E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas, Luke Russert, and Kelly O'Donnell
Here's a wrap up of responses to President Obama's budget proposal out today. (For some details on the budget, see First Thoughts.)
REPUBLICANS
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):
"The president's budget will destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. By continuing the spending binge and imposing massive tax hikes on families and small businesses, it will fuel more economic uncertainty and make it harder to create new jobs.
"The president's budget isn't winning the future, it's spending the future. A group of 150 American economists signed a statement sent to the White House yesterday that says we need to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation in our country. Our goal is to listen to the American people and liberate our economy from the shackles of debt, over-taxation, and big government. That's why the new House majority will vote this week to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending over the next seven months - with more cuts to come - in contrast to the Obama administration, which has proposed no cuts to the current fiscal year's budget while simultaneously asking for an increase in the national debt limit. And in the coming weeks, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will offer a comprehensive budget for the next fiscal year that will contrast sharply with the president's job-crushing FY12 budget."
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):
"President Obama says he wants to win the future, but the future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past and failing to live up to our responsibilities in the present. The future will be won by bold and honest leadership that addresses our challenges head on.
"Today, the President missed a unique opportunity to provide real leadership by offering a budget that fails to address the grave fiscal situation facing our country. At a time when unemployment is too high and economic growth is elusive in part because of the uncertainty created by our skyrocketing debt, we need serious reforms that will help restore confidence so that people can get back to work. We need a government that finally does what every other American has to do in their households and their businesses, and that's to live within our means. Instead, President Obama's budget doubles down on the bad habits of the past four years by calling for more taxes, spending and borrowing of money that we simply do not have.
"President Obama has used tough rhetoric about the need to get our fiscal house in order, even assembling a bipartisan commission to address entitlement spending which accounts for more than half of our federal budget including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, the President again failed to put action behind his words by neglecting to even acknowledge these tough issues that everyone knows drive up our debt and must be reformed if they are to meet their obligations for younger Americans.
"As our government continues to borrow forty cents of every dollar that it spends, our Democrat colleagues have offered no credible plan to get Americans back to work or seriously address our debt. In contrast, House Republicans are fully committed to using every tool at our disposal so that we can boost long-term economic confidence and help businesses to grow. And this week we will cut at least $100 billion of wasteful spending, a first step toward getting our fiscal house in order.
"For years, Democrats have proposed more government spending to create jobs, resulting in the largest debt and deficits in history while unemployment remains too high. Republicans believe in free markets and the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs to keep more of their own money so they can invest, grow their companies and hire employees. This is the difference, and it will be clearly evident in the coming weeks as Chairman Paul Ryan and House Republicans introduce our own budget, one that addresses the challenges we face so that our children have the same hope, opportunity, and ability to achieve that our parents gave to us and their parents to them."
House Budget Chair Paul Ryan:
"The President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much - stifling job growth today and leaving our children with a diminished future. In this critical test of leadership, the President has failed to tackle the urgent fiscal and economic threats before us."
"Failing to heed the warnings of economists and the demands of the American people, the President's budget accelerates our country down the path to bankruptcy. Far from 'living within its means,' the President's budget puts the government on track to nearly double in size since the day he took office - a direct result of his party's reckless spending spree. His budget destroys jobs by imposing a $1.6 trillion tax hike, adding $13 trillion to the national debt and fueling uncertainty in the private sector.
"We cannot tax, spend and borrow our way to prosperity. Where the President has fallen short, Republicans will work to chart a new course - advancing a path to prosperity by cutting spending, keeping taxes low, reforming government, and rising to meet the challenges of our time."
Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):
"Thanks to House conservatives, the spending culture in Congress is beginning to change. The White House still hasn't gotten the message, however. Even as Americans are looking for Washington to cut back, President Obama wants to burden families and employers with higher taxes, more spending, and more debt.
"The President failed a crucial test of leadership by ignoring the need for reforms that will preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations. These safety-net programs are in serious trouble without significant reforms, yet this budget has nothing to say about the problem.
"House Republicans are working to reduce spending and put the country's budget back on the path to balance. Americans know that prosperity does not spring from government's power to tax, borrow, and spend. We need to rein in Washington's massive spending deficits and give American job-creators the freedom to grow once again."
Sen. Bob Corker:
"The president has missed an opportunity to show real leadership on the number one issue threatening our country's future. Getting spending under control and reducing our deficit will be difficult without presidential leadership. I hope in the coming weeks he will come to the table in a meaningful way to address these issues," said Corker. "As we approach our debt limit of $14.29 trillion, I see no better time to impose a fiscal straitjacket on Washington. We need to vote on and pass spending cuts this year, and we need to pass the CAP Act Senator McCaskill and I have offered to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years. By capping spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of GDP, we would put our country on a path to fiscal sanity, while incentivizing Congress to pass policies that promote economic growth."
The Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the "CAP Act," would:
(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of the country's gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and
(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and
(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive "off-budget" distinction for Social Security - providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.
The Corker-McCaskill CAP Act is currently cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):
"President Obama's timid budget proposal represents a missed opportunity to lead. It increases the national debt by nearly $11 trillion, raises taxes, and ignores the recommendations of the President's own bipartisan debt commission. Republicans are ready to show we are serious about making these tough choices and getting the boot off the neck of American entrepreneurs and small businesses."
NBC's Shawna Thomas reports that Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), vice chair of Budget committee, this morning made brief remarks that set up the GOP's prepared response to the budget with the line that it's "a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again." House Budget Chairman Ryan and Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will hold a presser this afternoon on the budget.
"In the preview of what we've seen so far it is a continuation of a, as our chairman has said, a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again," Garrett said. "The President has indicated to us that it's imperative that we sign the raising of the debt limit but at the same time we look at this budget and we see that the debt of the federal government continues to grow at outstanding rates and he's going... to ask us to do so again."
When asked if he sensed there would be any common ground between the GOP and the president on this budget, Garrett couldn't seem to find any this morning.
"Well he, he says that he wants to work with us to begin reigning in spending," Garrett said. "Most of what we have seen as far as preliminary numbers go in exactly the opposite direction. Most of what we've seen is that the actual amount of borrowing will be going, as I said before, in an increased direction and that's why you're actually seeing a doubling of the debt since the time this administration came into office. On the tax side of the equation, the president said he wanted to work with us, basically to place less of a burden on the American taxpayers. But we see here again that it goes in the opposite direction about $1.5 trillion increase in the opposite direction, in that direction, as well. And he also said he wanted to care, as you said, for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren, but this is just going to place even our heaviest burden on them as well. So we're more than happy, I think all of us on our side of the aisle to reach a hand out to the administration to work where we can but there is very little that we see in this so far that there's commonality on spending."
DEMOCRATS
Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD):
"Today, President Obama released his proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The president's budget makes the tough choices we need to reduce spending and put our nation's fiscal house in order; in fact, it would reduce our deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, however, the budget identifies those investments we need to grow our economy and create jobs-investments in out-building, out-innovating, and out-educating competitors around the world. President Obama's priorities-protecting our fiscal future while investing in growth-stand in strong contrast to the priorities of Republicans. Their spending bill for the rest of this fiscal year would make indiscriminate and short-sighted cuts to the investments our economy needs to stay competitive. I hope that Republicans will, instead, work with President Obama to reduce our deficit without sacrificing America's competitive edge."
Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD):
"The President has put forth a budget that reduces our deficit, while also investing in our future. Two years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and a structural deficit that came from years of fiscal irresponsibility, we have made progress. But we must do more to invest in job creation and economic growth in the short-term, as well as get our nation on a long-term, responsible path to fiscal sustainability. This budget makes an important step towards both those goals.
"There is no question President Obama has made some tough decisions. But this budget also keeps in mind that we need to make smart choices that will create more jobs, lift up middle-class families, and keep our economy growing. While I don't agree with everything in this budget, it is a responsible place to start. It prioritizes national investments that will help our economy continue to recover and keep America competitive, focusing on important investments in things like infrastructure, education, and research. It also extends tax cuts for the middle class, while rejecting tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. And it represents an important down payment on getting our fiscal house in order.
"The President's budget stands in sharp contrast to the House Republicans' proposed funding bill for the remainder of the year. We need to get serious about debts and deficits in this country - but while Democrats propose smart, precise cuts, the GOP wants to blindly slash in the short-term and has no plan for long-term fiscal sustainability. The President's budget is a responsible proposal that will help America move forward, while the reckless Republican bill will cost jobs and hurt the economy."
Leave a Comment:
It appears the GOP leaders have volunteered to provide changes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and military spending.
We look forward to seeing the proposal on the front page of every newspaper.
Or are Ryan, Cantor, and Boehner trying to tell Americans that they can't write budget proposal when they are in the majority?
How can you reduce the deficit and still grow the economy?? All I hear for the Republicans is cut, cut cut. Give the tax breaks to the rich, and let that "trickle down" to create more job. Didn't work under Reagan, and won't work now. At least Obama has decided to set priorities and gradually reduce the deficit, without stifling an economic recovery
The deficit is projected spending minus revenues. Anyone could reduce the deficit by not spending more than you take in. Unfortunatelly politicians of all stripes are really unwilling to cut spend or reduce the overall budget which has more than doubled since 1996.
Oh those poor dumb Democrats. One thinks raising the tried and failed "Obama inherited the problem" argument is a good argument to make this late in the game, and another thinks claiming savings over a 10 year period sounds intelligent. If that is all they have to say, then they have nothing to say.
It amazes me that our government can not figure out how to run itself on the $2+ trillion we currently send them in in revenues. Why do we have to spend an additional trillion plus(almost 2) to operate? I'd hazard to guess that most of us and most of the people in the business world (and many other countries) could operate our government quite nicely on $2 trillion dollars per year.
Part of the problem lies in the way our politicians constantly try to frame the issue via Orwellian double speak. Take, for example, the expected Obama budget proposal (and yes this is done by politicians on both sides of the aisle). Obama's budget is expected to call for $400 billion in "spending cuts " over a period of 10 years! Wow, sound pretty serious, doesn't it!!!??? But when you get down to what is really being talked about (in real language) then the picture is not so bright. The fact is that there are no actual cuts in spending. All that is being "cut" is the rate of increase in the spending. Not actual spending. The same double speak was used in the recent debate about whether or not we should keep the tax rates at the levels established during the Bush years. When Obama was arguing for the increases he was telling us all that if the increases he was proposing were not put in place that it would be.......you guessed it......... "SPENDING"!!! Failing to increase taxes is not spending. But in the Orwellian world of politics they see it as spending. Because in their eyes the money you and I earn is not really ours. Rather it is on loan to you and I courtesy of the Federal Gov. So any time they fail to take the money back from you and I, by increasing taxes or levying penalties, they view it as spending. The voters need to start insisting that our politicians stop using double speak and smoke and mirrors.
BTW, Mr. Obama (and all the other politicians as well), how is it that you can claim that you want to run the most transparent and ethical administration ever, when you can't even refrain from using dishonest double speak when talking about basic issues such as fiscal policies and taxes? Stop the gibberish and speak in honest real terms.
I'd be willing to bet that many individuals that are opposed to tax increases would agree to a temporary increase if we could have any faith that the government would not turn around, yet again, and increase the deficit spending. Perhaps a national sales tax to be used exclusively to pay down the deficit.
The media, of course, has also dropped the ball, willingly, by continually allowing, and in many instances encouraging and practicing, the double speak. But the public is not being fooled. And we will continue to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the current politicians by voting them out, on both sides of the aisle, and seeking to replace them with others that listen to what we want and demand. We will continue to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the media supporters of the politicians by turning them off and refusing to buy their newspapers, etc... We do not need to take to the streets like they are doing in Egypt. We already have the system in place to get the bastards out and we are prepared to do so in ever growing numbers with each coming election. As you will see in 2012.
Lastly, the voters need to take some of the control out of the hands of the politicians by demanding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The politicians have proven, time and again, that they are not capable of fiscal restraint. Then we can get rid of deficit spending once and for all. If the current group, on both sides of the aisle, will not stand up and pass a balanced budget amendment, then we need to start looking elsewhere for those that will take their places and get the job done. BTW, when the campaigns start up for the 2012 elections and you have a chance to question the candidates, please insist upon no more double speak and get them to commit to a balanced budget amendment before you will vote for him/her. Lets work for each other and not for them.
Disappointing.
That is how I felt about the budget proposal and while I do not think that the Republicans have presented the clear alternative as yet, they at least seem to be fairly united (the leadership at least) in thinking it did not go far enough.
I pray that for the sake of all Americans a workable compromise will be reached, understanding that both sides will likely not get all that they want and will have to give up on things that they do want.
In the aftermath of the debt commission recommendations and owing to the current level of debt and deficit, that is the single word that I would use to describe the President's budget proposal.
I am not entirely optimistic that I will have a better word for the Republican's response proposal for 2012, but for now I would say that the President is starting from a point of weakness in the negotiations.
Additionally, the Republicans are going to propose significant cuts to the spending for the remainder of 2011 (thru Sep) and they will be attaching significant spending cut requirements to the bill raising the debt ceiling.
Frankly reducing the deficit by $1.1 Trillion over ten years is just not going to cut it in the process of negotiating a budget with the opposition.
I agree with the President that we need to invest in the future and the infrastructure, but to do that and maintain fiscal sanity at the same time, more drastic and sweeping cuts are going to be required.
The President is the leader of the country and he needs to step up and lead by proposing sweeping changes to the tax codes, reform of social security and medicare and then bring the Republicans to the table to debate those entitlement plan changes and reforms. The political game of waiting for the other side to propose changes so that they can be demagogued, when everyone knows changes are needed, is juvenile and demonstrates a lack of leadership not political savvy.
Defense spending also needs to be addressed to a greater degree than $78 Billion and it is not just turn off the lights in Afgahnistan and the rest of the world and bring people home. The President needs to again lead by bringing forth a plan to reshape the global role of the American military, streamline the defense infrastructure and present it for debate.
President Obama is touted as the President of "all the people" and the time has come "to lead".
I wish him well
The president has provided a starting point for the budget discussion; I think the Republican House is going to have a plan that cuts spending much deeper and likely in different areas from the President.
The Republicans pledged to cut $100B from the 2012 budget and the President's plan proposes to save $400 Billion over ten years, which is $40B per year and achieves the $400 Billion mainly through the spending level freeze which is not likely to stay in place for five years anyway.
The President includes the $78 Billion in defense cuts that Secy Gates has already announced in his savings number.
The President does not address long term spending cuts, which will be necessary to reduce and retire the national debt and these type of cuts will likely be put in play as part of the vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Democrats (and some Republicans) have said that it is irresponsible to play around with the nation's credit rating, so I am expecting a near 100% support from the Democrats to raise the debt ceiling. The Republicans on the other hand are going to attach specific long term spending cuts and reforms to the bill to raise the debt ceiling. Again it will be interesting to see the Democratic response to this bill.
No one on either side of the aisle is yet talking about reforms to the entitlement programs (Social Security, MediCare and MEdiCaid), which will be necessary to effectively address the issue of long term debt.
The process of selling these reforms to the entitlement programs will be difficult and the key point of the message needs to be that no one already retired or near retirement will be affected by any of the changes. The ads I see on television that have elderly people saying that Republicans want to take away their social security, are irresponsible, inaccurate attack ads and should be stopped. No one on either aide is suggesting that the retirement benefits of those already retired would be changed.
Raising the retirement age to 69, gradually over the years, by 2075 is an easy fix that will add liquidity to the system and affects no one older than 6 years old. Increasing the limit of payroll that is taxed for social security (while leaving the maximum payments as they are currently) from $106,000 to $250,000 will significantly add money to the program and will not have a significant adverse effect on these high earners. There are other options to also be discussed.
There are also need to be significant reforms to the tax code (personal and corporate) that will enlarge the number of people paying taxes, eliminate many (if not all) of the deductions, credits and loopholes on order to collect the taxes due from each income level every year. A lower corporate tax (again without loopholes) will also help in business expansion.
I am sure there are other ideas, more ideas and probably better ideas, but I think these are some ideas.
Take care
great ideas, I would vote for you
@Robert you should sit in on the budget. From what I understand Republics have said the Debt ceiling won't be raised if cuts are not made for this fiscal year and for the long terms. They are supposed to have also put the 4 entitlement programs on there..again supposedly. As for those who will gripe at cutting medicare, SS, welfare, education, it has to be done in order for us to get out of this and to open it stop the bleeding. On education how much more money is being put in and are kids are not educated any better. Schools are still closing. Welfare, well for those who can but choose not to work to bad for you and for those who really need it, if the Govt does what it should to help businesses jobs will come. SS I'm fine cut it, give me my money and I will invest it at least then I know I have it, medicare...I'm kind of lost on that one it's a mess. The Govt can't keep propping up banks, people countries etc....oh yeah and remember they are thinking of doubling the UE tax on businesses????????WTF.
At least the poor Democrats are trying to come up with real solutions instead of the dog and pony show the Reoublicans have put foward.
Every President inherits problems of some sorts. At least the actions of this President and the 110 congress kept us from fallin any further. But you can not rewrite history, GWB was the worst President in American history. He left the Country in shambles, broke and divided.
@Joe,
exactly and true they won't be touched. Also it's not the Admin job to create jobs, it's their job to look at the tax code, regulations and deregulation( Glass Stegal Act) and fix those so business can create jobs.
Here are the hidden increases:
Sounds like a good start to me. Your first statement is not true however, most small businesses do not have a profit of over $250K since most are sole proprietorships.
Everyone ignored ddaryl but he is the only one I have heard make a real effort to tell the congress and president what they should do. Take the cap off of the income subject to social security taxes, raise the retirement age by 2 years, re-institute the 2000 tax rate on incomes over $250k and create a tax system that only subsidizes investments that create U.S. jobs and not just executive salaries. Who wants to add to the list?
BTW, is anybody else out there getting sick of these 10 year budget plans that the politicians constantly propose, knowing full well that the very next year they will be proposing an new budget with different spending and funding proposals that makes the last "10 year" budget entirely obsolete? Just another tactic to try and garner support for something they have no intention of ever carrying through on.
1) Any gov. employee who owes back taxes is done unless they pay up in the next 6 months. There are tens of thousands of deadbeat taxpayers in our gov. employ. 2) We have a headcount problem in government. We need to eliminate at least 100,000 heads in the entitlement departments without decreasing the level of service. This is possible; private companies do this all the time when they have too much overhead. 3) Every remaining employee takes two weeks without pay to help balance the budget. My company did this in the midst of the meltdown; no reason our government cannot do the same in this time of largess and overspending. Cancel all of the porkulus projects. We don't need high speed rail, endless subsidies for energy sources that cost 4 to 20 times as much as conventional energy. None of this makes us safer , or greener, or more competitive. China is now responsible to 50% of the world's air pollution and they have virtually no regulations. We must cancel all regulation that makes us less competitive in the world market, and eliminate the jobs that are no longer needed every time we pull back on the over regulation.
When it comes to macro and national economics, you can not apply the same rules as you apply to your household economics. It is simply stupid to even try and shows a distinct lack of economic intelligence. The mere question many of you on the right are asking - How can you spend your way out of debt? - shows that you have no clue as to how macro and national economics works.
Sshhh, you're spoiling their oversimplification.
Oops! Sorry, John. I forgot how much fodder they provide for us to write about when they do that. My bad.
I don't care who's fault it is for our current situation (Bush, Clinton, or George Washington) but our current president is OBAMA and he is in charge. Just like one of the posters said, if he was running a public company he would have been fired long time ago. I have nothing against Obama and in fact I voted for him (big mistake) but he does not know what he is doing, he is not man enough to tell the people our difficult situation and what we really need to do, he turned out to be just another greedy politician and is trying to get reelected. We can't get out of this mess by borrowing more and spending more. I think there are lot of us by now who are willing to live with less, in fact lot of us(me included) are forced to live with less but we manage to survive. Obama doesn't understand that WE ARE BROKE AND SHOULD ACT LIKE ONE and yet chooses to spend even more. What he is doing is completely unsustainable and one of these days we WILL wake up and find out that we have become Greece.
Untill foreign aid ceases unless for extreme emergencies the budget will never ever ever ever go down, point blank end of story.
Let's put the debate about Social Security and Medicare contributing to the nation's financial crisis in the proper perspective.
Money withheld from workers paychecks their entire working lives and matching employer contributions are sent to the Social Security Administration where they are then transferred to the U.S. Treasury, which then transfers the funds to other Congressionally approved programs. (1) (2)
The U.S. Department of Defense gets the lion's share of the money in the general fund to pay for the unconstitutional and illegal standing Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard, hundreds of overseas military bases, undeclared wars which benefit only the military industrial complex through the awarding of trillions of dollars in contracts to them, many of which are full of fraud, overspending and fail to meet contractual milestones and deadlines. (3)
The solution to the U.S. fiscal crisis is simple. First Congress needs to feel the heat, not the love of the American people. Congress must immediately chop defense spending to the level permitted by Article 1: Section 8: Clauses 12 and 13 of the U.S. Constitution. Defense spending funding the entire U.S. military in 2000 was $311.7 billion bucks. That year the U.S. Federal Government had a fiscal year budget surplus of $117.3 billion surplus, an increase of $38.0 billion from the 1999 surplus of $79.3 billion. (4) Since 2000 annual U.S. Defense spending has skyrocketed by over 400% to about $1.3 trillion in 2010. (5).
If members of Congress would comport their legislative budget behavior to the powers enumerated them in the afore mentioned constitutional article, annual defense spending in 2010 would have been $179 billion ($149.9 billion for the Navy and $29.0 billion for the U.S. Marine Corps), not the actual $1.03 to $1.35 trillion allocated. In comparing the rise of defense spending since 2001 against the increase in Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by taxpayer paycheck deductions and employer matching contributions, not borrowing by floating bonds increasing bought by foreign countries and investors, defense spending has eclipsed those programs. There are no paycheck deductions or employer matches from we working folks paychecks that specifically foot the bill for unconstitutional congressional funding of the Army, the Air Force or Coast Guard or the undeclared wars and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, like there are for Social Security and Medicare. Our money is being ripped off!
Opponents of my proposed limits on Congress funded defense spending are either career members of the military, civilian employees of those illegal forces, highly paid workers of defense contractors, or elected looking for campaign contributions. While millions in this nation whine about "national security" as an excuse for defending standing armies, in reality they have little or no knowledge of our founding fathers opposition to them or the military industrial complex and its threat to both the economy and our freedom. They have no knowledge that the defense of the county has been entrusted to the Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard and Unorganized Militia by both the Constitution and U.S. Code Title 10: Subtitle A: Part I: Chapter 13 : Section 311. Militia: composition and classes. (6)
Folks living under the illusion that funding the Defense Department, standing militaries, undeclared wars against foreign nations makes the US safer from attack should read and reflect on the fact the military budgets of these United States eclipses those of all other nations on the planet. Reduced to the lowest common denominator that means another nations ability to launch a successful invasion of the US with their small forces is not possible (7).
Finally, it should be admitted by everyone that the invasions of foreign sovereign nations justified by a bodyguard of carefully crafted lies, simply for the financial benefit of private industry, only engenders individual terrorist attacks against our deployed troops, and possibly in the cities of our country. Neither the invasions of, the spending in, or continued occupations of either of those nations has made this nation immune to another 9/11 type attack. (8)
Conclusion
If the Congress of the United States would cut defense spending to its Constitutionally permitted level, deposit the Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions along with employees matches in bank savings accounts untouchable by the workers unless and until they either become disabled under current law or reach retirement age the amount of money each person would have to spend would skyrocket and the government would have no duty to send out monthly checks, fund another government agency or have a annual fiscal year deficit or out year debt.
We taxpayers are being conned and scammed!
(1).What's Really in the Social Security Trust Fund by Ian Mathias. the Daily Reckoning, September 29,2010. http://dailyreckoning.com/whats-really-in-the-social-security-trust-fund/
(2).Social Security Online: Trust Fund Data. Where Are the Social Security Trust Funds?
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n1
(3). Fraud Cases Fell While Pentagon Contracts Surged. Procurement Experts Say More Investigations are Required by Nick Schwellenbach. Center for Public Integrity. April 1, 2009. http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1243/
(4). Federal Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2000. From the March 1999 Survey of Current Business by Kurt S. Bersani & Laura M. Bilenki. Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/national/0399gd/maintext.htm
(5). Military Budget of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
(6). Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute: U.S. Code. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
(7). US vs. Global Defense Spending. by Laicie Olson. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation July 23, 2008. http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/US_vs_Global/
(8).Terror threat in U.S. is highest since 9/11, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano says by Philip Caulfield. New York Daily News February 2, 2011. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/02/09/2011-02-
09_terror_threat_in_us_is_highest_since_911_homeland_security_secretary_napolitano_.html
Actually Robert, I agree with much of what you stated above. As to Congress feeling the heat, let me describe the heat they should feel. I will stay within the guidelines of facts in this argument.
Since it was Congress (both parties) that raided the social security trust fund since the Johnson administration, the trust fund is now short of funds. Bush did not do it, Regan did not do it. Clinton did not do it. And even Johnson did not do it although the practice began in his administration. The Constitution gives to Congress and only Congress the power of the purse, so for any politician to claim otherwise is not a statement of fact. When Obama was running for office and campaigned against the Bush McCain Economic policies, this too was outside the realm of facts because economic policy is controlled by Congress, not a president and a single senator and to say that is the case is simply ridiculous. It might be a good sound bite, and it might be swallowed by some of the more ignorant among us, but it is not a factual statement.
Yes, Obama inherited a financial mess, but he inherited it from Congress and the Congress he inherited it from was Democrat controlled - just more fact. I am tired of Congress and the president and basically all politicians making claims about history that are not factual, but they get away with it because the people are basically to damn lazy to educate themselves and thereby make the politicians do as they should do. They work at our pleasure and we have forgotten this.
So for my beloved Congress, the Congress that for the last 30 years has raided the social security trust fund as though it was their own little private piggy bank, balanced the budget with debt (which is not balancing a budget), wasted the taxpayers money with one pork barrel project after another, written one earmark after another, deregulated the financial industry step by ever bleeping step, all to buy votes for their party and themselves or to get campaign funds to get votes, and the country be damned, for that wonderful Congress, here is what I propose.
All retirement and benefits accrued to Congress for all members of Congress currently serving or retired are to be forfeited before one thin dime is removed from the promise of social security. This means before adjusting the retirement age, or means testing, or any other manner of default. As Treasury Secretary Geithner said in his Congressional hearings about AIG, when asked why the creditors of AIG were bailed out 100 cents on the dollar instead of taking some form of reduced payout, Mr. Geithner stated that any default no matter the magnitude could not be allowed. So if we can not allow any default regarding the banks and financial institutions that caused the biggest melt down in history, and if that was the policy of our Treasury department and Congress towards the banks, then no default can be allowed to occur that will injure the taxpayer until such time as the guilty are first made to pay. If I could force the members of Congress to repay the trust fund for all monies taken and spent on other things, I would do so even if it bankrupted every single member of Congress. For it is Congress and only Congress that has to shoulder the blame for the budget deficits, the national debt, and the raided social security trust fund.
And even now, they want to play their games and play one party against the other and continue to drive this great country closer and closer to insolvency, which is what default is, and I think we are at the point now where default has to occur. All I want to do is put the guilty at the head of the line for the haircuts that are coming because they and they alone caused this debacle.
The only other things that need to be done to balance the budget and take care of SS and Med is to: Tighten up more loopholes(interest deductions, donations, income classification, its all income, etc), Get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% and reduce the SS & MED rate from 15.2% on some income and make it 8% on all income that will make it solvent. Deficit is taken care of and SS & MED are fixed for future generations. Maybe the rich will start working harder to accumulate more money and create some jobs. They have no incentive now to invest they have more than they can spend.
Also eliminating entitlement programs as well, food stamps and welfare recipients need to pass a drug test before any consideration, drunk checks and aid to drug addicts MUST BE ELIMINATED as well. It is a small price to pay for a drug test then the millions that go to people who abuse the system.
Amen to that!!...
this is for all the whiney-poos online complaining yet not doing anything to help in their local Communties or State. If you have a better plan, then please share it with your nonsensical, opinionated banter.
Some of you have no fiscal sense and waste your time posting more than once on this story when you could be out doing something about the problems you are crying about.
Get out and do something, sissies!
This is the beauty of it all our gas bag politicians have taught us well, the American people are not certainly going to do anything about it and all the politicians continue to do is say to themselves, SUCKERS. And even if the politicians do read this crap they are going to say ya right, like to see you try. Obama has got it pretty much sewn up, the next election.
repeal tax cut to the rich and raise their taxes ......raise corporate tax....... cut tax subsidies to oil companies..cut foreign aid. cut defense budget close bases in peaceful countries
Boost education and infrastructure to create jobs and build bullet trains and wind and solar enegy to cut dependency of oil .. monorails would be great idea saves building roads and uses less space and they run on magnetics and pay to use them much like tolls
A lot of tunnel vision Ditto Heads on the board today...Haven't heard the Party of No's plan.By their own admission they don't have one. The moderates and the Tea Baggers can't reach an agreement.
Even if the Party of No won the presidential in 2008,the country would have faced the same issues Obama is facing now. Unemployment,the melt down of Wall Street,Banks,businesses and the housing mess were the big elephants in the room. They had no plan and never did...But we could see Russia from Waselia,Alasks. Thank god the origin of that statement didn't get elected.
Obama budget has a cuts in tax credits for charity. This tells me that its all political and Obama is trying to force the republicans to actually do the dirty work, addressing Social Security, Medicare and Medical.
I was hoping that Obama would have taken the reins and showed some leadership.
We can't balance the budget by targeting only 16% of the spending. Start seriously cutting defense which accounts for half the budget. We are spending 10 times what the next country spends, itis ridiculous.
I don't make over $250K, but as someone who is in the top quintile of wage earners, I think I should pay more too. Not only that, no matter where the income comes from it should be taxed. Keep it straight forward and simple.
Let's get this straight...Obama needs to listen to the Republican's and that's it! He had plenty of time to fix things on his own and look at how screwed up everything is. Yes, Bush was a bad boy too, but let's get rid of THIS bad boy that is NOW in office! He is oblivious to the problems of the people and has no intention of listening to us. He is a loser simply put. He is surrounded by POLITICIANS and we all know what POLITICIANS do - NOTHING! Give this President another two years and without some "correct help" and by that I don't mean Pelosi and Reed, our country is doomed. The man hasn't a clue. He was incompetent to start with. Let's get moving forward and cut our losses and make the representatives that are now in office WORK....they (meaning ALL of them) have failed us and we need to watch them closly. Our leader is not LISTENING! Are YOU listening? Stop talking about this and hold their feet to the fire!!
Teach Me Tonight....We can't tax increases any one making over $250K,they are the engines that create jobs. Have you forgotten Reagan's policy of "trickle down economics"? Gee, I just remember,it didn't work then and doesn't work now. It's a Party of No myth...
wow the republican criticizing the President's budget cut plan....really? what a surprise, and where is the republicans budget plan? will it have numbers on it this time?