Free Markets, Free People

Obama budget full of gimmicks and rosy assumptions

Representative Paul Ryan characterized the Obama budget as not a fiscal plan but “a political plan designed to help the President’s reelection.”  Getting into the details seems to validate Ryan’s point.

He also pointed out that the debt crisis is the most predictable crisis imaginable and the president has "punted" again with this budget. Said Ryan, “Instead of an America built to last we get an America drowning in debt.”

The White House claims the Obama budget saves 4 trillion over and above the Budget Control Act.  But in fact, the Obama budget rides the base line and throws more taxing and spending on top of it (while claiming to save 4 trillion).  Analysis of the budget shows, at best, a savings of 300 billion over 10 years.

As for an “America Built To Last”, Obama approaches that in a very odd way.  He goes after businesses and investors:

1. The top income rate would be raised to 39.6 percent vs. 35 percent today.

2. Under the “Buffett rule,” no household making over $1 million annually would pay less than 30 percent of their income in taxes.

3. Between now the end of a second Obama term, Obama proposes $707 billion in “net deficit reduction proposals.” Of that amount, only 16 percent is spending cuts.

4. The majority of small business profits would be taxed at 39.6 percent vs. 35 percent today.

5. The capital gains rate would rise to 25.0 percent (including the Obamacare surtax and deduction phase out) from 15 percent today.

6. The double-tax on corporate profits (including dividends) would increase to 64 percent based on the statutory corporate tax rate (58 percent using the effective tax rate), easily the highest among advanced economies.

7. The double tax on corporate profits (including capital gains) would increase to 51 percent (44 percent using the effective tax rate), also among the highest among advanced economies.

Those details alone are a basis for declaring his budget “dead on arrival” at Congress.  These new taxes would take the tax revenue as a share of GDP to 20.1 percent in 2022.  The historical average is 18 percent.  In a time of deep recession, when government should be proposing economic, tax, labor and trade policies to create jobs and move the economy in a positive direction, Obama’s budget proposes to do exactly the opposite.  The attack on small business, as well as corporations, points to a president out of touch with the problems of the economy.  He claims to save 4 trillion on debt with these policies but in fact, his budget proposals add 6.7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years and the debt-to-GDP ratio is predicted to be 74.2 percent this year and 76.5 percent in 2022.

And here’s the bottom line truth about policies such as Obama is pursuing:

Corporate taxes are paid by consumers in higher prices and by workers in lower wages – so much for the promise not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. Every good tax economist knows this, but the president chooses to ignore reality and demagogue the issue.


Given that, how does the White House justify such policies?  Well, it simply makes up a rosy forecast for the future, that’s how.  3.4 percent in 2015, 4.1 percent in 2017 and 3.9 percent in 2018.  As James Pethokoukis points out:

The U.S. economy has only seen a run like that three times in the past four decades.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that we’ll come roaring out of one of the longest and deepest recessions since the Great Depression with taxes focused mostly on business at a higher than historical rate?  Not likely.

Meanwhile we’re being told by the President’s Chief of Staff that it is all the Republican’s fault that we don’t have a budget out of the Senate.  Mistakenly claiming that it takes 60 votes to pass a budget, he points to the Republican Senators as the obstructionists.

Of course, on budget matters, it only takes a simple majority.  And there are 53 Democratic Senators.   If you recall, the Senate minority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell introduced and got votes on two budgets last year – the Ryan budget, voted down by Democrats and President Obama’s budget which was voted down 97-0.   Harry Reid, however, has introduced no budget in over 1,000 days.

And the gimmicks:

At issue is how the government projects spending and deficits going forward. Of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction claimed by the White House, $3 trillion would come from a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Another $900 billion would come from domestic spending caps agreed to with Republicans last year to resolve the impasse over raising the nation’s statutory borrowing limit.

But if Congress and the president did nothing, spending would actually fall by $2 trillion under current law. That is because automatic cuts to defense and nondefense programs totaling $1.2 trillion are already set to go in force in 2013. The Obama budget assumes those cuts will not happen. The president also assumes that sharp cuts to reimbursement rates for doctors treating Medicare patients will never be enforced, but the budget does not detail how those scheduled cuts will be prevented.

Republicans say that effectively negates $522 billion over 10 years, since Congress will have to figure out how to pay for the so-called Medicare doc fix.

Republicans also protest that Mr. Obama is "saving" nearly $1 trillion by not spending over the coming decade what the United States has spent each year on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So the Obama savings are built on assuming the “Doc Fix” won’t be made and that war spending will remain at the current level (even with the withdrawal from Iraq and the coming withdrawal from Afghanistan) for 10 years – something obviously not the case.  He’s built his 4 trillion in “savings” on 1 trillion in tax increases, 2 trillion on spending cuts already enacted into law (sequestration), 1 trillion assuming war spending will remain level for 10 years.  Meanwhile most of his spending cuts come from where?  The military, of course.

Finally, remember this?

“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we’ve inherited. And we’ll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”

Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

This budget does none of the above.  In fact, it’s not even close.  There are no “difficult decisions” included.   There are now “challenges” faced.  As Rep. Ryan said, Obama has again “punted”.

This is indeed the most predictable crisis imaginable and again, the man who claimed he would do what is necessary to fix the problem has once again kicked the can down the road.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

16 Responses to Obama budget full of gimmicks and rosy assumptions

  • One of my favorite bits…

    1. MORE money to subsidize Sparky Pinto…while…

    2. screwing poor DC kids out of $8000 a piece to allow them to continue attending schools that EVERYBODY wants and which are working.

    Not that I am a big supporter of the DC school choice spending, BUT is sure as hell tells us just how concerned Barackah is for actual poor (pretty much all minority) kids. The people who DON’T want the program to continue are the DC school union bigs.

    • @Ragspierre Remember, in a couple years, this Obama budget will be ‘the fault of the Republicans”.

      • @looker Oh, why wait…?? I’m dead sure this is all BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooh’s fault right now. After all, he’s the reason Obama could not HALF the deficit by now. Puuurr Bad Luck Barry…

        • @Ragspierre Well, you know that first two years of Obama’s term, when he had complete control of the Legislature and increased the deficit – Bush’s fault.

        • Funny though, it’s Bush’s fault that Obama inherited things from the previous administration, but when Democrats leave things behind for Republican Administrations (Social Security, Meidcare, Medicaid) it’s the REPUBLICAN’s fault those programs are in place,. Pretty sweet really.

        • @looker The one-way ratchet of Collectivism. One of Keynes’ chief misunderstandings. The government spending ratchet only clicks one way. I guess you have to break it to change it…a solution I’m increasingly seeing as necessary.

    • @Ragspierre I liked the money for helping the flowers of Arab Spring. Nothing like subsidizing governments that will paint us as the great Satan, and which we’ll probably spend years being threatened by and may ultimately have to destroy.

      • @looker @Ragspierre But if you write a letter to say, oh, Time Ragazine, then in 20 years you can point to that after you’ve flipflopped to prove you were right when you were wrong before you were right after you were wrong. Get it?

        • @DocD @Ragspierre Now borrowing the questionable Cold War philosophy of us supporting anti-communist dictators. “he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator”.
          That is seems to be the new plan, they may be Islamic Fundamentalists, but they’re somehow OUR Islamic Fundamentalists. Well, at least until they do what they were always going to do, which will be called ‘unexpected’ by people who are surprised when dogs “unexpectedly” bark and ducks “unexpectedly” quack.

  • Obama, standing before a national audience explaining his budget says “PRESENT!”

  • “The majority of small business profits would be taxed at 39.6 percent vs. 35 percent today.” Just a quick note, while small businesses account for 52% of all US employment, the majority of small business profits are generated from just 5% of small businesses, mostly because they are not very small. For example, some hedge funds are technically defined as small businesses and may have few employees, but might have billions in profits, while a sole proprietorship grocery store might employ 50 people, but have total profits under $200k. The point being, that the tax increase will not affect 95% of small business owners, it will effect a big chunk of small business profits because a big chunk of small business profits come from a small minority of firms.

  • Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) cornered Obama Budget Director Jeff Zients on the inconsistencies in the President’s new budget proposal, asking him if he’ll resign if his claims are incorrect.

    What an excellent idea.

  • When a hot air balloon is losing altitude over the wrong place, there are two solutions: more hot air (taxes) or dumping ballast (Dept of Education, HHS, HUD, Fannie/Freddie, Dept of Ag, Dept of Commerce, Dept of HS, etc…). Note the word “dumping”, not “trimming”, not “slowing the increase”, but “dumping” as in completely dumping.

  • Where are those cuts in entitlement spending Obama promised…???

  • Bruce,

    Nice roundup of the budget proposal. Here at API, we view this proposal as the “anti-stimulus.” It places Washington squarely in the path of America’s economic comeback by increasing taxes on the country’s energy companies by $41 billion over 10 years. Although the oil and natural gas industry is its own stimulus, contributing $476 billion to the economy in 2010, the president would saddle the industry with new taxes – hampering its ability to develop new energy sources and create new jobs. API President and CEO Jack Gerard said yesterday, “The administration should be trying to replicate the success America’s oil and natural gas industry has had in creating jobs and growing the economy primarily through development on private and state lands. The evidence clearly shows that what we’re doing is working.”