Read
- Survivors pulled from Oklahoma tornado debris as toll falls
|
- Analysis: Some Republicans see new scandal in Sebelius fundraising
- Convicted U.S. killer Arias would join tiny death row group
- Drop in U.S. underground water levels has accelerated -USGS
- Israel fires back at Syria after gunshots at its troops
Reuters Photojournalism
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
Devastated by tornado
A huge tornado tears through the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, killing dozens. Slideshow
Sponsored Links
Obama budget sets up election-year tax fight
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called on Monday for new spending to boost growth and higher taxes on the rich, laying out an election-year vision for America in a budget that drew heavy fire from Republicans for failing to curb huge deficits.
Obama's 2013 spending proposal is expected to go nowhere in a divided Congress and is widely seen as more of a campaign document that frames his economic pitch to voters and seeks to shift the focus from deficits to economic growth.
It fleshed out a major theme of his re-election campaign: "economic fairness." Obama wants wealthier Americans to bear more of the burden of slashing a federal deficit that was a trillion plus dollars for a fourth year in a row.
The $3.8 trillion budget proposal is a "reflection of shared responsibilities," the Democratic president said at a campaign-style event in Annandale, Virginia, referring to his call for a minimum 30 percent tax on millionaires.
Obama would like to use revenue from the so-called "Buffet Rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, to replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is aimed at ensuring the wealthy pay at least some tax but is now catching many middle class taxpayers.
In one of his best platforms to lay out his economic priorities before the November 6 election, Obama called for more than $800 billion for job creation and infrastructure investment, including billions of dollars for roads, railways and schools. Analysts were skeptical of the proposals.
"This is all politics; there is no fundamental strategy. This does not answer any of the warnings we saw from S&P," said William Larkin, fixed income portfolio manager at Cabot Money Management in Salem, Massachusetts.
Standard & Poor's ratings agency last year cut the United States' top-notch AAA credit rating, citing concerns that Washington lacked the political will to tackle rising debt levels.
The annual budget deficit was projected at $1.33 trillion in fiscal 2012, or 8.5 percent of gross domestic product, falling to $901 billion in 2013, or 5.5 percent of GDP.
"The president's budget is a gloomy reflection of his failed policies of the past, not a bold plan for America's future. It is bad for job creation, our economy, and America's seniors," said House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress.
Republicans also highlighted Obama's pledge in 2009 to halve the deficit by 2013, a target that he has failed to meet. The White House argues the depth of the recession he faced when he took office demanded emergency spending, and that it was more important to protect growth than impose austerity measures to trim the deficit.
Obama's plan sets aside money to hire more teachers, police and firefighters and invest in manufacturing, while extending tax breaks to spur hiring, in an appeal to voters who remain worried about the economic recovery.
"At a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track," Obama said.
Republicans paint the president as a tax and spend liberal while Obama, who will take his plan on the road later this week in a trip to Wisconsin, California and Washington state, casts them as the party of the rich.
The budget projects deficits remaining high this year and next before starting to decline, meaning more borrowing that will add well over $7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
DEAD ON ARRIVAL
Congress is free to ignore the plan and Republicans, who control the U.S. House of Representatives, have made clear that it will be dead on arrival as their party prepares an election battle over taxes, spending and the size of the government.
Presidents' budgets are frequently ignored by Congress, which writes the laws that appropriate the funds to keep the government running, and his last budget was also not passed.
Many of the ideas have been outlined in Obama's' previous budgets or laid out by him in September. These include tax increases to raise $1.5 trillion and spending cuts that together would lower the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years.
"Obama's budget is an insult to the American taxpayer," said Mitt Romney, frontrunner for the Republican nomination to face Obama in the November presidential election and one of the richest men to ever run for the White House.
Obama urged that George W. Bush-era tax breaks for families earning over $250,000 a year be allowed to expire at the end of 2012, while capping deductions these wealthier Americans are allowed to make for things like mortgage interest payments.
He also proposed raising the tax they pay on dividends to the level of their income tax, which would advance to almost 40 percent from 35 percent if the tax break expires, instead of the capital gains rate that is currently 15 percent.
That is roughly the tax rate Romney will pay this year, because most of his income is from investments. Obama also reiterated his plan to end a so-called carried interest loophole that allows fund managers' earnings to be taxed at that level.
Obama plans slashing $487 billion from defense spending, the first cuts since 1998, and outlined $800 million to aid transformation in the Middle East and north Africa after last year's Arab Spring uprisings.
Republicans complained Obama was taking credit for $1 trillion in deficit reductions that were already in place from a bipartisan deal last year to raise the U.S. debt limit.
They also dismissed as a "gimmick" $800 billion in savings from ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that meant counting money that was never going to be spent.
(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan, Susan Heavey, Caren Bohan, David Lawder and Kim Dixon in Washington, Chris Reese in New York; Editing by Ross Colvin and Cynthia Osterman)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
The same thing goes for calling Obama a “liberal”. Obama is a liberal in the same manner that a lake is a waffle; there is practically nothing in common between the two. Obama is; has always been a moderate conservative, who leaned toward the centre at first, but went further to the right during his first term as he allowed the Republican Bullies to waltz all over him.
The best we can expect in his second term is perhaps some more of that centralist leaning he showed in 2008. There isn’t a single left-leaning person running for president.
1 ) Obama wish’s to tax the rich more to the tune of about $75 Billion a year over the course of 10 years. Now we know this is projected out so in reality all the tax increase is likely to generate ‘this’ or ‘next’ year is about $65 Billion. Now lets just rationally look at this as a portion of the budget of the United States. It would pay for THIS YEAR of the $3.73 Trillion that we are expected to spend this year, it knocks it down to $3.665 Trillion… Why is this so high on the Democrats Priority list?
2 ) The 2% payroll tax cut if it is allowed to expire would generate about $130 Billion. So obviously the entire issue of ‘raising taxes’ on the rich does not actually have anything to do with budgetary reforms.
3 ) Since the CBO had already projected an end to War spending how is winding down the wars really a budget cut? Perhaps I am mistaken but I agree with Republicans in this that something is rather dumb about including those in your ‘budget cut’ projections lol.
4 ) Infrastructure is important, however unlike China, we have an infrastructure, If all he is trying to do is create jobs there are MUCH cheaper ways of going about it and to be honest UNLESS we stop the off shore bleeding of our industrial output, any ‘stimulus, will only get us into deeper problems. He needs to reform regulation that has pushed industry away, not simply throw money at the problem and hope that it will go away. Oh throwing money at it will ‘help’ but not much.
5 ) Yeah, look his unemployment numbers suck. Yes they went down, but mainly due to the participation rate of the labor force being the lowest that it has been since what early 80′s late 70′s? Here is the real measuring stick. In 2007 we had 148 Million people employed. Last month we broke 142 Million. Now consider this in 2007 we had a revenue of $2.568 Trillion this year we will be lucky to be at $2.3 Trillion.
In the end the only thing that matters is SUSTAINABLE job growth which the president believes he can buy through economic stimulus. He is correct, he can. But he is going about it ALL wrong. He is in addition to all this NOT encouraging the kinds of reforms that need to happen to fix the real issue with the economy. All the while holding up the picture of the ‘rich’ as the solution to fix our deficit issue. So the President says, ‘Lets spend $800 Billion more in the next couple years, oh but don’t worry we will tax the rich $64 Billion so it’s paid for.’ WHAT???
Come on people. Stimulus works but this is simply sad. The honest truth is you want to ‘fix’ the economy, figure out a public sector job that is low enough paying that people would not want to stay in it for very long, say a teachers aide, decide how many people you would hire for it ( say 2 per full time teacher? so around 6 million of them ) lets say at $25,000 per year ( the Government would break even on the Social Security Contributions and take back about $1,000 in income tax ) for a total cost per job of about $24,000.
Heck at that cost you employ six million people a year, for only a paltry cost of $144 Billion a year, raise it up to $150 Billion for some overhead. Set a twilight on the entire thing to stop hiring after the third year, Allow states to take over funding if they find that it helps their students, allow natural attrition to take place and at the end of five years cut the funding allowing ample opportunity for everyone to know that the jobs will be going away. A program that lasts 5 years with a pessimistic price tag of $750 Billion and cuts the ‘unemployment’ rate down to 4.4%.
Viola. Of course this is simply an example. I am sure it would not work, but hey we threw $800 Billion at the problem last time and got about a million jobs out of it so I feel pretty confident that this would work a sight better than what they are currently trying to do.
Invest in Social and Economic infrastructure, not roads and bridges that we already have. Infrastructure projects are good, don’t get me wrong, but there is MORE than one kind of infrastructure.
Oh technically most of the ‘teachers aides would only be working for 10 months out of the year for a ‘take home’ of $24,000. That equates to a ‘salary’ of closer to $30,000 per year, but rather than compensating in money ALLOWS FOR TIME TO FIND BETTER EMPLOYMENT.
Again, just my own thought, sure it is a bad idea, but one never knows.




Follow Reuters