JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Obama's 2014 budget numbers are based on bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cuts-middle-class-tax-hike.html#ixzz2Q5CQMLv5


The budget will hit congressional offices less than 24 hours after the government's top watchdog agency declared that nearly $100 billion was wasted last year in duplicative and overlapping programs stretching into every corner of the Washington bureaucracy.

FactCheck.org, a program of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Policy Center, reported in February that Obama's total sum included about $600 billion in new taxes - not spending reductions. It also included $500 billion in reductions of the amount the federal government planned to pay in future interest on its debts.

The budget, it says, 'would achieve $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years, bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion. This represents more than enough deficit reduction to replace the cuts required by the Joint Committee [on] sequestration.'

Only about $1.4 trillion consisted of actual spending cuts - or at least what Washington wonks call spending cuts.

Federal budgets are configured along what's called a 'baseline,' providing a predetermined level of year-on-year increases that Congress has set on auto-pilot, and with which the White House generally considers it unwise to interfere.

The $1.4 trillion in cuts were merely reductions in those planned rates of spending increases.

The $1.8 trillion in new savings promised by the Obama White House in Tuesday's embargoed outline include '$400 billion in health savings that build on the health reform law.'

But Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conceded on March 26 that many Americans' health care premiums will increase under the new law, an indication that participation rates may not be at the level the administration wants to see.

Another $580 billion of the newly promised $1.8 trillion in savings comes from tax increases.

The larger problem for the White House is that Obama's promise of $580 billion in new tax revenues over ten years isn't nearly large enough to cover the spending bloat that Washington insiders continue to acknowledge as a crippling force.

The public debt now stands at roughly $17 trillion, up $6 trillion from the debt when Obama took office in 2009. Even if the federal government takes ten years to rack up its next $6 trillion in accumulated deficits, the new taxes would contain less than 10 percent of the damage.

The budget's most controversial feature may be the adoption of what economists call the 'Chained Consumer Price Index' measure of inflation, and what the administration referred to as 'using a chained measure of inflation for cost-of-living adjustments.'

The chained CPI signals a shift in how the federal government will calculate everything from Social Security payouts and congressional pensions to college students' Pell Grants and veterans' benefits. Anything tied to cost-of-living increases would be subject to a new formula.

The White House's budget blueprint suggests that these programs would see $230 billion in costs savings over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office puts the number at $216 billion.

The CBO also notes, however - and the White House omits - that a switch to the chained CPI will also raise more than $124 billion in new tax revenues.

The money will come pouring in because the consumer price index also controls income tax brackets, tax filers' standard deductions, nontaxable contribution limits for 401(k) retirement plans, and more.

So millions of individual Americans will see themselves moved involuntarily to higher tax brackets, and middle-class taxpayers in particular will lose some of the tax credits and deductions that they count on.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney conceded as much during an April 5 briefing, when CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett asked if it would 'raise taxes on middle-income Americans.'

'I'm not disputing that,' Carney said, adding that 'it is not the president's ideal policy.'

It will, however, be part of his budget
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
What is your problem with it, specifically?

More spending and no real cuts. More debt. Tax increases after already passing a giant tax increase. Cuts to programs we are forced to pay into etc. Pretty much the entire thing sucks. Have you seen any redeeming features to his plan?
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
327
The Republican budgetary analysis also finds that the Obama budget would mean a debt increase per household of $60,980. The budget would also raise taxes $1.1 trillion in addition to the $1 trillion in Obamacare taxes and the over $600 billion from Obama’s recent tax increase.

Still, the Obama Administration claims its budget pays for every program without adding a dime to the deficit. “Every new initiative in the plan is fully paid for,” says the White House, “so they do not add a single dime to the deficit.”

But Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says President Obama’s budget is just more of the same, similar to the last two budgets he proposed that were unanimously rejected by the U.S. Senate.

“We’ve been hoping that the president would finally learn that spending is the problem and make a meaningful attempt to rein in Washington’s growth,” said Boehner. “It doesn’t seem that will happen either.”

Link

Neither article states how these new initiatives are fully paid for.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
More spending and no real cuts. More debt. Tax increases after already passing a giant tax increase. Cuts to programs we are forced to pay into etc. Pretty much the entire thing sucks. Have you seen any redeeming features to his plan?

These are just generic things and offer nothing to the conversation. I asked what specific issue you have with it.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
We could start with the chained CPI. Your master's greed is out of control.
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
327
Or we could concern ourselves that another 14 million might be spent on inspecting catfish...
While of course pillaging our tax payer funded social security and medicaid to make up the deficit.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
We could start with the chained CPI. Your master's greed is out of control.

I agree. That is a terrible fucking idea. But it is actually a compromise Obama is making, it's something Boehner has asked for multiple times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ongress-may-have-reason-for-january-deal.html

Much of this budget is an olive branch to Republicans, who are apparently going to ignore that Obama is giving them things that they asked for and just play obstructionist.

Not that Democrats will play it any differently. They won't want to agree to all these concessions to Republicans without Republicans giving back tax increases on the wealthy, because the Republican concessions are DEVASTATING to the middle class.

I don't know if you just weren't aware that this was a Republican idea because you just googled "what is wrong with Obama's plan from a right wing perspective" or if you even have any idea what chained CPI is, but this at least is something you have issue with Republicans on, not Obama.

According to new reports, Republican Senate negotiators are now demanding that any fiscal cliff deal include a switch to the chained CPI in calculating Social Security cost-of-living increases.
During his negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner, President Barack Obama indicated that he would be open to the chained CPI proposal, and several Senate Democrats subsequently said they would be able to stomach its inclusion in a deal. But in the wake of Boehner's decision to walk away from the negotiations, Democrats are unlikely to give in without a concession on the debt ceiling.
http://www.businessinsider.com/fiscal-cliff-live-updates-2012-12#ixzz2Pn61WBC4

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell (R-KY) even told the Wall Street Journal that chained CPI and means testing for Medicare “are the kinds of things that would get Republicans interested in new revenue.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578151322684021276.html

Chained CPI and cuts to medicaire were Republican ideas - things that, if Democrats would give them, would cause Republicans to entertain tax increases. Now they are pretending like that never happened.

Try again.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Remember this whopper?

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
I agree. That is a terrible fucking idea. But it is actually a compromise Obama is making, it's something Boehner has asked for multiple times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ongress-may-have-reason-for-january-deal.html

Much of this budget is an olive branch to Republicans, who are apparently going to ignore that Obama is giving them things that they asked for and just play obstructionist.

Not that Democrats will play it any differently. They won't want to agree to all these concessions to Republicans without Republicans giving back tax increases on the wealthy, because the Republican concessions are DEVASTATING to the middle class.

I don't know if you just weren't aware that this was a Republican idea because you just googled "what is wrong with Obama's plan from a right wing perspective" or if you even have any idea what chained CPI is, but this at least is something you have issue with Republicans on, not Obama.


http://www.businessinsider.com/fiscal-cliff-live-updates-2012-12#ixzz2Pn61WBC4


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578151322684021276.html

Chained CPI and cuts to medicaire were Republican ideas - things that, if Democrats would give them, would cause Republicans to entertain tax increases. Now they are pretending like that never happened.

Try again.

Thanks for the history lesson. I do not like the Chained CPI no matter which party put it forth. Reducing the payments to people that were forced to pay in to the systems for their entire lives (assuming they worked for a living and did not live off government handouts) is not right. If the government had not treated our money like a Ponzi scheme to start with, none of this would be an issue.

None of them are truly interested in meaningful reform. There have been several good ideas to make Medicare and social security viable but when one party presents a plan, no matter how reasonable, the other shoots it down solely in the name of politics.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
So I just checked out the fine print and there is no deficit reduction. Just deficit increases for the next 10 years.

There is a trillion dollar tax increase phased in by 2016.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
When analyzing any budget, the more important figure, generally speaking, is federal spending as a percentage of GDP. I have no idea what that will be here because I've been on a road trip.

Just food for thought...

The chained CPI thing may not be a good idea ultimately, but it was inevitable because CPI tends to overestimate inflation.
 
Last edited:

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
BL-obama-budget-all-taxes-not-cuts-600.jpg
 
Top Bottom