GOP Point Out Obvious: Obama Budget Just a 2014 Election Blueprint — Budget Update

All spending

UPDATE (9:00 a.m. ET 3/5/14): Republicans and anti-deficit groups have slammed the president's proposed budget. Republicans say the proposal is little more than a tool for Congressional elections this November, while deficit hawks are dismayed by the tax-and-spend mentality exhibited in the proposed budget.

UPDATE (11:40 a.m. ET 3/4/14): President Obama's $3.901 trillion budget proposal has been released. It includes more taxes on the rich and an expansion of tax credits for the poor and middle class. 

UPDATE (8:15 a.m. ET, 3/4/14): According to the White House President Obama's 2015 budget proposal will include a $60 billion expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

UPDATE (2:39 p.m. ET 2/26/14): The Pentagon's plan to scrap the entire A-10 Thunderbolt fleet is being resisted, with some citing concerns about the effect the move will have on military bases and contractors. 

Previous coverage: President Obama is reportedly expected to push for a new $302 billion transportation bill later today, according to Politico, which notes that it's unclear whether the president will actually "offer a full reauthorization proposal — for the first time in his presidency — or simply a 'vision.'"

The move appears to be part of Obama's pre-2014 election push to spend more: not only is his 2015 budget filled with tens of billions of dollars of new spending, any pretense of trying to control the growth of entitlement spending has been dropped.

The president is expected to submit his proposed 2015 budget on March 4th, more than a month after the statutory deadline, which this year was February 3rd.

Coverage from Reason

J.D. Tuccille looks at the president's budget and finds it to be a pricey big government wet dream.

Comments

[Bardas Phocas]

ROADZZZZ!!!!111!!!

[iEagleHammer]

Jesus H. Tap dancing Christ.

Last time they passed spending on roads ("stimulus") they RUINED ALL of the local bridges they worked on.

The worst part is that they were just working for the sake of working. They ground off nice, smooth concrete and put really shitty rough concrete with piss poor transitions back on. They did nothing to effect the structural integrity of the bridges. Meanwhile, a bridge in terrible condition about a half mile from where they worked, and on the same highway, got no attention at all.

[Steve G]

"$300B? LOL"

/Farm Bill

[Geoff Nathan]

Well, the A-10 is an actual functioning aircraft that does its job very well (mind you, its job is killing tanks--one of its nicknames is 'can opener'). It's being phased out in favor of the F-35, a non-actual, not-very-well functioning monstrosity that is years behind schedule, runs too hot to take off from a carrier and costs WAY more than it was supposed to. Are we surprised at the ranking?

[JWatts]

There's truth to what you say, but the A-10 is an old airframe and the flight time on the aircraft is pushing a lot of the planes into obsolescence.

Regardless of where the money is spent the A-10's will have to be replaced eventually. They are ground attack aircraft, not high altitude bombers like the B-52's and as such they accumulate a lot more wear and tear.

There was a push to get rid of the A-10 during the early 2000's made by Rumsfeld. I, like many, thought it was silly to get rid of such an excellent plane. However, 12 years later, they are getting long in the tooth.

And frankly, Drones can pretty much entirely replace their functionality for a reduction in cost.

[Free Society]

The military is just another government program, but a particularly murderous one.If they are less able to murder than before all the better.

[iEagleHammer]

"And frankly, Drones can pretty much entirely replace their functionality for a reduction in cost"

Here I think you nailed it. There will be complaints about pilots jobs... but whatever. This is the most likely reason the A10 could go away.

The A10 won't go away though, even if this plan goes through. The F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15, that never happened either. If you have such an excellent aircraft, why not use it? Plus they are relatively inexpensive (compared to the F-22 and especially the F-35).

[Eric S. Harris]

Well, what's more important, the taxpayers or the tax-eaters who live off them?

[optimusratiostultum]

A-10's are just fine for ground attack, and it would be way cheaper to build new ones than all of the R&D for the F-35, which is exactly why the military-industrial complex wants them gone, they want the money.

Drones can't really replace them because drones can't carry anywhere near that kind of ordinance, nor mount a 30mm gatling gun. besides you still need pilots for drones too.

Apaches can fill the same role however they are more vulnerable to ground fire since they are slower, though this also makes them more effective at engaging targets.

There is little reason to "keep up with the Joneses" during peace-time when we are fighting terrorists in caves (indeed a hellfire missle can be mounted on a Cessna as easily as a drone) when WWIII erupts we can always jump into R&D just like we did in WWII and save the money in the meantime.

[R C Dean]

when WWIII erupts we can always jump into R&D just like we did in WWII

The "cycle time" for bringing a new airplane into use in WWII was extremely short - no more than a couple - three years, if memory serves. Nowadays, the cycle time is much, much longer, and I wouldn't want to bet on it magically getting short enough to make a difference during an actual war.