Tomorrow President Obama reveals his 2013 budget blueprint, although the White House’s key initiatives have been leaking for days. As a campaign document, it will be straightforward. Tax increases as a sop to those who blame their economic misery on the affluent and Wall Street. Billions of dollars in new “investments” as the president restarts his successful campaign-as-handout factory.
But the presidency is supposed to be about more than getting and keeping a job. What will the budget say about the United States he governs? According to the aphorism, “budget is policy.” And for the president, this proposed policy constitutes his plan for the future of the nation. What kind of plan can we expect?
We can expect that this will mark his fourth consecutive abdication of core obligations of his office.
We can expect a plan rich with red ink. In his 2010 budget, the president promised a deficit of $1.2 trillion (8 percent of GDP) and economic growth of 3.2 percent. The taxpayers got $1.3 trillion (9 percent of GDP) in additional debt and growth of barely 3 percent. He was just getting started. Fiscal 2011 brought a deficit of $1.3 trillion again (8.7 percent of GDP versus the budgeted amount of 8.3 percent), and growth of 1.7 percent — far short of the promised 3.8 percent. Last year’s budget planned for $1.1 trillion in deficits and growth of 3.6 percent. We don’t know the actual performance yet, but both numbers look optimistic. Now, the leaks indicate that the White House already intends to make the deficit bigger — a sobering step for an administration whose perennial budget strategy appears to be “promise bad, deliver worse.”
We can expect a plan devoid of leadership. Last year’s budget kicked to the gutter the recommendations of the president’s own fiscal-reform commission — the so-called Bowles-Simpson Commission — which had concluded that the United States faced a “moment of truth” that required tax reform, entitlement reform, and genuine leadership to steer us away from a Greek-style fiscal meltdown. The president took a pass in favor of a warmed-over stimulus package, shrugged his shoulders at the downgrade of the United States, and to date has delivered not one single piece of legislation to implement any piece of the Bowles-Simpson plan.
We can expect a budget that does a disservice to future seniors and needy Americans. The federal social safety net is tattered. Social Security is running $60 billion of red ink right now and is kept “solvent” only by the callous promise to cut future retirees’ benefits by 23 percent across the board during what is supposed to be their halcyon days. At present the gap between Medicare’s payroll taxes and premium receipts flowing into the Treasury and the checks going out totals a staggering $280 billion. With 10,000 new seniors entering the rolls every day, Medicare will fall under its own fiscal weight. So much for the next generation of seniors. Lastly, Medicaid provides substandard care for low-income Americans, burdens states’ budgets, and is essentially deficit-financed. Yet no Obama budget has had a plan to preserve the social safety net for future generations. Don’t hold your breath for one this year.
We can expect short shrift for small businesses and workers. Despite the promise of red ink as far as the eye can see, and a record of reality being worse, the 2013 Obama budgetwill also have at its core a plan to burden small businesses with higher taxes. But you can be sure that it will not contain a tax-reform plan that would permit workers in America’s global firms to compete on a level playing field around the globe, experience more rapid economic growth at home, and end Obama’s habit of using the policy levers to distribute goodies to the favored constituencies. On the economic policy front, the mantra is simple “tax more, spend more, and don’t fix either.”
We can expect a budget that clashes with the president’s own “built to last” mantra. On the campaign trail, expect the president to eloquently pin his failures on others, roll out one made-for-media “blueprint” after another, and pander his way to another term with promises of a brighter future. His actual plans have contained no such hope.
But most of all, we can expect a budget that is an insult to the next generations. America has a proud tradition of delivering to each successive generation a nation that is secure, solvent, and more prosperous than the last. Obama’s printed plan for the next generations will be to ask them to pay the astronomical bill for his largesse, his failure to reform what’s broken, and his indifference to the social safety net. And they will be asked to do so while inheriting an economy broken by the weight of debt and downgrade.
Eleanor Roosevelt said, “It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.” It’s time to stop wishing and start planning.
Now, now!
This is ALL for the children!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMethinks once many Democrats, especially guys like Manchin, look closely at Obama's printed budget....they'll quickly realize it's the longest political suicide note in history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy bother writing one? Harry Reid has already declared (without seeing a document) that the Senate will not pass one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"America has a proud tradition of delivering to each successive generation a nation that is secure, solvent, and more prosperous than the last."
If true, we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. It didn't start with Obama. But since Mr. Holtz-Eakin was one of the players that led us to that state of disrepair we are in today, we can't expect him to utter that fundamental truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read the title and thought this was another post about Catholic bishops.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurrently we spend 25% of GDP but collect in taxes 15% of GDP. Most reasonable people agree that spending should be about 19-20% of GDP. That means that both spending should be cut with around 5% of GDP, and taxes should be raised - around 4% of GDP. Thus, any serious deficit plan should contain both spending cuts and tax increases at a ratio of around 1.2:1 - or about as much tax increases as spending cuts! There is nothing political in this – it is just simple math – if we want to have any meaningful military + any social security + any medicare – there need to be both tax increases and spending cuts of similar proportions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePassing of the Buffet Rule Legislation will greatly facilitate a meaningful tax reform and everyone should push for its passing. In fact it should be 100% clear that meaningful tax reform cannot be enacted if such legislation is not passed. The super rich love the current tax system, which allows them to hide most of their income in tax shelters and loopholes, and to pay 15% or less in taxes on the income they can't hide. They (and the politicians they control) will be fighting to the death any meaningful tax reform that will prevent them from avoiding paying taxes (as does the current tax law). Only passing of the Buffet Rule legislation - which is very simple and effectively closes most tax loopholes - will give any incentive to the super rich (who have bought most, if not all, USA politicians) to support a meaningful tax reform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlan - despite your blatant seeming lack of knowledge of the tax unless you classify "super rich" as only the top 1,000 tax payers and, if you do, there isn't enough money there to do all those things that make your heart flutter. Also, I would hazard a guess that the middle and lower classes like the current tax code. I don't hear all that much from them about their tax burden needing to be reduced. In fact, the only thing you hear from them is that they want the "affluent", "the rich", "the super rich", " the super duper rich", etc. to pay more, not for themselves to pay less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is a very simple and fair tax code without any loopholes:
All income (regardless what is the source because work should not be discouraged in favor of wall street gambling) is taxed at the same low marginal rates - 4 marginal rates:
0-$100K: 15%
$100K-$1M: 20%
$1M-$10M: 25%
$10M++++: 30%
$10K - personal exemption
No deductions whatsoever is the simplest and the best.
If you really, really need deductions - the only acceptable ones should be 1) charity and 2) home mortgage. And these deductions can only be 50% deductions.
Business tax - flat 20% or 25% with no tax preferences and incentives for anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's so much here to run against, and our GOP Fab Four continue to pound mostly on each other. Sigh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was, frankly, amazed that the president had the gall to submit yet another budget with $1,000,000,000,000+ deficit. Really? Why only half the country even knows (or cares) about this amazes me. He fought to massage the numbers in the healthcare bill to keep that under $1T, but doesn't care to try for the budget. Taxing the "rich" will get him $70 B...only about 5% of his planned deficit. Yassou Greece!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Tax increases as a sop to those who blame their economic misery on the affluent and Wall Street."
I have not heard main stream liberal politicians or bloggers give retribution as a reason for restoring progressiveness to income tax rates. It's more "they can afford it".
Corner bloggers often misrepresent liberal arguments. Sometimes it might be hyperbole, but it comes off sounding like ignorance.
And while we are getting lectures on economic policy, let's think about where would be if conservative policies had been used from 2007 to now -- no TARP, no stimulus, no car bailout. We would have a collapsed financial system, much smaller industrial base, and deep deep unemployment (according to credible public and private sector estimates).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy Goodman - no Tarp, no bailouts, no stimulus? Do you have any understanding of history at all or are you intentionally deceiving yourself? Bush signed Tarp into law and was pushed by his Treasury Secretary and was supported by many Republicans, Bush began the auto bailouts and Bush enacted a stimulus at the beginning of 2008.
You claim that conservatives misrepresent liberal arguments, I claim that you are a bald-faced liar. Care to refute that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't say Obama did TARP or all the stimulus. The Bush administration did TARP and some stimulus. I said that most Republicans today say TARP and stimulus were a bad idea. Most even said so at the time. I am grateful they were not listened to then. I hope that now that their predictions have been shown to be wrong (e.g. no hyper-inflation), nobody will listen to them now.
I try to word comments clearly but without explicit insults. Maybe you can reciprocate?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We would have a collapsed financial system, much smaller industrial base, and deep deep unemployment (according to credible public and private sector estimates)."
Of course those "credible public and private sector estimators" didn't see it coming did they?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's worth observing Obama's penchant (repeated several times over the past few years, prior to the release of the 2013 budget) for referring to tax cuts as "spending." He made a remark the other day to the effect of "We can't continue to spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the richest Americans." Think about what that statement represents. It's revealing with respect to Obama's perverted, Marxist-Leninist mindset, in which individual income is viewed as the de facto property of the U.S. government, to be dispensed to the person who earned it at its benevolent whim. Thus, when the government, in its infinite largesse, allows that individual to keep more of his or her income, the egotistical liberal politician who wants to confiscate that money for his self-aggrandizing and self-serving Robin Hood social welfare projects views it as a perfectly legitimate logical and rhetorical construction to refer to it as "spending."
It doesn't get any more sickening than this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse