The Washington Post reports today, “Federal domestic spending increased a record 16 percent, to $3.2 trillion, in 2009, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, largely because of a boost in aid to the unemployed and the huge economic stimulus package enacted to rescue the sinking economy. The rise in spending was the largest since the Census Bureau began compiling the data in 1983. The Washington region was among the biggest beneficiaries of the government’s spending.”

Of course, because so little of it has been paid for, this record spending has been accompanied by record debt and deficits. Back in May, the national debt surpassed $13 trillion for the first time, a staggering sum. It was boosted by the record deficits run up by the Obama administration, $1.4 trillion for 2009, and a projected $1.34 trillion for 2010. The Congressional Budget Office pointed out in August, “Relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is exceeded only by last year’s deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.”

According to the CBO, “As was the case last year, this year’s deficit is attributable in large part to a combination of weak revenues and elevated spending associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it.” Indeed, the $862 billion stimulus bill was financed entirely with borrowed money, and added right to the deficit. And yet after spending all this money, the bill still hasn’t lived up to the Obama administration promises that 3.5 million jobs would be created in 18 months (actually, 3.3 million were lost) and that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8 percent (it remains at 9.5%).

Yet Democrats continue to push even more spending. President Obama has urged the Senate again and again to pass a bill that includes a $30 billion lending fund for small businesses. Earlier this year, Democrats repeatedly refused to pass unemployment benefit extensions that didn’t increase the deficit. In April, USA Today reported, “[U]nder Obama’s tax and spending proposals, annual deficits would push the public debt to 90% of the economy by 2020, a level unseen since the years after World War II.”

With all of this in mind, it shouldn’t be surprising that Americans are beginning to associate Democrats with ever more spending and debt. A new Gallup poll today finds that 50% of respondents think Republicans in Congress would do a better job than Democrats in Congress in dealing with the problem of federal spending. Only 35% think Democrats would handle it better.

Related:

Rasmussen Reports:

Partisan Trend: Democrats 35.0% Republicans 33.8% Gap Smallest in Five Years

75% Say Congress Should Cut Its Own Pay Until Budget is Balanced

Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 45%, Democrats 39%

According to today’s New York Times, “For only the second time since he took office, President Obama  will speak to the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, in an address meant to convey that he has kept one of the central promises of his campaign: withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq.” But, The Times notes, “Mr. Obama will still strike a promises-kept theme, aides said, even as he seeks to reconcile his opposition to the Iraq war — and his opposition to the so-called troop surge, which Republicans and many military officials credit for the decrease in violence in Iraq — with his role as a wartime commander in chief seeking to credit his troops with carrying out a difficult mission.”

 Politico reports that both House Republican Leader John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will have comments on President Obama’s speech today, pointing out the success of the surge, our troops, and General David Petreaus, and noting how many Democrats opposed this plan. “‘Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy now proudly claim credit for the results,’ Boehner says in remarks prepared for delivery to the American Legion’s 92nd national convention, in Milwaukee. ‘[T]oday we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated – but progress.’ . . . “McConnell underscores the contribution of President George W. Bush’s troop ‘surge’ in Iraq: ‘By adopting the Bush administration’s plan for winding down the war and transitioning security responsibilities to the Iraqi military over time, the president has enabled us and the Iraqis to build on the gains our troops have made. … Thankfully, we can say today that our troops, the surge, and the Petraeus plan all succeeded where many in Washington thought they would fail.’”

Indeed, Democrats continually branded the surge a “failure.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) famously declared, “[T]his war is lost and … the surge is not accomplishing anything.” Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said, “It has failed.” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said, “President Bush promised us his troop surge was going to improve security and allow Iraqis to stabilize their own country, but that is not working.” Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) vented, “This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy.” And a year after the surge was announced, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.”

Many Democrats even attempted to stop the surge before it could get underway. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced early on, “The surge has to be stopped. It is a reckless, almost mindless approach to a desperately difficult situation.” And he proceeded to introduce multiple bills and amendments that would have cut off funding for troops in the field.

In fact, beginning in 2007, Congressional Democrats forced more than 40 votes to either require troops to withdraw, to micromanage forces instead of letting the generals adapt to conditions on the ground, or to outright condemn the surge strategy. Where would our troops, where would Iraqis, and where would the United States be today if Democrats had their way in 2007?

Since Robin now feels it’s necessary to throw her brother Russ under the bus to win an election, we thought we’d help her by highlighting Russ’s profligate spending with an excerpt from a 2008 post:

“Carnahan, who was elected in 2004, has managed to pass two bills while in Congress; an arterial road in Jefferson County and the renaming of a post office that’s 250 miles away in - Kansas City! Now we learn from his Republican opponent Chris Sander, that Carnahan wants to add to this impressive list of accomplishments by sending $300 Million dollars of our money overseas for “family planning.” Read more…

Is Obamacare the next bus poor Russ should look out for:

WSJ:

“Time provides further evidence that ObamaCare support is hazardous to political health. Democratic Senate nominee Robin Carnahan, whose brother Rep. Russ Carnahan voted for ObamaCare, could muster only a “lukewarm statement” of–well, we guess we’ll be generous and call it support:

The statement by spokesman Linden Zakula was cryptic: “If the issue is approved by the voters, there is some question about what would be the practical implication since it would be an issue of state law pre-empting federal law. But when it comes to this issue in general, as a breast-cancer survivor [Carnahan] takes the issue of health care very personally, and thinks it makes a lot more sense to fix the things that still need fixing instead of repealing the entire bill, or opting out, and going back to insurance companies making out like bandits and denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.” Read more…

Does Robin also believe that people who oppose Obamacare are “attack[ing] our representative form of government?”

Related:

Additional pictures

A tip for the FBI agents who are rumored to be investigating St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley and the pay-to-play racket in St. Louis: look at Dooley’s stance on putting another casino in St. Louis County.

With gaming applications due to be submitted with the Missouri Gaming Commission this week, people continue to speculate why Charlie Dooley came out in opposition to a gaming boat in St. Louis County even though Congressman Lacy Clay and the St. Louis County Council support the project.

We have found a possible answer: Dooley confidant John Temporiti’s law firm stands to make a lot of money if he can keep our state’s next casino from being located in St. Louis. You see, Temporiti’s law firm represents Isle of Capri, which seeks to put a gaming boat in Cape Girardeau and is desperately trying to get our state’s one available gaming license. The firm’s lead attorney, Tom Campbell, has represented Isle of Capri for at least eight years according to his lobbyist registration with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Clearly, it would benefit Temporiti’s firm to have the casino in Cape Girardeau instead of St. Louis. This is just another example of Dooley doing whatever Temporiti wants, even if it hurts St. Louis County. It wouldn’t be the first time – see KMOX and the Post-Dispatch for other examples.

While we will not debate the merits of another gaming facility in St. Louis, it seems strange that Dooley would oppose the construction of a $300 million facility in an economically-impoverished part of St. Louis County and say no to nearly 2,000 jobs. But then again, Temporiti’s firm stands to make BIG money if Isle gets another gaming license.

A question for the feds: Did Temporiti speak to Dooley?

Related:

Dooley’s Taxpayer Funded Political Poll Equals Two Laptops for Police Cars

Temporiti’s Shady Trash Pick Up Deals Hurting Dooley with Democrats

KMOX: Stimulus Request Steered Toward Dooley Campaign Manager

Dooley Top Aide Says Temporiti Left Non Profit’s Finances in “Disarray”

The Washington Post writes today, “On Thursday, some of the country’s most respected environmental groups - in the midst of their biggest political fight in two decades - sent a group of activists to Milwaukee with a message. We’re losing. . . . A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate’s approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests. Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration’s climate efforts.”

The Post continues, “Before, green groups had wanted so much more than this - they wanted a ‘cap and trade’ bill that would set emissions limits nationwide. The House passed a bill like that, but - after industry groups said it would kill jobs and slow the economy - the Senate decided last month to not even take the issue up. The bill’s chances, already bad, will get worse if Republicans gain seats, as is widely predicted, in the midterm elections. ‘If it’s not addressed in a lame-duck session of Congress, it will have been punted to the next generation,’ said David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.”

Earlier this year, after Democrats jammed through their unpopular health care law, they turned their efforts toward moving their climate bill featuring a carbon cap-and-trade system, which amounts to a national energy tax. In May, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who was leading the charge for Democrats on a cap-and-tax bill, said, “Now is the time to take action. The path to progress has been long, but despite Washington conventional wisdom, we are closer than we’ve ever been to a breakthrough. . . . We want to make this the Senate that finishes the job.” In June, President Obama actually went so far as use his first address to the nation from the Oval Office to call for passage of Democrats’ energy bill. The Washington Post reported, “President Obama urged the nation Tuesday to rally behind legislation that would begin changing the way the country consumes and generates energy . . . . He called for fast Senate action on an energy bill that has already passed the House.” As late as July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was promising to bring an energy bill to the floor before the August recess, even if it was a slimmed down version.

But all along, Republicans and many Democrats opposed the idea of a cap-and-trade plan. Indeed, just after Obama’s June speech, Democrats reacted skeptically, with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) telling Bloomberg News, “There’s not a great call for it in the Democratic caucus,” and other Democrats admitting there weren’t 60 votes for a bill.

But with little enthusiasm among Democrats and recognition that such legislation would do nothing to address the oil spill in the Gulf, Democrats’ climate bill slipped and slipped, until USA Today reported, “Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they don’t have the 60 votes necessary to pass a scaled-back energy bill . . . . Majority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev., said he was unable to find a handful of Republicans to vote for a bill. Reid’s decision to delay until at least September is the latest setback for Democrats trying to pass energy legislation this summer in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”

And now with the bill looking all but dead, the coalition of liberal groups pushing for an energy tax is left to lament that “[e]ven in the hottest year on record, even with a historic oil spill polluting the Gulf of Mexico, even with a Democratic Congress and a friendly White House, it couldn’t win the fight it had picked. In fact, in the Senate it couldn’t even start it.”

A national energy tax resulting from a carbon cap-and-trade scheme was never a good idea to begin with, and as a response to the oil spill, it was essentially a non-sequitur. The last thing Americans need in the midst of a recession with stubbornly high unemployment was is a new energy tax. Environmental groups may be disappointed in the rapidly diminishing prospects for such a bill, but few ordinary Americans are.

Related:

Dems’ Job-Killing Policies Now Affecting Energy Sector w/ Drilling Moratorium, Cap & Tax Push

 Cong. Carnahan Supports Miners’ Right to Organize, While He Votes to Destroy Their Industry!

Cleaver Secures $200 Million for “Green-Friendly Bus Stops”