Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s Big Tea Party Spoof
by Jillian Bandes

Comedian Jon Stewart’s “Restoring Sanity” rally pokes fun at overzealous political activism, but it’s hard not to see how it doesn’t attack the Right more than it attacks the Left. After all, “Restoring Sanity” is a direct play on Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” event just a few weeks ago, and the format of Stewart’s event is taken directly from the tea party rallies held over the past year or so.

Should tea-partying conservatives actually take offense?

It depends who you talk to.

“What these guys are about isn’t so different than what we are about,” said Adam Brandon, vice president of communications for FreedomWorks, which was responsible for organizing the 9/12 rally as well as helping mobilize for Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” event. “I would guess if you polled these guys, they’re not that excited about higher taxes or bigger government. So even if there’s some anti-tea party stuff there, perhaps there are some commonalities.”

That opinion is quite different than the one expressed by Sally Oljar, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, a limited-government grassroots activist group that has assisted with several events over the past year.

“I am reminded of Gandhi’s advice: ‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.’ Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert are comics and do not address issues substantively,” said Oljar. “Mockery is a tactic, not an answer. They are desperate to stop the change that’s coming – the showdown, so to speak.”

The event on October 30 is expected to draw upwards of 60,000 people, and will feature a counter-rally from comedy host Stephen Colbert, who is spoofing Stewart’s spoof with his own “Restoring Fear” campaign. Stewart has suggested signs such as “9/11 Was An Outside Job,” and “I’m Not Afraid of Muslims, Tea Partiers, Socialists, Immigrants, Gun Owners or Gays, But I am Kind of Scared of Spiders.”

Those sorts of signs didn’t really hit Seton Motley’s funny bone. Motley is the President of Less Government, a nonprofit group in D.C.

“One of the premises of this Jon Stewart-Stephen Colbert pseudo-Woodstock is to denigrate to the tea party movement and conservatives,” said Motley. “Their calling it a rally to ‘restore’ sanity implies that the TEA Party and Glenn Beck rallies have been un-sane.”

Other conservatives insisted that there was nothing to be afraid of – that the event was simply capitalizing on something for raw economic benefit.

“People will show up for a free show anytime there is a celebrity involved. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert figured out how much the Restore Honor rally boosted Glenn Beck and figure they could do the same thing,” said Judson Phelps, head of Tea Party Nation, who has held various tea party activist events throughout the year. “I think it is more of a joke than a political rally, but whatever floats their boat!”

Dean Nelson, head of the Fredrick Douglass Foundation, took an approach similar to Colbert’s when giving his take on “Restoring Sanity” – that is, he combined skepticism with humor.

“I am proud to live in a country that could produce or attract comedians as clever and entertaining as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert,” said Nelson. “Although I personally plan to be involved with get out the vote efforts, I can think of no better way for liberals to spend the weekend before the election than attending this fine event.”

9/12 Reveals GOP Intensity for November Elections
by Jillian Bandes

The tea party has something in common with fine wine: it gets better with age. This year’s 9/12 rally came replete with the types of moveable signs that were clearly crafted with care and the types of activists who are quick on their feet with chants and chatter. It was all sponsored in large part by FreedomWorks, a non-profit organization that fights for limited government, and serves as a central force for a strictly volunteer tea-party army.

“There is only one power on this earth big enough to destroy this country,” said FreedomWorks chairman and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, during the Capitol rally. “That is government. Our founding fathers knew that and feared that. That’s why they wrote the Constitution.”

The turnout at Sunday’s 9/12 march was smaller than the number of people who had attended last year’s blockbuster 9/12 rally, possibly due to the fact that Glenn Beck had sucked up the energy of some tea partiers at his 8/28 “Restoring Honor” rally two weeks ago. Also affecting turnout was the weather: a steady drizzle dampened the event from the start of the day until about an hour before it ended. Considering those two factors, the turnout was indeed impressive, according to Freedomworks president Matt Kibbe.

“Is there anyone here who is going to let the rain dampen their plans to take their country back? Is there anyone here who is going to let the rain dampen their plans to remember in November?” he asked. The questions were met with a resounding “no” from the crowd.

The 9/12 march began at the Washington Monument, with a non-denominational religious service starting at 10am, and then a line-up of speakers from local activists groups. Then, the attendees swarmed down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Hill and set up camp in front of Congress, where they stayed until 5pm.

The kitsch factor was high. A sign-making event put on by FreedomWorks on Saturday resulted in the kind of elaborate displays that have come to symbolize the creativity and energy of tea party activists, including 3-d representations of tar and feathers, and a sign that featured President Obama’s moveable mouth.

The march was also highly politicized, with a theme of “Remember November,” in reference to the upcoming mid-term elections. Most speakers stuck to that theme on podiums in front of the Capitol and the Washington Monument, and the crowd seemed to have it on repeat. Armey referenced the importance of the elections by pointing to the many primary elections that the tea party has influenced, such as Joe Miller in Alaska.

Mike Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, was a keynote speaker at the Capitol, and was met with chants from the crowd: “Sign the contract!” The crowd was ostensibly referring to the GOP’s “Young Guns” platform, put out by Reps. Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, who consider themselves the vanguards of constitutional conservatism. Pence has reportedly been “shut out” of the contract, which is set to be released in bookstores on Tuesday.

Despite the hullaballoo, Pence hit hard with an small-government, anti-incumbency message. He himself is a third-term incumbent, but has worked hard at maintaining an outsider image.

“We do not consent to runaway federal spending by either party. We demand an end to the spending once and for all,” said Pence. “We must fight for what has always been the source of American greatness: God and freedom.”

Many of the attendees said similar things to the speakers that manned the podiums.

“The government is heading in the wrong direction, since President Obama we’ve gone much further into debt, and our spending is out of control,” said Joe McKeney, from Farmville, North Carolina. “I believe it has to do with the liberal attitude in Congress. We need to get back to a smaller government, with fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.”

Another attendee, a father of six children and grandfather of nine, said he came for his family.

“I’m sick and tired of the way the government has been running…. The government is supposed to be for the people, and instead, its all politicians doing whatever they damn well please. And it just isn’t right,” he said.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people that are like me, that are conservative, that want less government, that are just peaceful, passive people, that have allowed the Dems and liberals, Member by Member to eat away at our liberties, our freedoms,” he said. “The constitution is not a flexible document. It was never intended to be interpreted as a work in progress or a flexible document.”

Leader Hints At New “Contract With America”
by Jillian Bandes

Heading into the 2010 mid-term elections, House Republicans want to re-focus their efforts towards providing solutions to failed Democratic policies. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), has said that could include a new version of the the 1994 “Contract with America,” which led to Republican electoral success in all levels of government.

Their timing couldn’t be better: a new poll released yesterday showed that a full 50 percent of American voters wouldn’t re-elect Obama if another election was held right now. That poll, conducted by Allstate and National Journal, also found “growing dissatisfaction among Americans regarding the state of the country,” and that a strong plurality thought America was on the wrong track.

That means it’s time to seize the moment. Boehner said the new “contract” or “agenda” would “involve members of the conference and our candidates,” meaning that it could be a sort of litmus test for all House GOPers during the mid-terms. It would likely include agenda items such as lowering taxes and decreasing deficits, as well as addressing the issues of immigration and bailouts.

The House Republican Conference’s annual retreat, which starts in two weeks, is expected to provide a forum for Republicans to talk about policy objectives – key during the last two years of President Obama’s first term.

“At our annual retreat, House Republicans will be working on solutions to fix the failed Democrat policies enacted over the last 12 months,” said Mary Vought, press secretary for the HRC.

Vought said that House Republican leaders chose Baltimore as the location for the retreat “because it is a working class city that has a 10.8 % unemployment rate.”

President Obama is slated to speak at the conference, and attendance is expected to be at record levels.

“As Americans in growing numbers are turning to House Republicans for solutions to our current crises, we expect another large gathering,” said Vought.

The Democrats held a parallel gathering this week, but didn’t “retreat” anywhere – their annual conference was held in the Capitol, during a series of meetings that focused on jobs. Reports said they were trying not to appear as though they were leaving on a retreat while the rest of America was hard at work.

About 170 out of the House’s 257 Democrats attended that meeting, where President Obama spoke along with former President Bill Clinton.

If the National Journal poll means anything, it’s that the Democrats have a lot of ground to cover. Solid majorities of Americans said the government needs to make government programs more effective while reducing wasteful spending, and that they wanted the government to force financial institutions to pay back bailout money. Democrats, meanwhile, contemplate a second stimulus and increased government programs, as opposed to improving existing ones.

That could help Republicans in 2010, especially those who failed to get elected in years prior. Politico reported that a half-dozen legislators who did not win election in 2006 and 2008 were contemplated a return to the ballot, or had already announced that they would do so. A reinvigorated policy effort, and perhaps even a revised Contract with America, could be just the ticket.

Palin Stays One Step Ahead of the Political Class
by Jillian Bandes

One of the biggest questions for conservatives right now is whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012.

Palin just announced that she would speak at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in April – the second-most important GOP political gathering behind the Republican National Convention. While it’s not guaranteed that an appearance at the event means an individual will enter the GOP primary, it’s virtually impossible to enter the primary without having appeared.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

“Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s decision to attend — and speak at — the SLRC… transforms that event into the first legitimate cattle-call of the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes,” wrote Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.

Palin’s SLRC speech will happen right after a keynote address at the National Tea Party Convention, which has a goal of consolidating the movement’s “multiple organizations.”

Matthew Continetti, author of The Persecution of Sarah Palin, says that the dual appearances are good news on the heels of Palin’s abrupt exit from the Alaska governorship, and that they could indicate 2012 Presidential aspirations.

“Palin began her rehabilitation with her book launch and media tour. Now, with the SRLC appearance, she’s continuing to lay the groundwork for a presidential run,” he said.

“I happen to think her more important appearance will be at the national Tea Party convention next month — Palin, unlike many prominent Republicans, understands the GOP must capture the Tea Party message, enthusiasm, and supporters if it wants to return to power.”

Continetti’s assessment is right in line with a National Journal poll last month, which put Palin dead last as the “GOP political insider” choice for the Republican nomination – that’s coming from party leaders, political professionals and pundits. Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was their pick.

But Palin’s tea party appeal can’t be denied among the GOP rank-and-file. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans and forty-one percent of all voters currently see Palin as “representative of a new direction for the Republican Party,” and many put her approval ratings on par with Obama’s. Palin does well in indicators of “shared values” and “trustworthiness” among all voters.

Combine those favorability ratings with her record-breaking book tour, and hopes are pie-in-the-ski for her nomination as the GOP presidential candidate. Her autobiography Going Rogue has sold over a million copies, with record turnout at her book tour events.

“This book tour has been an amazing and inspirational experience for me and my family as we crisscrossed the country and met so many wonderful Americans,” said Palin, via her Facebook page.

Gitmo Closure, Terrorist “Rehab” Take Hits
by Jillian Bandes

The White House’s decision to stop the transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees back to their home base in Yemen jeopardizes President Obama’s executive order – and campaign promise – to close the controversial prison facility.

The decision also brings into question Attorney General Eric Holder’s multiple affirmations that “rehabilitation” of already-repatriated ex-detainees has been “successful.”

But the White House and Holder are already playing a game of political rigmarole they hope will reconcile their hypocrisy on the canceled transfers.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that delaying transfer of Gitmo prisoners would not delay the closing of Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear what would happen to them in lieu of being transferred. One option could be to ship more of them to the Thomson Correctional Facility in Illinois, where other Gitmo prisoners will be housed.

But that facility won’t be ready until 2011, and putting any prisoners into a facility inside the United States has been met with controversy. There is also the legal issue of whether it’s appropriate to ship homeward-bound Gitmo detainees to another prison, given that original plans to ship them back to their countries of origin presumed they were safe.

That leads directly into the issue of the Saudi Arabian program for “rehabilitating” terrorists, which has released dozens of prisoners back into their countries of origin after “graduation.” Many of those “graduates” simply continue committing terrorism against the United States after their release, a fact that Attorney General Eric Holder conveniently overlooks.

Instead, Holder has repeatedly called the programs “effective,” allowing him to justify the transfer of Gitmo detainees back to their hometowns. Stopping the transfers, as he did Tuesday, represents a conflict for the Attorney General.

Holder addressed those concerns in a statement Tuesday.

“This Administration works to ensure that Guantanamo transfers are conducted in a manner that takes into account any and all concerns about threat mitigation and security, irrespective of the country to which they are sent,” he said.

The Administration’s decision to halt transfers seemed to indicate a responsiveness to Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions. Sessions led the call to stop transfers after a Christmas Day terrorist attack in Detroit was conducted by a Yemeni al-Quaeda operative.

“The list of failed participants in the Saudi [terrorist rehabilitation] program reads like a “who’s who” of al Qaeda terrorists on the Arabian Peninsula,” said Sessions.

Howard Dean and Jim Moran Defend Obamacare
by Jillian Bandes

The town hall held by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) on Tuesday night was a fun house.

One opponent was escorted out by aides after yelling too loudly. A flash mob started on the floor of the auditorium in which the town hall was being held. A man was kicked off the property after physically accosting an Obama supporter. Rampant interruptions and forceful questioning plagued the Congressman at every turn.

Moran played what cards he could. After promising to speak for a half hour and then take an hour and a half of questions, he spoke for over an hour, handed the microphone over to former Vermont Governor and health care activist Howard Dean — his co-host — and took approximately a dozen questions. Moran actually handed the mic to Dean for at least 10 of those questions, either chiming in on the side or deferring to the Governor entirely. Moran re-used talking points from his original material to provide most of the answers he did tackle himself.

“I asked my Congressman a question, not Howard Dean!” yelled one angry constituent during the Q&A, after Moran had deferred to Dean on yet another question.

Thousands of people snaked around the building in advance of the 6pm doors-opening at a high school in Reston, VA. Moran’s is a deep blue district, and the affinity of the protesters reflected that. Obama supporters handed out pre-printed signs, and many of the supporters seem to have come from a local hospital, in addition to consisting of many students from the school.

One worker who was registering names for the Congressman refused to speak to those who were visibly against the Democratic health care agenda, and discouraged her fellow workers from speaking to them, either.

“Don’t speak to her!” she whispered.

Moran jabbed back at attendees who talked out of turn: “Ma’am, really, sometimes people say more about themselves than they do about the issue when they yell like that.”

After he explained the process for taking questions and was met with loud jeers, he responded with a joke: “I mean, that wasn’t even a controversial statement!”

But it was clear the Congressman was frequently rattled. After one name was called from the question bin, someone posed as the individual who was called and asked their question anyway. When Moran discovered she was a poseur, he yelled “You’re not Miss Appleton! That’s totally inappropriate.”

When Moran asked if a name was pronounced a certain way, one questioner said “It is in Virginia.”

“I’ll pronounce it any way you want,” he replied.

Dean seemed to have a sense of humor about the whole thing.

“I’d like to be extremely brief,” he said in opening remarks, after the crowd had just gone wild over Moran’s opening statements, “because I’d like to hear from you, even though it’s clear I’m doing a lot of that already.”

Moran tried to address several issues during the course of the event, focusing on things he called health care “myths.” According to Moran, Obamacare wouldn’t mean “expanded government control over your health care,” specific end-of-life care would not be forced upon consumers by the government under the public option, and employers would provide more coverage, not less, under the proposed reforms. After making the claim that “there is no rationing of care under this plan,” the crowd booed, and then cheered, with the cheers taking over the boos.

Moran just shook his head.

Obama Insists He’s Honest Despite Softball Questions
by Jillian Bandes

Obama’s “town hall” meeting in Montana was filled with lengthy cheers and softball questions, despite the administration’s vows that questions would not be pre-determined and that tickets would be handed out on a first-come first-serve basis.

“We haven’t pre-selected anybody,” Obama said when starting the Q&A session after a lengthy address that highlighted his views on health care legislation

Yet, five of the seven questions taken included compliments for the President. “Welcome, and thank you, and I believe in reform as well,” said one participant when addressing the President. “Thank you – I’m someone who had a job as the result of your stimulus program,” said another. Towards the end of the session, Obama actually had to solicit a question that voiced more dissent – ostensibly so the event could appear more legitimate.

The man he selected put together a question that was virtually made in Hollywood.

“I’m someone who makes a living selling private insurance,” said the questioner, and then he asked Obama why he has changed his rhetoric from “health care reform” to “health insurance reform.” Obama said there had been no malicious intent there, but simply that he thought insurance companies needed a push.

Because Obama is “a constitutional scholar,” said one Montanan, another participant in the “town hall” wanted to read him the opening lines to the Montana State Constitution.

“We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution,” she read.

“What a great way to end this town hall,” Obama said.

Some commentators said the event was slightly more heated than the Tuesday town hall meeting Obama held in Portsmouth, N.H. The staged nature of that event is likely what led Obama to be so insistent that this town hall was legitimate.

Some GOP Sens. Temper their Sotomayor Questions
by Jillian Bandes

As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the job of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is to court votes in the next round of Senate elections. Given the large — and growing — Hispanic constituency in his state and across the U.S., it wasn’t unexpected that his questions before the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, were a bit more tempered than those posed by his Republican colleagues.

“Her record as a circuit judge and a trial judge — it’s not horrible. It’s pretty traditional,” he said in an interview. “There are some decisions I disagree with, but that’s fairly normal.”

That sort of statement contrasts with Sen. Jon Kyl’s attitude towards the nominee, questioning her about whether or not she agreed with President Obama’s attitude that a judge should be “empathetic,” and hastily suggesting that she should “Let me try and help you,” when Sotomayor hesitated after a question.

It’s also in contrast to heated questions on controversial issues such as abortion launched by Sens. Tom Coburn and Lindsey Graham. Yesterday, Graham asked Sotomayor recite the controversial “wise Latina” remark in front of the Judiciary Committee and press.

Cornyn’s more moderated stance certainly did not indicate a resounding approval of the nominee, saying that he did have concerns about the sharp discrepancies in her hearing testimony and public comments.

“When she gets to the Supreme Court there is no restraint — there is no ability for her to be restrained on the issues…and if it heads down the path of the speeches that she’s given over the years, I think that would be the very definition of bad judicial activism,” said Cornyn.

He also said that said that after three days of hearings he is still unsure whether or not Sonia Sotomayor is cut out for the bench.

“It’s a little discouraging to hear Judge Sotomayor backtrack on some of the statements she made yesterday about the so-called “wise Latina” statement, and these other, I’d call, radical speeches…which seems very inconsistant with her judicial record,” he said.

But he insisted that there will be no last-minute attempts to block her nomination.

“My sense is that we should use filibusters in the rarest of circumstances,” said Cornyn.

Obama’s Health Care Promises Ring Hollow
by Jillian Bandes

President Obama is exempting health care legislation from his recent push for renewed adherence to the “pay-as-you-go” principle.

His logic is that health care will pay for itself in the long-term while incurring short-term debts, so a single waiver from pay-as-you-go rules in the short term isn’t irresponsible. But past government programs designed to be self-sustaining in the long run simply haven’t lived up to lawmakers’ expectations.

Social Security amendments passed in 1983 mandate that the program be fiscally solvent for the next 75 years. A recent report released last month by the Social Security Administration claims the solvency of the program will last through 2037, 21 years shorter than expected. Many experts believe this estimate is grossly optimistic.

The U.S. Post Office is also theoretically bound by an act passed 1970 that requires USPS to not only break even but make a profit if possible. The agency lost $2.8 billion in 2008 alone, and estimates it will incur a $6 billion debt by the end of 2009. The agency is currently contemplating a suspension of Saturday service to make up for the shortfall.

The rhetoric surrounding the creation of other programs suggest that they were originally conceived as self-sustaining, but the principle has always been abandoned after the program was put in place. It was originally believed Amtrak would be self-sustaining within 3 to 5 years. The program lost almost a billion dollars last year and almost $30 billion dollars since its creation in 1970. If the post office was profitable it wouldn’t need to have a legislatively-enforced monopoly.

Micheal Cannon, director of health policy studies at the CATO Institute, is unsurprised by the use of “pay-as-you-go” rhetoric surrounding the implementation of a national health care program. He says Obama’s analysts are trying to invent ways to say that savings will be realized; however, pragmatically, that’s impossible.

“They have no way to do it,” said Cannon, “All the aura they have about health care [being self-sustainable] is just a complete façade.”

He said that those pushing for health care legislation “know they will need every ounce of aura” in order for the legislation to pass.

Veronique De Rugy, a budget and tax expert for the Mercatus Institute, thinks it’s a philosophical problem.

“Obama stands in front of the TV and he lies. He does not talk about taxes. He talks about spending money.”

Obama’s Iraq Policy and a Surge of Violence
by Jillian Bandes

On Thursday, Iraq suffered its worst death toll on a single day since the start of U.S. engagement there; 80 people perished after the supposed capture of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, al-Qaeda in Iraq’s leader and one of Iraq’s most wanted men. On Friday, there was another attack almost as deadly; 60 people died and 125 were injured when two suicide bombers attacked a Shia mosque in Baghdad.

This upswing in violence comes on the heels of Obama’s new policies in the Middle East, which call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq starting this summer and lasting until 2011.

An upswing in violence is almost certainly related to Obama’s adjustments in troop numbers, but that doesn’t mean the country will necessarily return to previous levels of violence, said Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Donnelly said that increased violence is a cause for concern but that “it’s not like we’re headed…to 2006 kind of low-grade civil war.”

The violence has been too spotty and far-between for that. Furthermore, it hasn’t targeted a single group or tribe – instead, it has targeted a variety of Iraqis and coalition forces, suggesting general mayhem instead of concentrated attacks.

Donnelly did say the surge in bombings was connected to Obama’s policies at in “an indirect way.” The enemy will jump to portray any reduction in power as a retreat, he said.

“You should probably never underestimate the various bad guys in Iraq. Most have been suicide bombers, of which there has always seemed to be a fairly consistent supply. It doesn’t diminish,” said Donnelly. “And if the pattern continues, it would be deeply worrisome.”

Manning smaller outpost and increasing patrols on city streets were the main thrust of former President Bush’s “surge,” so withdrawing those troops could cause more concentrated sectarian violence as they continue to leave. Christopher Holton, Vice President for the Center for Security Policy, thinks it’s likely that coalition forces will suffer more.

“I do think that we’re going to see increased violence as the result of Obama’s policies,” he said. “You can’t un-ring a bell. We’re drawing down in Iraq, so the enemy forces in Iraq have been energized by that.”

Holton pointed to the fact that Obama’s withdrawal was very public, meaning that the enemy is highly aware of what withdrawal means to U.S. citizens and what increased violence would also mean.

“Its not just the policy changes themselves, but it’s the public way he’s done it to appease the hard left that got him elected in the first place,” said Holton. “It makes it much more volatile.”

Obama’s Budget Bill Goes Over Budget
by Jillian Bandes

Considering the amount of money that has been and will be shoveled out from the U.S. Department of Treasury isn’t an easy task in light of the billions and trillions being tossed around like hot cakes in Congress. But the magnitude of the error in the Obama budget plan, estimated today at $2.3 trillion by the Congressional Budget Office, is worth a second look.

One analyst says it’s almost hard to fault the original, mistaken estimates, given how large and complex the original budget and bailout plan is. Another claims that while Bush’s numbers dance was condemnable, it doesn’t come close to the smoke-and-mirrors scheme of the Obama administration.

Obama’s budget calculations were nearly a quarter off. He thought his spending spree was only 75% of what it actually cost. That’s enough to make a homeowner default on his mortgage, but not enough to make a President default on his spending plans.

Some think Obama’s faulty estimates will make Democrats who are already skeptical about overspending withdraw their support. Or maybe it won’t matter, and the additional spending will simply sail through a Congress already eager to oblige the executive branch.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), told the Los Angeles Times that the bad numbers might influence what he and other more conservative Democrats think “is the appropriate level of spending – what might be put off to another budget, what we can pursue incrementally.” The 51-member Blue Dog Democrat group released a statement Thursday indicating their hesitation with the size and speed of spending.

At this point, Obama himself has simply reinforced his commitment to handing out taxpayer’s money – under the guise of “investing” in projects he deems appropriate. The cost of these “investments” is daunting.

“In rough magnitude, right now we’ve got about $19,000 worth of public debt for everyone who lives in the U.S., and that will be roughly tripling for every person by 2019,” said Chris Edwards, director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He added that the estimates for programs such as health care were extremely conservative, meaning that estimates about future debt were also probably low.

It’s the largest amount the US will have ever spent as a percentage of GDP since World War II. The savings Obama says he has made in the budget don’t count the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; to the contrary, Obama’s budget counts the cutting of funds from those wars as “savings.”

Edwards says the battle axes are now going to be pointed in another direction.

“Were going to have the biggest budget battles we’ve had in the next ten years than we’ve ever had in history,” he said.

One section of the newly released CBO estimates claims that the stimulus package would benefit the economy in the short term, bringing the U.S. out of a recession by 2010. But Stephen J. Entin, President and Exex director of The Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, said that this evidence is contradicted by long-term estimates.

“Massive amounts of spending might ultimately crowd out investing or increase tax rates, which would ultimately impede the growth rate,” he said.

Isabel Sawhill Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, supports bailout packages, but has no illusions about the rate of spending and its effect on future growth.

“I think quite simply that we have an unsustainable fiscal future, and that something is going to have to be done, and it’s not clear what can be done because the spending cuts and tax increases are politically poisonous,” she said.