President Obama said Saturday he will ask all of his department and agency heads for specific proposals for cutting their budgets at his Cabinet meeting early next week as he searches for ways to streamline government spending.
Stopping the constant bailing out of failing companies should be job one. Two should be to stop feeding pork to the many liberal agencies that do little more than grow the Democratic slush fund.
"In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same."
Would Barney Frank be considered a pet project? Maybe Nancy Pelosi could be considered a sacred cow? They've both been wasteful and ineffective. Maybe Obama can make the "hard choice" of kicking them out of Congress.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Kevin McCarthy, Republican representative from California said that the GOP's been screaming that all along while you were spending like a drunk sailor home from a nine-month journey:
"Earlier this week, President Obama said that we need to get serious about fiscal discipline by trimming waste in the federal budget," Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said in the GOP address. "Republicans couldn't agree more. We want to work with the president to get our financial house back in order."
"It's irresponsible to borrow more than all previous American presidents combined. And it must stop if we want to get our economy moving again," McCarthy said. "When will all this spending and borrowing end?"
It'll end when the Democrats and even some Republicans drive this country into bankruptcy unless we stand up to their spending orgy that will be the end of the American dream. This needs to start from the top. Obama needs to lead by example. If he says one thing but does another, no one will take him seriously when he asks them to do something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/18/obama-request-budget-cuts-agency-heads/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Governmental Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governmental Budget. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
After Setting March Record: Obama On Pace to Quadruple Previous Deficit Record
Federal budget deficit sets March record $192.3B
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics
Fri Apr 10, 7:02 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Friday that the budget deficit increased by $192.3 billion in March, and is near $1 trillion just halfway through the budget year, as costs of the financial bailout and recession mount.
Last month's deficit, a record for March, was significantly higher than the $150 billion that economists expected.
The deficit already totals $956.8 billion for the first six months of the budget year, also a record for that period. The Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion.
A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year. The March deficit was nearly four times the size of the imbalance in the same month last year.
Nearly $300 billion provided to the nation's banks and other companies to cope with the most severe financial crisis in seven decades has pushed government spending higher.
The Treasury report said that through the end of March, $293.4 billion had been provided to support companies through the $700 billion bailout fund Congress passed last October. That support has been provided primarily to banks, although insurance giant American International Group Inc. and auto companies General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC also have received assistance.
Besides the bailout fund, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $46 billion last month, bringing the total assistance provided to the mortgage finance companies to $59.8 billion since October. The government took control of both last September after they had suffered billions of dollars in losses on mortgage loans.
Through the first six months of the budget year that began Oct. 1, tax revenues have totaled $989.8 billion, down 13.6 percent from the year-ago period. The government's receipts have been reduced sharply by the recession, which is shaping up to be the longest of the post World War II period. The downturn began in December 2007.
Government outlays totaled $1.95 trillion through March, 33.4 percent higher than the year-ago period. Besides higher payments for the financial rescue, the government is paying more in such areas as unemployment benefits and food stamps.
The Treasury report showed benefit payments from the unemployment trust fund totaled $44.6 billion so far this budget year, up from $19.4 billion last year.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that President Barack Obama's budget proposals would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, a figure $2.3 trillion higher than estimates made in February in the administration's first budget proposal.
The CBO review projected Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion annually over the decade ending in 2019.
The administration said it remained confident its forecasts for declining deficits over that same period could be achieved. But private economists have faulted those estimates for relying on economic assumptions they believe are too optimistic.
The administration projects that after hitting $1.75 trillion this year, the gap between spending and tax revenues will dip to $1.17 trillion in 2010, and plunge to $533 billion in 2013. If accurate, that would fulfill Obama's pledge to cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his current term in office.
Some economists have expressed concerns that the massive deficits being forecast could push interest rates up sharply, especially if foreign investors worry about the size of the U.S. deficit projections.
Lawrence Summers, director of Obama's National Economic Council, said Thursday there have been no indications that investors are growing worried about the size of the deficits. On the contrary, he said yields on Treasury securities have been pushed lower by increased demand from investors seeking to hold Treasury bonds as a safe haven in uncertain economic times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Well, this is change. It doesn't really instill hope for the future in me, though.
Obama is truly Bush squared. His initial projections were already higher than Bush's, and he can't seem to stay at that high mark. In fact, he isn't even close.
The Californifation of America is on its way, if we don't stop the government and especially Democrats out of control spending.
The first step in cutting down the spending is to stop bailing everyone out. We have seen with Detroit, AIG, and Fannie & Freddie that if you do it once they will come back many more times. It's not a one-time expenditure.
If the spending doesn't stop, taxes will continue to rise. That will at best stall the economy, and at worst, collapse it.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics
Fri Apr 10, 7:02 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Friday that the budget deficit increased by $192.3 billion in March, and is near $1 trillion just halfway through the budget year, as costs of the financial bailout and recession mount.
Last month's deficit, a record for March, was significantly higher than the $150 billion that economists expected.
The deficit already totals $956.8 billion for the first six months of the budget year, also a record for that period. The Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion.
A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year. The March deficit was nearly four times the size of the imbalance in the same month last year.
Nearly $300 billion provided to the nation's banks and other companies to cope with the most severe financial crisis in seven decades has pushed government spending higher.
The Treasury report said that through the end of March, $293.4 billion had been provided to support companies through the $700 billion bailout fund Congress passed last October. That support has been provided primarily to banks, although insurance giant American International Group Inc. and auto companies General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC also have received assistance.
Besides the bailout fund, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received $46 billion last month, bringing the total assistance provided to the mortgage finance companies to $59.8 billion since October. The government took control of both last September after they had suffered billions of dollars in losses on mortgage loans.
Through the first six months of the budget year that began Oct. 1, tax revenues have totaled $989.8 billion, down 13.6 percent from the year-ago period. The government's receipts have been reduced sharply by the recession, which is shaping up to be the longest of the post World War II period. The downturn began in December 2007.
Government outlays totaled $1.95 trillion through March, 33.4 percent higher than the year-ago period. Besides higher payments for the financial rescue, the government is paying more in such areas as unemployment benefits and food stamps.
The Treasury report showed benefit payments from the unemployment trust fund totaled $44.6 billion so far this budget year, up from $19.4 billion last year.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that President Barack Obama's budget proposals would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, a figure $2.3 trillion higher than estimates made in February in the administration's first budget proposal.
The CBO review projected Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion annually over the decade ending in 2019.
The administration said it remained confident its forecasts for declining deficits over that same period could be achieved. But private economists have faulted those estimates for relying on economic assumptions they believe are too optimistic.
The administration projects that after hitting $1.75 trillion this year, the gap between spending and tax revenues will dip to $1.17 trillion in 2010, and plunge to $533 billion in 2013. If accurate, that would fulfill Obama's pledge to cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his current term in office.
Some economists have expressed concerns that the massive deficits being forecast could push interest rates up sharply, especially if foreign investors worry about the size of the U.S. deficit projections.
Lawrence Summers, director of Obama's National Economic Council, said Thursday there have been no indications that investors are growing worried about the size of the deficits. On the contrary, he said yields on Treasury securities have been pushed lower by increased demand from investors seeking to hold Treasury bonds as a safe haven in uncertain economic times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Well, this is change. It doesn't really instill hope for the future in me, though.
Obama is truly Bush squared. His initial projections were already higher than Bush's, and he can't seem to stay at that high mark. In fact, he isn't even close.
The Californifation of America is on its way, if we don't stop the government and especially Democrats out of control spending.
The first step in cutting down the spending is to stop bailing everyone out. We have seen with Detroit, AIG, and Fannie & Freddie that if you do it once they will come back many more times. It's not a one-time expenditure.
If the spending doesn't stop, taxes will continue to rise. That will at best stall the economy, and at worst, collapse it.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Obama Was For War Spending; Then Against It; Now For It Again
PObama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan
President Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. AP
Thursday, April 09, 2009
President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future -- and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.
Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.
The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops -- about one-third of the force now there -- who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.
The official request was sent early Thursday evening.
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.
Some Democrats were not pleased.
"This funding will do two things -- it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.
But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.
The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.
The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.
The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.
Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.
His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major war-funding legislation while Barack Obama was in the Senate, and how he voted:
_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.
_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.
_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.
_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.
_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.
_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.
_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs_votes_1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
While Obama is doing the right thing funding our troops, it is still a bit confusing because contradictory to his stance on funding the war over the last few years.
He spent two out of the last three years voting against spending on the war. He only voted for it when it was advantageous for him to do so to seem more moderate last year. It again makes me wonder who Obama really is.
I, also, like that he is trying to strengthen security at the US-Mexico border. However, just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Let's see how they use the extra funds.
President Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. AP
Thursday, April 09, 2009
President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future -- and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.
Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.
The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops -- about one-third of the force now there -- who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.
The official request was sent early Thursday evening.
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.
Some Democrats were not pleased.
"This funding will do two things -- it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.
But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.
The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.
The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.
The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.
Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.
His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major war-funding legislation while Barack Obama was in the Senate, and how he voted:
_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.
_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.
_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.
_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.
_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.
_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.
_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs_votes_1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
While Obama is doing the right thing funding our troops, it is still a bit confusing because contradictory to his stance on funding the war over the last few years.
He spent two out of the last three years voting against spending on the war. He only voted for it when it was advantageous for him to do so to seem more moderate last year. It again makes me wonder who Obama really is.
I, also, like that he is trying to strengthen security at the US-Mexico border. However, just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Let's see how they use the extra funds.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Obama Administration: What Middle Class Tax Cut?
Obama's Middle Class Tax Cut May Not Survive Budget
The President's Budget Chief Says Senate Dems May Scrap Tax Cut
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS and SUNLEN MILLER
March 25, 2009
President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The president stresses that despite tough times, things will improve.
On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.
The administration had tied the revenue raised from its environmental "cap-and-trade" proposal to the middle-class tax cuts -- known as the "Making Work Pay" tax credit for families -- both of which have been brought up as possibilities to be scrapped from the Senate and House budget resolution.
Obama's middle-class tax cut is locked in place for the next two years as part of the stimulus package he signed into law last month, but Orszag told reporters today that the White House will have to use those two years to figure out how to keep that tax cut in place for middle-class families beyond 2010.
Obama took his budget campaign to the Hill today to discuss his $3.6 trillion budget face to face with some skeptical Democrats, a day after he addressed the nation in a prime-time news conference.
Democratic leaders emerged from the 45-minute lunch expressing confidence that they will be able to work with the White House on provisions the president wants included in the budget.
The Senate will "protect President Obama's priorities -- education, energy, health care, middle-class tax relief and cut the deficit in half," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"We have attempted to preserve -- and I think have preserved -- the president's key priorities," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee "All those are possible to move forward in the budget resolution I've written."
Reid said the budget will be passed next week.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted the president's budget as too expensive and irresponsible because of the $7 trillion to $9.3 trillion national debt his proposals are projected to create during the next 10 years.
In his news conference yesterday, Obama had some strong words for his Republican critics.
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them," he said.
He challenged them to draft an alternate budget instead of simply criticizing his version. On Wednesday, Republicans responded to that challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them,"-Obama
This whole blame Bush for my bad behavior is getting very old and transparent. People could understand if he couldn't get a surplus because of Bush's deficit but not multiplying the deficit. When is Obama going to admit my bad behavior is his fault?
Leaving the middle class tax cut on the floor for two years, one of his main campaign promises, could hurt the Democrats in the 2010 midterms and possibly 2012. It's like when Bush 41 went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in 1992.
The President's Budget Chief Says Senate Dems May Scrap Tax Cut
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS and SUNLEN MILLER
March 25, 2009
President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The president stresses that despite tough times, things will improve.
On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.
The administration had tied the revenue raised from its environmental "cap-and-trade" proposal to the middle-class tax cuts -- known as the "Making Work Pay" tax credit for families -- both of which have been brought up as possibilities to be scrapped from the Senate and House budget resolution.
Obama's middle-class tax cut is locked in place for the next two years as part of the stimulus package he signed into law last month, but Orszag told reporters today that the White House will have to use those two years to figure out how to keep that tax cut in place for middle-class families beyond 2010.
Obama took his budget campaign to the Hill today to discuss his $3.6 trillion budget face to face with some skeptical Democrats, a day after he addressed the nation in a prime-time news conference.
Democratic leaders emerged from the 45-minute lunch expressing confidence that they will be able to work with the White House on provisions the president wants included in the budget.
The Senate will "protect President Obama's priorities -- education, energy, health care, middle-class tax relief and cut the deficit in half," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"We have attempted to preserve -- and I think have preserved -- the president's key priorities," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee "All those are possible to move forward in the budget resolution I've written."
Reid said the budget will be passed next week.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted the president's budget as too expensive and irresponsible because of the $7 trillion to $9.3 trillion national debt his proposals are projected to create during the next 10 years.
In his news conference yesterday, Obama had some strong words for his Republican critics.
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them," he said.
He challenged them to draft an alternate budget instead of simply criticizing his version. On Wednesday, Republicans responded to that challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them,"-Obama
This whole blame Bush for my bad behavior is getting very old and transparent. People could understand if he couldn't get a surplus because of Bush's deficit but not multiplying the deficit. When is Obama going to admit my bad behavior is his fault?
Leaving the middle class tax cut on the floor for two years, one of his main campaign promises, could hurt the Democrats in the 2010 midterms and possibly 2012. It's like when Bush 41 went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in 1992.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Former Obama Commerce Nominee Sen. Gregg Says Obama Budget Will Bankrupt US Government
Sen. Gregg says Obama budget will bankrupt US
WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee says the Obama administration is on the right course to save the nation's financial system.
But Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire also says President Barack Obama's massive budget proposal will bankrupt the country.
Gregg says he has no regrets in withdrawing his nomination to become commerce secretary. He pulled out after deciding he could not fully back the administration's economic policies.
The senator said Obama's spending plan in the midst of a prolonged recession would leave the next generation with a country too expensive to live in.
Gregg appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_go_co/gregg_budget
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This a sad but true fact of dominant Democratic rule. Just see California's current financial situation for proof.
WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee says the Obama administration is on the right course to save the nation's financial system.
But Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire also says President Barack Obama's massive budget proposal will bankrupt the country.
Gregg says he has no regrets in withdrawing his nomination to become commerce secretary. He pulled out after deciding he could not fully back the administration's economic policies.
The senator said Obama's spending plan in the midst of a prolonged recession would leave the next generation with a country too expensive to live in.
Gregg appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_go_co/gregg_budget
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This a sad but true fact of dominant Democratic rule. Just see California's current financial situation for proof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)