Yet Another New Record


Well, the autocrat occupying the White House got his way. President Obama, with the able assistance of his worshipers in the mainstream media — i.e., the mainstream media in totality — forced the Republicans to give in on both funding the government and raising the debt limit, with no cuts of any kind, especially to ObamaCare. Obama promptly celebrated with a gloating, moon-in-your-face news conference, in which he bragged about his achievement.

And he promptly set a new record. The first day the limit was raised, he added an eye-popping $328 billion to the national debt — yes, in one day. This was the greatest addition to the US debt in history, eclipsing the earlier record of $238 billion added in one day. That one was set in 2011, by none other than Obama himself.

Actually, the neosocialist nabob set two new records. The second was, for the first time, a thrust of the national debt to over $17 trillion — to be exact, $17.075 trillion. This is hugely ironic, considering the fact that the fiscally incontinent Obama accused his predecessor of being “unpatriotic” for incurring far less debt.

The lapdogs in the mainstream media have not touched this story, although they were willing to run phony stories about how the poor citizens were suffering under the government shutdown and the “threat” of default (the only threat, of course, came from Obama).

Unfortunately, however, the debt story is even worse than indicated above. According to the deal Obama pushed for and won, he can add as much debt as he wants until February 7 of next year. That gives him four months to keep adding hundreds of billions a day, if he chooses.

Share This


Fred Mora

The House of Representatives effectively relinquished its power of the purse to the president. It is a breach in the separation between the executive and legislative branches. I'd like to see an analysis about how this can even be constitutional. To quote the Consitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law [...]

Then again, the sociopath-in-chief was never very fond of the Constitution or, for that matter, the USA.

Jon Harrison

Aren't we forgetting that the vast amount of debt run up under Bush and Obama was all voted for by Congress, under both Republican and Democrat majorities? I was not aware that the president has the power to appropriate and borrow money.

Webster's defines autocrat as "a person ruling with unlimited authority." That doesn't actually define any American president, does it? Might we not be in danger of misleading some of our younger readers with this flagrant disregard for truth-in-writing? Words, as Churchill said, "should have meaning."

Gary Jason

1. As usual, you drag Bush into the discussion. Fine, he was a big spender, but Obama has run up the deficit about double what Bush did, so it is a faux comparison at this point.

2. Yes, Congress passes budgets, but the president has the veto power. Obama has never ONCE vetoed a budget. On the contrary, he has fought the Republican House every step of the way to increase spending without end. You make it sound as if Obama hated big spending, and fought against deficits with all his might. Nothing could POSSIBLY be further from the truth.

3. The term “autocratic” has multiple meanings. It has the meaning (quoting the dictionary): “Like an autocrat: tyrannical despotic, domineering.” Obama clearly governs in a domineering way. He made recess appointments when Congress wasn’t in recess, to put a labor union mouthpiece into the NLRB whom even the Democrats in the Senate wouldn’t approve. This guy then shoved through a whole host of outrageous new rules favoring unions, such as card check. (The Supreme Court even now is considering the constitutionality of this move.) Obama has singlehandedly repeatedly modified the ACA, granting exemptions to it for every group he favors, even though presidents are supposed to enforce the law, not modify it. There are endless examples of his style, which involves never negotiating with his opponents in Congress, but just using his executive power to advance his agenda. This is domineering behavior, which anybody not blind in his worship of the man recognizes.

Jon Harrson

I go back to Bush because that's where this all started (we could go back to LBJ, but how many of us want to admit to being around that long ago?). Remember that under Dubya the bottom fell out of the economy (Sept. 2008), after which the great recession set in. Big recessions lead to big deficits, as tax revenues decline and politicians turn to Keynesian policies to stimulate the economy. Not much Obama could do to stop a collapse that occurred before he took office.

B.O.'s a big government guy, no denying it. Spends too much, no doubt about it. But the genesis of the big deficits we currently see occurred before his time. Context, Jason, context.

Did Dubya or the Gipper ever veto a budget? When has a president ever vetoed a budget? (Has it ever happened? I'm too tired/lazy to look it up.)

You're technically correct re autocrat, but I continue to worry about our younger readers, who may be led astray by your forceful prose.


If the Congress refuses to stand up to the President about government spending (not voted for by THIS Congress) then he does become an autocrat. His power is aided by a compliant press unwilling to substantively oppose him on any issue. For instance, what opposition does he face in dictating the enforcement, or lack thereof, for Obamacare's various mandates? None, that I can see.



Question for you—would you mind dropping an email to ajf at Thanks!

© Copyright 2019 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.