Obama's budget

[Randall]

Wow. I'd like to see the $2 Trillion in cuts he sopke of the other night, I would like to see Cold War era equipment cuts he mentioned.

 

We need 21st century not 1990's era defense equipment.

 

 

Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget

The president's first budget will top $3 trillion and predicts soaring deficit

NBC News and news services

updated 9:30 a.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is sending Congress a "hard choices" budget that would boost taxes on the wealthy and curtail Medicare payments to insurance companies and hospitals to make way for a $634 billion down payment on universal health care.

 

Obama's first budget, which will top $3 trillion, predicts the deficit for this year will soar to a whopping $1.75 trillion, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity before the public unveiling of the budget Thursday. The huge deficit reflects the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

 

The new budget also plans for additional financial bailouts of up to $750 billion, a senior administration official told NBC News. But the White House believes that as the economy improves it will get roughly $500 billion back, so the expected cost to taxpayers is $250 billion.

 

Obama, in a morning briefing, spoke of "hard choices that lie ahead." He called his budget "an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go."

 

"We need to be honest with ourselves about which costs are being racked up," said the president. He pledged that the budget will focus on rebuilding the "foundations" of the American economy.

 

One administration official called the request for additional bailout resources a "placeholder" in advance of a determination by the Treasury Department of what will actually be needed.

 

The spending blueprint Obama is sending Congress is a 140-page outline, with the complete details scheduled to come in mid to late April, when the new administration sends up the massive budget books that will flesh out the plan.

 

However, the submission of the bare budget outline was certain to set off fierce debate in Congress over Obama's spending and tax priorities. The document includes additional requests for the current year and Obama's proposals for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

 

The budget balances efforts to fulfill Obama's campaign pledges to deliver tax cuts to the middle class, expand health care coverage and combat the economic crisis with an effort to keep an exploding deficit over the next few years from becoming a permanent drag on the economy. However, Republicans assailed the budget for the tax increases and some Democrats worried that Obama was not doing enough to get the deficit under control.

 

"I would give him good marks as a beginning, but we have to do a lot more to take on this long-term debt buildup," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

 

Republicans zeroed in on the tax increases to fund half of Obama's health care expansion.

 

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

 

 

The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. The tax increase would occur by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. As one example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent would see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.

 

The other half of the down payment on Obama's drive toward universal health care — $318 billion — would come from curtailing payments to hospitals and insurance companies under Medicare and drug payments under Medicaid.

 

To meet his pledge of tax cuts for the middle class, the president wants to make permanent the $400 annual tax cut due to start showing up in workers' paychecks in April as part of the $787 billion stimulus package just passed by Congress. Obama's budget also extends the middle class tax cuts passed by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003. Those cuts were due to expire at the end of 2010. If Congress approves Obama's recommendations, the Bush tax cuts would only expire for couples making more than $250,000 per year.

 

The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, a level — as a percentage of the economy — not seen since World War II. The deficit is expected to remain around $1 trillion for the next two years before starting to decline to $533 billion in 2013, according to budget projections.

 

Obama's plan proposes achieving $634 billion in savings on projected health care spending and diverting those resources to expanding coverage for uninsured Americans. The $634 billion represents a little more than half the money that would be needed to extend health insurance to all of the 48 million Americans now uninsured.

 

Americans now spend a total of $2.4 trillion a year on health care.

 

 

Obama also will ask for an additional $75 billion to cover the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, the end of the current budget year. That would be on top of the $40 billion already appropriated by Congress, the administration official said.

 

The administration will also ask for $130 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 and will budget the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at $50 billion annually over the next several years.

 

Obama's budget proposal would effectively raise income taxes and curb tax deductions on couples making more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011. By not extending former President George W. Bush's tax cuts for such wealthier filers, Obama would allow the marginal rate on household incomes above $250,000 to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

 

The plan also contains a contentious proposal to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by auctioning off permits to exceed carbon emissions caps, which Obama wants to impose on users of fossil fuels to address global warming.

 

Some of the revenues from the pollution permits would be used to extend the "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples beyond 2010, as provided in the just-passed economic stimulus bill.

 

About half of what officials characterized as a $634 billion "down payment" toward health care coverage for every American would come from cuts in Medicare. That is sure to incite battles with doctors, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

 

Some of the Medicare savings would come from scaling back payments to private insurance plans that serve older Americans, which many analysts believe to be inflated. Other proposals include charging upper-income beneficiaries a higher premium for Medicare's prescription drug coverage.

 

To raise the other half, Obama wants to reduce the rate by which wealthier people can cut their taxes through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, local taxes and other expenses to 28 cents on the dollar, rather than the 35 cents they can claim now. Even more money would be raised if the top rate reverts to 39.6 percent, as Obama wants.

 

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, called Obama's proposal to tax the wealthy to finance health care reform a starting point. But he wants to also examine taxing some of health insurance benefits provided by employers — an idea rejected by Obama in last year's presidential campaign.

 

Budget documents provided to The Associated Press show that Obama will not lay out a detailed blueprint for a health care overhaul, but a set of broad policy principles and some specific ideas for how to raise a big chunk of the money.

 

Obama's promise to phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year is sure to cause concerns among rural Democrats.

 

Even after all those difficult choices, cutting about $2 trillion from the budget over 10 years, Obama's budget still would feature huge deficits.

 

 

 

The $1.75 trillion deficit projected for this year would represent 12.3 percent of the gross domestic product, double the previous post-war record of 6 percent in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, and the highest level since the deficit totaled 21.5 percent of GDP in 1945, at the end of World War II.

 

At $533 billion, the deficit in 2013 will be about 3 percent of the size of the economy, a level that administration officials said would be manageable.

 

NBC's Chuck Todd contributed to this story.

 

© 2009 msnbc.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/

[Randall]

"Republicans zeroed in on the tax increases to fund half of Obama's health care expansion.

 

"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

 

 

 

 

 

Small businesses? Anyone making over $250,000 in individual income has their business incorporated.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Can we afford it? No. But hey, we haven't been able to afford our national budgets for decades.

[dmarc117]

its like a parent that smokes around their kid telling their kid to not smoke.

[Perchoutofwater]

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a "hard choices" budget that would boost taxes on the wealthy and curtail Medicare payments to insurance companies and hospitals to make way for a $634 billion down payment on universal health care.

 

So the hard choice it to choke small business owners? If they curtail medicate payments to insurance companies and hospitals, what is going to be the effect? The hospitals will jack up their prices to paying customers to make up the difference to non-paying customers, which means insurance rates will go up, which is an additional cost to the small business owner on top of him already paying more in taxes? How is this going to effect employment and benefits offered by employers? Is this just the first step to full blown socialized medicine?

[dmarc117]

welfarers and deadbeats contribute so much to this world

[Perchoutofwater]

The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. The tax increase would occur by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. As one example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent would see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.

 

Nice, let's raise taxes and reduce charitable contributions, that way when the charities are all gone there will be no one to look to for help besides the government tit.

[Perchoutofwater]

The plan also contains a contentious proposal to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by auctioning off permits to exceed carbon emissions caps, which Obama wants to impose on users of fossil fuels to address global warming.

 

I guess this could stimulate the economy by creating a new industry of carbon credit traders. Of course there will be costs incurred by the companies having to buy them, which will probably be passed on to the consumer, so we've added more bureaucracy and another middle man to drive up the final cost of goods that the consumer buys. I guess a little inflation is good.

[Perchoutofwater]

Obama's promise to phase out direct payments to farming operations with revenues above $500,000 a year is sure to cause concerns among rural Democrats.

 

Well there is at least one thing I can agree with, but couldn't we expand this to all subsidies? Then again I think subsidizing these farms probably keeps the cost of food down, so I can probably expect another tax increase to pay for more food stamps. Seriously we need to get rid of all subsidies, but there are some of them I would keep before looking at researching pig odor and adding on to the Kennedy Presidential Library.

[Randall]

Can we afford it? No. But hey, we haven't been able to afford our national budgets for decades.

 

 

That's true. I'd like to see the whole process(education, SS, Defense, etc) rebuilt. Football teams cut players, we should be able to jettison what doesn't work and import what does.

 

I'm waiting for details. Bring on the lobbyists.

[Randall]

Well there is at least one thing I can agree with, but couldn't we expand this to all subsidies? Then again I think subsidizing these farms probably keeps the cost of food down, so I can probably expect another tax increase to pay for more food stamps. Seriously we need to get rid of all subsidies, but there are some of them I would keep before looking at researching pig odor and adding on to the Kennedy Presidential Library.

 

 

I hope so.

[Azazello1313]

Wow. I'd like to see the $2 Trillion in cuts he sopke of the other night, I would like to see Cold War era equipment cuts he mentioned.

 

We need 21st century not 1990's era defense equipment.

 

so you think "21st century defense equipment" will cost less than 1990s equipment? sounds like you're proposing even more defense spending. lucky for you, it seems like obama is pretty much on board with that. I'm very interested to see what obama does with that decision (which must be made by sunday).

 

eta: link fixed

Edited February 26, 2009 by Azazello1313

[Perchoutofwater]

so you think "21st century defense equipment" will cost less than 1990s equipment? sounds like you're proposing even more defense spending. lucky for you, it seems like obama is pretty much on board with that. I'm very interested to see what obama does with that decision (which must be made by sunday).

 

Not Found

 

The requested URL /2009/02/obamas-f-22-decision.php' was not found on this server.

[Randall]

so you think "21st century defense equipment" will cost less than 1990s equipment? sounds like you're proposing even more defense spending. lucky for you, it seems like obama is pretty much on board with that. I'm very interested to see what obama does with that decision (which must be made by sunday).

 

eta: link fixed

 

 

Like I said I'm waiting for details.

 

If it were up to me I'd consider pausing on equipment that isn't needed right now until the economy is in better shape.

 

 

I have been against the Osprey for a while now.

 

"The saga of the V-22 — the battles over its future on Capitol Hill, a performance record that is spotty at best, a long, determined quest by the Marines to get what they wanted — demonstrates how Washington works (or, rather, doesn't). It exposes the compromises that are made when narrow interests collide with common sense. It is a tale that shows how the system fails at its most significant task, by placing in jeopardy those we count on to protect us. For even at a stratospheric price, the V-22 is going into combat shorthanded.

 

As a result of decisions the Marine Corps made over the past decade, the aircraft lacks a heavy-duty, forward-mounted machine gun to lay down suppressing fire against forces that will surely try to shoot it down. And if the plane's two engines are disabled by enemy fire or mechanical trouble while it's hovering, the V-22 lacks a helicopter's ability to coast roughly to the ground — something that often saved lives in Vietnam. In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that the planes be capable of autorotating (as the maneuver is called), with unpowered but spinning helicopter blades slowly letting the aircraft land safely. That decision, a top Pentagon aviation consultant wrote in a confidential 2003 report obtained by TIME, is "unconscionable" for a wartime aircraft. "When everything goes wrong, as it often does in a combat environment," he said, "autorotation is all a helicopter pilot has to save his and his passengers' lives."

Edited February 26, 2009 by Randall

[cre8tiff]

They have a go-no go decision on ordering the F-22's from Lockheed. It was due March 1st, but that is being pushed back.

[jackshi17]

Like I said I'm waiting for details.

 

If it were up to me I'd consider pausing on equipment that isn't needed right now until the economy is in better shape.

 

 

I have been against the Osprey for a while now.

 

"The saga of the V-22 — the battles over its future on Capitol Hill, a performance record that is spotty at best, a long, determined quest by the Marines to get what they wanted — demonstrates how Washington works (or, rather, doesn't). It exposes the compromises that are made when narrow interests collide with common sense. It is a tale that shows how the system fails at its most significant task, by placing in jeopardy those we count on to protect us. For even at a stratospheric price, the V-22 is going into combat shorthanded.

 

As a result of decisions the Marine Corps made over the past decade, the aircraft lacks a heavy-duty, forward-mounted machine gun to lay down suppressing fire against forces that will surely try to shoot it down. And if the plane's two engines are disabled by enemy fire or mechanical trouble while it's hovering, the V-22 lacks a helicopter's ability to coast roughly to the ground — something that often saved lives in Vietnam. In 2002 the Marines abandoned the requirement that the planes be capable of autorotating (as the maneuver is called), with unpowered but spinning helicopter blades slowly letting the aircraft land safely. That decision, a top Pentagon aviation consultant wrote in a confidential 2003 report obtained by TIME, is "unconscionable" for a wartime aircraft. "When everything goes wrong, as it often does in a combat environment," he said, "autorotation is all a helicopter pilot has to save his and his passengers' lives."

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/a...s/20080508.aspx

 

Doesn't appear to have done too bad in combat.

[Randall]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/a...s/20080508.aspx

 

Doesn't appear to have done too bad in combat.

 

 

 

It's had successes and failures.

 

And I would have stayed with the Chinook chopper but I'm not calling the shots.

 

More on the budget

 

"Obama's budget also would make permanent a tax cut for the middle class enacted in the recent stimulus package. But to pay for it, the president counts on a big infusion of cash from a politically controversial cap-and-trade system, which would force companies to buy allowances to exceed pollution limits. Even if that plan is approved, some lawmakers have other ideas about how to spend the money.

 

In a presidential message preceding a summary of the budget, Obama laid out elements of the current economic crisis that he said warrant massive government spending this year and next. In addition to the loss of more than 3.5 million jobs in the past 13 months, he said, another 8.8 million Americans are underemployed, manufacturing employment has hit a 60-year low, capital markets are "virtually frozen," and "trillions of dollars of wealth have been wiped out" in the stock markets.

 

"This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history," Obama said. "We arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies' executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C. . . . This irresponsibility precipitated the interlocking housing and financial crises that triggered this recession."

 

Saying that government has repeatedly failed to confront systemic problems as policymakers have chosen "temporary fixes," Obama declared: "The time has come to usher in . . . a new era of responsibility. . . . This budget is a first step in that journey."

 

The budget requests can be seen on the Office of Management and Budget Web site.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Randall

[jackshi17]

It's had successes and failures.

 

I would have stayed with the Chinook chopper but I'm not calling the shots.

 

I believe there is a bit of selected reading in your response.

 

"The MV-22s proved easier to maintain than the CH-46 aircraft they are replacing. The MV-22s needed 9.5 man hours of maintenance for each hour in the air, versus 24 hours of maintenance for each hour the CH-46s fly. These helicopters are all over twenty years old, which adds a few hours to their maintenance requirements. While the MV-22 required less maintenance than expected, the dust and sand in Iraq led to some engines being replaced earlier than expected.

 

 

The MV-22s can carry 24 troops 700 kilometers at 390 kilometers an hour. The CH-46E helicopter can only carry 12 troops 350 kilometers at a speed of 135 kilometers an hour. The V-22 can carry a 10,000-pound external sling load 135 kilometers, while the CH-46E can carry 3,000 pounds only 90 kilometers. "

[westvirginia]

I believe there is a bit of selected reading in your response.

 

"The MV-22s proved easier to maintain than the CH-46 aircraft they are replacing. The MV-22s needed 9.5 man hours of maintenance for each hour in the air, versus 24 hours of maintenance for each hour the CH-46s fly. These helicopters are all over twenty years old, which adds a few hours to their maintenance requirements. While the MV-22 required less maintenance than expected, the dust and sand in Iraq led to some engines being replaced earlier than expected.

 

 

The MV-22s can carry 24 troops 700 kilometers at 390 kilometers an hour. The CH-46E helicopter can only carry 12 troops 350 kilometers at a speed of 135 kilometers an hour. The V-22 can carry a 10,000-pound external sling load 135 kilometers, while the CH-46E can carry 3,000 pounds only 90 kilometers. "

 

I figured that was the case. The Marines dumped the m-60 back in the day in favor of Belgian MAG-58's. The Marines don't fool w/junk.

[dmarc117]

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

 

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

 

[cre8tiff]

 

With no source, we have to assume that is a quote from the drunken homeless guy that solicited you while waiting for the El.

[Azazello1313]