Government Spending

Obama's Budget is no Way to Win the Future! Reason Writers Around Town: Gillespie & de Rugy on AOL News

|

Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy work through the rottenness of President Obama's 2012 budget—and the likely lame-o response from congressional Republicans.

Here's a snippet:

Far from winning the future, Obama has decided to punt on first down. Instead of dealing with federal spending that has ballooned by more than 60 percent in constant 2010 dollars over the past decade—spending pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike—the president has decided to stick with a status quo that is leading us to fiscal ruin.

In the broadest outlines, Obama proposes spending $3.7 trillion in 2012 (about the same as this year). Over the course of the coming decade, he claims that his spending plan would trim the deficit by about $1.1 trillion, with about two-thirds of theoretical savings coming from spending less than expected (such as a five-year freeze on non-security-related discretionary spending) and one-third from tax increases (on high-income earners).

Another way of putting this is that the president's plan for the next decade does nothing to balance spending and revenue; over 10 years, it adds about $8 trillion to the national debt. The key reality here is that outlays and revenues are further apart at the end of the series

Read the whole thing here!

And then read de Rugy and Gillespie on how to balance the budget over the next decade without raising taxes or cutting essential government services: "The 19 Percent Solution."

Update: Note that the chart above is different.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rent Seeking As A Corporation's Social Responsibility

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When both Andrew Sullivan and the Washington Post totally excoriate Obama over the budget, you know the wakeup call has been heard and the attitude in the country has truly shifted in favor of sanity.

    It’s time now for the children to go sit in the corner and shut up and allow the grown-ups to make the hard decisions to save the country before it’s too late.

    1. But in America, the “children” still get to vote.

      1. We’re going to do all the voting online through smartphones with butterfly ballots. Suck it, old people.

  2. Far from winning the future, Obama has decided to punt on first down.

    really? No, seriously? Using that metaphor? Is The Jacket at the cleaners, cause someone’s bringing the weak sauce with a vengeance.

    1. How’s that for a literary/English retarded doing a critique.

      1. I’m still not sure you’re typing in English.

        1. There’s an extra ed in there… for effect. It was on purpose. No really.

            1. Fucking language…how does it work?

              1. Um. It should be.

                Fuckin’ language, how does it work?

                Juss sayin’

                1. Ah yes – thanks, hmm

  3. Advertising for the second F35 jet engine isn’t going to help get us out of this mess.

  4. Now watch the leftists squeal about cutting to the bone so Obama can paint himself as a budget cutting centrist for the election.

  5. Why do we say ‘government spending’ is at 25% of GDP? Isn’t that just Federal? Add up the local D.C. imitators and doesn’t it start getting to >40% thereabouts combined?

  6. He grounds most deficit reduction in the fantasy world of increased revenues.

    Let me be clear.

    Cough it up, you wealthy fuckers.

  7. Come now Reason. MNG will tell you you have no right to criticize this. The Republicans are just as bad, so that should make you feel better about this. Right?

  8. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..ch-is.html

    Missed this on the daily links this morning. this is for sugar free

    1. That’s pretty heavily retarded.

    2. How? It basically comes down to this: I’ve been married three times. Yes, three. To a very nice MBA at 19; a very nice minister’s son at 32 (and pregnant); and at 40, to a very nice liar and cheater who was just like my dad, if my dad had gone to Harvard instead of doing multiple stints in federal prison.

      This is all my fault.

    3. Oh no, men don’t want their wives to be angry! What sexism! Womyn are much more enlightened, and are totally down with a pissed off husband!

    4. The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don’t deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to.

      Have you tried not giving a shit? Shut the fuck up or leave. Torturing him is not for his benefit.

      1. But Sugar Free, drama is in girl DNA. Victimhood is what binds us women together in this real life Amy Tan novel.

        Wait, what?

        1. I often think about becoming a tough love advice columnist, but I don’t think America is ready for that.

    5. ” The problem is not men, it’s you. Sure, there are lame men out there, but they’re not really standing in your way. Because the fact is — if whatever you’re doing right now was going to get you married, you’d already have a ring on it. So without further ado, let’s look at the top six reasons why you’re not married.

      1. You’re a Bitch.
      Here’s what I mean by bitch. I mean you’re angry. You probably don’t think you’re angry. You think you’re super smart, or if you’ve been to a lot of therapy, that you’re setting boundaries. But the truth is you’re pissed. At your mom. At the military-industrial complex. At Sarah Palin. And it’s scaring men off.

      The deal is: most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here’s what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn’t think so.”

      It sounds worse out of context (which, I should note, is the way it was presented).

      1. Actually, having finished it all the way, I thought it was a pretty good read, and not nearly as misandric as it was made out to be.

        Look for guys with character instead of superficial shit? Believe men when they say they don’t want a relationship, instead of trying to turn casual sex into something more? Don’t be a bitch, don’t be a slut, don’t be self-centered? Egads! The nerve of those womyn!

    6. The most LOL comment at the original HuffPo link, from one “Clyde Pendleton”:

      I wouldn’t waste my time with a useless pastime like marriage if I was getting paid. I don’t believe in some antique and arbitrary system that was devised centuries ago so Kings could have queens.

      “BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVES ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT OF THE HATEFUL PATRIARCHY!! THAT’S WHY I’VE STAYED SINGLE ALL THESE YEARS!”

      God, how mentally broken do you have to be to equate the completely natural human bonding impulse with monarchy?

  9. I know it’s impossible for our elected ass-clowns to actually realize that we’re in trouble and can’t continue with business as usual, but. . .we’re in trouble and can’t continue with business as usual.

    Serious and profoundly deep cuts in spending, across the board, are needed. Along with a balanced budget amendment–without exceptions and loopholes–and, I dunno, maybe a more limited scope of government as well?

    1. That is just it Pro. We really don’t need profoundly deep cuts. We could just go back to the dark ages of say 1996 and spend 19 or 20% of our now larger GDP and we would be fine. I am sorry, but I don’t find making the government live on 19% of everything the richest society in history produces to be a particularly profound sacrifice on the government’s part.

      They only are ablet to pretend the cuts are profound because they got baseline spending so far out of whack with historical norms that the norms now look small by comparison. That was the whole idea behind the stimulus. They didn’t give a shit about the economy. And none of them are smart enough to even understand Keynesian economics much less impliment it. All they wanted to do was raise the baseline spending to such a high level that any return to anything approaching normal would look radical by comparison.

      1. I just mean no b.s. cuts like the GOP proposed. And I’m not even going to mention Obama’s non-cut cuts that even offend Democrats.

        1. the kind of no BS cuts that would get us out of this are only “profound” if you havegone completely insane, which pretty much our whole political class has.

          1. Insane is where we are. It’s weird to see people defending something that is totally and obviously unsustainable. It’s not like we don’t have examples overseas to avoid replicating.

              1. Indeed.

  10. But, you see, the deficit is lower than it would have been if it had been allowed to go higher, so we’re saving the money that we didn’t spend, thus enabling us to borrow more money to spend on the higher interest payments for the national debt.

    1. Deficits saved or not created. Brilliant!

    2. Hey, just think of the deficits they’d run if we’d just let them raise our taxes.

  11. There has never been any instance on earth where the “future was won” by government engineering.

  12. President Obama wants us to win the future so we’ll have to pay the gift tax on it.

  13. Paul Krugman, the NYT economist we all love to hate, actually stated in his column last week that budget-cutters want to “sacrifice the future” of the country. I swear he writes such stuff just to make libertarians (and anyone with a brain) go apoplectic. The basic Demopublican line is just a less-explicit version of this, but since you need to impute greater knowledge to Krugman, the urge to hurl comes to the fore. I think Krugman has the Nobel in economics, but in truth he’s an expert in Orwell-speak and perhaps psychological warfare vis-a-vis his political adversaries. He’s like a modern astronomer telling us the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    1. It will be interesting to see how the Krugmans of the world deal with fundamental economic forces beyond their treasured fiat dictating the financial course of the USA.

      The illusion of control is what remains now, the loss of that – when foreign credit markets demonstrate where control truly is – will be a profound disruption to such psychologies I suspect.

    2. I swear he writes such stuff just to make libertarians (and anyone with a brain) go apoplectic.

      Did you ever read the New Yorker profile on Paulie Krugnuts? I’d say it’s a lot more likely that his wife is ghost-writing that crap for him.

      http://www.newyorker.com/repor…..acfarquhar

      “But he’s much better at that now, and these days she focusses on making him less dry, less abstract, angrier. Recently, he gave her a draft of an article he’d done for Rolling Stone. He had written, “As Obama tries to deal with the crisis, he will get no help from Republican leaders,” and after this she inserted the sentence “Worse yet, he’ll get obstruction and lies.” Where he had written that the stimulus bill would at best “mitigate the slump, not cure it,” she crossed out that phrase and substituted “somewhat soften the economic hardship that we face for the next few years….On the rare occasion when they disagree about something, she will be the one urging him to be more outraged or recalcitrant.”

  14. I told my wife last night that I’ve developed a way to save $200,000 on my family’s budget over the next ten years by investing in hookers, blow and flashy cars. I’m doing it by first planning to invest in hookers, blow, flashy cars and gaudy bling, then cutting back in a most draconian fashion on the gaudy bling.

    It’s a sacrifice, but these are hard times.

    1. You heartless bastard! We can’t cut back to 2000 levels of hookers and blow. Horny guys were dying on the streets from lack of sex, while elite libertarians did all the blow off of their monocles.

      1. And don’t forget that penile chafing and cramped fists cost the economy, uh, $317 billion a year!

  15. Anther thing that bugs me is the talking point that Obamam, Geithner and other assorted regime puppets are using is talking about the country as a “family” As in we must “invest” for the future just like a “family”.

    Neither the federal government nor the country at large is even remotely analagous to a “family”.

  16. Did anyone watch Obama’s press conference today? I caught the last 10-15 minutes while at the gym (I had forgotten my ipod and it was the only station I could find with closed captioning). Here’s my paraphase of his last answer:

    “I’m going to take credit for the progress shown by Republicans talking about entitlement spending. Since I released a budget that didn’t address this at all, they asked why it didn’t cut entitlements. So my avoidance of the issue has created [or saved] progress on the issue of the deficit.”

    1. I didn’t watch it but I’ve heard some reporting on it.

      Obama is back to peddling socialist drivel – blathering about “unfair tax expenditures”.

      Same old crap – if government refrains from raising taxes on “the rich”, that constitutes an “expenditure” in Obama’s little pin head.

  17. I often think about becoming a tough love advice columnist,

    Column names:

    “Suck It Up, Crybaby”

    “Oh, For God’s Sake”

    “Boo Hoo Hoo”

  18. Man you are a bunch of ungrateful hoz – is BO gonna havta choke a bitch? I own you. Get back to work, and shut the hell up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.