Barack Bulworth

Last night I finally saw in graph form what the CBO came up with for its projected budget deficit for this year:

deficit 2013

As St. Rachel pointed out, this isn’t a good thing in an economy struggling to keep the recovery momentum, such as it is, going. This isn’t a good thing with so many unemployed folks out there. Nor is it a good thing with government jobs, jobs held by, say, teachers, disappearing as I write this.

But it is what Republicans, especially Tea Party phonies, have been squawking about since George Bush went on a spending spree Barack Obama became president.

And apparently no matter how far the damn deficit falls, they won’t stop squawking about it. Because, as we all know, their squawking has very little to do with government spending, but has to do with the Scary Negro, who they claim is spending it, and who they claim he is spending it on.

Remember the 2012 election charge, a charge that came from everywhere on the right, that O was trying to “buy” the election by spending a ton of money on the poor, minorities, and other natural Democratic constituencies? If so, he did a terrible job of spreading the cash around.

Maybe, just maybe, he won the election for other reasons.

And maybe, just maybe, O needs to take this chart and shove it down the throat of the next Republican who opens his or her mouth about “out of control” government spending. And then maybe he needs to rat out the Republicans—instead of eating and playing golf with them—to the American people about how phony their deficit hysteria was and still is, and explain that it is the Republican Party in Congress that is responsible for nothing, absolutely nothing, getting done to fix the country’s problems.

Finally, maybe O needs to go to many of the red states in the country and explain to the people there that the reason teachers and cops and firefighters are out of jobs, and the reason that unemployment is so high, is that their Republican governors and Republican legislators are starving the beast of their state governments, too.

And he should tell all the people everywhere that it is only the people who can put a stop to this madness.

Because no one thinks that anything positive, especially in terms of  the economic recovery, will get done while Republicans essentially control Congress. So, President Obama may as well go back to traveling around the country and, as The New York Times reported, possibly go “Bulworth.” What else can he do? How many dinners does he need to have, how many rounds of golf does he need to play with reactionaries, before he realizes that they will never allow him to actually govern the country?

For a fantasized version of what a Barack Bulworth would say, Ezra Klein wrote a great piece. Here is part of what President Bulworth had to say to a reporter who ask him yet another dumb question about whether the American people can “actually trust their government”:

BARACK BULWORTH: Look, the reason the American people can’t trust their government is here in Washington. Right now sequestration is cutting unemployment checks by 10 or 11 percent. Do you hear anyone talking about that? Or doing anything about it? No. You hear Republicans aides telling Politico, anonymously, that the speaker is quote “obsessed” with Benghazi. You know, I don’t think most of the Republicans screaming about Benghazi could find Libya on a map. I don’t think 10 of them knew our ambassador’s name. And, let me be clear, Speaker Boehner certainly wasn’t obsessed with giving us the money we asked for to keep the embassy’s safe.

But now he’s obsessed with Benghazi. And not even Benghazi. The Benghazi talking points. Are you kidding me? He’s not obsessed with global warming or unemployment or rebuilding our infrastructure.  And now that there’s conflict, all of you are obsessed with Benghazi talking points too, and meanwhile, we’re cutting the National Institutes of Health and we’re cutting too deep into the military and we’re making life harder for the unemployed and we’re doing nothing to keep this planet in good shape for our kids.

Look, this is why the American people can’t trust their government. Because this town is obsessed with conflict and political advantage and not with real problems. We worry about the wrong things so much that we don’t even have time to talk to the American people or each other about the right things. And that’s not the I.R.S.’s fault.

Who wouldn’t want to see that guy do a presser? It would scare the tan off John Boehner’s face, but, much more important, it would educate the people as to what the Republican Party is doing to the country.



  1. Absolutely right, Duane, what we need is Barack Bullworth and instead we get Nodrama Obama. But inside, the man has got to be tied in knots – no wonder he’s going gray on top.

    Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. – Alexander Hamilton


  2. Bbob

     /  May 17, 2013



  3. We know Obama can pass. We know he throw deep and put points on the board. In November he scored 2 touchdowns in the first quarter — then, inexplicably, decided to sit on his lead and settle for running out the clock. Well, that never works. He needs to air it out and “Go Bullworth” for all he’s worth. For one thing — it’s great political theatre and that’s all the Press and the American voter understand, anyway.


    • The voter might understand, but after the press was finished analyzing it–“Angry Obama loses his cool”–then the voter might misunderstand it. In any case, you are right. I would make great theater. And in the end, I’m guessing most folks who aren’t already persuaded Obama is a socialist America-hater, would find it ultimately refreshing, if he kept at it.



  4. Troy

     /  May 17, 2013

    BRAVO!! And let me add this. I can compare all this scandal crap their trying to pin on our President to that of a letter carrier working for the USPS mis-delivering an important piece of mail and that person who should have received it blaming the Postmaster.


  5. N.Michael Barrows

     /  May 17, 2013

    Interesting article on the Benghazi emails.

    Doubt that will make headlines over at Fox Snooze.


    • It didn’t even make much of a splash at ABC News, not only the source for the rev-up of the phony scandal, but whose White House reporter is sticking by the story, despite admitting, “I regret the email was quoted incorrectly.” If you follow Jonathan Karl’s reporting at all, you will soon suspect that he is the Brit Hume of today’s ABC (Hume used to work there before he became a Foxer).

      Great take on it, Michael. Thanks for alerting us to it.


  6. Michael D. Gaden, BSNE, MBA

     /  May 17, 2013

    My question is this:

    What is the downside of “going Bulworth”?

    Obama wouldn’t get re-elected in 2016 (as President, anyway). Check
    The Republicans would scream about “politicizing the (fill in the blank)”. Check
    The Tea Party would raise the issue of Obama’s birth and religion (again!). Check
    The Fox pundits would scream about “politicizing the (fill in the blank).” Check
    Americans would be confused about what’s going on, who’s telling the truth. Check
    Michelle Bachmann would make some nutty remark. Check
    Glenn Beck would spin a conspiracy theory. Check
    George Will would draw a comparison with Nixon. Check
    Rand Paul would compare Bulworth with a character from “Fountainhead”. Check
    Eric Kantor would draft a bill to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Check
    Liberals would be confused by, well, by, uh, what to do? Check

    Nope – can’t see any real downside. I would feel better, and some of you would, too, I’ll bet.


  7. rae yearnd

     /  May 18, 2013

    Nice graph> Just as the bills for the Bush overspending came due just in time to usher Obama into office along with 6 years so far of a ready excuse for any economic trouble. the bills will come due for this President also. I think the more telling overall stat for me is the overall labor participation rate, the number of people that get a government check of one kind or another, the widespread move by large employers to elininate full time employees and replace them with two or more part timers, and lastly the downward pressure on wages that will be created by the influx of unskilled illegals who are being encouraged by ads and editoral on spanish language radio to cross now before the law is changed. Just as Obama proudly stated after the sequester reduction in the rate of increse ( there were no cuts ) that it would be the cause and blame for whatever “rough spots” we might encounter. I am sure that the above policy and government created problems will be solved by more policies, programs, laws and regulation, as the dog continues to chase its tail.


  8. ansonburlingame

     /  May 18, 2013

    Well, can we leave rhetoric aside and consider WHY the deficit MIGHT come down dramatically, in one year. We MAY come from a deficit of about $1 Trillion (maybe a little more) down to about $700 Billion, so call it a 30% reduction in one year. Not bad for a tax and spend Democrat for sure.

    So WHY, macroscopically would the deficit come down by about 30%. WELL we did raise taxes on the rich, last Dec. And we did cut spending by about the same amount through sequestration. Sum total of just those two actions is around $200 Billion or so in one year. But the deficit will come down by about $300 Billion. Hmmm? Wonder where we might have saved that extra $100 Billion?

    Now just pause and think about that, you tax and spend Dems. Had the GOP not been in a majority in the House, please tell me what you believe the deficit would have been in FY 2013. WELL over $1 Trillion, again, for sure. First NO sequestration but YES for sure to the tax hikes on the rich. BUT as well just imagine ALL the funding that would have been approved by BOTH the House and Senate had they been in Dem hands. AT LEAST ANOTHER $1 Trillion PLUS deficit would be the result.

    And Duane, bless his soul, and Paul Krugman’s as well, would think that is a GREAT IDEA, continuing deficits over $1 Trillion each year, until………..??? That was Duane’s whole point I think. He does not WANT lower deficits. He wants them to remain……… until………?

    No, maybe that is unfair to Duane. He actually wants to see deficits come down, SLOWLY, until…….? But he wants to do it by ONLY raising taxes on the rich. Good luck, Duane, like getting blood out of a turnip, politically.

    Greece, Spain, France (now that they are back on track with a socaltist government) have been doing so for a few decades now. Is that where you want to see America in a few years?

    Of course you do, as Dems and the sky is the limit on borrowing money until………?

    I agree with George Will. Thank God for divided government today. Both sides, at least on the extremes are simply NUTS. And NO, all you progressives, Obama is NOT in the middle of that argument. He is as far to the left in terms of what he WANTS to do as any President that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

    Again, Thank God for divided government until we the people get our heads on straight and learn to live within our means!!!

    Just let government do it for you, the bureaucracy of government. Hello, IRS, DOJ and a host of other lesser evils like preventing a spill of oil or screwing up the clean up of an oil spill???? I would add, protect and defend America and Americans (in Benghazi, etc.)? Next up, let government bureaucracy fix the HC costs around the nation. Do YOU “trust” government to do that for YOU???



  9. scott eastman

     /  May 20, 2013

    I’ll second that ‘amen’


%d bloggers like this: