President Obama has done us all a great favor by putting out a detailed budget proposal. He has laid down an important marker over which the next campaign will be fought.
The president’s budget has been derided as political, but so what? All budgets are political in the sense that they set out what we value and our vision for the future. The president’s specificity ensures that we can’t claim to be surprised if he gets re-elected and goes through with it.
In brief, Obama proposes 10 years of staying the course. His budget would continue the tax, spend and borrow option for America. There is no hint of remorse nor any sense that some course correction might be in order.
Quick side note: This business of proposing 10-year budgets is a bad idea. It gives the impression that the president can continue to influence events once he leaves office, which of course is not true. The more distant years are always projected to have robust economic growth and low interest rates on the national debt, which excuses more spending and debt accumulation during the years the president is actually in power. Clever but fundamentally deceptive.
Obama’s budget would accelerate the current spree by spending an astonishing $47 trillion over the next 10 years. The size of the federal government would grow by 53 percent. That comes on top of a whopping 27 percent increase from 2008 (2.98 trillion) to 2013 (3.80 trillion proposed). That in turn follows a large run-up under his predecessor, George W. Bush. No wonder we’re in trouble.
This spending binge would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and yet more debt. The president proposes raising taxes by $1.9 trillion on American families and job creators. Revenue would come from income taxes, death tax increases, energy taxes and others.
Meanwhile tax credits would still be available for the well-connected. Subsidies for renewable energy, alt-fuel vehicles, “new manufacturing communities” and other Solyndra-type boondoggles would continue to flow. There would be $4.7 billion for “strengthening the teaching profession,” even though the General Accounting Office last year counted 82 duplicative “teacher quality programs.”
The president’s budget projects the national debt to be $26 trillion in 2022, which will require “only” $850 billion in interest payments. Of course, it’s historically unlikely that interest rates will still be in the 3 percent range, in which case debt service could easily be twice that.
It’s also unlikely that Obama’s folks will get a debt projection right. For example, Obama’s first budget projected a federal deficit of $557.4 billion by 2012. The White House now says this year’s actual number will be around $1.33 trillion. Whoops. That’s a 138 percent error, not close even by government standards. That wouldn’t happen again, would it?
What’s missing in this budget? Entitlement reform, the medicine that serious Americans know must be taken sooner or later. Obama hopes to buy four more years of the super-luxurious White House lifestyle by telling people what they want to hear, that they can stay in Fantasyland yet a while longer.
It’s unclear how Barack Obama claims to believe that more of his present policies will bring future results totally unlike what we have seen so far. The rate of new business start-ups has fallen to the lowest level since 1994. The real unemployment rate, which includes the under-employed and those who have given up looking, stands at 15.2 percent. A record 15 percent of all Americans are now on food stamps and nearly half of all Americans are classified as poor or low-income. All this is after we’ve spent trillions and plunged dangerously into debt in order to stimulate the economy.
The alternatives to the already failed tax-and-spend plan to regain prosperity are measures to restore economic growth through tax and regulatory reform and structural changes in our entitlements. You’ll see those in this campaign too. The contrast with the Obama budget couldn’t be more striking.
You can see why the 2012 election is considered the most critical in a lifetime. The America of the future will look very different depending on how wisely we choose today.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:29 am on Sat, Mar 17, 2012.
Sadly, this is very true, samkat.
samkat posted at 5:43 pm on Wed, Mar 14, 2012.
Guys: Lets face it. Neither party has done a dang thing towards putting forward a decent budget. Both sides are so intent on pushing party ideology that they are doing nothing but shafting the average citizen. The days of compromise seem to be a thing of the past.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:13 am on Wed, Mar 14, 2012.
VofReason ... I, personally, consider being connected to the Goldwater Institute a bad thing. But that's just my preference.
It < IS > bad to conceal an authors connection to such a high profile institution when his articles are published because it conceals important facts about the author.
In Patterson's case they, the EVT, tell people he was a doctor and a legislator but they conceal his role in an important Republican policy making organization.
The Republican party is a bunch of hypocrites. They preach personal responsibility then follow a policy of BORROW AND SPEND instead of paying the bill when they are in control of government because they don't want to pay taxes to pay for the things they do / get. THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE BILLS THEY MADE.
The Republican party preaches about less government but they want to control every individuals life ... they tell me I can't play poker on the Internet, they want to tell women they have to have babies even though they were raped, if Sanctimonius has his way they will outlaw birth control and condoms.
Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved in controlling that? Not only would we have dope police to keep people from smoking pot there would have to be condom police to prevent smuggling those evil things into the country.
FYI I would be equally disturbed if a paper published articles by .. say ... Diane Rheems ( the woman with the shaky voice on NPR ) without revealing her connection to NPR.
I advocate telling all important facts about authors whom the paper(s) present in an editorial type position.
I consider the position they put his articles on the web page to be an editorial position because they are featured and get people's attention due to their location and size.
They only put article there by people proclaiming the Republican agenda. Never an opposition statement.
VofReason posted at 1:45 pm on Tue, Mar 13, 2012.
I love how Willie throws around a connection to the Goldwater Institute like it is a bad thing. I think many people buy into the whole less Government and more self responsibility thing they tend to sponser. Aren't you for less Government and more responsibility? Dale? Willie? Or do you generally think people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and pay their own way? We may have hit paydirt.......
Rich posted at 6:41 pm on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
" ... what happens when you get a paycheck? What happens when you go to the grocery store?
Wealth is redistributed."
No Willy, money is distributed or redistributed, exchanged for wealth of one type or another possibly. Money is a medium of exchange, not wealth. For example, someone puts 60K down on a house bought for 360K. The house now constitutes wealth in their hands, let's say middle class hands. The house drops to 175K, and they lose it to foreclosure. The 'wealth' then goes to the upper class that owns the bank, at a loss of 60K to the middle class and 125K to the upper class who doesn't want it and it sits empty, though as 'wealth' it belongs to someone. Obama, by his own budget proposals can't distribute or redistribute 'wealth', only money. and when he does, he is merely diluting it, leaving him, and everybody else where they started.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:33 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
Masterrogue666 ... what happens when you get a paycheck? What happens when you go to the grocery store?
Wealth is redistributed.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:24 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Almost forgot, Obama's statement of "redistribute the wealth" still echoes in my mind. That's all the reason I need to vote against him....
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:10 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Dale wrote:
"Tom, Tom, Tom,
We're tired of hearing..." -- I take it that you're referring to "Me, myself, and I"?
[wink]
"This business of proposing 10-year budgets is a bad idea." -- I quite agree! I think ALL Presidents should plan for just their term in office.
"accelerate the current spree by spending an astonishing $47 trillion over the next 10 years." -- If true, bad idea. We need to hold or reduce.
"The size of the federal government would grow by 53 percent." -- Which basically translates into growing the welfare state. Isn't reducing money spent by the government a better idea? Increasing it is suicidal.
It's time to cut back, and/or stop throwing money down an endless well. Otherwise, we'll be like the Romans.
mnjcpa posted at 1:56 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Not going to tussle with you AZ Willie - be the smartest guy in the room. Trouble is you're only one in the room.
Rich posted at 9:18 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
"...stop spending is not a realistic alternative."
Since it hasn't been tried, it's an unknown. And thus a reasonable alternative and should be tried if for nothing more than an experiment to test the hypothesis.
The problem with government it that it has devolved into a bureaucracy that is unproductive, to cure the current problem one of two things must occur, either the private sector must produce enough more to sustain it or it must produce on it's own, and the second is rather unlikely as bureaucrats are really welfare recipients and are more often an impediment to production than producers. Furthermore, the bureaucracy continues to make rules, which have effectively broken down the legal system to anarchy. Laws on dogs and seat in cars, laws on this and that until the person who is supposed to follow them hasn't a clue as to which is legal and which illegal.
The country ceased to be a democracy or even a republic years ago. It is a bureaucracy. The career bureaucrat is more powerful than an elected representative, who is a bit of a transient, not knowing they'll still be there in as little as two years. And whatever the representative does is, in actual practice, 'interpreted' by the bureaucrat, adding to the anarchy.
Effectively, what needs to be done is to cut back the laws, to a simple understandable code. Cut back the bureaucracy if for nothing else to than curtail its power and expense.
Raising taxes and fees, just inflates the money, if it isn't produced in the first place the money remains in balance, worth less per unit because the effect of raising the price of government is to dilute the money, not create production to back it.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:42 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Rich, although it sounds nice ... stop spending is not a realistic alternative.
Government has to go on -- unless you want America to turn into Somalia where roving armed gangs are the only law.
The only REALISTIC question is --- should we be responsible people and pay the bills or should we be Republicans and borrow the money to pay the bills and pass the debt on to our children and grandchildren.
TAX AND SPEND is actually nothing more than a type of ad hominem attack. Only it isn't attacking a person it is attacking the concept of paying your bills.
TAX AND SPEND is the equivalent of getting a job to get the money for the bills. Taxes are almost the only way the government has to raise money other than borrowing.
The government COULD turn all the Interstate Highway system into toll roads.
The government COULD charge $5000 for passports passing actual costs onto the citizen.
The government COULD charge fees for a lot of things but I'm sure NOBODY would be happy if they did.
The tax system is the most equitable way of funding government any society ever devised.
SOME people are so selfish they want to live in America with all the advantages and NOT PAY FOR IT.
Well, I suppose we could make a few changes.
Instead of government paying people for the materials needed for tanks and airplanes and all the other things government needs and uses --- the government could just SEIZE the assets.
The government could try using prison labor in all the offices instead of paying salaries and benefits.
Yeah, somehow I don't think people would like that either.
All the screaming about TAX AND SPEND from right wingers is just them lamenting that they actually have to PAY for what they GET.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:30 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
mnjcpa --- Thank you --- thank you.
You have dramatically proven my point for me.
You CANNOT show that the Republicans BORROW AND SPEND is bettter than Democrats TAX AND SPEND.
All you can do is sputter and spew ad hominem attacks.
I could not ask for a better foil.
mnjcpa posted at 3:08 pm on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
Tread carefully Rich when you question Arizona Willie on taxes. You'll get logic from planet Orca.
Rich posted at 2:41 pm on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
"would you please explain EXACTLY how the Republican policy of BORROW AND SPEND is better than the Democrats TAX AND SPEND?"
EXACTLY, neither one is any good and both have failed.
Modest tax increases are like 'temporary' tax increases, in other words neither 'modest' nor 'temporary.'
We dug ourselves into a hole and ended up with two sides bickering over exactly how to keep digging. A suggestion might be to stop digging.
mnjcpa posted at 2:25 pm on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
chatman - great response. Ignore Arizona Willie - not sure what universe he resides.
mnjcpa posted at 2:16 pm on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
Dale - Debate the argument - oh wait a minute, you can’t because Patterson’s right on all accounts.
Dale's solution includes “modest” tax increases. Modest by whose standards? American businesses have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Spending is our problem Dale – not increasing taxes. The Obama administration has blocked attempts to spending reform - except in weakening the military. Our healthcare system is still broken and Obamacare will bankrupt America. Reform the tax code definitely, eliminating social issues that have been impounded in to the tax system. But throwing good money after bad doesn’t make it the right approach.
Dale’s only other solution was to give Obama another term and learn to work together. The people spoke in the 2010 mid-terms, and Obama chose to ignore the electorate and has doubled down with the same failed policies illustrating his naiveté about business and leadership. Patterson said it well with “There is no hint of remorse nor any sense that some course correction might be in order.”
Here’s what I know. The return to prosperity is through job growth. GDP growth is the single most important metric for job growth. On Obama’s watch, the U.S. is experiencing an abysmal 2% GDP growth, while China has 8-10%. The state of "underemployment" - not the phony job reports we're hearing right now - is closer to 20%. It’s no surprise - Obama's economic policies are academic, utopian, and don’t work in the real world.
Any of the CEO's I know would be fired if they ran America the way it has been run the last three years. America knows this too, and will send this group packing in November. Or said differently ~ “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Arizona Willie posted at 12:39 pm on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
chanmanduoo2, would you please explain EXACTLY how the Republican policy of BORROW AND SPEND is better than the Democrats TAX AND SPEND?
Under Tax and Spend you pay your bills as you go and don't leave them for the grandchildren to pay with interest.
Under Borrow and Spend you run up huge deficits and the grandkids get to face trying to pay them off somehow.
Oh yeah I see now --- under Borrow and Spend you get what you want without paying for it.
Hmm the Republicans are always accusing people who need social programs of sponging off the taxpayers and the Republican policy of BORROW AND SPEND sounds like sponging off the grandkids.
Very strange policy for people who are always preaching PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and telling people to get a job and PAY YOUR BILLS.
But, when it's Republicans turn to pay the bills they want nothing to do with that. No no no they say ... just BORROW the money so we don't have to pay any taxes.
Considering how Republicans tell people they should live and pay their bills -- why aren't the Republicans advocating raising taxes to pay the bills?
chatmandu002 posted at 11:32 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
The president can't produce a single year budget without a trillion dollar deficit. And the senate won't even try to produce a budget but keeps living off of the debt limit with continuing resolutions. The republicans have ideas that would work but the liberal/progressives along with the liberal MSM don't want to hear them because it doesn't fit their narrative of "tax and spend". The president has avoided any kind of entitlement reform. He is content to kick the can down the road while over reaching in his authority to rule.
The president and his party are combining the poor and middle class to form the "dependent" class. Dependent on a big government for their way in life. Now that almost 50% don't pay federal income tax, this dependent class can vote themselves more from the political party that created them.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:56 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
This tripe brought to you by the EVT which doesn't think you need to know about Patterson's connection to the ultra-right wing Goldwater Institute.
If you knew up front that Patterson was a right-wing ideologue / activist you might be able to better judge what he says.
And authored by the man who said it made " his stomach sink " when he read that unemployment was down.
Because he wants to see people losing their jobs and their homes so it will make people vote against Democrats.
Nice guy, huh?
Of course, being a wealthy retired doctor he doesn't have to worry about a job or losing his home.
I'm sure he never mentions what percentage of his income came from that program he loves to hate ---- Medicare.
Does he turn back his Social Security check?
I bet not.
But he wants to cut YOURS.
Rich posted at 8:54 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
In either case, no tax increase currently, nor increase in spending is anything other than accepting a recession and calling it normalcy. Basically saying FU to one in ten people. Call it stay the course or call it defeat but I keep my cushy job. If there is an answer, you won't find it in failed policies, so you need to switch. It at least creates a reason for effort. If that fails, then put the pressure on someone else, but especially now, do not stamp 'approved' on failure.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:34 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
Tom, Tom, Tom,
We're tired of hearing this same old Neoconservative rhetoric of "tax and spend Liberals." Truth is President Obama's tax proposals are modest and not that different from his opponents. Neither party has the answers to bring the improvements that they claim will follow. So we either swing back and forth every four years between one party and the other, or we stay the course with one and learn to work together over the next four years before we switch to the other. I'm for working together! Let's stay the course while working on those reforms you tout! Republicans will still control the House and likely the Senate, too.