Obama’s So-Called Budget: “Bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike”

Posted by on Apr 10, 2013 at 7:41 am

Like all of Obama’s previous budgets you can expect this to also get zero votes. He’s got a perfect track record thus far: He’s never received a single vote in his entire sorry presidency.


The budget, it says, ‘would achieve $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years, bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion. This represents more than enough deficit reduction to replace the cuts required by the Joint Committee [on] sequestration.’

The implication, one which the White House has made more deliberately in the past, is that Barack Obama has already squeezed $2.5 trillion out of the government’s next ten deficit statements.

Obama himself said during a press conference on January 14 that he had signed bills into law that contained ‘a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years.’

FactCheck.org, a program of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Policy Center, reported in February that Obama’s total sum included about $600 billion, however, in new taxes – not spending reductions. It also included $500 billion in reductions of the amount the federal government planned to pay in future interest on its debts.

Only about $1.4 trillion consisted of actual spending cuts – or at least what Washington wonks call spending cuts.

Federal budgets are configured along what’s called a ‘baseline,’ providing a predetermined level of year-on-year increases that Congress has set on auto-pilot, and with which the White House generally considers it unwise to interfere.

The $1.4 trillion in cuts were merely reductions in those planned rates of spending increases.

The Daily Caller quoted House Speaker John Boehner’s press secretary, Brendan Buck, who dismissed in an email the idea that the White House’s budget will actually trim spending.

‘So where are the net spending cuts? I guess they don’t exist,’ Buck wrote. ‘The president’s budget will – at best – be flat on spending – or potentially even be a net spending increase [and] any deficit reduction will come exclusively from tax hikes.’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell practically begged the White House on Tuesday to get serious.

‘Mr. President, if you are ready to embrace bold reform — to take the steps that are needed to make our entitlement programs permanently solvent and grow the economy — then Republicans are ready to work with you,’ McConnell said.

Is it any wonder he’s running around on his absurd gun control crusade? He’d rather do anything than get serious about of fiscal problems. Meanwhile, this alleged budget is two months late. But he’s never late for a tee time, is he?

Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Obama’s So-Called Budget: “Bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike””

  1. MT Geoff on 10/10/13 at 12:24 pm

    There are two ways to reduce our deficits, by reducing spending levels and by increasing revenues.
    There are surely programs whose actual spending levels could be reduced or eliminated, but most of the budget goes to pensions, healthcare and defense. Which of those will get an actual cut in spending? Historically, only defense — and that’s not a good idea at the moment or in the foreseeable future.
    There is only one way to increase revenues: encourage wealth development. Oh, Congress can raise tax rates, but that will almost always decrease revenues rather than increase them. This has been shown so many times, but somehow “progressives” miss this.
    If we want to fund our various levels of government, we need a more active and productive economy to do it. This also raises standards of living right down to hoboes, who benefit from more generous charitable giving and cheaper liquor.
    A more active economy calls for reduced tax rates, reduced regulation, less interference in labor markets — less government at all levels. That bugs “progressives” a lot. So does the fact that a vibrant economy makes wealthy people even wealthier.
    As Baroness Thatcher said, “They do not care that the poor should be poorer, so long as the rich shall be less rich.”

  2. Chris W. on 10/10/13 at 2:13 pm

    He really is a miserable failure. Can you imagine the ridicule from the MSM if GWB submitted budget after budget that earned zero votes? We’d be hearing about it for decades.