Obama Outlines New Deficit-Reduction Plan That Sucks Almost As Much As The Old One

Because his first deficit-reduction plan sucked, President Obama has come out with a new one.  This wouldn’t have happened if Rep. Paul Ryan hadn’t released his own long-term deficit-reduction plan.  The 2010 election has already had far-reaching consequences, one of the most obvious being that Obama must now focus on the size and scope of government, something liberals typically understand in terms of “bigger is better.”  Has Obama seen the error of his ways?

Drawing a clear line between his budget priorities and a proposal pitched by Republicans, President Obama outlined a new spending plan Wednesday which he claimed would cut the deficit by $4 trillion within 12 years with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy.

Obama, in a speech at George Washington University, positioned his latest spending plan as a more “compassionate” alternative to one introduced last week by GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. He applauded Republicans for putting a plan on the table to address entitlements, but the praise stopped there.

So Obama’s plan is to raise taxes on the ‘wealthy,” who already shoulder a greater burden of the income tax revenue than in the past.  And rather than reform entitlements like Medicare, he’s making empty promises about cost savings.  Like we haven’t heard that before from every other President:

The president’s proposal would deal with entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, but avoid the major changes being pushed by Ryan. The president opposes turning Medicaid into a block-grant program for states and making Medicare seniors purchase government-subsidized insurance, as Ryan proposed.

Obama said he would not accept the Republican plan for entitlements and taxes. Rather, he vowed to make other changes he claims will extract more than $300 billion in savings from those Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade. Plus he pushed cuts in discretionary spending, including to defense.

I agree that some cuts to defense spending are necessary, but I fear that Obama and the Democrats will use the premise of reducing the deficit to act out all their anti-military fantasies.  Bye bye missile defense, bye bye first strike capability.

The most outrageous quote from the speech?  Speaking about the Republican plan:

“It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them.  It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors.”

Umm, Mr. O, have you seen your own administration’s budget projections? If we stay on the present path, we won’t be able to care for seniors.  And by the way, since when was it the responsibility of the federal government to send kids to college?

Mr. Obama is trying to portray the GOP plan as a dystopian nightmare, but it is the Democrats’ irresponsible spending that threatens our future.  Republicans don’t want people eating soylent green or working for the Ministry of Truth, but sometimes I wonder about the Democrats.  What’s their endgame?  Do they want to enslave humanity?

There is one silver lining in the Obama plan.  At least it doesn’t go as far-left as other progressives would like it too.  The House progressive caucus released their budget plan, and it’s the biggest piece of crap since the Dinosaurs roamed the earth:

The “People’s Budget” is the liberals’ answer to House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal, which is “leading us down a road to ruin,” according to caucus co-chairmen Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. The “People’s Budget,” Grijalva and Ellison claim, would eliminate the deficit in just 10 years (Ryan’s plan would take more than 25 years) while expanding, not cutting, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. “This budget saves the American people from the recklessness of the Republican majority,” Grijalva and Ellison write in a letter to Rep. Chris Van Hollen, senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

How can such fiscal miracles be accomplished? By tax increases that would make even some top Democrats gasp. Perhaps the most extraordinary is the caucus plan to raise the Social Security tax to cover nearly all of a taxpayer’s income. Right now, the tax is imposed on the first $106,000 of earnings. For people who make more than that, the caucus would tax a full 90 percent of income — no matter how high it goes. The caucus would raise the Social Security tax that employers pay as well.

The caucus would create three new individual tax brackets for the highest incomes, topping out at 47 percent. It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes. It would create something called a “financial crisis responsibility fee” and a “financial speculation tax.” And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts.

As if anyone needed reminding, the “People’s Budget” is proof that the liberal idea of budget balancing is tax, tax, tax. If you’re looking for spending cuts, you’ll find just one really big one: national defense. The liberals would end “overseas contingency operations” — the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — starting in 2013. They would save more money by “reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and research & development programs.” In other words, they would gut the United States’ ability to defend itself, today and long into the future.

What would the liberals spend money on? The “People’s Budget” is essentially a newer and bigger stimulus bill. Grijalva and Ellison pledge to “invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, early childhood, K-12 and special education, quality child care, energy and broadband infrastructure, housing, and research and development,” along with billions more for stimulus-like road and other transportation programs.

In other words, the “People’s Budget” is just a bunch of failed, socialist ideas, the same kind of crap that is already bankrupting the country.  The progressive caucus wants tax revenue to be something like 25% of GDP, but historically it hasn’t gotten beyond 22% of GDP.  In other words, the progressive budget is a wet dream fantasy created by academia and pinko commies.  It won’t work, although it would destroy America as we know it, another thing liberals wish for when they see a shooting star.

Obama’s plan isn’t much better than the progressives’ plan.  I think it’s fair to say the new deficit-reduction plan sucks almost as much as the old one.


Comments Off on Obama Outlines New Deficit-Reduction Plan That Sucks Almost As Much As The Old One

Filed under Politics

Comments are closed.