6 Ways Obama's Budget Is Worse Than Everyone Thinks

[EXTXOILMAN]

6 Ways Obama's Budget Is Worse Than Everyone Thinks

Posted 04/10/2013 07:04 PM ET

Fiscal Policy: Shorn of its accounting gimmicks, the president's budget isn't a "balanced" plan to get the debt crisis under control. It's a monument to fiscal irresponsibility.

With much fanfare and a lot of media hype, President Obama unveiled his latest budget plan — two months late. An IBD review of Obama's budget finds that, among other things, it:

• Boosts spending and deficits over the next two years. Obama's own budget numbers show that he wants to hike spending over the next two years by $247 billion compared with the "baseline," which even after his proposed new tax hikes would mean $157 billion in additional red ink.

Obama claims he'll get tough on spending and deficits later, but every budget expert knows boosting spending today only makes it harder to cut later.

• Vastly exaggerates spending cuts. The press has widely reported that Obama's budget would cut spending a total of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. But Obama's own budget shows that he actually cuts spending a mere $186 billion. (The relevant tables can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf on Pages 187-190.)

Obama inflates his claimed savings by first canceling the automatic sequester spending cuts he previously signed into law, then reclaiming them as new savings, and by adding in cuts in interest payments on the debt.

• Relies almost entirely on tax hikes. Obama's budget shows his plan would increase revenues by $1.14 trillion over the next decade. That means his budget proposes $6 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

• Cuts the deficit less than claimed. "My budget will reduce our deficits by nearly another $2 trillion," Obama said Wednesday. But his budget shows total deficit reduction over the next decade would be just $1.4 trillion. Plus, deficits start rising again after 2018.

• Creates a new entitlement without a reliable means to pay for it. Obama claims he can finance a new $76 billion "preschool for all" program by raising tobacco taxes again. But after an initial spike, tobacco tax revenues will start trending downward year after year as more people quit smoking, while the costs of this new program will keep climbing.

The last time Obama hiked tobacco taxes — to pay for an expansion of Medicaid — revenues came in $2.2 billion less than expected.

• Boosts taxes on the middle class. Obama proposes to change the government's "consumer price index" in a way that will lower the official inflation rate. He's selling it as a way to cut Social Security annual "cost of living" adjustments, which are based on the CPI.

But because his "chained CPI" would also apply to annual tax bracket adjustments, it will end up hiking taxes by $124 billion — mainly on the middle class — over the next decade through bracket creep, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his remarks Wednesday after releasing his 65-day-overdue budget, Obama claimed: "The numbers work. There's not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here."

Fact is, if it weren't for smoke and mirrors, Obama would have no budget plan at all.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...one-thinks.htm

[Whirlaway]

Paul Ryan's plan balances the budget without the phony accounting and rosy assumptions that defines the Obama plan...

Even with Obama's phony budget; he still doesn't balance our spending, just cuts it in half (assuming his never-to-be-realized growth assumptions hold true)....

Obama's phony budget vs. the Ryan budget. Analysis by IBD:




http://news.investors.com/041013-651...epublicans.htm

[BigLouie]

Paul Ryan's Budget? That piece of shit! This from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post.

The thing about his cuts is that they’re not really thought through. Ryan hasn’t said which programs they’ll hit. And he doesn’t have some theory about how we can spend less and get more, as he does for Medicare with his voucher plan. He’s just slashing things to make his numbers add up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers and said two-thirds of Ryan’s cuts will end up falling on programs for the poor.

The reason he’s got to do that is that Ryan doesn’t raise taxes. But here’s the magic trick of Ryan’s budget, and this is really important. Ryan extends all the Bush tax cuts, and then he adds a bunch of new tax cuts costing more than $4.5 trillion. So how does he pay for them?

He doesn’t. But he told Congress’s budget guys to assume he’d figure out how to pay for them later. To pay for those, you’d need to eliminate almost everything else in the tax code — the home mortgage interest deduction, the Child Tax Credit, the deduction for state and local taxes, most all of it. Ryan hasn’t named one that he’d eliminate. So there’s a mystery $4.5 trillion in tax increases sitting at the center of Ryan’s budget promises.

So every time you see anyone say that Ryan’s budget reduces the debt, they’re assuming he really will find some way to pay for his tax cuts. If he doesn’t, then his plan blows a multitrillion dollar hole in the budget, even after cutting all that spending.

[gary5912]

typical left wing loon attack attack attack

[CJOHN]

common sense common sense common sense

you do know what that is don't you ... love the avatar

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Paul Ryan's Budget? That piece of shit! This from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post.

The thing about his cuts is that they’re not really thought through. Ryan hasn’t said which programs they’ll hit. And he doesn’t have some theory about how we can spend less and get more, as he does for Medicare with his voucher plan. He’s just slashing things to make his numbers add up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers and said two-thirds of Ryan’s cuts will end up falling on programs for the poor.

The reason he’s got to do that is that Ryan doesn’t raise taxes. But here’s the magic trick of Ryan’s budget, and this is really important. Ryan extends all the Bush tax cuts, and then he adds a bunch of new tax cuts costing more than $4.5 trillion. So how does he pay for them?

He doesn’t. But he told Congress’s budget guys to assume he’d figure out how to pay for them later. To pay for those, you’d need to eliminate almost everything else in the tax code — the home mortgage interest deduction, the Child Tax Credit, the deduction for state and local taxes, most all of it. Ryan hasn’t named one that he’d eliminate. So there’s a mystery $4.5 trillion in tax increases sitting at the center of Ryan’s budget promises.

So every time you see anyone say that Ryan’s budget reduces the debt, they’re assuming he really will find some way to pay for his tax cuts. If he doesn’t, then his plan blows a multitrillion dollar hole in the budget, even after cutting all that spending.

The Ryan Plan is a no go!

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

6 Ways Obama's Budget Is Worse Than Everyone Thinks

Posted 04/10/2013 07:04 PM ET

Fiscal Policy: Shorn of its accounting gimmicks, the president's budget isn't a "balanced" plan to get the debt crisis under control. It's a monument to fiscal irresponsibility.

With much fanfare and a lot of media hype, President Obama unveiled his latest budget plan — two months late. An IBD review of Obama's budget finds that, among other things, it:

• Boosts spending and deficits over the next two years. Obama's own budget numbers show that he wants to hike spending over the next two years by $247 billion compared with the "baseline," which even after his proposed new tax hikes would mean $157 billion in additional red ink.

Obama claims he'll get tough on spending and deficits later, but every budget expert knows boosting spending today only makes it harder to cut later.

• Vastly exaggerates spending cuts. The press has widely reported that Obama's budget would cut spending a total of $1.2 trillion over the next decade. But Obama's own budget shows that he actually cuts spending a mere $186 billion. (The relevant tables can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/tables.pdf on Pages 187-190.)

Obama inflates his claimed savings by first canceling the automatic sequester spending cuts he previously signed into law, then reclaiming them as new savings, and by adding in cuts in interest payments on the debt.

• Relies almost entirely on tax hikes. Obama's budget shows his plan would increase revenues by $1.14 trillion over the next decade. That means his budget proposes $6 in new taxes for every $1 in spending cuts.

• Cuts the deficit less than claimed. "My budget will reduce our deficits by nearly another $2 trillion," Obama said Wednesday. But his budget shows total deficit reduction over the next decade would be just $1.4 trillion. Plus, deficits start rising again after 2018.

• Creates a new entitlement without a reliable means to pay for it. Obama claims he can finance a new $76 billion "preschool for all" program by raising tobacco taxes again. But after an initial spike, tobacco tax revenues will start trending downward year after year as more people quit smoking, while the costs of this new program will keep climbing.

The last time Obama hiked tobacco taxes — to pay for an expansion of Medicaid — revenues came in $2.2 billion less than expected.

• Boosts taxes on the middle class. Obama proposes to change the government's "consumer price index" in a way that will lower the official inflation rate. He's selling it as a way to cut Social Security annual "cost of living" adjustments, which are based on the CPI.

But because his "chained CPI" would also apply to annual tax bracket adjustments, it will end up hiking taxes by $124 billion — mainly on the middle class — over the next decade through bracket creep, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his remarks Wednesday after releasing his 65-day-overdue budget, Obama claimed: "The numbers work. There's not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here."

Fact is, if it weren't for smoke and mirrors, Obama would have no budget plan at all.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...one-thinks.htm

Yes, there is a lot of gimmics. The Ryan plan is worse. I would rather stay on the sequester than touch Social Security. Social Security has its own revenue stream it's called the F.I.C.A. Tax. Social Security should not be part of the regular budget. What you get out is based on what you put in. The only way to balance the budget and reduce the rolling debt is to let all of the Bush Tax cuts expire, not just the one in the 39.5 per cent bracket. We must also get completely out of AG and IRAQ ASAP. Military spending needs to be reduced from 1 trillion to 600 billion (or let the United Nations help pay for the wars the USA gets involved in). Clinton had a budget surplus for two reasons, the USA was not at WAR and the tax rates were higher for all brackets. Unless we get back to a similar situation, we will have trouble balancing the budget and bringing down the debt.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Clinton had a budget surplus for two reasons, the USA was not at WAR and the tax rates were higher for all brackets. Unless we get back to a similar situation, we will have trouble balancing the budget and bringing down the debt.

Uh, actually, it was the dotcom boom, and a willingness to compromise with Republicans that produced the balanced budgets.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Uh, actually, it was the dotcom boom, and a willingness to compromise with Republicans that produced the balanced budgets.

Clinton, did not have to spend 6 Trillion Dollars on any wars either. The higher tax percentages in each bracket were bringing in more tax revenue to the Federal Government as well. All the compromise in the world did not generate 6 Trillion Dollars. Which you would have to do to offset that expense to not have a deficit.

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, that part is right, Fluffr. Clinton did not get us into any full-blown wars. We'd be much better off now if Bush hadn't gotten us in those. I'll give you that one, Fluffr.

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Clinton, did not have to spend 6 Trillion Dollars on any wars either. The higher tax percentages in each bracket were bringing in more tax revenue to the Federal Government as well. All the compromise in the world did not generate 6 Trillion Dollars. Which you would have to do to offset that expense to not have a deficit.

Link?? That's a ridiculously inflated figure. Most estimates I've seen are around $1.5 trillion in above budget costs.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Link?? That's a ridiculously inflated figure. Most estimates I've seen are around $1.5 trillion in above budget costs.

Google Iraq War and look under Wikipedia (Financial Cost). The estimate is 3 to 6 Trillion.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The estimate is 3 to 6 Trillion.

That sure narrows it down

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Google Iraq War and look under Wikipedia (Financial Cost). The estimate is 3 to 6 Trillion.

Wikipedia?? Seriously...

Again, the figures I have seen are appr. $1.5 trillion in ABOVE BUDGET COSTS. If you add up the total all-in costs of the War on Terror, it may well be something like $6 trillion, but that would include normally budgeted defense spending.

[acp5762]

This budget can't be balanced. It's economically impossible. With eight years of G.W. Bush and now four plus years of Obama and counting, we have ruined our economy by the hands of Political and corporate thugs.