Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    The Week

    Obama's 'nervous breakdown' budget: 5 talking points

    The president's polarizing spending plan is dead on arrival in Congress, critics say. But it's still triggering plenty of debate

    President Obama is taking fire from both sides of the aisle over his 2013 budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called the $3.8 trillion spending plan a "nervous breakdown on paper" because it slashes spending too drastically. Republicans, on the other hand, called Obama's proposal a "gimmick," saying it aims to please voters by merely pretending to substantially cut the deficit while putting off tough decisions on deficit reduction until after the November election. Here, five other reasons Obama's budget is making such a splash:

    1. Tax hikes make it unpassable
    Republicans haved stated flatly that Obama's budget is "dead on arrival," says Daniel Stone at The Daily Beast. "The reason: Tax increases on virtually every person making more than $250,000 a year, corporations included." The spending blueprint also lets Bush tax cuts expire, and imposes the so-called Buffett rule on people making $1 million per year, taxing them at a base rate of 30 percent. Obama has been talking for months about cutting deficits by pushing high-bracket tax rates higher. "Republicans, many beholden to an anti-tax-raising pledge, have never shown willingness to play ball," and there's no reason to think they'll change their minds now.

    SEE MORE: Would Jesus raise taxes on the rich?

     

    2. Once again, Obama has a $1 trillion deficit
    Along with its tax increases, the $3.8 trillion budget includes "less debt reduction than Obama had previously promised," says Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. For the fourth year in a row, the deficit exceeds $1 trillion. Republicans say that makes Obama a "budget buster," a charge he might have avoided by cutting more spending — although that would have increased the risk of deeper unemployment. Clearly, Obama wants to keep "plugging money into the economy, damn the torpedoes, and hitch his wagon to the country's continued economic progress."

    3. The budget is based on false assumptions
    Obama's budget is so full of "gimmicks," says Tina Korbe at Hot Air, that it's only useful as an example of "how easily the budget process can be abused." Obama's alleged longterm deficit reduction, for example, "assumes cuts to Medicare providers won't actually happen," and "also counts the inevitable winding down of the war costs in Afghanistan — all of which is borrowed — as $1 trillion in spending reduction." The bottom line is that Obama, "like presidents before him, is able to claim nearly $3 trillion in reduction that he hasn't actually proposed."

    SEE MORE: Tax dodgers on the federal payroll: By the numbers

     

    4. It's all about the election
    It doesn't really matter that Obama's budget won't pass as is, says Tom Raum at the Associated Press. That's not the point. Instead, the proposal "showcases the major priorities of his presidency and sets up the top battles that will be waged on both sides in the presidential campaign." Obama knows that Republicans will use his spending document to "make deficits and mounting debt the theme of their campaign," and attack what they'll call his "big government, tax-and-spend ways." But he's fine with that, because his aim is to signal to middle-class voters, who like the idea of making the rich pay more taxes, that his priority is creating jobs.

    5. It spotlights the contrast between Obama and Romney
    Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney called Obama's budget "an insult to the American taxpayer." Interesting, then, says John Cassidy at The New Yorker, that Obama's hike in the tax rate on dividends and investment capital gains — from 15 percent to a top rate of 35 percent — would push the taxes on Romney's $20.9 million 2011 income from $3.2 million to $7.3 million. A budget that is "dead on arrival" but hammers campaign planks and slaps a 133 percent tax hike on a potential rival in an election year? That's a "very politcial document," indeed.

    SEE MORE: Could the GOP impeach Obama for ending the Bush tax cuts?

     

    View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

    Other stories from this topic:

    Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

     

    46 comments

    • S  •  3 mths ago
      Oh Good! More talking points from The Week. It's been a few days and I was getting worried...
    • KATHLEEN  •  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  •  3 mths ago
      This 47% of taxpayers paying no tax is a bunch of #$%$ Everyone should have some skin in the game and NO ONE should get a refund larger than the amount paid in taxes.
      • John Q. Public 3 mths ago
        @Kathleen: Everybody has skin in the game. Just because they're not paying Federal income taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society. Fuel tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, import tax and so on are all priced into the goods we buy everyday.
      • John Q. Public 3 mths ago
        @Kathleen: Everybody has skin in the game. Just because they're not paying Federal income taxes doesn't mean they don't contribute to society. Fuel tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, import tax and so on are all priced into the goods we buy everyday.
      • h2o4ever 3 mths ago
        @Kathleen: You are correct that a sizeable chunk of Americans pay no taxes. Many of those are collecting some sort of social welfare like food stamps. So if we were to tax these people $50/mo. for example, wouldn't we just have to turn around and give them $50 more in food stamps? And what is the cost to taxpayers to collect that money, then turn around and dole it back out? $60-$70?
    • Windriver  •  Pto. Limon, Costa Rica  •  3 mths ago
      President Obama wants to give raises to people collecting federal paychecks, but in his new budget proposal, troops would get a larger pay boost than civilian employees.

      The White House budget plan released Monday would increase federal civilian pay by a modest 0.5 percent, a bump that would end a two-year cost-of-living pay freeze. Uniformed military personnel would receive a 1.7 percent raise in 2013, the increase indicated by law, according to the proposal.
      • Topkick 3 mths ago
        Good Comment. I didn't realize Fed employees were receiving no COLA iincreases, and 1.7% for the miltary doesn't begin to get many enlisted families off the food stamp lists. Anyone can find fault with any budget. With those items.Too little!
      • Michael in Az. 3 mths ago
        Nice fact finding...go up this post and inform the "Obummers"
    • razor  •  West Jordan, Utah  •  3 mths ago
      Once again ,It's a spending problem! No more money to foreign countries until our economy is stable, and maybe not then!!
    • Linkshänder  •  San Francisco, California  •  3 mths ago
      I find it interesting (And hypocritical) that Obama derides Romney for not doing his "fair share." Yet Romney has consistently contributed over 10% of his income to charity. And he didn't just put up money, he worked for decades in leadership service for his church. And if his charity and church service wasn't enough, when asked, he salvage the '02 Olympics. For a man who doesn't do his "fair share" he does an awful lot. What has Obama done? Hoe much of his income does Obama contribute to charity? Has he ever done any service for someone other than Obama? My recollection is that Obama most notable contribution to his church was to be "not present" during inflammatory sermons.
      • John Q. Public 3 mths ago
        @Linkshander: I wasn't aware that charity contributions were mandatory, like taxes.
      • h2o4ever 3 mths ago
        Sorry, but tithing 10% of your income to the church is not charity. Especially if the LDS church takes that money and turns around to spend it on his campaign or gives it to his superPAC.
      • lisa 3 mths ago
        What about the 48% of Americans who pay no taxes at all?
    • A Yahoo! User  •  3 mths ago
      Of course it's about politics? The thing is, BHO has nothing to lose by making it about politics. No matter what he sent to Congress, it would be immediately consigned to the circular file, and the House of Representatives would proceed to build a new budget from scratch. It doesn't matter.

      If anything, I would have limited my proposal to 30 pages or so to save printing costs. If Congress is just going to throw it into the shredder anyway, you might as well save a few trees.
    • Windriver  •  Pto. Limon, Costa Rica  •  3 mths ago
      In February 2009, Obama submitted his first budget to Congress. It boldly predicted that the federal deficit would decrease dramatically during Obama’s term, dropping from an estimated $1.841 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $557.4 billion in fiscal 2012.

      However, in the fiscal 2013 budget that Obama submitted to Congress today, the White House is predicting that the federal deficit for fiscal 2012 will not be $557.4 billion after all. Instead, the White House says, it will be $1.3269 trillion.

      That means Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal missed on its fiscal 2012 deficit prediction by $769.5 billion — an error of 138 percent.
      • DanU 3 mths ago
        Obama - wrong again.
      • John Q. Public 3 mths ago
        @Windriver: You left out one important point on why Obama's prediction was wrong: The Bush II tax cuts. They were set to expire at the end of 2010. That means that the deficit is necessarily larger than he predicted in 2009.
      • Windriver 3 mths ago
        Then Obama SIGNED their continuation! That my friend you cannot blame on Bush. They are now and forever more the Obama Tax Cuts!
    • Jean  •  3 mths ago
      Brought to you by "the nervous breakdown" This Week editorial staff.
    • derekk  •  Denver, Colorado  •  3 mths ago
      4. It's all about the election ( end of story) everything from here out is for the election.
    • Jerry P.  •  3 mths ago
      It's my money and I will move it to where ever it's more profitable to me. If Obama raises the investment income tax, I'll move my money somewhere else.
    • eric  •  3 mths ago
      google awsome video media biased against Ron Paul
    • Lost  •  3 mths ago
      The budget was designed to be a political trap and nothing more. He plays a very calculated game of chess.
    • JW  •  3 mths ago
      The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press'.

      From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

      General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

      The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...

      During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

      NOW GET THIS !!

      'Senator'Obama replied:

      "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

      (ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)

      Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ......."


      When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".

      "Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path..My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "

      WHAAAAAAAT, the Hell is that???

      Yes, you read it right.

      I, for one, am speechless!!!

      Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post
      • Last Rites 3 mths ago
        Meet the Press Transcript 7 Sept 2008 does not include Obama... I think your sources maybe flawed on this one.
      • Stan 3 mths ago
        JW - your post is a proven hoax. You probably cut and pasted it from an e-mail chain. Nothing like spreading disinformation to make you feel important, eh?
    • Windriver  •  Pto. Limon, Costa Rica  •  3 mths ago
      HOUSING: President’s Budget Would Increase Taxpayer Losses on TARP
      President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget proposal touts the administration's recent long-shot mortgage refinancing proposal and says the White House's increased emphasis on the housing crisis will lead to larger taxpayer losses from a 2008 emergency bailout fund.The budget, as expected includes a call for broadening the availability of refinancing options for borrowers who are current on their mortgages but owe more than their homes are worth. The administration said it plans to finish doling out unspent funds for housing assistance, which is likely to increase the costs of the emergency financial bailout by $20 billion -- something that is likely to generate criticism from Republicans for increasing taxpayer costs.
    • HAL 9000  •  3 mths ago
      According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
      • In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
      • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
      • Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

      Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

      The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
    • Rick  •  3 mths ago
      that's not a budget, it's a political stunt.................. what a surprise -
    • Jerry P.  •  3 mths ago
      Obama assumes the 42% revenue from investment income would always be there. By increasing the tax rate of the risky investment by 100%, many investors would easily just sell their stocks and use their cash to invest in companies in China instead. It's still the RICH world.
    • Lost  •  3 mths ago
      Has anyone noticed that lately Yahoo's articles seem to have become more biased in both directions depending on who the subject is. Sensationalism crap that they think will get more readers. In actuality it causes discrediting thoughts on both sides of the arguments toward Yahoo's creditability.
    • arthura  •  Chicago, Illinois  •  3 mths ago
      How many Americans even know that the democrats have not passed a budget going on over 1,000 days. By law a budget has to be passed every year by a certain day! Sadly, Americans will never have this reported by the liberal media, which includes MSNBC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the liberal press. What good is a FREE PRESS if it acts as a mouthpiece for those in power. It is now revealed that Media Matters For America, a liberal outfit partners with the White House to slant news to benefit Obama and destroy FOX News. Americans should get ready for Character Assassination, by DNC, which they used to ensure the election of Obama!
    • Larry Dickson  •  San Diego, California  •  3 mths ago
      "[H]is aim is to signal to middle-class voters, who like the idea of making the rich pay more taxes, that his priority is creating jobs" ??? Crazy. Tax multinationals (job exporters) if you want, but making individual American citizens ("the rich") pay more will destroy jobs.