Thursday, February 26, 2009

Obama's New Budget - Updated!

Now I know this has been everywhere all morning, but I just wanted to point out a few of my favorite parts...

Obama promises to slash spending by $2 trillion

Okay, first of all - I find the title somewhat.... misleading.

Through both a literary bent and rather extensive martial arts training, I recognize that to "slash" something involves moving quickly and decisively - a cut intended to begin and end long before the offending target has a chance to hit the floor....


President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history.

I... didn't exactly hear a 'snicker-snack' there.... Maybe the next part:

In addition to sending Congress his $3.55 trillion budget plan for 2010, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year. That would result in a record deficit.
Hmmm... nope. (I wonder how much longer the MSM will allow him to continue using his "I herited this" excuse?)

Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.
Okay - quick time-out here.

The - "Seven-Decades/70-Years/1930's/The-Great-Depression" - Reference AGAIN.

Am I the ONLY one who remembers the Carter Administration?
Staggering Inflation?
Doing backflips if you were able to land a merely-20%-mortgage?

Look. Around. You.
/timeout - off

As part of the effort to end the crisis, the administration proposes boosting the deficit by an additional $250 billion this year, enough to support as much as $750 billion in increased spending under the government's rescue program for banks and other financial institutions. That would more than double the $700 billion bank bailout passed by Congress last October.
Okay - so it's not The One's fault - He 'inherited' this - He's going to do a 'better job' of handling it than the 'previous administration'...

....By doing exactly the same thing - just twice as much of it.


Obama, in a morning briefing, spoke of "hard choices that lie ahead." He called his budget "an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go."

Not for nothing, here - but it really sounds more like "printing more money" rather than "making hard choices".

Okay - so amid all the "laying the groundwork for universal healthcare" and continued talk of
nationalizing banks - how does The One plan to pay for all of this (aside from the aforementioned printing-of-money)?

The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000.

The tax increase would occur by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. As one example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent would see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.

The other half of the money for expanding health care — $318 billion — would come from curtailing payments to hospitals and insurance companies under Medicare and drug payments under Medicaid.

If Congress approves Obama's recommendations, the Bush tax cuts would expire only for couples making more than $250,000 per year.

Obama's budget projects $2 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade — split between tax hikes on wealthier Americans and trimming a variety of government programs ranging from subsidies paid to wealthy farmers to eliminating ineffective government programs. (demonstrating that the city-boy-messiah lacks even a basic understanding of how/why farm subsidies work - MD)

Obama would allow the marginal rate on household incomes above $250,000 to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

Obama's promise to phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year is sure to cause concerns among rural Democrats.
(probably, because that word was 'Revenues', rather than 'Profits')

And let's not forget that Obama's adherents in Congress are also keeping their eye-on-the-prize:

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, called Obama's proposal to tax the wealthy to finance health care reform a starting point. But he wants to also examine taxing some of health insurance benefits provided by employers
So basically, The Ohe keeps his plan to 'Doing what we've seen him do':

1) Eat the Rich (and people with job-benefits)
2) Make more people Dependent on Government
3) Make the Government Healthcare-Central-Planning

Of course, as long as he can effectively frame his plans & spending in such a way as to keep #1 in the forefront, he'll likely be able to keep the LCD of the voting population steering-clear of "common sense" in favor of "class warfare".

But then, I've said that before.

- MuscleDaddy


Forgot this bit:

The plan also contains a contentious proposal to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by auctioning off permits to exceed carbon emissions caps, which Obama wants to impose on users of fossil fuels to address global warming.
Just to be clear:

- He wants to impose regulatory restrictions on carbon emissions
(the kind that come with steep fines)

... so that the government can make money off of 'Selling Indulgences' that would exempt the 'buyer' from the regulations.

This bit of H.F.M.F. is going to dovetail nicely into the next post...


  1. I predict that it's going to get really ugly before this is over.

    If, on top of all this new spending, plus higher taxes on those who create jobs, the gas & oil prices go back up as high as they were 6 months ago, I predict we'll see violent protests, and quite possibly a serious increase in both the murder rates and suicide rates. After that, violent protests in which LOTS of people get hurt or killed.

  2. The other night, Mark Levin finally dubbed Obana the "Depression President" - since he won't stop referring to the current situation as being Just The Same until the prophecy fulfills itself.

    - MD


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.