Obama's Budget: More Phantoms than a Lon Chaney Flick
The AP does a fact check on Obama's budget and concludes that like all such documents, this one is full of "phantoms."
When a president introduces a budget, there are always phantoms flitting around the room. President Barack Obama's spending plan sets loose a number of them.
It counts on phantom savings from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's underpinned by tax increases Republicans won't let happen and program cuts fellow Democrats in Congress are all but certain to block.
Specifically, Obama counts $850 billion in war savings and pushes a chunk of that "savings" toward road construction. The problem is that since the wars are being paid for by borrowing, there's no peace dividend this time around. And that's assuming defense spending goes down as planned.
Then there's this. The budget
Forecasts healthy growth in years ahead, with GDP growth predicted to reach a robust 4 percent in 2014 and 4.2 percent in 2015….
Last year, the administration built its proposed budget on a projection of 2.7 percent growth in 2011; it turned out to be 1.7. The forecast for 2012 was 3.6 percent, which the White House lowered in the new budget to 3 percent. IHS Global Insight, a leading forecaster in Lexington, Mass., projects 2.1 percent.
Rosy scenarios of economic growth are pervasive in government planning. They rarely come to pass.
The AP story also notes that the budget assumes that taxes will go up on the wealthy ("a non-starter before the election") and also that programs favored by influential congressfolks will be cut or zeroed out (no chance).
More on the budget from Reason here. The short version: flat spending for next year, but higher taxes on the rich. And lots more deficits and debt over the next decade.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In other words he proposed a budget that anyone with half a brain should realize has a 0% chance of being passed.
Of course, he'll probably use that failure to pass a budget to demogogue against a "do nothing congress". Sad thing is it will probably work on a lot of voters. God I hope the Mayans were right and we only have to put up with ~11 more months of this shit.
House Republicans will likely pass their own budget soon. The Senate will do nothing because Senate Republicans don't have enough votes to pass a budget and Senate Democrats don't want to go on record as being either for or against Obama's ridiculous farce.
Obama will blame Congress. The House will blame the Senate and Obama. The Senate will blame the House. It's a Win-Win-Win situation for Team Purple.
obama proposed a political budget which should surprise no one since every move from this WH is political. His administration has not come out of campaign mode since '08.
What is said is the gutlessness of Repubs, who let themselves get dragged into BS like the payroll tax cut instead of saying:
--we favor tax cuts but let's be honest and call this one the SS Defunding Act
--if POTUS really wants to cut taxes, leave income rates alone or lower them, and stop monkeying with gimmick approaches like this
--we realize the president has purposely put forth a budget that will not succeed so he can use that as a campaign tactic
But they won't because they're Repubs, the party of no heart, no spine, and no balls; the party that threw its own cut-the-spending freshmen under the bus; and, the party intent on foisting a statist like Ricky from PA on us.
"we favor tax cuts but let's be honest and call this one the SS Defunding Act"
Shit, I'd look at it as a boon. You get an excuse to either cut SS or paint it as being in crisis and in need of saving/reform; and you get to blame it on Obama for cutting the funding.
happy Valentine's day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O'm=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.
Saw my first "Obama 2012" sticker on a car today. My first thought was - "Wow, really?"
An Obama win would certainly be depressing, but Mittens would be a clusterf*ck too.
I forgot where I recently read this, but America is now a post-Constitutional Republic. It's nothing but downhill from here on out. Thank you, FDR, plus all the nanny-staters, leftists, socio-conservatives, etc etc for destroying the best thing that was ever born through the darkness of history.
An Obama win would be very depressing. But here is my thinking on that. A Romney win would be worse because it would do to small government types what Obama did to the anti-war movement. It would make all the policies they claim to hate bi-partisan.
Would Romney be better than Obama? Sure. But he wouldn't be that much better. In my experience governing always pushes people left never right. Someone who runs as a radical conservative ends up governing as a centrist. Someone who runs as a centrist ends up governing as a leftist and so forth. So Romney being a centrist would govern as a moderate leftist. But his having an "R" after his name would ensure that the media would blame the continued collapse of the country on his "radical rightwing agenda". For thereafter we would hear two arguments from the media and Democrats; even Romney admitted that we needed to do this, and we tried radical small government for four years and look what it got us.
I think we might be better off letting Obama complete the job of discrediting liberalism. In the end, I think the country is stronger than Obama's desire and ability to destroy it.
Re: John,
It may even lead to a constitutional amendment limiting a president's term to just one, a la post-FDR.
but the question remains - will the collateral damage that accompanies the destruction of liberalism be beyond repair? Entitlement is a tough habit to break and when half the country has no fed income tax liability, demanding that it put skin in the game makes demagoguery easy.
We need a federal recall right.
This has been my position all along!
Romney will be used as an excuse to trash small government/libertarian thinking. OHMIGOD we tried austerity and it like totally didn't work.
The best argument against is from a friend who said, "Can you imagine how smug a two-term Obama would be?" Still, I'll take the smug over some hope for the future.
A second term Obama would be completely out of control. He would do God knows what kind of crazy and unpopular shit. But I am not sure how that ends well for Democrats.
Obama is unpopular right now. He got them their worst defeat since the Civil War in 2010. President's always lose seats in Congress in the off year of their last term. Let Obama run a muck for two years and see what kind of a blood bath there is in 2014.
Also, Obama becomes a lame duck the day he is sworn into his second term. That means the media has no reason to help him win again. And they might start actually doing their jobs to preserve a fig leaf of objectivity. I can't see how a second Obama terms wouldn't end in disaster for the Democrats.
He would have a Republican congress, so I don't think he would be out of control. There's the SCOTUS appointments, that's a big downside, but overall I think it's better in the long term to let him fuck things up for another four years.
Of course more damage will occur, but the point is the long term.
Everyone talks about the Court. But two points. First, Suiter and Stevens were both Republican appointments. There is no guarantee Romney wouldn't screw up an appointment. Second, the only justice who is likely to retire soon is Ginsburg, who is a reliable liberal. I can't see Scalia or Thomas quitting with Obama in the White House. So really 2016 is the big SCOTUS election not 2012.
Yeah, I think you are right, John, the SCOTUS thing isn't that big of a deal.
Isn't Kennedy 75? So's Scalia. Not unknown for 75-79 year olds to retire, or die on the job. Which is one of the problems I'd have with a Paul Presidency, BTW.
Not to mention all of the lower judicial levels that Obama would get to appoint. As well as deciding whether we get to put up with Bernanke as Chairman for another 4 years.
Stevens stayed on there until he was 90. Scalia hasn't had any health issues I know of. It is a pretty cushy job being a justice. Chances are he would make it.
And I think Romney would re-appoint Bernanke.
Rehnquist was 81 when he kicked it. Powell was 80 when he left, and doddering for who knows how many years at the end. Douglas was 76 when the stroke got him.
Just saying, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Obama will be picking one of their successors. And jeez, if he thought Kagan was a suitable candidate...who'll he pick in a 2nd term? (shudder)
"they might start actually doing their jobs to preserve a fig leaf of objectivity"
Thats a stretch John. Hence the major problem. You have journalist, acedemia (who write the history books and teach the teachers), and celebraties (who hold more sway than would be possible in an intelligent society), all willing to lie and basically just make shit up if it helps their cause. Add that to a populace who believe all of these "experts" and have a very superficial understanding of WTF is going on and you have a a discrepancy with were the blame for all of this is put versus were the blame actually belongs. We're in a propaganda situation where the left could have the presidency and a veto proof house and senate, and the right would still be blamed by the afformentioned aholes for everything bad that happens. And people would buy it.
He needs to go. For two reasons: First, both parties need to see that there are consequences for playing the lyre while Rome burns.
Second, we can't afford another Obama SCOTUS appointment or, for that matter, more lower court appointments.
Romney would suck, but I think the distrust of him among Republicans--including elected Republicans--is so high that he'll give us some of the divided government we crave.
Our country isn't in trouble because of Obama. It's in trouble because of all the people who vote for Obama and politicians like Obama. So, yeah, if we let Obama drive the country into the ground, enough of those voters might come around. I'm not sure that will happen, though. I'm sure many people were thinking the same thing when Carter drove the economy into the ground. Here we are 30+ years later, still fighting against both sides for our liberty. And we're still losing a little bit more every day.
In short: Who cares if Obama discredits modern liberalism for the next generation. It will only be replaced by modern conservatism.
The GOP hasn't spent near enough time in the wilderness. They didn't deserve to win in 2010. They only won because the Democrats were so bad something had to be done. Let them lose another election with a "next guy in line" big government Republican candidate. It is the only way to reform them.
And yeah, there are a lot more problems in this country than just Obama. But the only way people ever learn is through experience. Four more years of Obama might get them to wake up. And if it doesn't, we are screwed anyway.
I've seen one or two. Most notably on the car of a coworker who actually has a little Obama shrine in her office.
Is she...[whispers]...black?
Not sure that would matter.
It's OK. You can tell us. Nobody will accuse you of tribalism.
Please explain to me, in explicit terms, why it should matter.
We will take that as an affirmative.
You're free to make whatever assumptions you think are important, regardless of their relevance to the discussion.
It is obviously important to you, or you would not feel a need to keep it a secret.
Why is it important to you? I'm not the one who brought race into this discussion.
Despite having the disaster of this weekend still fresh in their minds, the compulsion to feed trolls remained strong in certain segments of the commenters.
Generally I don't include sarcasmic in the ranks of the trolls but it's beginning to look like I erred in judgment. Also, I didn't take part in the weekend debacle.
Yup.
Let us review:
>Female
>Obama sticker on car
>Obama "shrine" in office
>Probably but not necessarily black, 'cause that would be racist
The suspense is killing me.
That, and the Xanax and quart of gin.
Not sure that would matter.
-----------------------------
of course, it matters. If she's black, it makes a lot more sense. If she's white, then she's just plain stupid and her overall intelligence is called into question.
My bet is that she's both black and just plain stupid.
Anyone with an Obama shrine in their office is either stupid or suffering from some form of battered wife syndrome, regardless of skin color.
Hit me again O! And this time put some stank on it!
"Affleck was da bomb in Phantoms, yo!"
"Word, bitch! Phantoms like a mother fucker!"
There's also the implausible assumption that the Senate will actually pass a budget.
[::blank stare::]
That budget is as serious as these comments.
I didn't know that Lon Chaney portrayed Speaker Pelosi in a movie. He really was pretty talented.
Lon Chaney? I thought he said Dick Chaney...
I'm seeing more of a Waxman vibe here. Nancy's not shy about getting some work done.
Even with that makeup, he's nowhere near as hideous as Waxman.
You fail to see his genius. Once we become a third world country everything will be fairer. Everyone according to their need. Except for the vanguard cause some animals are more equal than others. Stupid Americans with your "freedom" and "liberty". Pshaw.
Once we become a third world country, people like Obama won't have to worry what the proles have to say about anything. Life is much better as an elite in say Argentina than it is in the United States. In Argentina nothing ever changes and the rich and powerful stay that way. In America the lowers are always getting the idea that they have a right to move up.
That is their goals. They have to destroy the existing structure first though. Build the new out of the shell of the old as they say. What's sad is that there are so many people that buy into their bullshit and are ready and willing to follow them off that cliff.
That is why they want so many illegals. The Democrats had two years of unhindered control. They could have done amnesty and opened the borders. And they didn't. And it wasn't because they were not willing to pass unpopular things. They sure were willing to die for Obamacare.
They didn't do it because they want those people to be here and be illegal. Illegals stay in their place.
True, I think there are other reasons as well. Mexicans have always been more sympathetic to socialism and labor movements than Americans. Due to those sympathies and the lack of education,I think the left believes they will be more ripe for la revolution. Whether that is true or not is left to be seen. A lot of Mexicans are very entrepreneurial and Mexicans are also probably more socially conservative so that strategy could backfire, but once you give all power to "The Councils" your beliefs won't matter anyways.
In Argentina nothing ever changes
That's right. Exactly the same since 1516!
Most likely the same forecasts that foretold of an unemployment level that would not go beyond 8%... and something about greenshoots, although it could also have been about peyote.
#40 Dollars -money saved by not donating to Reason
We don't need your stinkin' $40.
The White House@whitehouseReply
Retweet
Favorite
? Open
What would #40dollars less a paycheck mean to you? http://youtu.be/V72hLwHcRd0
View video
https://twitter.com/#!/search/#40dollars
The comments are fun
Forecasts healthy growth in years ahead, with GDP growth predicted to reach a robust 4 percent in 2014 and 4.2 percent in 2015....
And the real question is, where will that growth come from--actual production or more deficit spending?
Keep in mind that those miniscule GDP growth numbers were bolstered by deficit spending rates of 8-12%. That's a piss-poor rate of return.
If you take the "G" out of the GDP calc, it's pretty clear the economy is in the crapper. "G" is trampling every other factor into the dust.
Not to mention that "growth" forecasts include the government spending, something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It was a tough decision, but once I determined to forego buying the Aston Martin DB9, it really freed up a lot of room on my credit card. All those monthly payments I'm not sending to Aston really add up. I'm thinking of chartering a plane to Switzerland next month; I've always wanted to do spring skiing in the Alps.
See, PB, you're just not smart about spending. Me, I budgeted in a Veyron for 2012, then scaled all the way back **to** the DB9 in a fit of selfless austerity, my flint-hearted wife not signing on to the Bugatti.
Your purchase of that DB9 represents nearly a million dollars worth of austerity. You heartless bastard.
I once got seasick. I was cured when someone stuck a nickle between my teeth and leaned me over the rail.
The Veyron is a technical marvel. But I wish that VW, if they were going to bring back the Bugatti name had done a different car. Bugatti was know for making light maneuverable cars. He called Bentleys tanks. It really doesn't fit the Bugatti name to create a twin V6 monster.
That's nothing. I saved $500 billion by tightening my belt and not building a space elevator.
The Veyron is a shitbox. It weighs as much as a fucking Suburban. That's as much as I need to know.
But it goes 252 miles per hour at that weight. That is amazing. It is a technical marvel. But I can't imagine any reason to own one.
lol, I never thought about it like that dude.
http://www.Dot-Privacy.tk
So I get it now. I can just project to get a raise this year, though my boss said no raises for anyone this year. With that projection, I can afford the new Plasma TV, pay off my mortgage and car. I had no idea that the economics professors I had in college were wrong?!
Rosy scenarios and deficit spending are no way to go through life, son.