February 14, 2011 12:12 PM
ABC's Matthew Jaffe reports from Capitol Hill:
Office of Management & Budget director Jack Lew might argue that President Obama?s 2012 budget proposal has ?a lot of pain,? but lawmakers on Capitol Hill ? including some Democrats ? say it?s nowhere near painful enough.
Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad today said the nation needs ?a much more robust package of deficit and debt reduction over the medium and long term.?
?It is not enough to focus primarily on cutting the non-security discretionary part of the budget, which accounts for just 12 percent of spending this year,? he warned. ?Instead, we need a comprehensive long-term debt reduction plan, in the size and scope of what was proposed by the President?s Fiscal Commission.�
Conrad was a member of that Debt Commission that proposed ways to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over the next decade, but the White House proposal falls far short of that, making no attempt to wrestle with entitlement reforms, for instance.
For George's interview with Debt Commission Chairman, go HERE.
Republicans predictably are far more vocal in their criticisms than Democrats that the White House hasn?t done enough to reduce the country?s soaring deficits.
?President Obama has failed to lead in the face of this growing crisis,? said the Senate Budget panel?s top Republican Jeff Sessions. ?Today he submitted a budget to Congress that accelerates our dangerous trajectory. His budget increases spending every single year, eventually doubling the size of the entire government from what it was the day he took office. The president?s budget also doubles the national debt by the end of his term, and then triples it by the end of the decade. If we follow this course it will be a national tragedy.?
?The president has spoken in recent days about winning the future. But his budget reads more like a blueprint for losing the future. It puts us on the road to decline. It simply spends, taxes, and borrows too much,? Sessions said.
Other GOP senators echoed that sentiment, with many of them calling the proposal a ?missed opportunity.?
?President Obama?s timid budget proposal represents a missed opportunity to lead,? said Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.
?Sadly, the President has missed a golden opportunity to have an adult conversation with the American people about the seriousness and urgency of our debt crisis,? Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, said. ?The President?s budget falls far short of tackling our national debt in a serious way.?
?The president has missed an opportunity to show real leadership on the number one issue threatening our country?s future. Getting spending under control and reducing our deficit will be difficult without presidential leadership,? noted Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN.
?I still don?t see a sense of urgency from the president about the massive federal debt,? said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-TN.
?What will it take to get the President?s attention about the fiscal crisis facing our nation?? asked Sen. John Barrasso, R-WY. ?Despite the American people?s clear demand for less spending, the President has drafted another budget that throws more fuel onto an already raging fiscal fire.?
February 14, 2011 in Democrats, Republicans, White House | Permalink | Share | User Comments (41)
Everyone is in a hurry to kick the most vulnerable among us to the curb including the poor and the elderly but no one will touch the sacred cows of the military and tax cuts for the rich. Paying three thousand dollars for an ashtray does not make us safer and the wealthy don?t need tax cuts. Why are politicians including Obama looking soo hard at raising the social security age thus making people that don?t have much wait that much longer to retire and cutting safety nets that keep our most vulnerable off the streets. I?m really disappointed in my countries priorities.
Posted by: dan | Feb 14, 2011 12:58:17 PM
This article is ridiculous. It quotes only republican responses. How is that fair and unbiased reporting?
Posted by: realitycheck0057 | Feb 14, 2011 1:05:24 PM
That's obvious from the very physical size, of the budget. That simply indicates a continuation of Obama's runaway spending, which we cannot afford.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Feb 14, 2011 1:14:40 PM
dan..are you in favor of a bullet train to nowhere?
Posted by: catman | Feb 14, 2011 1:26:45 PM
The president's proposal would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over the next decade and his 5 year freeze on domestic, discretionary spending would bring that portion of the budget to its lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.
Instead of just sitting on the sidelines and bitching and moaning about the president, why don't Republicans actually present an alternative? They control the House, so do some actual work for once.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 14, 2011 1:27:46 PM
sam the presidents budget calls for increasing taxes to pay for his pork. cant do that anymore we are taxed to death. i dont buy the lowest share of our economy stuff as thats what bush said to fund the iraq and afghan wars.let see where we are 4 weeks from now.
Posted by: catman | Feb 14, 2011 1:33:52 PM
"""Paying three thousand dollars for an ashtray does not make us safer """"
Posted by: dan
Hey Dan, instead of spewing BS, can you show us where we paid $3000 for an ashtray? If oyu do, then I am going into the ashtray business, otherwise, you really should quit lying.
Posted by: lfrichar | Feb 14, 2011 1:55:13 PM
O?s budget will INCREASE long-term national debt from the current $14T to $21.2T in 10 years (52% INCREASE). These are O?s numbers. Most estimates peg long term deficits much higher. He ignores recommendations from his own hand-picked deficit commission and proposes no changes to the biggest three chunks of spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). He flat refuses to take the lead to get federal spending in line with gross domestic product (GDP).
In FY2010 federal spending was 25% of GDP, highest since WWII. Historical average that allows some growth in the private sector is 20% of GDP since 1950. If current trends continue the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2030 federal spending will be 32% of GDP. At that point the private sector completely stops growing. The elephant-in-the-room is interest costs on this debt. Unless we dramatically change course and get our financial house in order interest costs will be greater than Social Security costs by FY2030. Think about that. Holders of our debt (China) will receive more federal dollars than recipients of Social Security!
Mr. Obama owns nothing. He leads nothing. I feel sad for the next generation that will need to pay for the excesses of baby boomers. They have a very dim future.
Posted by: g_sh_08 | Feb 14, 2011 2:04:02 PM
I can't believe that they really believe this is going to work!
Hit the people that are already struggling to live in this country. Then,take the subsidies and funding away from the towns and states. Where do you suppose they're going to get THEIR missing money? Yup, UP go the taxes, fees etc. this is simply a vicious cycle with no REAL answer! As the old saying goes," The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!" Shovel anyone ?
Posted by: sunshine | Feb 14, 2011 2:04:22 PM
The budget is a start in a still shaky economy.
Medicaire, Medicaid, Sozial Security and Defense need to be tackled, but that can only happen if the Republicans and Democrats seriously work together to develope a long term plan and embrace the proposals of the budget comissions recommendations.
Posted by: Hans | Feb 14, 2011 2:10:44 PM
How much would the budget be cut of all of these paper budgets and releases and other books that are printed by WH and Congress were all online? No one ever seems to propose that. May not be a lot but it would help with keeping costs down - look at the paper, ink, electricity, etc expended for just this one budget proposal and multiply it by all of the other garbage that only clogs up the landfills and recycling centers. Just a thought.
Posted by: kay | Feb 14, 2011 2:19:39 PM
Trillion sounds like a lot of money. i don't think all nations combined can spend so much.As long as taxes are raised to spend ,i am sure it is ok .
Posted by: j | Feb 14, 2011 2:26:03 PM
No more providing aid to Seniors freezing in homes in winter. No more retraining workers so they can pay taxes instead of being a drain on the taxpayer. Cuts in school funding when the average teaching is currently spending $700 per year out of his/her own pocket because of material shortages. No more temporary tax breaks for lower to middle income workers. But we need to keep the $200B in tax breaks for the wealthy! And amazingly, so many of those getting hit more and more by the redistribution of wealth to the top support such moves!
Posted by: The_Mick | Feb 14, 2011 2:30:08 PM
dan | Feb 14, 2011 12:58:17 PM
.......As to wealth, those who are homeless and lowest income levels probably view you as rich. So, in some respects everything is perspective dependent.
Posted by: deanbob | Feb 14, 2011 2:34:26 PM
Why did the deficit commission spend all that time any money if Obama chooses not to implement any of their suggestions?
Posted by: deanbob | Feb 14, 2011 2:35:53 PM
Obama is right when he says that public investments need to be a central part of the nation's economic growth and innovation strategy. Perennial short-termism has left the investment area of the budget dangerously under funded.
Unless we change course with well-targeted investments in human capital, infrastructure and basic R&D, our economy will be left at a severe disadvantage down the (crumbling) road.
Republicans are also right that keeping taxes low and creating a business-friendly environment is necessary to avoid harming competitiveness. In a world of global competition and mobility, ratcheting up tax rates is a losing strategy.
Well, that was easy. All we have to do is spend more on investments and keep taxes low.
But there's one big problem: We deficit hawks are also right that the mammoth debt levels we face will certainly cause a slow burn on the U.S. economy and standard of living -- if not lead to an outright fiscal crisis, if we don't change course.
In order for these three objectives -- investment, low taxes and fiscal responsibility -- to coexist, we need a major restructuring of the nation's budget.
Posted by: raggmopp | Feb 14, 2011 2:39:16 PM
Where are the families of the seniors and why don't THEY help their families (maybe move in with them). Why don't you go to school for 10 years after high school and work 100+ hours a week during residency; then see how you feel about someone else telling you you don't pay enough (when you already paying 3,4,5, or 10 times the average tax paid).
Posted by: deanbob | Feb 14, 2011 2:41:30 PM
The Mick--You stole my comment, but in Boehner's World Nobody wants to upset the wealthy 2%, because they take care of the rest of the country.
Posted by: parma hts gary | Feb 14, 2011 2:55:13 PM
What did you people think would happen when you voted for a community organizer with no actual business experience to run the country???
Posted by: billy bob | Feb 14, 2011 3:01:27 PM
How truely sad that our polictians can't balance a budget. How sad they have to sell bonds overseas to raise money to fund our Government and end up paying more and more in interest to those countries buying our bonds. How sad that each polictian wants to spend more money than is available "on his pork barrel project", which, collectively, is bankrupting our country. How sad the democrats want to spend everyone else's money of "their" pet social projects. How sad the replicians want to give the rich more tax breaks. Doesn't anyone anywhere in this county know what percentages are? Why can't they cut based on percentages? If you're going to cut taxes, what about 10% across the board? No one can argure that's not fair if everyone gets the same 10%. No one can do math anymore. No one can balance a budget anymore. Everyone in Washington needs to be fired including the President. We really need people back in Washington who actually have our best interest at heart. We lost that a long time ago.
Posted by: Ralph | Feb 14, 2011 3:04:22 PM
The main 2 problems with our country's fiscal condition are illegals and not fighting wars to win protection of national interests. Instead we seem to be fighting unending wars to win peoples hearts and minds. That will never happen and thousands of lives and billions of dollars are wasted needlessly. When war is deemed necessary, and certainly some better judgment is needed, We need to go in hammer the enemy enough to render them harmless and get out. No spending our precious resources to rebuild other nations. Our military is needed at home to protect our borders. The present population of illegals needs to be rounded up and evicted. The stupidity of being the only nation to allow anchor babies needs stopped.
Posted by: jeffersoncorrect | Feb 14, 2011 3:04:36 PM
2008 Democratic primary debate;
Obama: "For a long time the Republicans were the party of ideas"
Hillary: "Yeah, the party of BAD ideas"
Cut taxes big on the wealthy 1981 and 2001 and prosperity Trickles Down? Failed.
Deregulate banks, health insurers and oil drillers because it's better for business and they will police themselves? Failed.
Duh. Abe Lincoln would have said;
"You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time"... ;^)
Posted by: Mike W | Feb 14, 2011 3:04:45 PM
quick question: how much would we save if we end both the Iraq and Afghan war, meaning no soldiers deployed over there.
Some numbers:
USA debt=$14.5T $47k/capita 95% of GDP
UK debt=$8T $147k/capita 120% of GDP
Germany debt=$5T $63k/capita 155% of GDP
Posted by: picooz | Feb 14, 2011 3:07:25 PM
It can not be done. That is unless President Obama takes into account Medicare and Medicaid cuts. However, he is waiting for the Republicans to make the first move, and they are waiting for him.
President Obama will not do this, because he knows it will end his 2012 chances. So it is my guess he will start cutting military bases and allotments.
Posted by: Frank E. Vincent | Feb 14, 2011 3:08:26 PM
lol...lol all you people "myopically" being obssesive about "spending cuts" when we have 20% of our nation unemployed or underemployed. All you are doing is letting the GOP off the hook on "job vreation". Ill repeat...we have as much of a "revenue" (lack of) problem as we do spending. lol...just keep creating a larger and larger class of people who are "have nots" and see where that gets us. People need JOBS, good ones! That only comes through investment. And the government will have to lead the way on that one. If we can get the GOP and conservatives off their "addiction" to the "big oil contributors".
Posted by: CND FOX | Feb 14, 2011 3:18:59 PM
Post a comment
Source: http://feeds.abcnews.com/click.phdo?i=d5923f642591d5a46cb666a66d7458ff
Queen Elizabeth II Wu Yi Viktor Yushchenko Nancy Pelosi Speaker Pelosi
No comments:
Post a Comment