, as they came to be known, showed that the shock professed by the Kennedy administration regarding the overthrow of South Vietnam's President Diem was more than disingenuous: a top secret cable from U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge suggested that the administration was behind Diem's assassination.

As for LBJ, the papers revealed that even while deriding 1964 Republican nominee Barry Goldwater as a warmonger for advocating a greater U.S. military presence in Vietnam, the Johnson administration was already deeply into planning for a vast escalation.

From the letter below by Carl Cannon of RCP.  We should be surprised at anyone who does not realize by now that the only way to be elected is to say what you think they want to hear, when that's convenient, and then do what you always intended, when that's possible.

Good morning, it's Thursday, June 13, 2013. Back at the White House after Wednesday's fundraising marathon (trips to Boston and Miami in the same day), President Obama's published schedule is a light one:

He will host Rep. John Dingell, the longest serving House member in U.S. history, at the White House; later the president will welcome gay rights activists in an East Room ceremony honoring LGBT Pride Month.

On Capitol Hill, the Senate continues debating immigration legislation. On the House floor the discussion will mainly concern the Defense Authorization Act, while the House Intelligence Committee will (behind closed doors, natch) get a briefing on the NSA spying program. This afternoon, both chambers will honor John Dingell in Statuary Hall.

As a menacing storm from the Midwest bears down on the nation's capital today, we're reminded of June 13, 1972. On that date, competing weather systems converged in the Yucatan peninsula, forming a tropical depression that soon acquired a deadly name: Hurricane Agnes.

Exactly one year earlier, on June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publication of the Pentagon Papers - an event with even more resonance today. I'll have a further word on the ramifications of that episode in a moment. First, I'd point you to our front page <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/> , which aggregates, as it does each day, an array of columns and stories spanning the political spectrum.

We also offer a nice complement of original material from our own reporters and contributors today, highlighted after a word from today's sponsor, UnitedHealthcare:

At UnitedHealthcare, we're using our experience and access to vast health care information to make health care simpler and more responsive. That's Health in Numbers. Learn more at www.uhc.com <http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=64498c06cdc4ca8399398a3664fff3ad307dc2220f08b925b0210f1b71cd2acf>

* * *

Supreme Court Bingo: How Rulings Might Play Out. Sean Trende speculates <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/13/supreme_court_bingo_how_rulings_might_play_out_118788.html> on which justices could be writing opinions for the 22 cases outstanding in the soon-to-end term.

Asia's New Power Brokers. In RealClearWorld, Robert Kaplan writes <http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/06/13/asias_new_power_brokers.html> that Asian nations are forging robust relationships with each other, providing a new security dynamic to go alongside the U.S.-China rivalry.

My Fifth Grade Economic Stimulus Plan. In RealClearMarkets, Charlie Musick recalls <http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/06/13/my_fifth_grade_economic_stimulus_plan_100400.html> a silly proposal that, unfortunately, might sound familiar these days.

Superman vs. Secularism. RealClearReligion editor Nicholas Hahn sees <http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/06/13/the_superman_we_need.html> a powerful theology underpinning "The Man of Steel."

The Whittaker Chambers Haters. RealClearBooks columnist Mark Judge weighs in <http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2013/06/13/why_they_hate_whittaker_chambers_56.html> on a revised edition of "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case."

The Risks of In-Car Infotainment Systems. RealClearTechnology editor Greg Scoblete reports <http://www.realcleartechnology.com/articles/2013/06/12/you_risk_your_life_using_in-car_technology_515.html> on a new study showing that voice-activated features are more distracting than talking on a cellphone while driving.

* * *

What came to be known as "The Pentagon Papers" began in June 1967, when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara commissioned a secret study of the history of the Vietnam War. McNamara had been one of the war's architects, but this project showed that he had second thoughts fairly early in the game.

In his memoirs, McNamara claimed dubiously that his motivation was to help historians, and that it was never really that big a secret. But McNamara never mentioned the project to President Johnson or Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and he conspicuously went outside normal Pentagon channels to produce it, tapping into a vein of sympathetic scholars, many of them Harvard men.

When the report came to light, Johnson and Rusk - both out of office by then -- figured that McNamara's original intention had been to give it to Robert Kennedy for use against Johnson in the 1968 primaries. That race never materialized, but the 7,000-page report survived. It was officially called "US-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: History of US Decision Making Process on Vietnam Policy."

One of the former Harvard PhDs who worked on it was Daniel Ellsberg, who by 1971 had completed his metamorphosis from DOD analyst to anti-war activist. Only 15 copies of the report had been made, but Ellsberg obtained access to one of them - it was in the custody of the RAND Corp., a private contractor with many defense contracts - and he surreptitiously copied the entire report and snuck it out of RAND.

Ellsberg shopped the classified report around town, including to eventual 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, but found no takers in government. Neil Sheehan, a former UPI war correspondent who covered defense and diplomacy for the New York Times, was another matter. Sheehan knew a good story when he saw one. So did his editors, and Sunday morning, June 13, 1971, the paper began publishing excerpts. Soon, the Washington Post would join the Times.

Among other things, the Pentagon Papers, as they came to be known, showed that the shock professed by the Kennedy administration regarding the overthrow of South Vietnam's President Diem was more than disingenuous: a top secret cable from U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge suggested that the administration was behind Diem's assassination.

As for LBJ, the papers revealed that even while deriding 1964 Republican nominee Barry Goldwater as a warmonger for advocating a greater U.S. military presence in Vietnam, the Johnson administration was already deeply into planning for a vast escalation.

At the White House, the initial instinct of the wily Richard Nixon was to downplay the significance of the Pentagon Papers. After all, they mostly cast the spotlight on his predecessors' perfidy, not his own. But on that fateful Sunday, Henry Kissinger forcefully argued the opposite, railing against "this wholesale theft and unauthorized disclosure."

Unfortunately for Nixon's legacy, Kissinger's argument prevailed over the president's gut feeling. The administration became obsessed with the leak and went to court to try and stop publication. When he lost in the Supreme Court, Nixon directed the men around him to find extra-judicial ways to stop leaks.

"The Plumbers" were born, along with the seeds of Watergate.

Carl M. Cannon
Washington Editor
RealClearPolitics
Twitter: @CarlCannon <https://twitter.com/CarlCannon>

<http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/wallstreet-research/reports/poll/2c-poll.php?code=X303NB62>

We update throughout the day at www.realclearpolitics.com <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/> . If you no longer wish to receive this morning missive, please type "unsubscribe" in the subject line and hit "reply" to this message.


Having trouble viewing this email? <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/newsletters/rcp_morning_note/2013/06/13/index.html> <http://www.realclearemail.com/lists/track.php?id=16910929&email=paul.eich.ctr@navy.mil>

The Idiocy of Politicians that Passes All Understanding

http://news.yahoo.com/committee-passes-bill-address-sexual-assaults-233047697.html

WASHINGTON - With broad support from Republicans and Democrats, a House committee Wednesday approved legislation to tackle the growing problem of sexual assault in the armed forces by taking away the power of military commanders to overturn convictions in rape and assault cases.

The bill passed by the House Armed Services Committee also requires that anyone found guilty of a sex-related crime receive a punishment that includes, at a minimum, a dismissal from military service or a dishonorable discharge.

"The word should go out clearly and strongly that if you commit a sexual assault in the military, you are out," said Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio. Turner and Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., wrote many of the provisions in the House bill.

This sure sounds great, doesn't it?  But the practical impact will be that folks will be less likely to be charged or to be convicted on these charges.  Besides, the result is little different than now.  In any felony level conviction, service members will be involuntarily separated.

But I guess our legislators will be oh so proud they did something, eh?

"Like We Said All Along ..."

"The rates are going to fall."
"The rates will fall like we've been saying."
"Like we've said all along, rates will go up but the reason is folks will be buying better coverage."
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/05/higher-health-insurance-premiums-the-oba

How Long Until That Pol Says Something Stupid?

"As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms. As a dad and grandfather, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make our schools, streets and communities safe. We can do both if Congress steps up. Many of the president's executive actions will help reduce gun violence, but the policies that would have the greatest impact require congressional action."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732346860457824970267282659
8.html

There's just not a shred of evidence to support the notion that Congressional action will make anyone safer, and the assumption that we should assume government is a source of safety, when historically it is the largest source of risk, is too ignorant for adequate description.

It has become a surprise to me if I read something from a politician that even approaches profundity.  This one was standard fare pol speak.

No Credibility

"The deficit for fiscal 2012, which ended on Sept. 30, came in at about $1.1 trillion, marking the fourth consecutive year that the nation has posted a trillion-dollar-plus spending gap. Contrary to what Dick Cheney said when he was vice president, deficits do matter.  

"Under the most recent budget plans of House Republicans and Obama, the federal government will spend from $40 trillion to $47 trillion over the next decade. Yet in the current negotiations, Boehner has called for only $800 billion in spending cuts and Obama $400 billion, most of which would be pushed off until 2022 or later -- tantamount to saying they won't happen at all. Neither side's long-term spending plans envision a balanced budget in the next 10 years."  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/obama-and-boehner-both-reckless
-spenders.html

How can anyone take these buffoons seriously?

"Politics is the art of the possible." Which is why it is so pathetic. Politics cannot accomplish anything worth accomplishing.

"Whatever you think about the decline of rates under President George W. Bush, it made the U.S. tax system more progressive by reducing the burden on middle- and lower-income people. That's one reason that singling out high-income earners for increases this time will yield such little revenue: All of us paid higher taxes then. It wasn't just the swells at the top of the income pyramid.

"Even if government could attain the revenue levels of seven years ago, it wouldn't come close to covering spending, which crossed the $3 trillion mark, in inflation-adjusted dollars, in 2009. Neither
Republicans nor Democrats are suggesting reducing total year-over-year spending.

"Both the president and members of Congress worry that rapid spending cuts would cause a new recession or slow down the recovery. Such fears are overstated.

"In the 1990s, Canada, for instance, reduced debt-to-GDP ratios through an aggressive combination of actual, year-over- year spending cuts and higher taxes. The result wasn't malaise but a burst in activity."

"Willing To Do What It Takes, Whatever It Takes"

"President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a "balanced"
approach.

"Balanced ...

"But what's "balanced" about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, "stimulus" and solar panels. Tax receipts rose -- after tax-rate cuts -- from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn't keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled -- actually, more than doubled -- as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/19/its_the_spending_st 
upid__116460.html

The President says this kind of thing because he's a politician, which is why I no longer listen to politicians. You can tell what they'll say before they say it. They'll say whatever is necessary to justify doing what they want, or getting what they want (elected, for one).  "If Republicans and Democrats reach a deal, the tax increases will be real -- but spending "cuts" probably illusions. If they actually happen, they will only be reductions in already planned increases. The Wall Street Journal notes that when the two parties talk about cutting spending by $4 trillion over a decade, "those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill's 'baseline' has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections ... . Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline."  How can you tell they are not serious? They are not even talking about this: "Given our growing debt, can't they even slow the growth of government to the rate of inflation? Or inflation plus 1 percent? Or even inflation plus 2 percent? That might balance the budget within a decade."

A Chicken In Every Pot, A Loophole for Every Constituency

"For that matter, how many of the ordinary Americans signing on to the Fix the Debt initiative want to sacrifice their mortgage-interest deduction or exemption for employer-provided health-care benefits? There is a constituency for every loophole. More than half the lobbying in this country is related to the tax code, which is just one of the many reasons to strip it down to its bare essentials, like a couple of flat rates.  
"Based on past efforts, and limited success, in attacking deductions and exemptions, the best we can probably hope for is something Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposed: a cap on itemized deductions for high-income earners. If that's what reform looks like, the tax code will continue to encourage inefficient behavior to the detriment of the economy."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/my-name-is-uncle-sam-and-i-m-a-
debt-a-holic.html

"Hero" Politicians

FROM THE OUTSET, Kennedy's people went out of their way to conceal the Jupiter concession. It started when the president's brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, met Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin on Oct. 27 to present the Jupiters-for-Soviet-missiles swap. He told Dobrynin: We'll take the Jupiters out, but it's not part of the deal, and you can never talk about it. The Soviets removed their missiles, the United States removed the Jupiters, and the secret held for 16 years, until a small paragraph in an Arthur Schlesinger book upon which few remarked.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/08/the_lie_that_screwed_up_50_years_of_us_foreign_policy

Uh, lying for our own good, I'm sure.