Author Topic: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars  (Read 2053 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2012, 02:41:03 PM »
Obama plan will end dozens of business tax breaks: Geithner
Yahoo ^ | 2/14/12 | Kim Dixon and Rachelle Younglai - Reuters




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's corporate tax reform plan will end "dozens and dozens" of tax breaks, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday as he defended the White House's election-year call for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Within days, the administration is set to unveil a blueprint for revamping the corporate tax system aimed at leveling the playing field for all companies, which pay wildly differing levels of taxes, while lowering the top corporate tax rate.

Companies are clamoring for a cut in the top 35 percent corporate tax rate but disagree about how to how eliminate special tax preferences that benefit selected industries.

Geithner spoke before the Senate Finance Committee a day after President Barack Obama unveiled a $3.8 trillion budget-and-tax proposal that called for aggressive government spending to boost the economy and higher taxes on the rich.

"We think they can handle it. We think they can afford it," Geithner said.

The budget proposal is seen as a campaign document, with few elements expected to win approval this year in a divided U.S. Congress as elections approach in November.

Republicans criticized Obama's budget, saying it chooses winners and losers and moves away from tax reform.

...

Geithner said it was a "fair question."

He said the Obama plan would "wipe out a very substantial, dozens and dozens of special tax preferences," in the corporate code, but keep a "very limited" number targeting incentives for "creating and building stuff in the United States."

Senators from both parties said Obama needs to use the bully pulpit to push major changes to the tax code.

The last time major rewrite of the U.S. tax code came in 1986 under the leadership of Republican President Ronald Reagan.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2012, 03:08:51 AM »
Proposed Obama budget includes surge in tax hikes (Obama plans tax hikes for EVERYONE)
Fox News ^ | 2/14/2012 | fox news
Posted on February 14, 2012 10:53:56 PM EST by tobyhill

President Obama's proposed 2013 budget contains a decade-long surge of tax hikes that, if approved, would affect everything from income to investment to inheritance.

The budget blueprint contains roughly $2 trillion in new taxes and fees. When other tax cuts and credits are counted, the net impact from the proposals is still about $1.5 trillion.

Though Republicans already are mounting a vigorous campaign against the proposal, many of the tax provisions still could become law unless Congress takes action to stop them.

,,,,

But the budget also imposes various fees, such as a hike in the airline "security fee," as well as a $61 billion-over-10-years fee on financial institutions. The fee is called the "financial crisis responsibility fee," and is aimed at making sure taxpayers are compensated for the 2008 industry bailout.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2012, 03:11:47 AM »
(Tax-cheat Timmy) Geithner: Tax hikes must be part of budget (will correct 'fiscal problems')
The Hill ^ | 2/14/12 | Peter Schroeder
Posted on February 15, 2012 4:42:03 AM EST by Libloather

Geithner: Tax hikes must be part of budget
By Peter Schroeder - 02/14/12 01:18 PM ET

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told skeptical Republican senators Tuesday that it is simply not possible to correct the nation’s fiscal problems without raising taxes.

Geithner defended President Obama’s 2013 budget proposal before the Senate Finance Committee and said the plan is the only option he sees for helping the economy and addressing the deficit without hurting the middle class.

"I do not see how you get there if you are unable ... to contemplate and to embrace modest increases in revenue through tax reform," Geithner said. "I just don’t think it’s possible."

Geithner found himself playing defense before Republicans on the panel, especially regarding the president's plan to increase taxes on the nation's highest earners.

"It is clear that [Obama's] plan would only make our fiscal problems worse and harm our economy by imposing around $1.9 trillion of stifling tax hikes," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the ranking member of the panel.

"This budget is a plan for a permanently larger, European-style government. It does not set our country down a sustainable fiscal path. It does nothing to change the President’s unwavering devotion to tax-and-spend policies and failed stimulus schemes that have and will continue to generate historic deficits and levels of debt," Hatch said.

Geithner argued the deficit can’t be tamed without tax hikes and said that cost should fall on wealthy households.

"We do not believe there is a feasible way or a fair way to restore fiscal sustainability without asking a very small fraction of the most fortunate Americans to bear a modestly higher burden for the privilege of being Americans," Geithner said.

The president's budget proposal included a number of tax increases targeting the wealthy, including higher taxes on investment dividends and capital gains. The president also called for Congress to enact the "Buffett Rule," ensuring millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes, although it was not officially included in the budget proposal.

Geithner also sought to rebut claims that Obama's budget would harm the economy. GOP lawmakers blasted the president's proposal Monday, arguing it would lead to economic ruin and a debt crisis on par with that in Greece.

Obama's top economic official acknowledged that the economy still is shaking off the recession, but said the nation is on solid footing and would be in even better shape if lawmakers adopted the White House budget.

"If those were embraced by Congress tomorrow ... there would be substantially more confidence around the world," he said. "I don't believe there is a credible argument to make that uncertainty about our fiscal deficits ... is having a material adverse effect on the American economy."

Geithner also had to fend off questions from multiple lawmakers in both parties about why the White House does not plan to offer a comprehensive tax reform proposal. He said the White House planned to offer a "framework" for corporate tax reform in the coming weeks, but no new efforts on overhauling the individual tax code.

When asked why the White House was not interested in even offering a plan this year, Geithner said the failed attempt by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to strike a broad deal this summer proved the two sides were too far apart on the issue right now.

"We took a run at trying to negotiate a framework like that with the Republican leadership in the House over the course of the summer," he said. "We found no basis for agreement on even the broad framework. ... We're just trying to be realistic."

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2012, 05:15:50 AM »
Obama’s budget shell game
By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 1:19 AM, February 15, 2012




A British politician once noted, “A lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.” He could have been talking about President Obama’s latest whopper.

Unlike so many others, this presidential prevarication isn’t limited to a single anecdote or speech. This one runs to more than 2,000 pages and weighs a reported 10 pounds.

It’s Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget and it is to truth what night is to day. To call it a “campaign document,” as Republicans have, doesn’t do it justice. Ditto for calling it a “wish list,” as reporters have.

It is a fraud, a scam, a wooden nickel, pure and unadulterated flimflam.

As such, it neatly captures the moral bankruptcy of Obama’s presidency. Trapped by the failure of his policies and the laws of economics and politics, he inadvertently reveals that he is serious about nothing except re-election.

Acting like a candidate running in a party primary instead of a president with a duty to govern, he glues reams of fictional numbers to the fantasies of a community organizer. Presto — he’s a man with a vision of utopia he can read from a TelePrompTer.

To judge by his claims, he has adopted the credo that the end — four more years — justifies the means. Those means include a willingness to say anything that serves him. Freed from duty and facts, he submits his concoction to Congress as an official document under presidential seal.

The outrage is . . . where? In the fourth year of this national error, deviancy has been defined down so far that a monstrous dereliction of the basic duty to make a budget is met with a shrug of the shoulders. Apparently, we no longer expect any better from him.

This plan will get the same number of votes Obama’s last budget got in the Senate. That one was defeated 97-0. So the stalemate will continue and he will compound the lie by pretending it’s not his fault.

It has now been more than 1,000 days since Democrats, who hold a Senate majority, which is all they need for budget measures, adopted one. And Majority Leader Harry Reid, perhaps to spare the president from another embarrassment, refuses the simple formality of a vote this time.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” he said, declining to offer even backhanded praise for Obama’s presentation. Reid knows he couldn’t muster more than a handful of votes for this hoax.

Conscience won’t allow most Dems to decimate the military, as Obama proposes. Nor will they follow him in refusing to recognize the debt and deficit as mortal threats to the nation.

Even party dead-enders aren’t in the mood to raise taxes on virtually every worker for yet another round of “stimulus.” They know rancid pork when they smell it and most aren’t interested in risking their careers to endorse it. With Athens burning, few want to follow the Greek model of economics.

It is tempting, then, to see a silver lining, to believe that Obama has had his turn and that his vision for America is now so exposed as a delusion that it and he will be swept aside.

But to judge from the polls, that is far too optimistic. Facts don’t always prevail and truth is often slow to get its boots on.

Besides, America is scared, and for all the country’s cynicism about Washington, lies from the Oval Office still can fool nearly half the people. Sometimes, the bigger they are, the harder they are to recognize.

Mayor puts church in lurch



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_budget_shell_game_9qhKQw7k6R76w6AqpeoZRK#ixzz1mSKjQy10



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2012, 10:05:28 AM »
Obama's Budget: It's My Money, America (No It Isn't)
Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2012 | Ben Shapiro




On Monday, President Obama released his budget to the world. As per his usual Orwellian arrangement, Obama called this budget his attempt to implement "fiscal responsibility." Obama's attempt at "fiscal responsibility" works about as well as Madonna's attempts at virginity.

Underlying his massive $3.8 trillion proposal, which also calls for tax increases amounting to nearly $2 trillion, is the overwhelming sense that President Obama thinks this is his money to spend. How else to explain his blithe assurances that his budget will ensure that everyone "gets a fair share ... does their fair share ... plays by the same rules"? Did we suddenly elect him third-grade teacher of the United States? Or does a dictator determine what a "fair share" means?

Here's what Obama really means by fair: He gets re-elected, and you get shafted. His budget cuts virtually nothing and increases the budget in a variety of eye-opening ways. Obama's team requests $1 billion for the Social Security Administration, for example, just to "ensure benefits are paid to the right person and in the right amount." Apparently, the SSA has been sending checks to people who aren't disabled -- and now it wants to spend money to stop that practice. The Dewey Decimal System was invented a century ago to stop confusion with regard to books. Now it takes us $1 billion to stop the government from sending checks to the wrong people.

Obama insists that this $1 billion investment will result in $47.9 billion in savings. Somehow, I doubt that math. When my wife goes to Macy's and then calls, telling me how she's saved several hundred dollars, I know to get ready for a big hit on the monthly credit card. The same holds true with government "savings." When they're saving us money, they're really just spending it.

It's not just Obama's money-wasting ideas embedded in this plan. It's blatant class warfare and campaign rhetoric. Take, for instance, his Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee: a 10-year, $61 billion excise from financial firms "to compensate the American people for the extraordinary assistance they provided to Wall Street, as well as to discourage excessive risk-taking."

First, you have to love it when the president of the United States names proposals after whoever he's going to blame. Next time, he should propose the It's Bush's Fault Fee, directed against wealthy people across the country. The very title of the initiative shows Obama's motive: He wants Wall Street to take it on the chin for their bad behavior, ignoring the role of government in pushing and promoting that behavior.

Second, Obama has no constitutional authority for anything like this. In the budget, Obama contends that the Troubled Assets Relief Program provided for measures taking money back from the banks -- but his proposal itself does not even stipulate that those being taxed have to have been recipients of TARP money to begin with.

Finally, the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is predicated on the notion that the banks owe everybody a lot of money. They do. But not according to Obama, whose administration has been claiming for years that the TARP money was paid back, and actually turned a profit for the taxpayer (So where's my check?). If they have, why does Obama now claim that he needs the banks to pony up to the table I order at to make taxpayers whole?

Obama packed his budget with such idiosyncratic idiocies. He cut a weather satellite system for the Pentagon but funded one for the Department of Commerce. He says he's going to cut subsidies for the oil and gas companies, but he's raising them for more non-existent green energy production, which will presumably fuel our unicorns. He wants to provide $800 million to our terrorist friends in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but wants to cut our defense budget.

What makes him think he can do all this? Well, it's his money, stupid. You're just working for him. So work harder. His palms are itchy.

The American people are not nearly as stupid as Obama seems to believe. Just because he says that $3.8 trillion worth of mostly useless spending is vital doesn't mean it is. Just because he says it's fiscally responsible to continue revving up spending doesn't mean it is. And just because he says he respects our money doesn't mean he does.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2012, 11:27:48 AM »
Obama Budget Raises Taxes on Small Employers, Savers, Families
ATR ^ | 2012-02-13 | Ryan Ellis




President Obama released his FY 2013 budget [Monday] morning. By his own numbers, his budget raises net taxes over the next decade by $1.56 trillion (Table S-9, page 225). As a percentage of the economy, tax revenues would rise all the way to 20.1% of GDP in 2022, far higher than the historical tax revenue average of 18.3% of GDP (Table S-1, page 205).

Here are some of the tax lowlights:

All 20 of the new or higher taxes in Obamacare are assumed to take place. That means that there will be a 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income. It means that there will be excise taxes imposed on those unwilling to comply with the individual or employer mandates. That means that health insurance plans will face new taxes that will be passed along as premiums. The list goes on and on.

The tax rate at which the majority of small employer profits face taxation will rise. Under the Obama budget, the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small employer profits will face taxation) will rise from 35% today to 39.6% in 2013.

The capital gains rate will rise from 15% today to 23.8% next year. That's because the Obama budget assumes the pre-2001 capital gains rate of 20% for investors earning more than $250,000 per year. On top of this, the Obamcare surtax on investment will raise this rate to 23.8%. Separately, capital gains earned as "carried interest" will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates.

The dividends rate will raise from 15% today to 43.4% next year. The Obama budget proposes taxing dividends for investors making more than $250,000 per year at ordinary income tax rates, which will rise to a top rate of 39.6% under the budget. In addition, the Obamacare surtax on investors will combine to nearly triple the tax rate on dividends in just one year.

The real tax rate on capital gains and dividends is actually even higher than this. Since taxes on dividends and capital gains are a cascaded double taxation on savings, the rate is actually far higher than this. Before being taxed to investors as capital gains and dividends, the money first faced taxation as corporate profits. The U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world at 35%. When factoring this in, the Obama budget is actually proposing a capital gains tax rate of 50.5% and a dividends rate of 63.2%. That would leave U.S. employers and savers at a severe competitive disadvantage.

The death tax will rise from 35% today to 45% next year. The Obama budget calls for the top rate on estates (the death tax) to rise from 35% today to 45% in 2013. In addition, more and more families will face this tax. The budget calls for cutting the death tax "standard deduction" from $5 million ($10 million for couples) in place today to $3.5 million next year. Thousands more families will have to visit the undertaker and their tax accountant on the same day.

Taxes raised on larger employers by $147 billion, pushing capital and jobs overseas. The budget moves toward a full double-taxation of profits on U.S. companies doing business overseas. Not only would these companies have to pay tax in the country they earned the money in--they would have to pay tax again if they wanted to bring that money back to the U.S. As a result, companies will have no incentive to bring back money to America to invest in plant and equipment, create jobs, fund pensions, or pay shareholders.

Taxes raised on families who consume energy by at least $100 billion over the decade. A whole series of tax increases on oil and gas companies, coal, and other producers of oil are proposed in this budget. Companies don't pay taxes--people do. These higher taxes will be passed along to families in the form of higher energy bills, skinnier 401(k) balances, and lower wages.


Read more: http://www.atr.org/obama-budget-raises-taxes-small-employers-a6727#ixzz1mTfGck7e







________________________ ________________________ __



IT NEVER ENDS WITH THIS COMMUNIST ASSHOLE! 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2012, 12:09:42 PM »


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Pushes Global Minimum Tax in Milwaukee
Daniel Halper
February 15, 2012 2:21 PM




Earlier this week, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling announced his support for changes in the tax structure. “[W]e need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens,” Sperling said at an official White House meeting. He even indicated that President Obama “supports” this change.

But the White House pushed back the next day, telling Politico through an unnamed “official” that “[Sperling] was referring to our proposal in the Blueprint for an American Built to Last that removes tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas.” The Politico article was titled, “No 'global tax,' W.H. says,” though the article never actually quoted anyone—named or unnamed—denying the substance of Sperling’s proposal (or even that it would in effect be a “global minimum tax”).

Well today, in a speech the president is delivering in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Obama announced the thrust of what amounts to a “global minimum tax”—even if he avoided using the controversial phrase.

“[N]o American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas,” Obama said, according to his remarks as prepared for deliver. “From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.  And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay and hire in the United States of America.”

So while President Obama calls it “a basic minimum tax,” his adviser, Sperling, calls it a “global minimum tax.” Either way, it’s the same thing regardless of how the White House wants to message it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!

Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.

Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-pushes-global-minimum-tax-milwaukee_629864.html


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2012, 01:29:32 PM »
Obama’s Budget Proves He Should Not Be Reelected

By LIZ PEEK, The Fiscal Times February 14, 2012



http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/02/14/Obamas-Budget-Proves-He-Should-Not-Be-Reelected.aspx#page1



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama does not deserve to be reelected. By refusing to address the greatest challenge this nation faces – our financial security – Mr. Obama has failed the American people. Despite warnings from the IMF, the credit ratings agencies, China -- our principal foreign creditor -- and the American people, the president continues to offer up budgets and programs that ignore the dire trajectory of Medicare and Social Security spending, putting the future of this nation at risk. 

RELATED: Obama’s 2013 Budget Forecasts Increasing Debt

Let’s get specific. This week Mr. Obama set forth a budget calling for yet another trillion-dollar deficit, the fourth in four years. Through certain spending cuts, some gimmickry (counting not spending on two wars as deficit reduction) and $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, the budget gap is projected to shrink to $575 billion in 2018, comfortably beyond the range of the country’s political telescope.

Each of the proposal’s major provisions scratches a partison itch: raising taxes on the wealthy, imposing new fees on banks, eliminating tax cuts on oil companies, spending $476 billion on transportation projects (mollifying construction crews teed off at the Keystone veto),  allotting $30 billion for (guaranteed voting blocks) police, teachers and fire department workers, and so on. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget summarizes, the president’s budget stabilizes our debt at 76 percent of GDP – “roughly double historical debt levels.” This is not acceptable.

To be fair, Mr. Obama proposes to save $364 billion over ten years in Medicare and Medicaid, mainly through slicing payments for prescription drugs ($156 billion), taking money from skilled nursing facilities and long-term care hospitals ($63 billion)  and changing the way the government compensates doctors and hospitals for bad debts ($36 billion). The budget assumes the fantasy 30 percent cut in pay to healthcare providers contained in earlier projections. If you believe that these proposals will be adopted, please send me a certified check of $1,000 to claim your million-dollar lottery prize.

The budget is as cynical an affair as last year’s offering, which was defeated 97-0 in the Senate – an act of rare bipartisan cooperation. Before we celebrate that moment of sanity, however, we recollect that the Senate has not passed a budget in more than 1,000 days, though they are required by law to do so. The White House blames this dereliction of duty on intransigent Republicans (a charge most recently leveled by Budget Director Lew over the weekend) but in reality all that is needed is a simple Senate majority to pass a budget, which the Democrats have.

All this skirmishing is but B-rated play-acting. Informed citizens should be furious that the real issues clouding our future are not even addressed by our president. The crisis in our country is two-fold: a rising number of people receive ever-increasing assistance from the government. At the same time, fewer Americans are paying taxes. The inevitable outcome is a widening gap between revenues and outlays: the deficit.  The recession has accelerated the problem. Here are the facts:

Last year, the first of the 78 million Baby Boomers reached retirement age. Between now and 2050, the number of people over 65 will more than double -- from 40 to 89 million. This huge population will receive increasing funds from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and if nothing is done, it will be crippling. Social Security outlays, according to the annual Trustees report, will advance from 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007 to 6.2 percent in 2035. The program, which ran in the red the past two years for the first time since 1983, will have exhausted its trust assets in 2036. Thereafter, the board projects, tax revenue will only pay for about three quarters of scheduled benefits. In short, Social Security as we know it will not survive the Baby Boom bulge.

Medicare, too, is a menace, gobbling up 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010, 5.5 percent in 2035 and an increasing share thereafter. The trust fund for Medicare dies in 2024. This is the rosy projection. The real numbers for Medicare deficits are likely to be far worse that the agency projects. They assume Obamacare-related productivity that even the Trustees deem “debatable” and that Congress will chop doctor payments, “notwithstanding experience to the contrary.”

While our mandated spending on health and retirement benefits will continue to sprout like weeds (fertilized by Obamacare), the portion of the country paying for this tab will shrink. According to the Heritage Foundation, the portion of the country that pays no income taxes has climbed from 15 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009, or from 35 million people to 152 million. While the recession bears some responsibility for this increase, the trend was well underway before the financial crisis hit.

These trends threaten not only our economy but our country. Even now, the president is proposing cuts in our military that paste over his inaction on entitlement programs; some think he may soon gut our future preparedness.  President Obama argues that he is delivering what the country needs – more stimulative spending in the near term while laying the groundwork for long-term deficit reduction. He knows better. Our entitlements programs demand structural overhaul; he is afraid to light that fuse.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2012, 06:26:06 AM »
President Obama Punts on US Deficit
By Debra Saunders



In February 2009 -- having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package -- President Barack Obama made a pledge to the nation. "Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years," the president noted, "we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation." Obama already had noted that he'd "inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit -- the largest in our nation's history." A month into office, Obama announced, "Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."

He meant well, but it isn't going to happen.

This week, the administration presented a $3.8 trillion budget. The 2012 fiscal year will close with a $1.3 trillion deficit; the deficit for 2013 is expected to be $900 billion. And that's assuming Obama can push through $1.5 trillion in tax increases, mostly on the rich, over 10 years -- which no one expects to happen.

There's no appetite to pass the Obama budget in the Democratic-led Senate. White House chief of staff Jack Lew even told CNN: "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can't get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, (Majority Leader) Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed."

It was a telling statement -- because it's not true. As a former budget director, Lew knows that budget bills pass on a majority vote. The Senate passed a 2009 budget resolution with 48 votes.

Last year, the Senate rejected the Obama budget in a resounding 97-0 vote.

Obama's eager enablers will argue that the president can't deal with Republicans. Nonsense. Congress is about to cut a deal to extend the payroll tax holiday, unemployment benefits and the "doc fix" to prevent cuts in Medicare payments through the end of the year. The compromise is expected to add $100 billion to the deficit. When a spending bill adds to the deficit, both parties can and do work together.

But to cut the deficit in a meaningful way, the president has to lead.

Obama does not face easy choices. Democrats believe that cutting federal spending could undermine the recovery. Republicans believe that tax increases would do likewise. Members of both parties fear that the other side has a point.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to tell the public what sacrifices Americans will have to make in order to pay off the $15 trillion national debt. So another year goes by, with another $1 trillion of debt.

If the president aggressively embraced entitlement reform, there would be a light at the end of the tunnel. But Obama punted.

In 2009, the president predicted what will happen if Washington fails to curb the deficit: "We risk sinking into another crisis down the road as our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they're saddled with our debts."

With the latest Obama budget, I don't see any other end in sight.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2012, 07:13:53 AM »
MILLER: Obama’s fast and furious spin(gunwalker)
The Washington Times ^ | 15 February, 2012 | Emily Miller




President Obama is using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda just before the election. One particularly sneaky provision buried deep within his submission to Congress Monday would, if enacted, allow the mistakes of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to be repeated.

In November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.

Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”

Mr. Cornyn did not buy this explanation. “I understand the president has ‘complete confidence’ in Attorney General [Eric] Holder to not carry out further gun-walking operations like Fast and Furious, but 99 U.S. senators voted otherwise,” he told The Washington Times on Wednesday, referring to the upper chamber’s unanimous vote in October approving the amendment.

Even Democrats wanted to prevent the Justice Department from scheming to have guns sent over the border to Mexican drug cartels after the botched scheme led to the death of a border agent. Liberal Sen. Barbara Mikulski surprised many with her outspoken support for Mr. Cornyn’s amendment. “Fast and Furious was brought to an end but with terrible problems,” said the Maryland Democrat. “Hundreds of Mexican citizens have died, our own law enforcement people have died, and we have to do something about it.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has been investigating the administration’s role in Fast and Furious.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2012, 07:28:02 AM »
Obama's Budget Bomb: He Proposes Spending Increases, While Disarming America
Townhall.com ^ | February 16, 2012 | Ken Blackwell





Early in his administration, President Obama, pledged to cut the federal deficit in half. But his recent budget proposal, to say Obama has not kept his promise is an understatement.

Determined to keep Americans drowning in debt, Obama proposes to accelerate federal spending $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.8 trillion in 2022, a whopping increase of 53 percent. By spending more than $45 trillion in the next 10 years, the most generous accounting would assume $6.7 trillion would be added to the federal deficit, bringing debt-to-GDP ratio who a crushing 76.5 percent.

The slow ending of the Afghanistan war gave the Obama Administration room for an $800 billion Washington-style accounting gimmick, where borrowed money that would not have been used is counted as saved. In terms of actual cuts in defense spending, Obama is shifting the focus from what is known to work in missile defense to developing futuristic missile intercepts which will require years of experimenting at great expense to taxpayers while a vulnerable America waits.

It has become obvious that America faces increasing nuclear threats from hostile regimes like Iran and North Korea. In June, Iran announced it was planning to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium, which can easily be converted to weapons-grade material. This week, Iranian President Ahmadinejad plans a major announcement for Iran’s advancement in its atomic program, a move to show how increased U.N. sanctions have failed to halt Iran’s technical progress.

Our first line of defense against short and intermediate-range airborne attacks is the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), which can intercept enemy missiles while in flight. Their proven track record is why they are also essential to the NATO effort in Europe to defend against missiles from hostile nations.

Yet, despite the SM-3’s impressive performance history and expanding capabilities that will ultimately protect our homeland from a long-range missile attack, President Obama has all but turned his back on the missile. In his newly released budget, the President cuts funding for the newest evolution of SM-3 (known as IB), which will result in 52 percent fewer missiles while commanders in theater have consistently complained about shortages. The President’s $300 million reduction may also slow production, which could make the new missile delivery date of 2015 very difficult to meet.

The timing couldn’t be worse considering U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta predicted last month that Iran would be capable of launching a nuclear missile at the U.S. as soon as 2014.

But President Obama’s short-sightedness doesn't end there. At the same time the President chopped funding for the first missile that will be able to protect us against an ICBM attack, he chose to pour $224 million into a sophisticated and tedious missile program that is on life support.

The missile, known as IIB, is but a back-of-the napkin concept that will not be ready for deployment until 2020, at the earliest. In a bipartisan move this past December, Congress virtually eliminated the 2012 budget for the program. The message was clear: we have more urgent budget priorities and current threats demand we deploy a missile to protect the continental United States much sooner than 2020.

Apparently, President Obama did not receive that message from Congress. After spending millions on development, Obama has unilaterally decided to shift resources toward more complex future missile variants—a process notorious for being obscenely over budget and off schedule—while rejecting the Congress’ more sensible approach to fiscal responsibility and a more robust national defense.

President Obama’s decisions on missile defense will create a multiple-year window where a country such as Iran could strike before our new SM-3s are in place. By reversing course, not only would taxpayer dollars be used more effectively, America will be properly protected from enemies well into the future.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2012, 09:07:40 AM »
It’s math, not politics: Vast debt a killer
By U-T San Diego Editorial Staff

Wednesday, February 15, 2012




The $3.8 trillion 2012-13 federal budget proposed by President Barack Obama instantly became a political football among partisans. Among the pundit class, the conventional wisdom is that the spending plan is more a campaign document to help the president win re-election. Given that Congress hasn’t passed an actual budget in three years, this cynicism is defensible.

But at some point we wish everyone – the political class, the media, taxpayers of all ideologies – would just accept this as a given: As a nation, we can’t continue spending vastly more than we take in. The Obama plan, if enacted, would add $901 billion to the national debt. This is less than in recent years but still enormous on a historical scale – the U.S. spending 31 percent more than it receives in revenue.

A household that for years on end spent 31 percent more than it took in would soon be spending more on interest on debt than on most priorities. As a nation, we are already there. In 2010-11, the federal government spent $454 billion in interest on the national debt – 12 percent of the entire budget. That’s only going to go up, up and away unless deficits are finally, substantively addressed. We wish the immensity of this problem would finally sink in – with everyone.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama Budget Deficit for 2012 - $1.33 Trillion Dollars
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2012, 01:50:48 PM »


An Economy Built to Crash

Geithner admits Obama's budget 'unsustainable' for second year in row
   
Email Us



BY: Andrew Stiles - February 16, 2012 3:30 pm




President Obama described his fiscal year 2013 budget – the most expensive in United States history – as “a blueprint for an economy that is built to last.”

But even his own Treasury Secretary does not agree with that assessment.


For the second year in row, Timothy Geithner admitted before the Senate Budget Committee that President Obama’s budget takes no action to meaningfully reform entitlement programs, putting us on an “unsustainable” fiscal course.

“Even if Congress were to enact this budget,” Geithner said, “we would still be left with–in the outer decades as millions of Americans retire–what are still unsustainable commitments in Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, Geithner said the same thing about the president’s budget last year.


“With the president’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time,” Geithner said in 2011. “That’s why we’re having the debate.”

The Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid will comprise an increasingly large, and inherently unsustainable, share of the economy in the coming decades.