Obama's 'balanced' deficit reduction plan is anything but ( tax increases at 73% of the budget)

American Thinker ^ | 11/15/2012 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

James Pethokoukis writing at the AEI Enterprise blog, examines the president's "balanced" plan to cut $4.4 trillion from the budget over the next decade. James points out that the plan is "reheating of his 80-page deficit reduction package from September 2011 which, on paper, showed $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised.

Not so fast:

*****

Once you begin to dig into the numbers, the plan doesn't look balanced at all. As the bipartisan Committee for Responsible Federal Budget noted back then:

The Administration claims that the plan would save about $4.4 trillion in total (including interest savings, war savings, and the costs of the jobs proposals). However ... counting the war savings is counting a policy that is already in place and is thus a gimmick to be avoided. Taking out the war savings and savings from the discretionary cuts in the Budget Control Act leads to total savings of less than $2 trillion.

Of the supposed savings, then, $1.6 trillion comes from tax hikes and $577 billion comes from spending cuts, not counting saved interest. So 73% of the savings comes from taxes, 27% from spending cuts. That's $3 of tax hikes for every $1 of spending cuts.

Even if you include interest savings, 60% of the debt reduction comes from tax hikes. Obama is making the exact mistake Europe is making by employing a tax-hike heavy version of fiscal austerity. Indeed, a 2010 analysis by AEI scholars found that successful fiscal consolidations are heavy on spending cuts, light on tax hikes. Even Bill Clinton's debt reduction plan was 2-1 in favor of spending cuts. The Obama plan is dangerously unbalanced, especially given the weak economic recovery.

*****

The president just concluded a pep rally at the White House with his far left liberal base.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Planning on taxing income that will not exist. Idiots.

[Pining_4_TX]

These discussions drive me nuts! First, why doesn’t anyone ever ask Obama why less money going to the government is a cost? Whose money is it, anyway? The idea that tax cuts are a cost to the government assumes that all wealth belongs to the state and we ought to be grateful when they let folks keep some of what rightfully belongs to them.

Second, why is the fact that someone has a lot of money make it morally right to take that wealth from them and give it to someone else?

Finally, and I really don’t understand why this is never mentioned, what about all the money that is lost through waste and fraud? That amounts to billions of dollars every year! HUD, Medicare and Medicaid, and every other government program is ripe for the picking. Also, does the GSA really need another expensive vacation at our expense?

Once we accept the premises of the left that we need more revenue and not less spending, we have already lost the battle.

[brownsfan]

This is awesome. This will provide me will lots of entertainment. First, Obama will collapse the economy further, and I can enjoy the takers screams, as the collapse will hurt them more than it will me. Second, I can enjoy the screams from those who stayed home in 2012 for reasons of political purity. Great, you didn’t vote Romney, maybe you even voted Gary Johnson. Good move, how’s that tax increase working for you?

[dalebert]

Its more looting...revenue is up 26%..they need to cut spending

[SeekAndFind]

RE: the collapse will hurt them more than it will me.

And you’re going to enjoy your hurt because it hurts less than the takers???

[brownsfan]

“RE: the collapse will hurt them more than it will me.

And you’re going to enjoy your hurt because it hurts less than the takers???”

I am powerless in this. I didn’t want the collapse. I voted to mitigate the collapse, but the people who want free stuff out number those who are rational.

Given that the collapse is coming, and I have no power over it at all. You are darn right, I’ll enjoy the fact that it hurts those who asked for it, more than it hurts me.

[BitWielder1]

Without reducing spending, the whole exercise is pointless.
Giving them more money to waste means they will do just that.
Another four miserable years...

[Qbert]

"Even if you include interest savings, 60% of the debt reduction comes from tax hikes. Obama is making the exact mistake Europe is making by employing a tax-hike heavy version of fiscal austerity."

The same Eurozone that just fell into its second recession since 2009 today...

[Intolerant in NJ]

The sum substance of Obama’s budget plan has always been his ideological, get even with the successful for making me feel inferior tax the rich scheme - watched a roundtable of CEO’s on Bloomberg last night - one had served on the Simpson-Bowles commission - he said they had run some what-ifs and found they’d have to raise taxes on everyone making down to $30,000.00 a year in order to make a dent in the debt - everyone wants to tax “the rich” until that category gets down to them......