Balance! Senate Democrat Budget Proposes a Trillion Dollars in New Taxes

Posted by on Mar 13, 2013 at 7:52 am
Activists on the beach in Cancun.

Or as they and the media like to now call taxes: Revenue.

Senate Democrats would raise nearly $1 trillion in new taxes under a budget proposal they laid out for President Obama while lunching with him in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday.

The president is making the rounds in the Capitol to help facilitate talks on a budget deal, which is set to consume lawmakers in the coming months as they work to strike a “grand bargain” on reducing the nation’s debt and deficit.

“He is very supportive of the path we are moving down,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said after the lunch.

Murray, who chairs the Senate budget panel, will unveil a budget plan Wednesday that would use $975 billion in tax increases and $975 billion in spending cuts to achieve $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction, according to those familiar with the plan.

Smoke, meet mirror. Here’s the amusing part: They claim there will be $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction with $975 billion in spending cuts (deep, painful cuts!), yet these are the same folks caterwauling about a puny reduction of $85 billion in future spending from the Obama Sequester. All day, every day there are doomsday stories about such an insignificant reduction in spending, but at the same time we’re supposed to believe they’re serious about knocking off nearly $2 trillion from the deficit? It’s just not credible.

Speaking of no credibility, even Obama’s former car czar has gotten in on the sequester hysteria with some amusing tweets:

Heartbreaking, isn’t it?

4 Responses to “Balance! Senate Democrat Budget Proposes a Trillion Dollars in New Taxes”

  1. MT Geoff on 13/13/13 at 1:07 pm

    Sigh. It’s very tiresome to have to say this again: raising tax rates will lower revenues instead of increasing them. Lowering tax rates will raise revenues rather than reduce them.
    Getting a little less of a lot more is better than getting a lot more of a lot less.

  2. cool arrow on 13/13/13 at 2:28 pm

    Is there a single Democrat politician on any level (local, state, or federal) who actually understands economics?

    This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know.

  3. Blue Hen on 13/13/13 at 2:45 pm

    It’s not a matter of understanding; it’s purely a matter of posturing and temporary advantages. Every disaster in Europe was foreseen, and avoidable. Can anyone name one policy maker who suffered from their decisions, or from refraining to act? How about here? Chris Dodd isn’t suffering, nor is Barney Frank. Their base loves class warfare and hatred. And there is no downside to fomenting such hatred. Once they get a turn, they get pensions and connections. Even if you could turn most or all of them out, the incentives and disincentives would remain. There is no other reason for bragging about projected savings from budgets that don’t exist, and probably never will. And it occurs at the local level as much as at the national level.

    Ignorance is truly bliss, and tis folly to be wise. That is why we get odes to gun control and gay abortions for Big Bird. If you were a politician, which would you rather do? Make people feel smug about supporting gay abortions for Big Bird, or tell them that all of the profligate spending for decades by the West has been a shell game that was a variation on rich versus poor? This time, some of the peasants pretended that we were Robin Hood, robbing the rich to give to ….ourselves.

  4. Lamont Sanford on 13/13/13 at 5:09 pm

    Note to dhimmi dumbass democRATS nobody has any money left so quit rifling through our pockets. Some silver and pennies is all that is left in a small change pouch. Part of hope and change, I hope to have some pocket change left.