Here is President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2012 (and outlook through 2021). And here is a look at some of the numbers that stand out:
$3.73 trillion — total spending this year (25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).
$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.
$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.
$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.
$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.
$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years.
$4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe.
$1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), up from $1.3 trillion in 2010.
$2 trillion — Amount the budget will raise taxes on business and upper-income families over the next ten years, which includes letting the Bush-era tax rates expire in 2012 (for incomes $250,000 and up).
$50 billion — Amount the administration plans to spend this year on infrastructure and transportation “investments.”
$30 billion — Amount dedicated to a “National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy,” including the much-touted high-speed rail initiative.
$77.4 billion — Funding allocated for the Department of Education, a 22 percent increase from 2010 levels, and a 35 percent increase from 2008 levels.
$29.5 billion — Total spending on the Department of Energy, a 22 percent increase from 2008 levels.
$9.9 billion — Funding allocated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 30 percent increase from 2008 levels.
$150 billion — Total amount the White House plans to spend next year on research and development programs.
8.2 percent — Predicted unemployment rate in 2012.
Zero — Political risk the president was willing to assume by proposing meaningful reform to entitlement programs. That said, Republicans haven’t exactly been willing to stick their necks either, at least not yet.
one word...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseINSANE!
Wow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"That said, Republicans haven’t exactly been willing to stick their necks either, at least not yet."
And there you go...face it, spending cuts are not going to happen. There is no political will for it. If Republicans solved the deficit through the spending cuts that were necessary, they'd be drummed out of office (and they know it, which is why even the Tea Party frosh's won't name specific items they want to cut). The reality is, the only way to deal with the deficit is to raise revenues as much as you can without hurting the economy (perhaps through a VAT, perhaps something else), and freeze spending until overall revenues catch up. Deep cuts just aren't going to happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehe is no longer in a ditch but quickly heading for a cliff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDue to their finagling and faking the numbers, the unemployment may be 8.2%, but the under will still be @ 20%
You don't vote Libertarian? Guess what you're going to end up with!
Happy tax hikes, Demopublican-voting SUCKERS!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTime to invest in another pres. This is just a big "whatever you say, sweetie".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel ill reading this. The man truly does not have a clue. Nor does anyone advising him apparently
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery single day since November 2008, I am more convinced that there is NO HOPE...
This country made it's decision then...
And it chose disaster...
So folks, sit back and relax, kick of your shoes, go buy as much Bud Light as you can before it costs 100 bucks a bottle..., Go fishing before it's outlawed, do some hunting before it's a punishable offense....And wait for the mob...
Cause they're coming...like a bunch of zombies...THEY WILL BE COMING!!!
When this house of cards built by fool begins to crumble (and it will)....get as far away from the big cities as you can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Mr. Stiles.
Ok, all you lib-progressives and Independents who voted for BHO and who visit NRO all together now...
YES WE CAN!!! YES WE CAN!!!
WIN THE FUTURE!!! WIN THE FUTURE!!!
Good grief...
What fun!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a serious problem with bloat in government. When that happens to us in business, we arbitrarily cut an area or function by the estimated bloat - say 25% -- then let the managers figure out what NOT to do. When we see what doesn't get done, we decide whether it's acceptable.
With the serious bloat in our governments at all levels, I'd suggest 25% to everything (even defense; we don't need $700 hammers). After the 25% round, we'd probably discover that another reduction is in order. Following those painful "reorganizations", we need to deal with the other BIG item which is not part of the budget.
Social Security is not part of the budget even though lawmakers “conveniently” want to put it in the budget in these discussions. The SS fund was raided by the Feds for decades, and most of it has to be paid back. I know seniors will not get what they saved, but they can’t be ripped off simply because they’re vulnerable.
Of course, we could just wait until no one will buy our bonds, then do it like the USSR did –
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a serious problem with bloat in government. When that happens to us in business, we arbitrarily cut an area or function by the estimated bloat - say 25% -- then let the managers figure out what NOT to do. When we see what doesn't get done, we decide whether it's acceptable.
With the serious bloat in our governments at all levels, I'd suggest 25% to everything (even defense; we don't need $700 hammers). After the 25% round, we'd probably discover that another reduction is in order. Following those painful "reorganizations", we need to deal with the other BIG item which is not part of the budget.
Social Security is not part of the budget even though lawmakers “conveniently” want to put it in the budget in these discussions. The SS fund was raided by the Feds for decades, and most of it has to be paid back. I know seniors will not get what they saved, but they can’t be ripped off simply because they’re vulnerable.
Of course, we could just wait until no one will buy our bonds, then do it like the USSR did –
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHussein is playing board monopoly with quite a few jokers in HIS deck which will cause America's downfall into abysmal Marxist socialism enforced by the TSA, the DHS and the Patriot Act
Yes, of course, Bush, et al, laid the ground work but the ONE, with HIS numerous minions, is the hammer
Correct, the SS fund has been raided & emptied by the Federal govt for decades, and most of it hasn't been paid back. Pay it back; then lets talk !!
ps: I like the Math question way of assuring spam is not posted; much better than the mostly unreadable letters elsewhere
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse22% increases from 2008 in the Dept of Education (total payback to the Teacher's Unions) and Energy budgets?(anybody remember why this department was formed during the Carter administration - hint, to wean us off of our foreign energy dependence) 30% increase to the EPA budget - hint, BHO is going to "manage" climate change by fiat through this agency, count on it!
This is, as KentBook says, INSANE!
But even cutting 22% and 30%, respectively, from those budgets won't get CLOSE to reducing the deficit. Only courage will, and neither the GOP nor, obviously, Obama have it.
2012 will be an interesting election year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased upon his budget proposal and implied lack of basic mathematics skills, President Obama is unable to post a comment here, as the math question "16 + 0 = ?" is obviously too complex for him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWant to trim the fat in government, from the feds all the way to local? SIMPLE!! Rememeber during the snow storms you hear the following, "Non-essential gov't employees need not report for work".... Well, if they are NON-ESSENTIAL lets get rid of them, as a start... then work to cut the non-constitutional stuff!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseREMEMBER it is your money, not the government's!
Every country needs to spend on infrastructure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImproving public transport will reduce reliance on oil imports. And this will help retaining dollars for additional job creation.
Better transport indirectly helps housing market also, with people ready to buy houses in all locations, because they can commute easily to their offices.
The shopaholic President goes toe-to-toe with the enabling Congress. It may not be the end of the world, but we can certainly see it from here, especially if the House cannot enforce certain basic requirements:
(1) Refuse to raise the debt ceiling; freeze spending and provide funds to pay interest and other non-discretionary obligations necessary to keep the government "solvent";
(2) Defund ObamaCare;
(3) Deny funding for all new spending/"investment" projects;
(4) Start committee hearings on a flat tax to be implemented at the end of 2012;
(5) Direct the return of all repaid TARP and bailout funds to the general treasury and require an accounting of the balance.
It would be a start, anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuestion: The most famous picture from the Weimar Republic shows an old lady with a grocery cart full of cash off to buy a loaf of bread. When the budgetary mess throws us into hyperinflatioin, what will the equivalent image be now that we use debit cards to buy our groceries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a serious problem with bloat in government. When that happens to us in business, we arbitrarily cut an area or function by the estimated bloat - say 25% -- then let the managers figure out what NOT to do. When we see what doesn't get done, we decide whether it's acceptable.
With the serious bloat in our governments at all levels, I'd suggest 25% to everything (even defense; we don't need $700 hammers). After the 25% round, we'd probably discover that another reduction is in order. Following those painful "reorganizations", we need to deal with the other BIG item which is not part of the budget.
Social Security is not part of the budget even though lawmakers “conveniently” want to put it in the budget in these discussions. The SS fund was raided by the Feds for decades, and most of it should be paid back. I know seniors will not get all of what they saved, but they shouldn’t be ripped off simply because they’re vulnerable.
A little even-handed fairness would be nice, but don’t hold your breath.
Of course, we could just wait until no one will buy our bonds, then do it like the USSR did –
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat about balancing the budget? All non-discretionary spending should be looked at with a microscope and more cuts must be made no matter how painful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse