Obama Plays Dodgeball With the Budget

Moody's has downgraded adjusted the credit ratings of nine European countries. China is deferring action on its own debt crisis. Fortunately the U.S. enjoys sound fiscal leadership. It being February, the President has released his budget. Here is how Dana Milbank describes it at the WaPo:

The White House's budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts and omits all kinds of painful decisions. Even then, the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago — and it is a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign document.

The broken promise refers to the President assuring us, at the beginning of his term, that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of it. Was it really a promise if no one believed it at the time? In fact, the President's current budget would look depressing enough even if it weren't a fraud. That it is fraudulent means that the reality will be much worse.

Let's, for a moment, stick with the merely depressing.

The budget calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending. It shows deficits exceeding $600 billion in every year but one over the next decade, while the debt grows to $18.7 trillion.

And add these bits from Veronique de Rugy at The Corner.

Debt held by the public in 2012 will stand at $11.5 trillion, and by 2022 it will reach $19.4 trillion. That's a $7,900,000,000,000 increase in our debt.

By 2022, annual interest payments will be $1 trillion annually.

The Washington Post itself is conflicted. It doesn't like Republican plans because they slash spending, but it challenges the imagination to guess how the problem could be addressed without doing precisely that. Still, the WaPo is disappointed with the President.

To reduce debt, the first order of business must be Medicare. As he recommended with his debt reduction package last fall, Mr. Obama would introduce useful changes such as a premium surcharge for new Medicare beneficiaries who purchase first-dollar Medigap coverage. Still, most of the envisioned cuts fall on Medicare providers and do not go far enough to restructure the system. On Social Security, once again Mr. Obama fails to propose a strategy for putting the program on a sustainable path.

As Dana Milbank observed, the President's budget is not really a budget; it's a campaign document. He is "playing was dodgeball: evading anything resembling a serious budget proposal."

I have no confidence that any Republican can do better. The last time we balanced the federal books, there was a triangulating President in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress. That was in much more favorable economic conditions with a much more modest deficit to contend with.

This much seems certain: Barack Obama is either unwilling or incapable of dealing with the solvency crisis. He may be both. If he is reelected, which seems unlikely but no more unlikely than a Republican victory, we will get four more years of nothing resembling a serious budget proposal.

Comments

[Dave]

Meanwhile, the GOP wants to spend more on blowing stuff up and less on doing GODs work like feeding the hungry and clothing the poor... (Tell me again, why do they think of themselves as Christian?)

[duggersd]

Dave, the GOP does not need to do God's work. That is what things like churches are for. Our church has several missions we contribute to. And other churches and other organizations have other missions they contribute to. If the government was not involved in much of this, religious organizations and other humanitarian organizations could do a lot more. And, studies have shown that people who are of the GOP and more specifically conservative tend to give more to help the people than those who are of the Democrat and liberal mindset. If you need an illustration, compare the GOP Presidential contenders with Joe and Barack. You see, conservatives believe their charity dollars work best when they choose how to spend them. Liberals just think everybody else should contribute and liberals can best decide how to spend those dollars. Usually those dollars are spent on government. I believe I remember at one time about 10 or 15 years ago hearing that something like 60% of every dollar the government spends on welfare or other wealth distributing schemes goes to administration. I doubt is is any better today.

[Ken Blanchard]

Dave: you possess no ordinary mind.

[A.I.]

duggerSD: You very well may have "heard" 60% of government welfare spending goes to administration, but that doesn't make it so. Here's an analysis showing medicaid coming in at about 4.9%: http://mediamatters.org/research/200509210009. Note that administrative costs vary among government aid programs with 20% of expenditures being very high.

[duggersd]

I stand corrected on the 60% I seem to remember hearing about 10 or 15 years ago. However the point still remains that liberals want to be generous with other peoples' money. Conservatives tend to want to decide where their money goes. I am reminded of our former President Bill Clinton who once deducted $2 a piece for underwear (used or new? it does not say). http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2004-01-16-mym_x.htm Perhaps that would be better done by government?

[larry kurtz]

Democrats=safe sex; Republicans=cheap sex.

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: cheap sex sounds like more fun.

[Dave]

"the GOP does not need to do God's work[...]If the government was not involved in much of this, religious organizations and other humanitarian organizations could do a lot more[...] I believe I remember at one time about 10 or 15 years ago hearing that something like 60% of every dollar the government spends on welfare or other wealth distributing schemes goes to administration. I doubt is is any better today."

So why then is the GOP having gay airport bathroom sex with so many clergy on the topic of contraception?
How is the gobment blocking religious organizations from helping those who cant help themselves?
60%? Geeze... Why not 80 or 100%?

Ken, Thank you.

And by "cheap sex" I can only assume you mean gay airport bathroom sex...

[Ken Blanchard]

I find it interesting that no one even attempts to defend Obama's budget. Dave finds it more fun to peddle homophobic innuendos.

[duggersd]

Dave, that is another topic. My 60% comment has already been refuted and I accepted it. If you want to talk about the government's role in contraception, we can. But this is about Obama's budget, or lack of one.

[Dave]

Well... I think we can all agree that if the president proposed a budget where more is spent on the military and less on Social Security and Medicare the GOP would accuse him of "triangulation" and go all in to pass the budget. But that's not going to happen, is it?

[Dave]

Ken, I don't think there is anything homophobic in the fact that GOPers like to engage in gay airport bathroom sex. Gays do not have dominion over Lewd behavior...

[Bill Fleming]

Oh, okay, I'll defend Obama's budget. Why not? If Congress doesn't like it, they should modify it to their satisfaction and pass it. There is no requirement that the POTUS has to submit one that he knows Congress will pass.

Again, KB, let's look at reality here. Congressional approval has never been lower since it has been measured. The GOP dominates the House buy numbers and the Senate by filibuster.

If they can't get a budget passed, it's not Obama's fault. Not by a long shot.

I look forward to Obama's second term. It would serve congress right if he vetoed every single bill they put on his desk unless it was picture perfect. A little taste of that, and they might actually figure out how to work together again, if for no other reason than to override his vetos.

[duggersd]

I believe half of Congress did pass a bill. The Senate did not pass it and it was not the fault of the minority party. I understand the President's bill is being introduced by Mitch McConnell. And it will not pass. He did it last year and it was defeated 97-0. I believe the Republicans only have 47 seats. So who were those other 50?

[Dave]

Ken, interesting choice in graphics to go with this bit. What were your thoughts when choosing it?

A little "GOOGLE"ing Brings us to this

In the Two of Pentacles is an individual whose consciousness, represented by the waters, is tossed by seemingly conflicting interests. While the Ace of Pentacles represents the beginnings of a new business or financial venture, the Two represents the need to balance that venture with other important areas of life such as family, friends, and even our own physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. This card indicates the necessity for balance between opposing desires and interests. Life will always be uncertain, yet if you can produce balance and harmony among all the demands upon you, you will ultimately live happily and in prosperity.

Thus, the Two of Pentacles serves as a reminder to remain alert, agile and patient as you attempt to juggle your family, your friends, work, finances, health and new challenges. You need to be very clear on your priorities and where you want to invest your time and energy. There is a tendency to be distracted by day-to-day affairs and general busy-ness, so prioritising your activities and carefully managing your time is essential.

The Two of Pentacles brings you back down to earth and reminds you to not only focus on your broader life goals but to also make sure your day-to-day affairs are in order. This is a card of good time management and financial management, ensuring that your bills are paid on time, that you keep a record of all your appointments and daily commitments, etc. It may sound tedious having to focus your attention on these more mundane issues but this card reminds you that sometimes getting on top of your daily affairs is as important as pursuing your broader life goals.

Sometimes, the Two of Pentacles can indicate that there are problems and difficulties in the future. There may be obstacles erected which hinder the attainment of what you wish to pursue or obtain in life. The situation may cause undue worry and again, you will be required to juggle your priorities and manage your time effectively to stay on top of the situation.

Similarly, the Two of Pentacles predicts change. You need to be able to cope with change, remaining flexible and adaptable in your approach. Rather than putting all your eggs in one basket, you may be better to keep two or more things going at once so you have the luxury of choice, should one option fall through. You must stay centred while you stay flexible and keep informed. Look for new possibilities, be open to change and go with the flow as best you can.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: You say "There is no requirement that the POTUS has to submit [a budget] that he knows Congress will pass." What exactly do you think the President's job is? Trying to get a budget passed seems like part of that job to me. Presenting a budget that is fiscally sound seems like part of that job to me.

The Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, has acknowledged before Congress that the President's budget is unsustainable. That means that the President isn't doing his job.

I understand that you look forward to four more years of this. Despite your protests to the contrary, you are in favor of fiscal irresponsibility.

Dave: your mystical interpretation of my image justifies my use of it. If you want to defend the President's fiscal policy, the only recourse is the lurianic Kabbalah.

[Bill Fleming]

KB asks, "What exactly do you think the President's job is?"

You can find the basic job description here, KB
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

See especially Article II, Sections 1-4.

[Bill Fleming]

Oh... and this of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921
I think that about covers it, KB. It sounds to me like you want the POTUS to do congress's job for them. And, seeing as how they appear unwilling to do it themselves, that's perhaps not such a bad idea.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: okay, so if the President offers an irresponsible budget with no concern at all about whether it is passed, he is doing his job. He doesn't have to bother to push his Democratic caucus in the Senate to do what they have not done since he was inaugurated: pass a budget. He doesn't have to bother trying to bring the two sides together to actually pass a budget. All he has to do is sit in the dark and check boxes. I really wish the President's campaign would hire you as a consultant. I couldn't imagine a better or more accurate presentation of his leadership than the one you present.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, are you forgetting about the Budget Control act that was passed in 2011?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

[Bill Fleming]

That was more than a budget... it was a law.