>>>>Fourteen years ago, an energized Republican Congress voted to reform a vital part of the nation's fast-growing welfare system. President Clinton signed the bill into law, promising that the measure would "end welfare as we know it."
>>>>
>>>>But what began as a promising era of reform has completely collapsed. Government welfare spending is climbing rapidly, and at an unsustainable rate.
>>>>
>>>>The Obama administration projects that over the next 10 years the United States, at all levels of government, will spend more than $10 trillion on means-tested welfare programs for the poor. And we're off to a galloping start.
>>>>
>>>>President Obama's budget for next fiscal year would increase spending on these programs by 42 percent compared with President Bush's last complete budget.
>>>>
>>>>Without doubt, the severe recession is to blame for some of this increase. But the Obama administration doesn't project a decrease in welfare costs after the recession ends.
>>>>
>>>>Rising spending — reaching $944 billion in combined federal and state spending in fiscal 2011 — will soar past $1.3 trillion a year by decade's end.
>>>>
>>>>Sums like this don't represent a war "on" poverty so much as an unconditional surrender "to" poverty.
>>>>...
>>>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/06/Confronting-the-Unsustainable-Welfare-State
>>>>
>>>>and here is Mr. Rector's recent Congressional testimony :
>>>>
>>>>Expanding Federal Food Programs: Means-Tested Aid for Families with Children
>>>>
>>>>My name is Robert Rector. I am a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.
>>>>
>>>>This hearing is to examine proposals to expand spending on school nutrition programs. However, it is misleading to examine spending in one or two government programs in isolation. Most families receiving subsidized school meals also receive benefits from many other programs. Proposals to expand spending in a single program must be examined holistically, in the context of overall growth of government spending.
>>>>
>>>>It is therefore important to consider school nutrition spending in the context of overall means-tested assistance to low-income families with children. In FY 2011, such means-tested aid will reach around $475 billion, or roughly $33,000 for each family with children in the lowest income third of population.
>>>>
>>>>At the same time, the federal budget deficit in FY2011 will be $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of the gross domestic product. As the national debt rises rapidly toward 100 percent of GDP, it is clear that the current growth of government spending is unsustainable. In that context, calls for long-term increases in spending on school meal programs are irresponsible.
>>>>...
>>>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Expanding-Federal-Food-Programs-Means-Tested-Aid-for-Families-with-Children
>>>
>>>Two things the dems do that are strange:
>>>1. They try to spend their way to economic success.
>>>2. They actually believe that wealthy people will stand still while they are fleeced by the government.
>>
>>They're not that strange if you seek the simplest conclusion from their actions.
>>
>>1. They spend to get people on the dole
>>2. With a majority of voters on the dole the wealthy will either "take it" or leave the country and the Dems do not believe that will happen
>>
>>They're attempting to manufacture a permanent majority through monetary slavery. For the playbook, see generational welfare.
>
>To me, watching from up north, it is beginning to look like the USA is about to have the slats kicked out from underneath it.
>If the GOP gets back in control will they be able to reverse what Obama has done?

Maybe. ;)

Here's my thinking. The economy continues sideways or re-dips by November. Obama & Congress's poll numbers continue to slide as the economy goes and we "find out what's in" these regressive, unconstitutional and reckless programs (Gold tax discovered in health care today, neat). Barring a MAJOR scandal transcending multiple states, the GOP will re-take the House and has a very good shot at the Senate. That should stop the bleeding IF they act like they did following 1994.

They will not be able to reverse anything over a presential veto, but they will be able to defund through non-appropriation. In addition, they'll be able to stop the bailouts, stimulus, etc. Now, this is where things get tricky. This loss of funding will directly affect the individual states who are relying on federal funds to close their own massive budget gaps. If the GOP holds the line on spending, the individual states (which will have also turned right this November) will be forced to confront their own spending issues en mass. Many have started, others including here on the left coast, have decided to kick the can to November. That means local spending cuts. Again, if the GOP holds the line and cuts spending without raising taxes (as widely pledged) there's a possibility of seeing actual fiduciary progress, at the state level, over the next couple years leading to 2012. That progress must then be translated to the GOP and not attributed to Obama during the next election. In other words, GOP led progress will benefit the left, just like 1996.

If we move forward to 2012, there is an outside possibility of a GOP supermajority in the Senate. There's been some writing on the subject recently, obviously highly speculative, but the up for grabs Senate seats in 2012 favor a GOP unswing. In addition, once they win the states this November, they'll be in charge of redistricting.

This leads us to the wild speculation of the 2012 election. Obviously the only way to reverse the mess is with a GOP president 2012 and I'm still not impressed with the "field". If we do not get a GOP president with GOP Congress and Senate in 2012, it's over. The entitlement will kick in and when was the last time one of those was removed?

The other possibility is that the Supreme Court does it's job and rules that forcing commerce on the citizenry does not fall under the Commerce clause. Of course, that simply removes the individual mandate which starts the domino effect towards the collapse of the health insurance industry.

I know it's depressing, but it is what it is and it will take a specific sequence of events to reverse the inevitible. Tick.