The Washington Post headline reads: “Obama’s new debt-reduction plan to draw contrasts with Republican vision.” That’s one way of putting it:
President Obama on Monday will unveil a plan to tame the nation’s rocketing federal debt that will draw a sharp contrast with the Republican vision and amount more to an opening play in the fall’s debate over the economy than another attempt at finding common ground with the opposing party.
The president will propose $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to find at least $3 trillion in budget savings over a decade, according to a person familiar with the matter. Combined with his call earlier this month for $450 billion in new stimulus, the proposal represents a more populist approach to confronting the nation’s economic travails than the compromises he advocated this summer.
Obama will propose new taxes on the wealthy and a special new tax for millionaires, according to White House officials. But he won’t call for any changes in Social Security, officials say, and may seek less-aggressive changes to Medicare and Medicaid than previously considered. In particular, people familiar with the matter say he is unlikely to call for an increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.
In other words, Obama’s “new” “plan” to reduce the deficit will be about as serious as the budget proposal he unveiled in February. But as he assured us in his recent address to Congress: “This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare.” Right. On the plus side, American voters are beginning to get a pretty clear sense as to the policies that await them should Obama be elected to a second term in 2012.
Create the taxes to cut them later? Must be the new version of "We have to destroy the village to save it." But if I remember right, the village was still screwed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, he did say that he can find other ways to spend the excess money. He not only found it, but wants us to continue paying for it. At what point do taxpayers suddenly begin to feel like they are slaves who are only meant to pay for the profligacy of fools?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen are voters going to learn that cutting spending on investments in the future might save money now, but will badly hurt current and future generations later?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen will you learn that the answer to failed socialism isn't more socialism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublic investments have worked time and time again. Indeed, there would be no Internet for National Review to be hosted on if it were not for government investment.
That fact must make you very bitter.
We need to increase our investments in the future, not decrease them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually the internet evolved from ARPANET, an military program.
You know, that same military research that Obama is CUTTING?
Do you have ANY arguments that aren't strawmen?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Indeed, there would be no Internet"
Since that's not true, I suppose I could stop reading there, right?
Would it have happened as fast? Who knows? You don't.
I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty, though, that the world wouldn't be looking at a very, very painful IPv4 --> IPv6 transition over the next decade or so if private enterprise - with its motivation to be forward thinking and its financial stake in the results - had been steering the ship. Way to go, government - handing out Class A ranges like candy to favored entities forcing a subnetting hell upon the rest of us!
I can further assure you that using PINE to read email sucked. Thankfully, the private sector gave us something better. They also gave us Microsoft Office's "Clippy", but that can be forgiven.
RE: "That fact must make you very bitter."
To what extent the government did involve itself in the development of what would turn out to be the Internet, it was done in the spirit of destroying Communism. Does that fact make you bitter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI say good riddance to communism. Another failed utopian ideology, like libertarianism.
And who says the evil Microsoft "Clippy" can be forgiven?!? :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibertarianism has failed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen has it ever been tried?
Spoken like a true believer. Why don't you check back into reality from time to time.
Private enterprises were already working on several flavors of intranets before the govt came out with it's version.
Precious few govt investments have worked out, and all were more expensive then they needed to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat pray tell are these mythical inventions, and why do we need trillions in new taxes to pay for them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInvestment = Spending now that results in increased revenue later.
"Investment" = Spending.
When a private businessman solicits investment, and then spends the money on consumption items that have no prospect of future returns, we call that securities fraud and we throw the man in jail.
When a politician solicits new taxes for "investment," and then spends the money on consumption items that have no prospect of future returns, we call that man a Democrat.
The percentage of government spending that goes to genuine, capital-forming, productivity-increasing investment is a minute fraction of spending. The vast majority is transfer payments -- a kinder, gentler version of the corrupt stock promotor buying his kid a Benz instead of buying plant for his company.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Bill Clinton passed a “millionaires tax” back in 1993, there was an exception for Hollywood celebrities and sports figures.
When Barbra Streisand sang at the MGM Grand in 1993, the head of MGM was paid less for the year than she got for a week. Guess who had to pay the millionaires tax ?
Of course, the unintended consequence of that “millionaires tax” was that corporate executives capped their salaries at $1 million, and made up the rest with stock options. This lead to the largest transfer of equity in the history of the world, as these executives acquired equity from the stockholders worth roughly 10% of the Fortune 500 through stock options over the next 10 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. Obama = Fail!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCarter, not squared, but quintupled.
Speaker Boehner needs to submit a bill that combines the "American Jobs Act" with Obama's "Deficit Reduction Plan" for an up/down floor vote. When a majority of Dems vote against it, the lie of "do-nothing Republican congress" is defanged.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIm am SHOCKED! Shocked I say!
No...not really.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThink about this.
Knowing you have all the media STILL carrying your water for you ( talking about Obama ) You sneek this in, knowing full well the media will "overlook" this part. Then, when the Pubs tell him to go pound sand, the media and Obama will start crying about how the Pubs are just being obstructive and just playing "party of no" politics, when the real reason for the NO is because of the tax hikes... of course it will not be talked about ... and the silly uninformed will fall for it hook line and sinker... and Obama will get another 4 years and this country will be broken for a very long time making Japans little lost decade look short.
Maybe before we raise taxes on anyone, Berkshire Hathaway can pay the taxes they actually owe. And how about actually making GE pay taxes. Raising tax rates is like stricter gun control---it only punishes people who care about obeying the rules.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGE was playing by the rules. They hired an army of tax lawyers to make sure that they were playing by the rules.
The problem isn't companies breaking the rules. The problem is that the rules themselves are broken.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrue, those companies aren't doing anything illegal; they are playing by the rules. Nevertheless, there are individuals and corporations that get hit hard by high tax rates and those that don't due to certain carve-outs and such. And then there are people who probably do pay high marginal rates, but they make all their money because of government (e.g., subsidies, government contracts), so they of course love big government and don't mind higher rates as long as the gravy train keeps going for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImagine the inventions that might have been invented, had they hired an army of scientists, rather than an army of tax lawyers.
That is where the tax code is the most broken.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse