President Obama has delivered his address on the 2012 budget. Predictably, conservatives will denounce it as being vague and lacking detail. Sure it was. And predictably, liberals will hail it as giving direction to Congress as to what he will not sign into law in an effort to protect social programs. Surely it did. But the president made it abundantly clear that even cuts to spending in these social programs remain on the table.
All must sacrifice. Last year's continuation of Bush era tax cuts will not be renewed.
Is the executive branch supposed to hammer out the details of all legislation? Isn't that the job of debate among the legislators? Didn't this speech merely kick the can down the road another two years? Perhaps. But the president proposed a mechanism to monitor targets for spending reduction and that if those measures finally selected by the legislature do not meet these targets, tough cuts would kick in so that the can is not kicked again.
He spoke of why he rejected the Paul Ryan plan. It would mean making fundamental changes in Medicare, changes on the funding side without making changes on the cost side. Cost increases have required annual funding increases. Where recently passed health care program changes seek to lay the groundwork for future cost reductions, President Obama made it clear that as long as he is president, reductions in costs will be the focus of health care reform.
Where Secretary Gates has already found $400 billion of unnecessary defense spending, President Obama has called for another $400 billion. The implication is clear. After reviewing Defense Department missions for further cost reductions, eliminating those which appear unnecessary, if an additional $400 billion is not found, costs will be cut anyway.
The president of the United States is commander in chief of the military and the nation's chief executive officer. No good executive officer micromanages his subordinates' duty to accomplish the assigned mission. Today's speech was that of a leader, a commander in chief. The chief has spoken. The cost reduction goals have been assigned. Let the debates amongst the legislators and within the executive branch begin.
Dale Whiting, Chandler
Slabside posted at 3:10 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
"The president of the United States is commander in chief of the military"
And his experience comes from stapling communitee activist posters to telehone poles, receiving his political direction from a docmented terrorist and sitting in Reverend Wright's America hating racist church for 20 years. What a resume! My son is a Marine and you would not want to hear his opinion on the CIC. His opinion is shared among the Corps.
"Today's speech was that of a leader"
Oh puleeeeeze! BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Easy stomach... EASY.
"The cost reduction goals have been assigned"
Yes, taxes will be raised on middle class Americans making less than $250,000 a year even though BHO's campaign promises said it wouldn't happen. Another Obama lie.
If Obama wade a sudden turn to the right or left the noses of some would be immediately broken. [wink]
Accuracy posted at 4:09 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
President Obama on Wednesday presented big government path of higher spending, more debt, and massive tax increases.
Concerning debt-reduction plan, Obama lashed out at Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan that would cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years, primarily through reductions in federal spending. The plan proposes to reduce top income and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Obama says it places too heavy a burden on the middle class - and doesn't require wealthy Americans to pay enough taxes.
Ignoring that Congress will have to make a decision sometime in May before the debt limit of $14.3 trillion is reached.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:38 pm on Wed, Apr 13, 2011.
GLAD TO SEE THAT NO "CAPS" WERE USED IN THE LETTER DESCRIBING OBAMA'S TITLES. HE HASN'T EARNED THEM.
THE REST OF THE LETTER WAS ONE BIG..........."DEMOCRAT YAWN"...JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE ABOUT SOME OFF THE WALL "IVORY TOWER" GOVERNMENT GRANT LOOKING INTO WHY CHIMP OF A PARTICULAR CLAN ALL YAWN IF THEIR CLAN LEADER YAWNS.........EVEN ....JOE "BITE ME" BIDEN, OUR ERSTWHILE ...VICE-PRESIDENT WAS ...DOZING OFF...WHEN HIS CLAN LEADER WAS YAWNING AWAY AT THE TELEPROMPTER....TRYING HIS ...WEAK-CHINNED BEST TO LOOK LIKE......F.D.R. (EVEN ON CRUTCHES OR USING CANES....F.D.R....WAS 100 TIMES THE MAN ....BARACK BARRY HUSSEIN SOETORO OBAMA COULD EVER HOPE TO BE).
wdgnas posted at 4:59 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
if the "job creators" want their tax breaks, the tax breaks should be tied to the number of jobs they create. but that would mean oversight and that is as nasty a word as taxes is to a republican.
Rich posted at 7:11 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
Any plan worth anything at all would eliminate the need to raise the debt ceiling. Anything else is a future pie in the sky con job. With Obama is bandaid, raise the debt ceiling, I get re-elected and we forget about it.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:06 am on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
Rich, since any plan which avoids having to shut the entire federal government down in totality would require raising the debt ceiling, how do you reconcile your opening statement with reality? Are the only plans which have worth only those plans which call for freezing spending, seeing our credit rating drop, and us as a nation crumple to pieces?
Rich posted at 1:33 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
"...since any plan which avoids having to shut the entire federal government down in totality would require raising the debt ceiling," A) That's not true, That's just a fiction of those in power wanting to retain power and have money to spend. B) If you read Obama's position BEFORE he was Pres. you'll find he knows it isn't wise. C) The national credit is in real trouble beyond 19% of the GDP, as we've proven in the past and we are more likely to crumple raising the ceiling than to be sure we live below it until the GDP rises to sustain it.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:44 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
Even Paul Ryan's plan requires raising the debt ceiling beyond $14 trillion. We hit the ceiling in a few weeks. Once we hit it and do not raise the ceiling, we cannot borrow any more money. We would then have to pay as we go. That would require shutting down about 25% of the government. And most of government spending is in benefit transfer payments, i.e. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. The next largest segment is Defense Spending. The fuss over FY 11 budget cuts addressed so called discretionary spending, about 12% of the total. But cutting much out of Defense spending will mean laying off DoD workers or DoD contractors or Military. Other cuts will also lay off Federal employees. We are not buying many golden toilet seats these days.
Presently we are considering cost reductions to approach a $4 trillion reduction over the next 12 years. This would level us out, making it feasible to start paying back principle. Are you saying you wish to stop borrowing now and start living on something less such that we start paying off Bush 43's debt load now?
Rich posted at 10:56 pm on Thu, Apr 14, 2011.
The National debt started when Hamilton was Treasury secretary, it is basically a component of how the government operates. Shutting down 25% of the federal government is a great idea and contrary to what you are told, there is about 30% redundancy currently so 25% is a tad low. And golden toilet seats? There's always a ton or two in retrospect, but none in evidence when they want more money. They always tell you it's something you consider necessary when they want more, but it's never so. Government bureaucracy is twice what it needs to be. Earmarks boondoggles and pork are over 25% all by themselves. But the sad fact, historically is that when debt surpasses 19% of GDP everybody suffers, Obama overspent, Bush stayed within the limits. This (inappropriate term) they're feeding everyone is just that, inappropriate, it's the lies they were elected on perhaps, but most of it is unnecessary, you want to save SS and medicare?, Fold in all the government pensions, and medical benefits received by government employees, as freebies, work for the government, pay like everyone else does and it's not a problem, it's solvent, ask Mr Reid if he'd care for that. The debt is for cadillac med care and pensions for bureaucrats above and beyond what they drain our checks for. It ain't a golden toilet seat, it's worse than that.
wdgnas posted at 5:02 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
rich: But the sad fact, historically is that when debt surpasses 19% of GDP everybody suffers, Obama overspent, Bush stayed within the limits.
the reason bush stayed within the "limits" was the economy was doing better during most of the bush years. if the economy was humming along, would there a call for deficit reduction?
once again: republicans in power--deficits are good M'kay. democrats in power--deficits are bad M'kay.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
"Let the debate begin."
CHICAGO (AP) — President Barack Obama praises the tea party movement for getting Americans engaged in politics . . ." This is far more praise given than that by many non-Tea Party Republicans for this new far right movement.
Check out my earlier letter on "the times that try men's soles." Obama has surprised many of his liberal 2008 supporters, many won over from Clinton after Kennedy's endorsement. Yet Obama is far more of a centrist than even the right expected or is willing to admit.