‘Best Speaker’ = $5 Trillion in Debt

We know that politicians make outlandish statements to get elected or re-elected. They pretty much promise anything and 2008 was a perfect example. On Saturday President Obama (a 1 %er) said this about Nancy Pelosi(a 1 %er) in a speech to the ‘National Italian American Foundation’:

I am biased, but I think Nancy was one of the best Speakers of the House this country ever had,” Obama said after Pelosi had introduced him at the National Italian American Foundation gala.

She was no doubt the best Italian American Speaker of the House we ever had. And I believe that she will be the best Speaker of the House again in 2013.

I would offer the President got his ‘special’ days mixed up and thought it was April Fools Day–not the Halloween weekend. Here is what Pelosi said in her acceptance speech as Speaker in 2007:

After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

To use a popular retort of today, “how did that work out for ya” ? Well, after only 2 terms as Speaker the national debt increased about 5 trillion dollars on Pelosi’s watch. This is more than all the previous Speakers’ combined.

Maybe that one qualifier word “Italian” is what the President thinks allows him to make this statement. As far as that 2013 thing….


  1. Lame.

    You take a true statement made by Pelosi in Jan. of 2007, then you link to deficit data since then, completely ignoring the economic realities in between. Both are true so your argument must be correct as well. Pelosi said one thing, then did another. Of course, this is just a poor attempt at disguising “Team Politics”.

    Here I’ll do it too:

    George W. Bush was President in 2008. Therefor, GWB was responsible for the financial crisis because he was President during time of the collapse of financial markets that put millions out of work. Furthermore, GWB was responsible for the large rise in the deficit from 2008-late ’09 because it was his approved budget that was in effect during that time.

    These statements are true statements if they existed in a vacuum. GWB was President in 2008. The deficit spiked in 2008-09. But of course, I’m completely ignoring just a ton of economic realties before/during the crisis that make my argument incorrect. The only reason I would make this argument is to prove that your team is wrong and mine is right.

    As you are here.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    No, they’re not the same unless George Bush said the following:

    “I will commit myself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”

    Approving the budget if you didn’t make the promises means nothing to my post. Apparently Bush approved of the budget–that’s a totally different issue.

  3. J. Strupp says:

    Pelosi commiting to pay-as-you-go and no new deficit spending, pre-2008 finanical crisis, is a worthless sound bite.

    The economic climate completely changed in late 2008, yet you openly ignore that fact to make a your point. It doesn’t work. It’s just Team Politics.

  4. Randy in Richmond says:

    So your 20/20 hindsight on Iraq which you articulated in the Bachmann post doesn’t apply here. For you looking back it was wrong for most of the free world, the United Nations, and most Republicans and Democrats here, to support entering Iraq because things weren’t as most thought they were and you blame President Bush. But when Pelosi states her directives based on the best information available to her and others, and they totally fail, it’s somehow different as you defend her and it is still President Bush’s fault. The difference is Team Politics–or which team one happens to be on.

  5. J. Strupp says:

    I’m not defending anyone. I’m pretty apathetic to Pelosi’s statement in 2007. What I’m saying, for the third time, is that you’re taking Pelosi’s statement in 2007 and assuming that nothing changed between then and now. Given the events of fall 2008, most people would re-evaluate the necessity of deficit reduction, given the collapse in tax revenues and ballooning temporary stabilization benefits needed following the crisis. I think the actions taken by Congress since the crisis confirms that deficit reduction was not as much of a priority as it was when we weren’t losing a few hundred thousand jobs a month.

    I would expect Pelosi, and the rest of Congress, to adapt to the changing environment which they did.

    As another example of this, our leadership could have admitted that several years, over a trillion dollars and a couple thousand American lives wasn’t worth the price of trying to nation build in the Middle East. Had we not doubled down on stupid and, instead, adapted based on the information in front of our faces, we might have saved a few bucks, a few kids’ lives and done something more productive with our resources for at least the past few years.

  6. historians and blogger alike since 1776 via te 1st amendment continue the blame game on Presidents. every new President has the burden of taking up the job and policies the former President presided over. not only that, but the new President has to endure the decisions made by prior staffers, cabinets, lawmakers and ambassadors, to mention a few. we have had Lincoln’s war, Wilson’s war, FDR’s war, Clinton’s war, Bush’s war and now Obamas war. that was and is the blame game. The irony is that no President ever wanted a war. The same goes for economic policies. ever try taking over a job someone else had , on your own?