The message of the
budget the Obama administration released today is the same as the message the president delivered in his State of the Union address: All is well, full speed ahead, and let’s invest a little more in solar panels and high-speed rail.
This message seems clearly to be a function of a political calculation: that voters do not want to face the coming debt crisis, and so it would be bad politics to force them to do so. I tend to think that’s not entirely true, and that voters will judge this kind of blindfolded budget to be unserious and inadequate to the moment. People know we’ve got a major fiscal problem that will get worse as more of the baby boomers retire, and while obviously no one wants to make avoidable sacrifices, Americans do seem increasingly to understand that some change of course will be required. But that’s hard to say, and maybe the Obama team is right about the politics.
Whether they’re right or not, however, the substantive result of their political premise is a willful blindness that makes for a budget that is completely detached from reality. No entitlement reform, no tax reform, no significant spending reform, indeed no meaningful change of direction of any sort — the budget does nothing to lessen the burdens with which we now stand to saddle the rising generation, and which will stifle growth and prosperity along the way.
Of course, the budget assumes this won’t stifle growth at all — in fact, with no clear justification, it assumes significantly stronger economic growth than the CBO expects and counts on an extra $1.7 trillion in revenue over ten years as a result, asserting that the deficit will be that much lower by just assuming it will happen. That is perhaps the most egregious of the numerous assumptions tucked into the baseline of this budget, and therefore not presented as policy choices but as premises taken for granted — among the others are a tax increase on upper-income filers that results in more than $800 billion of revenue, and an almost $200 billion increase in spending on Pell grants.
Until the last few weeks, there might have been room to wonder whether President Obama might respond to the 2010 elections by moving to the center and seeking some politically advantageous but meaningful middle ground — offering tax reforms, perhaps even some Social Security reforms, and orienting the next two years around the question of who can provide a more appealing, more optimistic, and less painful set of solutions to our enormous fiscal challenge and the coming debt crisis. This budget puts an end to that possibility. The president appears to have decided to spend the next two years pretending there is no problem to solve, and therefore that Republican proposals to rein in spending are just mean-spirited cuts offered up for kicks.
This is, above all, an appalling failure of leadership. When we look back on this period a decade or two from now, I think we’ll identify this moment — the president’s decision about how to approach the budget battle of 2012 — as the last real opportunity we had for a gradual bipartisan course correction. That option now seems closed off, and it is up to Republicans to decide if the alternative is to march off the fiscal cliff in order to avoid political risks or to propose a gradual course correction to voters and make the case for why it is sensible, responsible, and essential.
Neither of these options would be easy. But one of them would be both difficult and irresponsible, while the other would be difficult and right.
Obama is acting Nero-esque.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArticle I, Section 7:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"
I await the House bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's voting "Present" again. Surprise!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernment overspending is immoral at every level; federal, state, local. It's past time to wake the ruling class up with something more than election upheaval. Tax revolt anyone?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ MikeB
So does this president, who doesn't give a @#$!% about seriously spending less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee MikeB, that was original. And such a devestating response. I suppose you haven't bothered reading nor thinking about _any_ administration's budget? Nor any recommendations to their consideration either? Please try to up the signal to noise ratio, if you would be so kind
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who imagines that the Community Organizer in Chief will ever move to the center is delusional. Memo to the Tea-Partyers: to the barricades!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a joke of a leader this guy is. This is just Mr. Community Organizer voting "Present" once again. I don't care what words he ever uses in political speeches, because they rarely, if ever, match his actions.
Say what you want about GWB, but at least he tried to do *something* about Social Security. These people (the Dems in general) are sitting around, just waiting for any politician to mention any type of responsible suggestion, and then pounce on them like a hungry lion after its prey. It's nothing but a political football to them.
I'm in my mid-40's and I have been forced to put 10's of thousands of dollars into SS, and for what? The program is not expected to survive by the time I'm ready to cash in. What am I supposed to do? I want to provide for myself and my family, and these *@%$ politicians are just wasting our future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the people will accept serious budget cuts and entitlement reform if the Republicans can sell the hardships as being shared fairly. The Democrat party will, no doubt try to make budget control look mean spirited. Republicans need to generate a sense of 'we're all in this together.'
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePutting the pedal to the metal makes perfect sense if the strategy is to create a fiscal crisis by spending far in excess of the current tax system's funding capacity.
At some critical point, the only option will be to institute a European style VAT that will solve the crisis and then ensure plenty of cash to fund the complete restructuring of society as we know it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When we look back on this period a decade or two from now, I think we’ll identify this moment — the president’s decision about how to approach the budget battle of 2012 — as the last real opportunity we had for a gradual bipartisan course correction." LOL!!! A little too much drama... No one will give a hoot "at this period", only the government shutdown that will happen next month.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis "Obama is not showing leadership" meme is pretty tired . . . and it's only been out there about a week. The President's budget is an outline; Congress can do whatever it wants to spend less, EVEN, if they chose to, attempt to balance the budget THIS YEAR. There is nothing magic about the president being "required" to go first on proposing an austerity budget, or entitlement reform, or reductions in wasteful defense spending. Indeed, since the GOP has all the answers, why not just balance the budget THIS YEAR and DARE Obama to veto it? After all, there was that whole "mandate" in November 2010 . . . so run with it!
The GOP will never do it. Why? Because the biggest budget items (defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) disproportionately boost Red State economies; they know by cutting those areas, the voter wrath will be aimed at them. So instead the GOPers aim at small potatoes like NPR and Head Start. That is a bee fahrt in a windstorm as far as spending is concerned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHardship? What "hardship" are we talking about here, in regard to budget cuts? NOT having the government throw another couple of trillion dollars down a rat hole to no discernible effect cannot be called a "hardship".
Living within our means is not a "hardship".
Not spending borrowed money is not a "hardship".
Prioritizing spending rationally is not a "hardship".
Ending waste, fraud and abuse is not a "hardship".
Gutting the government and cutting the roles of government employees is a "hardship", I suppose, but only if you work there... since government contributes so little to the country's future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: Balancing the budget, how about this?
"In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs.
The non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts estimated in May 2010 that extending some or all of the tax cuts would have the following impact under these scenarios:
* Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
* Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.2 trillion in the next decade.
* Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for only two years would cost $561 billion over the next 10 years."
B-Rob is correct about entitlement spending cuts. Let's see what the tea partier's propose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf only we had a picture of Obama playing a fiddle...how appropriate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is this a surprise? Obama hasn't led on a single legislative item yet, did you think he would start now?
Reid holds all the cards so this is a lot of pomp and circumstance from the House and POTUS. Whatever scraps Sen. Demint et al can get to the floor for a vote can be sent to the House and then on to Barry for approval or maybe a veto.
Nothing substantive that can really improve our long term fiscal stability will be accomplished with this clown in office.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe audacity of ignorance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGypsies in The Palace..... with a Klingon War Bride for a scolding sidekick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the Republican response - enact, without changes, the recommendations of the President's own debt commission. What can Obama say then? That the budget is partisan and mean? His own commission, with his own hand selected appointees developed it! It will also display for everyone the utter lack of leadership he is displaying on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseB-Rob and ARegularGuy:
I have bad news for you: Barack Hussein Obama IS NOT William Jefferson Clinton. If you think, in this environment, that Obama can continue to propose deficits of today's magnitude as far out as a decade from now, and still be taken seriously about our nation's budget problems, then so be it. Obama has clearly outpaced the GOP in his first two years in terms of political judgment! NY-23, remember!
The President goes first on proposing a budget because of the inconvenience known as the U.S. Constitution. So, given that he goes first, if he was serious about deficit reduction, he would have proposed some. A budget containing merely "status quo ante" cannot be taken seriously.
And where did you get the notion that the South is more disproportionately tethered to Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare than any other region? Sounds made up. Looks made up. Feels made up. DUCK!
And thanks for admitting that Obama is so unserious about deficit reduction, from whatever source derived, that you are already confidently predicting a "shutdown".
Again, he's no WJC, and his "team" has been wrong politically for two straight years.
Best of luck to you both in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse