Archive for the ‘Obama Administration’ Category

Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Future

By Dave Johnson

August 28, 2011 – 12:08pm ET

Problem: Your right-wing brother-in-law is plugged into the FOX-Limbaugh lie machine, and keeps sending you emails about “Obama spending” and “Obama deficits” and how the “Stimulus” just made things worse. Solution: Here are three “reality-based” charts to send to him. These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

wpid-6088811201_96839c6977-2011-10-6-14-42.jpg

Government spending increased dramatically under Bush. It has not increased much under Obama. Note that this chart does not reflect any spending cuts resulting from deficit-cutting deals.

Deficits

wpid-6089355018_3eea3fa4be-2011-10-6-14-42.jpg

Notes, this chart includes Clinton’s last budget year for comparison.

The numbers in these two charts come from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. They are just the amounts that the government spent and borrowed, period. Anyone can go look them up. People who claim that Obama “tripled the deficit” are either misled or are trying to mislead.

The Stimulus and Jobs

wpid-6088811219_7177d24faa-2011-10-6-14-42.jpg

In this chart, the RED lines on the left side — the ones that keep doing DOWN — show what happened to jobs under the policies of Bush and the Republicans. We were losing lots and lots of jobs every month, and it was getting worse and worse. The BLUE lines — the ones that just go UP — show what happened to jobs when the stimulus was in effect. We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better and better. The leveling off on the right side of the chart shows what happened as the stimulus started to wind down: job creation leveled off at too low a level.

It looks a lot like the stimulus reversed what was going on before the stimulus.

Conclusion: THE STIMULUS WORKED BUT WAS NOT ENOUGH!

More False Things

These are just three of the false things that everyone “knows.” Some others are (click through): Obama bailed out the banks, businesses will hire if they get tax cuts, health care reform cost $1 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or is “going broke”, government spending “takes money out of the economy.”

Why This Matters

These things really matter. We all want to fix the terrible problems the country has. But it is so important to know just what the problems are before you decide how to fix them. Otherwise the things you do to try to solve those problems might just make them worse. If you get tricked into thinking that Obama has made things worse and that we should go back to what we were doing before Obama — tax cuts for the rich, giving giant corporations and Wall Street everything they want — when those are the things that caused the problems in the first place, then we will be in real trouble.

Gang Of Six Plan Cuts Social Security Now, Devastates It Later

Sourced fromCampaign for America’s Future

http://www.ourfuture.org

wpid-picture-26189-2011-07-24-20-40.jpg

By Nancy Altman, July 20, 2011 – 11:35pm ET

The Gang of Six’s “Bipartisan Plan to Reduce Our Nation’s Deficits” proposes immediate and significant cuts to Social Security benefits, and a process for addressing the program’s funding shortfall projected to appear 25 years from now. The process would virtually guarantee devastating cuts. This plan breaks faith with the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose benefit cuts.

The Gang of Six framework contains very few specifics but one is glaring – the immediate cuts that would affect all 55 million Social Security beneficiaries by changing the way the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated. Their plan would substitute the less accurate and less-generous chained consumer price index (CPI) for the current CPI in calculating the COLA. This breaks a promise made by many politicians to not cut the benefits of anyone over age 55.

Over the next 10 years alone, the chained CPI would take $112 billion directly out of the pockets of beneficiaries, with cuts growing larger each year and pushing many of the oldest old—primarily women—into poverty. The COLA cut would reduce benefits by 3.7 percent after 10 years, 6.5 percent after 20 years and 9.2 percent after 30 years. For a typical senior who retires at age 65, their Social Security benefits would be $1,000 less by the time they are 85—on a benefit of just $16,000 a year. That’s a big loss of income that may be affordable for politicians in Washington but not for most people across the country.

Continue reading »

A Return to Responsibility

Sourced from Center for American Progress

Center for American Progress

14/11 12:00 AM Alex Rothman

Read the full report in your web browser

Congress and the Obama administration must get defense spending under control as the country faces large budget deficits and debt—especially since military spending did much to contribute to our budget problems. Total U.S. defense spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) increased so much over the past decade that it reached levels not seen since World War II when the United States had 12 million people under arms and waged wars on three continents.

Some of this growth can be attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the baseline or regular defense budget has also increased significantly. The baseline budget, which does not include funding for Iraq or Afghanistan, has grown in real terms for an unprecedented 13 straight years. It is now $100 billion more than what the nation spent on average during the Cold War. When war funding is added, we are now spending about $250 billion more per year than during the Cold War. This ballooning defense budget played a significant role in turning the budget surplus projected a decade ago into a massive deficit.

As the Obama administration and Congress try to agree on a deal to raise the debt limit—an agreement that will inevitably involve cutting some money from the budget—they should keep in mind that they can cut $100 billion in defense spending annually and still keep our military budget at the Reagan administration’s peak Cold War levels of approximately $580 billion (all numbers adjusted for inflation unless otherwise noted). Bringing the defense budget down to the levels that existed under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, H.W. Bush, and Clinton would require reductions of $250 billion to $300 billion annually.

The question currently facing Congress and President Barack Obama—how much to spend on defense in times of large deficits or in the final years of a war—is not new. In fact, the graph below shows that a number of presidents from both parties carried out significant reductions in the defense budget under similar circumstances since the end of World War II.

Continue reading »

Progressives versus Conservatives

Sourced from OurFuture.org

BY:

TERRANCE HEATH

Rebuild The Dream: One Idea At A Time

To listen to what’s coming out of Washington, D.C., these days is to realize that our elected officials are completely ignoring a deficit that threatens to devastate the American economy, and the lives of millions of Americans. No, not that deficit. I’m talking about an appalling deficit of ideas about how to create jobs and return our economy to one that works for all of us, not just 1% of us. Fortunately, that dearth of ideas is limited to D.C. Rebuild the Dream is creating a Contract for the American Dream, and is asking Americans for ideas. At the moment, there are over 12,000 ideas about how to: create good jobs and invest in a sustainable future; stop corporations and the rich from dodging taxes; strengthen communities by ensuring good health care, quality education, a clean environment, and a retirement with dignity for all.

ISAIAH J. POOLE

Progressive Caucus To Obama: No Cuts To Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

The Progressive Caucus, in a letter being sent to President Obama today, says any budget deal he agrees to that contains cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid won’t get their votes. Given that any deal that President Obama agrees to is unlikely to win over enough Republicans to pass the House of Representatives unless it represents absolute capitulation to the most radical of Republican demands, push-back on Obama’s left side from the Progressive Caucus at this stage of the game could prove significant. Outrage from the left could already be making a difference in the tone of statements coming out of the White House.

ROGER HICKEY

Obama Social Security and Medicare Cuts: Reasonable? Not To Most Americans.

The Washington Post and NY Times report that President Obama will offer Republican negotiators major cuts to Social Security and Medicare when they meet today. Supporters of these essential programs are outraged — and rightly so. We’ve been told that Social Security, which has its own source of revenue and contributes nothing to the deficit, was not on the table. And the White House has been saying since Obama’s April speech that they would fight to prevent cuts to Medicare benefits. Now it is clear the White House is offering major cuts in both programs in hopes of getting Republicans to accept fairly small tax changes — mainly loophole closings. But we won’t really know the details until the White House chooses to tell us what they are proposing.

DANIEL MARANS

In Social Security Cuts, Look for the Chained CPI

Although specifics have yet to officially emerge, there is little doubt that among the Social Security benefit cuts the President is proposing will be a reduction in Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) through an obscure change in the COLA formula known as the chained CPI. The Washington Post reported last night that President Obama is “proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security,” in a meeting with top House and Senate leaders this morning. There are a number of reasons why the Social Security cuts are sure to include the chained CPI. Chief among them is that it has been known for weeks now to be “on the table” in debt-ceiling negotiations.

RICHARD ESKOW

How Much Would A Social Security Deal Cost You?

How much would you lose in benefits if President Obama makes a deal with the Republicans to cut Social Security? The Administration isn’t denying reports that just such a deal is in the works. As the President prepares to meet with Congressional leaders tomorrow, the financial security of millions of Americans may hang in the balance. According to the polls, so could his political future. If the President and his party accept a proposed “chained CPI” benefit cut, they – and not their opponents – are likely to be painted as “Social Security slashers. ” (Remember the GOP’s Medicare strategy in 2010?) Dealmakers hope to avoid that by hiding the reduction in a lowered cost of living (COLA) adjustment, but it seems wildly optimistic to think a cut of this magnitude can be hidden from the public. It’s doubly unfortunate because COLA adjustments should be increased, not reduced.

The President Shames Republicans For Resisting Shared Sacrifice middle-class tax cuts

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Future
By Bill Scher
June 29, 2011 – 2:58pm ET

President Obama ramped up the pressure on congressional Republicans to accept the principle of shared sacrifice and stop shielding “millionaires and billionaires” from paying their fair share of the cost of deficit reduction.

While the President did not embrace the 1-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases on the wealthy, called for by Sen. Bernie Sanders and the Campaign for America’s Future, he decimated the Republican position that everyone should take a hit except for the wealthiest:

I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans. And I want to extend those middle-class tax cuts.

The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners…

…Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children’s education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys…

…If you are a wealthy CEO or a hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They’re lower than they’ve been since the 1950s.

And you can afford it. You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet; you’re just going to pay a little more.

…If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships. If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service. It means that we would not be funding critical medical research. It means that food inspection might be compromised.

Continue reading »

All the Reasons Petraeaus Should Not Head the CIA

Sourced from Consortium News

By Ray McGovern April 28, 2011

blogteaser_petraeusonfox_310x220-2011-04-30-12-11.jpg

The news that President Barack Obama has picked Gen. David Petraeus to be CIA director raises troubling questions, including whether the commander most associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will tolerate objective analysis of those two conflicts.

What if CIA analysts assess the prospects of success in those two wars as dismal and conclude that the troop “surges” pushed so publicly by Petraeus wasted both the lives of American troops and many billions of taxpayer dollars? Will CIA Director Petraeus welcome such critical analysis or punish it?

The Petraeus appointment also suggests that the President doesn’t value getting the straight scoop on these key war-related issues. If he did, why is he giving the CIA job to a general with a huge incentive to gild the lily regarding the “progress” made under his command?

Petraeus already has a record as someone who looks at skeptical CIA analysts as gnats to be swatted away before they bite. That is why he relegated them to strap-hanger status during the key decision-making process in late 2009 on what to do about Afghanistan.

When Obama expressed doubts about the value of a major escalation in Afghanistan, Petraeus assured him that he and his generals had it all figured out, that 33,000 additional troops would do the trick.

CIA analysts weren’t even assigned to do a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which normally is a de rigueur step before making any significant presidential decision like a large-scale escalation of a war. Remarkably, no NIE was prepared before the President’s decision to up U.S. troop levels to 100,000 in late 2009.

Continue reading »

Obama’s Real Budget Plan (and Why It’s a Huge Gamble)

Sourced from RobertReich.org

By Robert Reich

Obama has a smart idea for outflanking the GOP but by focusing the public’s attention on the budget deficit, the President is still playing on their field.

April 18, 2011  |

Paul Ryan says his budget plan will cut $4.4 trillion over ten years. The President says his new plan will cut $4 trillion over twelve years.

Let’s get real. Ten or twelve-year budgets are baloney. It’s hard enough to forecast budgets a year or two into the future. Between now and 2022 or 2024 the economy will probably have gone through a recovery (I’ll explain later why I fear it will be anemic at best) and another downturn. America will also have been through a bunch of elections – at least five congressional and three presidential.

The practical question is how to get out of the ongoing gravitational pull of this awful recession without kowtowing to extremists on the right who think the U.S. government is their mortal enemy. For President Obama, it’s also about how to get reelected.

(Yes, we also have to send a clear signal to global lenders that America is serious about reducing its long-term budget deficit. But in truth, global lenders don’t need much reassurance. Bond market yields in the U.S. are now lower than they were when the government was running a budget surplus ten years ago.)

Seen in this light, Obama’s plan isn’t really a budget proposal. It’s a process proposal.

Continue reading »

Obama Returns to his Moral Vision: Democrats Read Carefully!

Sourced from AlterNet
By George Lakoff

The President’s budget speech presented a straightforward idea of right and wrong that he correctly attributes to the founding of the country.
April 18, 2011  |

Last week, on April 13, 2011, President Obama gave all Democrats and all progressives a remarkable gift. Most of them barely noticed. They looked at the President’s speech as if it were only about budgetary details. But the speech went well beyond the budget. It went to the heart of progressive thought and the nature of American democracy, and it gave all progressives a model of how to think and talk about every issue.

It was a landmark speech. It should be watched and read carefully and repeatedly by every progressive who cares about our country — whether Democratic office-holder, staffer, writer, or campaign worker — and every progressive blogger, activist and concerned citizen. The speech is a work of art.

The policy topic happened to be the budget, but he called it “The Country We Believe In” for a reason. The real topic was how the progressive moral system defines the democratic ideals America was founded on, and how those ideals apply to specific issues. Obama’s moral vision, which he applied to the budget, is more general: it applies to every issue. And it can be applied everywhere by everyone who shares that moral vision of American democracy.
Discussion in the media has centered on economics — on the President’s budget policy compared with the Republican budget put forth by Paul Ryan. But, as Robert Reich immediately pointed out, “Ten or twelve-year budgets are baloney. It’s hard enough to forecast budgets a year or two into the future.” The real economic issues are economic recovery and the distribution of wealth. As I have observed, the Republican focus on the deficit is really a strategy for weakening government and turning the country conservative in every respect. The real issue is existential: what is America at heart and what is America to be.

In 2008, candidate Obama laid out these moral principles as well as anyone ever has, and roused the nation in support. As President, as he focused on pragmatics and policy, he let moral leadership lapse, leaving the field of morality to radical conservatives, who exploited their opposite moral views effectively enough to take over the House and many state offices. For example, they effectively attacked the President’s health care plan on two ideas taken from the right-wing version of morality: freedom (“government takeover”) and life (“death panels”). The attacks were successful even though Americans preferred the President’s health care policies (no preconditions, universal affordable coverage). The lesson: morality at the general level beats out policy at the particular level. The reason: voters identify themselves as moral beings not policy wonks.
All politics is moral. Political leaders put forth proposals on the assumption that their proposals are the right things to do, not the wrong things to do. But progressives and radical conservatives have very different ideas of right and wrong.

Continue reading »

Progressive Priorities, Conservative Contex

Sourced from Campaign for America’s Future

By Robert Borosage
April 14, 2011 – 9:24am

Obama’s Deficits: Progressive Priorities, Conservative Context

Poetry graces the speeches of Barack Obama. Few political leaders have his skill of telling the progressive story of America in a way that draws us together. His budget speech delivered at George Washington was exemplary, portraying an America of both rugged individualism and common purpose.

The president combined his defense of progressive governance with a pointed and clear critique of the preposterous Republican budget plan and its indefensible priorities.

He stood as Horatio at the bridge in defense of Medicare and Medicaid against the Republican plan, which would end them as we know it. All the blood curdling charts about mountainous deficits and debt, about trillions in “unfunded mandates,” are based almost entirely on soaring costs of a broken health care system that now costs two times per capita more than the average cost of systems in other industrial nations, with worse results. The president rightly indicted Republicans for failing to do anything about cost reduction (in fact making it worse by repealing the cost reforms passed as part of health care reform), and instead simply turning Medicare into a voucher with limited value while cutting nearly a trillion out of Medicaid, forcing the most vulnerable — seniors, the disabled, poor children, the deathly ill in nursing homes — to pay more for health care or go without.

Obama instead called for pushing for more reform, more of the hard work to police and curb rising health care costs. And he started by calling for allowing Medicare to use its purchasing power to gain bulk discounts for prescription drugs, a common sense measure now prohibited by current law.

In contrast to the Republican plan, the president insisted that deficit reduction come not simply from cuts in domestic programs, but from the defense budget also. He called for an ending the top end Bush tax cuts for the “millionaires and billionaires,” and opposed the Republican call for even more tax breaks for the wealthy. And he sensibly defended Social Security, noting that it does not contribute to the deficit and shouldn’t be part of the solution.

And the president forcefully flayed the utter folly of the Republican plan:

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

Given the rumors and suggestions floated by administration spokesmen before the speech, many progressives were pleased by the speech. Those of us who mobilized to demand defense of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were particularly relieved.

The Conservative Context

But it is worth understanding just how conservative this debate has become — and how far the president has retreated. The most progressive president since Johnson has now embraced a center-right agenda — even before entering negotiations with the Republicans.

Keynes and Jobs: RIP

The president effectively announced the demise of a reborn Keynesian era that has expired before the economy revived. 25 million Americans are in need of full-time work. Home values are still sinking; gas prices are at $4 a gallon and rising. Consumer confidence is plummeting. Europe’s growth is slowing. But the federal government will join the states and cities in immediately cutting spending and laying off workers.

With this premature embrace of austerity, mass unemployment may become the new normal. Wages will remain stagnant. The concentration of wealth will grow and the middle class will continue to decline.

The president allowed that he was “sympathetic” to the view that we shouldn’t cut spending until the economy is fully recovered. But he embraced the conservative argument that “doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option,” because we could do “real damage to the economy” if we don’t “begin a process now.”

But mass unemployment and stagnant wages represent “real damage to the economy” that is here and now, not speculative. There’s no sign of the potential harm that might be caused by deficits in the sometime future. Interest rates are low; America has no trouble financing its debt. The president started down this path prematurely in 2009; now he has forced the pace.

Timidity on Common Sense Priorities

We spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. We’re spending more now in comparable dollars than we did at the height of the Cold War under Reagan — and that’s not counting the cost of the three wars we’re fighting. We’re running an arms race with ourselves, while exhausting resources policing the world. And the military is the largest swamp of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. Its books are in such bad shape that they can’t be audited. The Pentagon can’t keep track of what it has purchased, stored or used.

On the other hand, domestic discretionary spending programs, starved for funds for years, are already headed to levels of the economy not seen since Eisenhower. We have a growing infrastructure investment deficit in everything from transportation to clean water systems to a smart energy grid. We aren’t providing students with even the basics in public education. A college education is ever more needed and ever less affordable for more and more Americans. We are chronically short of cops on the beat in our regulatory systems, policing workplace safety, safe food, clean air, financial frauds. We should be increasing investment in these areas, not decreasing them.

Yet the president would cut far less from the Defense budget — $400 billion over 12 years — than out of the smaller domestic budget — $750 billion more over 12 years. He would cut less from the Pentagon than the amount recommended by his Deficit Commission co-chairs.

Income and wealth are more concentrated in America than any time since 1929 and the eve of the Great Depression. The richest 1 percent now captures about 25 percent of the nation’s income. Successive tax cuts since Reagan have lowered to levels not seen since 1931.

The wealthiest Americans now pay a lower tax rate, as Warren Buffett has attested, than their secretaries.

Progressive tax reform is long overdue. As Rep. Jan Schakowsky has proposed, we should be extending higher tax rates to millionaires and billionaires, raising the levels at least to those imposed during Reagan’s first term in office.

We should be taxing things we need less of — like financial speculation. A small financial transactions tax would raise more than $100 billion a year while slowing the computerized gambling that now dominates and destabilizes our markets.

Obama sensibly opposes extending the Bush top-end tax cuts and calls for reducing the deductions and loopholes that rich Americans armed with skilled tax lawyers can exploit. But his modest reforms get twice as much deficit reduction from cutting spending than from raising revenues. And the result is a requirement for deep cuts in domestic programs that we should be expanding.

Center Right Debate

Americans support progressive priorities. The most popular measure to reduce the deficit is the millionaire’s tax. They prefer cuts in defense to cuts in education. They want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security protected. Jobs and the economy are a far higher priority than cutting spending. Indeed, the president’s greatest vulnerability in his quest for reelection next year will be mass unemployment and stagnant wages. “Where are the jobs” will be the Republican mantra in 2012 just as it was in 2010.

Yet, in Washington, we are having a center-right debate in a center-left nation. A reform president, taking office after the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, has abandoned any new initiatives on jobs. Policing the world remains the bipartisan consensus priority over rebuilding America. The wealthiest will continue to pay the lowest tax rates since the 1930s, even as investments vital to our future are starved. And that’s before the president enters into negotiations with the Tea Party House majority.

The reasons for this retreat are clear. The wealthy and the corporations mobilized big time to protect their privileges. An elite consensus — congealed in part by conservative financing by Peter Peterson and others — has helped feed the hysteria about deficits. The conservative Mighty Wurlitzer and the Tea Party zealots have revived right-wing ideas that should have been discredited for a generation by the Great Recession. And money talks louder than ever in our elections, even as it grows more concentrated.

The only way out of this fix is for citizens to organize, for a movement to demand the common sense reforms the country needs and Washington avoids. When there was a bipartisan consensus around the wrongheaded war of choice in Iraq, citizens organized across the world to try to stop it — and then, having failed, mobilized to bring it to a close. Now that movement must come together again to call Washington to its senses, to defend the American dream, to put people back to work, and to make this economy work for working people once more.

Obama Still Hammering Away

Sourced from TomDispatch.com

Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, Obama Still Hammering Away | TomDispatch

[Special Offer for TomDispatch Readers: The paperback edition of Andrew Bacevich’s bestselling book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War is being published this week.  When Washington Rules came out in hardcover, it was reviewed smashingly and many of you read its introductory chapter at this site.  A devastating anatomy of the narrowness of Washington’s thought processes, the book challenged the idea that American security requires the United States (and us alone) to maintain a permanent armed presence around the world and be ready to intervene anywhere at any time.  Unfortunately, given recent events, Washington Rules remains unbearably timely.  As a gesture of support to this site, Bacevich has agreed to send a personalized, signed copy of his new paperback to anyone who gives a contribution of $75 (or more) to TomDispatch.  Believe me, your contributions help keep us above the waves.  To make such a contribution or check out the offer further, just click here.  Remember, if you can’t contribute but are planning to buy the paperback of Washington Rules at Amazon.com anyway, please travel to that site via any TomDispatch book link or book-cover link and we get a small cut of your purchase, whatever it may be, at no extra cost to you.  Tom]

Was there ever an American president who publicly told more people on this planet what they must do than George W. Bush?  I suspect not.  He’s gone, of course, but America’s version of a “must-do” foreign policy didn’t exactly leave the scene with him — the only difference being that from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan, ever more places are taking those “musts” ever less seriously.

Just the other day I noticed this lead paragraph in a New York Times piece on Yemen, a country boiling with protests aimed at unseating its autocratic ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh: “The United States, which long supported Yemen’s president, even in the face of recent widespread protests, has now quietly shifted positions and has concluded that he is unlikely to bring about the required reforms and must be eased out of office, according to American and Yemeni officials.”

Admit it: whatever you think of Saleh, or the movement to unseat him (if you think about either at all), the idea that the U.S., only recently eagerly supporting him and his military forces as a bulwark against al-Qaeda, must now “ease him out of office” reeks of a very special kind of hubris.  Behind all this lies a kind of institutional self-love, Washington’s deeply embedded belief that we are still the only superpower in town and all situations should be amenable to our shifting needs and desires.

Continue reading »

Obama’s Budget Battle

ejdionne@washpost.com

Today begins the war over E2I2.

The great budget battle of Bill Clinton’s presidency was waged around a set of initials also inspired by the “Star Wars” character R2D2. Clinton’s lieutenants jauntily encapsulated his fight against Republican cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment as a defense of M2E2.

For President Obama, the battle lines will be drawn on investments in – or, as Republicans would say, spending on – education, energy, infrastructure and innovation, thus E2I2.

After Obama unveils his budget proposal on Monday, it will be hard to pretend anymore that the president and House Republicans live in the same political galaxy, let alone have a chance of reaching lots of bipartisan agreements.

House GOP members are fixated not on specific programs or the purposes of government but on how big an arbitrary number measuring their budget cuts should be. The leadership offered an absurdly long list of cuts in the very narrow part of the domestic budget.

A telling example: The party that purports to love community and church-based efforts to help the poor and downtrodden even zeroed out AmeriCorps, the national service program that has long enjoyed support across party lines. AmeriCorps, remember, gives out small grants that leverage an enormous amount of voluntary work for the groups George W. Bush used to praise as “the armies of compassion.”

But even those unrealistic cuts were not unrealistic enough for the GOP’s highly caffeinated Tea Party wing, so now Republican leaders are scrambling to generate bigger numbers. GOP leaders and the Tea Party can’t even agree on how to count the various cuts.

House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), who had already come up with $74 billion in cuts, had to produce an additional $26 billion to reach the magic number – $100 billion – that Republicans in the 2010 campaign promised to take out of the budget. Even that may not be enough. Why? Because his numbers included $16 billion in military savings that Tea Party members don’t recognize as part of the original promise, which was to come entirely out of non-security spending.

I almost feel sorry for Rogers, though Republicans who rode the Tea Party tiger to power should not be surprised if they get devoured in the process.

Obama’s budget, by contrast, will be a mix of cuts and increases, with the accent on policies oriented toward the future – ones that stress new education and energy initiatives, the need to fix our transportation and technology infrastructures, and the ways in which government can foster research, development and innovation.

But the president also slices programs popular with his supporters, notably low-income energy assistance and community development block grants that help cities. There is reason to worry that Obama’s cuts will do damage without satisfying Republicans – another case of the administration’s proclivity for preemptively making concessions that encourage the president’s opponents while dispiriting his friends.

The White House, however, believes that by showing a willingness to make reductions, his budget will shift the focus toward the specific programs Republicans would wipe out or cripple. A senior administration official hopes the argument will go like this: “They want to cut and spend. We want to cut and spend. Let’s compare their cuts and our cuts, their spending and our spending.”

The fight is confusing because Republicans are still talking about cuts in last year’s budget while Obama is largely concentrating on the coming year’s plan. And fiscally cautious Democrats in the Senate (especially the ones up for reelection in 2012) are an X-factor in everyone’s calculations.

It helps Obama that House Republicans are moving so far over to the wild side that they may ruin their chances of complicating the president’s strategy by splitting Senate Democrats. On the other hand, some Senate Democrats are so filled with electoral anxieties that they may simply race to catch up as the Tea Party keeps moving the budget goal posts.

Since November’s election, Obama has largely defined the domestic political debate while House Speaker John Boehner has presided over chaos in his own chamber.

But with an actual budget on the table, the president will face a different level of challenge. Like Clinton, he will invoke the “Star Wars” story line and hope Republicans play the Darth Vader role. But he’ll need to keep his troops behind him to prevail in the coming epic.

Obama Budget Would Raise Taxes On Affluent, Businesses, Boost Aid For Innovation

washingtonpost.com

Obama Budget Would Raise Taxes On Affluent, Businesses, Boost Aid For Innovation

President Obama rolled out a $3.7 trillion budget blueprint Monday that would trim or terminate more than 200 federal programs next year and make key investments in education, transportation and research. The plan is aimed at boosting the nation’s economy while reducing record budget deficits.

In a news conference at a Baltimore County middle school, Obama cast the document as a responsible alternative to the deep spending cuts that Republicans will urge in a vote this week on the House floor. Obama’s plan would trim domestic spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, striking hard at programs long favored by Democrats to make room for targeted increases in energy and medical research, corporate research and development and a new network to bring high-speed Internet access to 98 percent of Americans.

However, Obama also would rely heavily on new taxes, to a degree unacknowledged by administration officials in recent days. His budget request calls for well over $1.6 trillion in fresh revenue over the next decade, much of it through higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses.

Households with income of more than $250,000 a year would immediately see new limits on the value of their itemized deductions. And starting in 2013, they would lose the lower tax rates and other breaks that were enacted during the George W. Bush administration and recently extended.

The president proposes to hit businesses with an array of proposals he has offered in the past, including an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies, new taxes on hedge fund managers and a $30 billion fee on financial institutions aimed at repaying taxpayers for the federal TARP bailout.

The cuts target defense, heating assistance and the environment.

The announcement was Obama’s opening argument in what is likely to be months of debate with congressional Republicans who want to see deeper cuts.

He cast the reductions as necessary but also said that more funding for scientific research, innovation and education were essential to keep American competitive with other nations.

“It would mean cutting things that I care deeply about,” Obama said. “But if we’re going to walk the walk when it comes to fiscal discipline, these kinds of cuts will be necessary,”

He said that “while we are absolutely committed to working with Democrats and Republicans to find further savings … we can’t sacrifice our future in the process.”

Obama described his education initiatives as “investments in the future” and said he would fight for more funding. His budget proposal includes $40 million for training math and science teachers in elementary, high school and college classrooms.

Although Obama seeks an overhaul of the corporate tax code to lower the 35 percent rate on corporate profits, his budget does not make that costly adjustment. Instead, it offers previous proposals to eliminate tax breaks for corporations that do business overseas, reaping $129 billion in new revenue through 2021.

Obama also directs Congress to develop a plan to pay for a new, multi-year transportation bill, a measure traditionally funded by increasing the federal tax on gasoline. “Bipartisan financing” for the transportation trust fund is likely to add another $328 billion to the revenue tally, raising total tax hikes in Obama’s budget request to nearly $2 trillion through 2021.

The request drops one major proposal from previous budgets: Obama’s plan to develop a system of tradeable vouchers for greenhouse gas emissions. The measure, which passed the House, came under fierce attack from the GOP and the industry and was never taken up by the Senate.

Obama’s deficit-reduction strategies would do little to improve the immediate budget outlook. Obama projects that the deficit will hit a record $1.6 trillion this year – which, at nearly 11 percent of the economy, would be the largest since World War II. The bigger wave of red ink is caused in part by the recent bipartisan tax deal, which reduced payroll taxes this year for virtually every working American.

The annual deficit would recede to $1.1 trillion next year, as Obama’s latest policies began to take effect – the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. Obama projects that the deficit would fall rapidly thereafter, settling around $600 billion a year through 2018, when it would once again begin to climb as a growing number of retirees tapped into Social Security and Medicare.

All told, Obama estimates that the nation would have to borrow an additional $7.2 trillion through 2021 under his policies, an improvement from previous projections that exceeded $9 trillion. His plan calls for annual deficits – and therefore annual borrowing – to stabilize at about 3 percent of the economy for much of the decade. The national debt would then level off at about 76 percent of economy, nearly double the debt burden the nation carried before the recent recession.

However, those figures are based on the assumption that the economy will grow 4 percent in 2012 and 4.5 percent in 2013 – well above most private and governmental projections.

Obama said the document represents a pivot toward fiscal responsibility after two years of increased spending to stabilize the ravaged economy.

“Now that the threat of depression has passed, and economic growth is beginning to take hold, taking further steps toward reducing our long -term deficit has to be a priority, and it is in this budget,” Obama wrote. “We will not be able to compete with countries like China if we keep borrowing more and more from countries like China.”

But Republicans blasted the document as a bait-and-switch, saying it fails to live up to recent assertions by White House budget director Jacob Lew that Obama would reduce deficits primarily by cutting spending.

“What we have here is a total abdication of leadership and talking points based on gimmicks and cooking the books,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in an interview. “To me, it’s more than disappointing. I expected more taxes, but I also expected some serious spending controls or reforms, and we’re getting none of it.”

Although the budget request offers an important glimpse of the president’s priorities – his first since Republicans regained control of the House in November – it is unlikely to have much influence in the budget debate on Capitol Hill. House Republicans plan to offer their own spending proposal for fiscal 2012, after attempting to push through sharp and immediate cuts to spending this year.

Democrats, who control the Senate, have vowed to block the GOP cuts, setting the stage for a battle that could shut down the government unless the two sides can agree by a March 4 deadline. For next year’s budget, Senate Democrats are more amenable to Obama’s approach. But they, too, are pursuing a bolder budget strategy in hopes of striking a bipartisan compromise that would go further to solve the nation’s long-term problems.

“If we’re going to get this debt down to a level that’s sustainable, then we’ve got to do substantially more than $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction in the next decade. We just do,” said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.).

A senior administration official said Obama’s budget request maps “a sustainable path” that would stabilize government finances in preparation for a broader debate about how to tackle the biggest drivers of future deficits: Social Security and health care for the elderly, as well as a tax code that offers more in breaks and deductions than it collects in revenue.

Obama’s budget makes clear that he will not take the lead in that debate: It contains no specific recommendations for tax or entitlement reform.

Senior administration officials pointed to two significant changes that would improve the budget outlook by eliminating long-standing gimmicks Congress has used to hide the true depth of the red ink. The first would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare to ensure that payments to physicians are not subject to steep reductions. The second would pay for adjustments to the alternative-minimum tax to prevent it from striking deep into the middle class over the next three years.

And with Republicans unwilling to consider changes in tax policy as part of their deficit-reduction effort, Obama challenges them to reconsider. If Congress would permanently fix the AMT, or pay for its provisions, after 2014, the nation’s debt would start to shrink as soon as 2015.

The budget plan offers challenges for Democrats, as well. With voters clamoring for less spending, Obama is proposing cuts that many of his colleagues in Congress will find painful, lawmakers said.

A five-year freeze on domestic programs would reduce spending in that category to the lowest level, measured against the economy, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office in 1961. Half of all agencies would see their budgets reduced.

Among the cuts: Community development block grants would lose $300 million; low-income heating assistance would be sliced in half; $1 billion would be cut from large airport grants; nearly $1 billion would be trimmed from a fund that finances water treatment plans and other infrastructure projects; the Environmental Protection Agency took the biggest cut – 13 percent from the 2010 budget. Among the reductions is a Great Lakes Restoration initiative would lose 25 percent of its funding;

Nearly 40 duplicative or inefficient education programs would be condensed into 11, and 13 more would be eliminated. Sixty duplicative transportation programs would be consolidated into five, and limited to making investments only if Congress agrees on a financing plan that would not increase the deficit.

The Pentagon would also take a hit of $78 billion over the next five years, and defense spending would increase only for inflation thereafter. Combined with the drawdown in Iraq, overall military spending would be cut by 5 percent in 2012, compared with Obama’s fiscal 2011 request.

On Sunday, a senior White House official pointed to a trade-off that he called emblematic of the administration’s efforts: a restructuring of the Pell grant program, a key initiative of the Obama administration, to cover the maximum $5,550 benefit for a growing number of eligible college and vocational students. Grant recipients are projected to increase from about 6 million in 2008 to more than 9 million in 2012.

Republicans attacked the blueprint based on early reports, saying it would do too little to satisfy the public hunger for smaller government.

“The president talks like someone who recognizes that spending is out of control, but so far it hasn’t been matched with action. And his only solution to one of the most significant problems facing our country is to lock in spending at levels we all know are completely unsustainable,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said in a statement. “Americans don’t want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels. They want cuts, dramatic cuts.”

Democrats defended the president.

Obama’s budget blueprint “strikes the right balance, offering tough cuts in a responsible manner,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “Compared to the slash-and-burn Republican approach, this budget positions the president as offering a responsible approach to deficit reduction.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.