I've decided to take time to annotate the six page overview of the
President's budget that the White House released today in order to
discern what's good, what's bad, what's
ugly, and what's just vague. If you read a longer-form proposal, feel welcome to share any additional findings.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget demonstrates that we
can make critical investments to strengthen the middle class, create
jobs, and grow the economy while continuing to cut the deficit in a
balanced way.
An opening platitude. Par for the course for all budgets. However, I
hold to my belief that the word "balanced," when not referring to a 1:1
ratio, must be categorically banned.
The President believes we must invest in the true engine of
America’s economic growth – a rising and thriving middle class. He is
focused on addressing three fundamental questions: How do we attract
more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills
needed to do the jobs of the 21st Century? How do we make sure hard work
leads to a decent living? The Budget presents the President’s plan to
address each of these questions.
Still, in the introductory platitudes stage. However, if Obama was
really serious about "attracting more jobs to our shores," then maybe he
wouldn't be so gung-ho about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or
"NAFTA on steroids" as it's fondly called.
To make America once again a magnet for jobs, the Budget
invests in high-tech manufacturing and innovation, clean energy, and
infrastructure, while cutting red tape to help businesses grow. To give
workers the skills they need to compete in the global economy, it
invests in education from pre-school to job training. To ensure hard
work is rewarded, it raises the minimum wage to $9 an hour so a hard
day’s work pays more.
Oh, and remember how he
promised
to raise it to $9.50 and to index it to inflation back when he was
campaigning in 2008? $9 is at least better than the status quo although
still not a living wage.
"Cutting red tape" is politician speak for gutting regulations. Remember
Cass Sunstein?
Also, you don't raise the minimum wage in a budget. That sounds more
of a "deficit-neutral reserve fund" action, to use Senate speak.
The Budget does all of these things as part of a
comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit and puts the Nation on a
sound fiscal course. Every new initiative in the plan is fully paid for,
so they do not add a single dime to the deficit. The Budget also
incorporates the President’s compromise offer to House Speaker Boehner
to achieve another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction in a balanced way.
When combined with the deficit reduction already achieved, this will
allow us to exceed the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, while
growing the economy and strengthening the middle class. By including
this compromise proposal in the Budget, the President is demonstrating
his willingness to make tough choices and his seriousness about finding
common ground to further reduce the deficit.
Save me the hollow rhetoric about "tough choices." We already know that Obama
wants
the cuts. Boehner already rejected this offer back in December. If
someone rejects an offer and you propose it again and again, it is not a
concession: it is what you want. Calling it a "tough choice" and a
"compromise" is just a rhetorical trick to use to avoid having to own
the cuts to Social Security and Medicare that the budget entails. And I
hope he's not fooling anyone. But I'm so glad that Obama wants to be
"serious." I am sure that the
Very Serious People
of the WaPo editorial board and the Sunday shows will be thrilled for
him. Whom am I kidding? The professional centrists will continue to
blame "both sides" for everything and demand "leadership," which they
define in the most stunningly authoritarian of terms.
Making America a Magnet for Jobs
To compete in the 21st Century economy and make America a magnet for
jobs, the Budget invests in American innovation, reviving our
manufacturing base and keeping our Nation at the forefront of
technological advancement. And to ensure our energy security and combat
climate change, it continues to focus on energy production, the
development of clean energy alternatives, and the promotion of energy
efficiency efforts in both the public and private sectors.
• Transforms regions across the country into global
epicenters of advanced manufacturing with a one-time, $1 billion
investment to launch a network of up to 15 manufacturing innovation
institutes.
• Maintains our world-leading commitment to science and research by
increasing nondefense research and development (R&D) investment by
9% above the 2012 levels.
I'd have to learn more about the "manufacturing innovation institutes"
to pass a judgment, but the increased R&D spending sounds good. But
let's remember, for budget-related reasons, that this spending helps to
increase the profit margins of corporations, who show their gratitude
by
not paying taxes.
• Continues President’s “all-of-the-above” strategy on
energy – investing in clean energy R&D, promoting the safe
production of natural gas, encouraging States to cut energy waste with a
Race-to-the-Top challenge to cut energy waste and modernize the grid,
creating an Energy Security Trust to fund research efforts that would
help shift cars and trucks off oil, and making permanent the tax credit
for renewable energy production.
The "all-of-the-above" rhetoric always reminds me of how soda companies
and sugar cereals manufacturers market their products as part of a
"balanced diet." Increased oil production has no place in a sustainable
future. And the methane released from natural gas makes it an
insufficient--and even
dangerous--"bridge fuel." And don't forget the
damage to water sources from natural gas extraction. Who really needs water, though? Toxic chemicals are simply
flavoring.
But, the increased energy efficiency and fuel standards and the
investment in renewable energy all sound good--what may be my first
unqualified bit of praise so far.
• Enhances preparedness and resilience to climate change,
safeguarding communities and Federal investments, while strengthening
efforts to reduce carbon pollution domestically and internationally.
The details may be in the long version--I've only read the overview. The administration has
avoided
meaningful international action during the President's first term.
However, if this proves substantive and does not come through a mix of
corporate welfare and concessions, then I'd be impressed.
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure
The Budget invests in repairing our existing infrastructure and
building the infrastructure of tomorrow, including high-speed rail,
high-tech schools, and power grids that are resilient to future extreme
conditions. These investments will both lay the foundation for long-term
economic growth and put workers back on the job now.
Provides $50 billion for upfront infrastructure investments,
including $40 billion for “Fix it First” projects, to invest immediately
in repairing highways, bridges, transit systems, and airports
nationwide; and $10 billion for competitive programs to encourage
innovation in completing high-value infrastructure projects.
Boosts private investment in infrastructure by creating a Rebuild America Partnership.
----Establishes an independent National Infrastructure Bank to
leverage private and public capital to support infrastructure projects
of national and regional significance.
----Creates America Fast Forward (AFF) Bonds, building on the successful
Build America Bonds program to attract new sources of capital for
infrastructure investment
Rebuilding the U.S.'s
crumbling and outdated infrastructure? Good. Public-private partnerships?
Not so good....and not so cheap, either.
• Dedicates funding for the development of high-speed
rail to link communities across the country, the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NexGen) to improve air travel and safety, and a
robust long term increase in levels for core highways, transit, and
highway safety programs.
• Expedites infrastructure projects by modernizing the Federal
permitting process to cut through red tape while creating incentives and
better outcomes for communities and the environment.
• Establishes a new goal of cutting timelines in half for major
infrastructure projects in areas such as highways, bridges, railways,
ports, waterways, pipelines, and renewable energy.
Remember what I said about "cutting red tape"? Now, granted, if this
modernization is akin to the major overhaul that USAJOBS and GRANTS.GOV
both need, then I'm all for it. But if "modernization" means ignoring
environmental standards and regulations to give everything a rubber
stamp, then maybe not so much.
Equipping Americans with the Skills They Need
To equip our workers with the skills they need to fill the jobs of
the 21st Century economy, the Budget includes investments and reforms in
education and training. It makes a major new commitment to early
childhood education; sustains investments in K-12 schools, while ramping
up innovation; redoubles our focus on science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) education to prepare our students for the jobs
of tomorrow; and includes new initiatives to make college more
affordable.
• To build a foundation for success in the formative
early years of life, increases access to high quality early childhood
education with a Preschool for All initiative.
-------------In partnership with the States, provides all low- and
moderate-income four-year-olds with high-quality preschool, while
encouraging States to serve additional four-year-olds from middle class
families. The initiative also promotes access to full-day kindergarten
and high-quality early education programs for children under age four.
I think it's sound policy to make sure that those who want pre-school
for their children have access to it and can afford it. However, this,
from what I've read in the past, is just going to take the form of an
array of tax credits and subsidies, another part of the American
"kludgeocracy".
Are we going to see privately run preschools sprouting up to take
advantage of the new money? How will we ensure accountability in them
without instituting a testing regime to those just learning to read?
Will we pay the teachers enough to guarantee that we have
highly-trained professionals overseeing the formative years of our
children?
o The Preschool for All initiative is financed by raising
the Federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products, which would
also have substantial public health impacts, particularly by reducing
youth smoking
I love sin taxes. I love soda taxes, cigarette taxes, and alcohol
taxes, and I'd probably create some new ones if I could. But this is a
bad use of sin tax revenue. You raise taxes on cigarettes because they
are damaging to personal and public health. The taxation is designed to
reduce consumption as you may have learned in Econ 101. Like all
Pigovian taxes,
it seeks to rectify a negative externality. Revenue from sin taxes,
then, should fund public health programs that address the problems
caused by the consumptive habits being taxed.
Increasing the tax on tobacco products to fund schools simply does
not make logical sense. From a public health perspective, tobacco
consumption would ideally trend down over time, as it has for the
past few decades. If consumption falls, then your tax revenue will fall. Then where's the money to fund pre-K?
Maybe the President is feeling guilty about going back to old habits
and wants to assuage his guilt by saying that he's smoking "for the
children." But that just doesn't work.
o The Budget makes companion investments in voluntary
home visiting programs, preserving child care access, and expanding
high-quality care for infants and toddlers through new Early Head
Start-Child Care Partnerships.
I think this belongs in the "good" category.
• Creates a new, competitive fund for redesigning high
schools to focus on providing challenging and relevant experiences,
while promoting and developing partnerships with colleges and employers
that improve instruction and prepare students to continue education or
transition into skilled jobs.
This sounds like Race-to-the-Top--an
awful program
that just continues the sapping of teacher creativity spearheaded by
NCLB--but even more corporatized. I don't care for competitive funding
for schools. Isn't the essence of public education that we want ALL
children to get the best education possible? Competition for funds
undermines that ethos. Moreover, why should high schools be forming
partnerships with employers? We are paying to educate well-rounded
citizens, not to create employees. If you are designing high schools to
meet employer needs alone, say good-bye to the arts, to literature, to
history, etc.
• Strengthens and reforms career and technical education
to better align programs with the needs of employers and higher
education to ensure that graduates are poised to succeed.
Aligning vocational education with employer needs makes sense. But
higher ed? Colleges should have career counseling and mentorship
opportunities, but we don't need a Race-to-the-Top: College Years.
• Prepares students for careers in STEM-related fields by
reorganizing and restructuring Federal STEM education programs to make
better use of resources and improve outcomes; and invests in recruiting
and preparing 100,000 STEM teachers and creating a new STEM Master
Teachers Corps to improve STEM instruction.
Is this just AmeriCorps science-edition? It could be good, but I'd need
to know more. Math and science teachers are in high demand, and we do
need highly educated ones for our high schools.
• Improves college affordability and value with a
continued commitment to Pell Grants; budget neutral student loan reforms
that will make interest rates more market-based; a $1 billion
Race-to-the-Top fund to support competitive grants to States that drive
higher education reform, while doing more to contain tuition; a $260
million First in the World fund to spur cutting-edge innovations that
decrease college costs and boost graduation rates; and reforms to
Federal campus-based aid to reward colleges that set responsible tuition
policy, provide a high-quality education and better serve students with
financial need.
"Budget neutral student loan reform"? I'd need to learn more before
judging this. Since we don't have free (or heavily subsidized) higher
education as they do in Europe, college financing is always a mess. If
this is your forte, please share your thoughts.
• Improves services for workers and job seekers by
revisiting the structure of the Federal job training system, including
through the creation of a Universal Displaced Worker program; drives
innovation through the Workforce Innovation Fund by testing new State
and regional ideas to better deliver training and employment services;
and provides $8 billion for a Community College to Career Fund to
support State and community college partnerships with businesses and
other stakeholders.
Again, not my forte. It sounds good; however, I'm always a bit hesitant about business partnerships.
Also, training is good only so far as there are jobs to hire the
training program graduates. The idea that all we need is better-trained
workers--rather than more jobs--is a
debunked bipartisan
myth.
Making the Tax Code More Simple and Fair
The President believes that today’s tax code has become overly complex
and inequitable and that we should immediately begin the process of
reforming the individual and business tax systems. As a down payment on
comprehensive tax reform, the Budget offers detailed proposals to
broaden the tax base, close tax loopholes, and establish a Buffett Rule
that will prevent millionaires from taking advantage of special
provisions to pay taxes at lower rates than many middle-class families
do.
It is highly ironic that Obama is criticizing the tax code for being
overly complex when he's filling his budget with tax credits, further
complicating the tax process. As
Suzanne Mettler eloquently and concisely displays in her book
The Submerged State,
the government tries to use tax policy to do what direct spending would
do more efficiently and transparently, leaving us with a labyrinthine
tax code as a result. Also, corporate lobbying certainly doesn't make
it any simpler.
A "downpayment on comprehensive tax reform"?
• Raises $580 billion for deficit reduction by limiting high-income tax benefits, without raising tax rates.
o Implements the Buffett Rule, requiring that households with incomes
over $1 million pay at least 30% of their income (after charitable
giving) in taxes.
o Limits the value of tax deductions and other tax benefits for the
top 2% of families to 28%, reducing these tax benefits to levels closer
to what middle-class families get.
Before the bill to defer the
austerity bomb,
we had seen $737 billion in tax/revenue increases and $1.7 billion in
spending cuts. As the Progressive Caucus displayed quite clearly in its
Balancing Act
earlier this year, tax cuts should provide the bulk of the replacement
for sequestration, bringing an even balance of tax increases and
spending cuts across the three rounds of deficit reduction. Only
calling for $580 billion in new revenue is not balanced, if we work with
the actual definition of balance (Think 1:1 on a set of scales) rather
than the political definition.
I don't see why we can't raise tax rates either. Granted, as the
economy is still in recession, it wouldn't be the best time to hike
taxes too high now, but marginal tax rates are at
historic lows. I personally support the (admittedly DOA) idea of a 100% marginal tax rate, an idea that has been
floated around
for about 130 years. In the first speech to broach the idea of a 100%
marginal tax rate, Ethical Culture founder Felix Adler eloquently
affirmed, "I would protect the individual in his right to the private
enjoyment of all that honestly belongs to him, of all that he can truly
use for the humane purpose of life; and only that which does not
rightfully belong to him, only that which is to him merely a means of
pomp and pride and power – such power as no individual ought to possess –
would I have remanded into the general fund of society, where, in the
name of justice, it belongs." A great quote, by all means. But we need
to return to our century.
I also have problems with exempting the charitable deduction, which I think exists because of a set of
flawed arguments.
• Provides new tax cuts to encourage hiring and wage increases and to support middle-class families.
This sounds like something that will further complicate the tax code. I
don't see how tax cuts will encourage wage increases. Corporate
profits and wages certainly don't see
direct correlation.
• Provides a 10% tax credit for small businesses that hire new employees or increase wages.
So subsidizing profits and complicating the tax code again?
o Provides a new tax credit to encourage employers to
offer retirement savings plans and expands a tax credit that helps
middle-class families afford child care.
Subsidizing profits again, eh? And we're also subsidizing 401(k)s while
(as we'll get to later) cutting Social Security. Pause for a second
and reflect on which one benefits Wall Street. Then think which one
gets cut. Hint: they’re not the same.
o Makes permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit,
which currently helps about 11 million students and families afford
college, as well as improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit and
Child Tax Credit that help millions of working families with children
make ends meet.
I'd much prefer direct spending, a mandated living wage, a
basic income, and federally funded child care services, but in lack of that, this is probably the best for which we can hope in the interim.
The EITC was, in fact, a conservative proposal, originating from
Milton Friedman's negative income tax. Granted, Friedman wanted the
negative income tax to replace government-run welfare programs and
services, too; however, the idea of tax credits instead of direct
spending remains conservative in principle.
Also, regarding the EITC, I think that it would make sense to change
the way that the personal exemption works in the tax code. Our
current personal exemption
is only $3,900 per person, about the same nominally as it was during
the short-lived income tax experiment in the 1890s. That would be
roughly $100,000 in real value, accounting for
inflation.
That is, granted, a large exemption; however, the personal exemption
should guarantee a living wage existence to everyone as a bottom
threshold. A personal exemption should be set at the living wage,
accounting for dependents, so that the income tax only applies to the
money in excess of that which is need for the basics of existence. I'm
sorry, but no one is getting by on $3,900.
However, for now, expanding the EIC works.
• Pays for middle-class tax relief by eliminating tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and special interests.
o Ends a loophole that lets wealthy individuals circumvent
contribution limits and accumulate millions in tax-preferred retirement
accounts.
The "sticking it to Mitt Romney" part. Nothing about which to complain.
o Ends a loophole that lets financial managers pay tax on their carried interest income at the lower capital gains rate.
Is he planning to treat capital gains as income as he should? My guess
is no although please correct me if the long-form budget contradicts me.
• Eliminates business tax loopholes while providing
incentives for research, manufacturing, and clean energy and cutting
taxes for small businesses.
o Reforms and makes permanent important tax incentives for research
and development, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
o Cuts taxes for small businesses by letting them claim tax write-offs for up to $500,000 of new investment.
o Eliminates loopholes such as oil and gas tax breaks and special tax rules for corporate jets.
I completely support ending the oil and gas tax breaks and the breaks on
corporate jets; those all count as unqualified "goods" as far as I'm
concerned.
o Proposes reforms to prevent companies from shifting
profits overseas to avoid U.S. taxes and to encourage “insourcing” and
job creation here in the United States.
Does this mean we’re giving you tax breaks to bring your jobs back or
keep them here—what you should be doing anyway? And how will the
President’s TPP (linked above) or
Euro-trade deal
help in this regard? However, I fully support eliminating tax breaks
for those who relocate jobs oversees--that's falls in the "good"
category.
Ensuring Hard Work Leads to a Decent Living
The Budget builds on the progress made over the last four years to
expand opportunity for every American and every community willing to do
the work to lift themselves up. It creates new ladders of opportunity to
ensure that hard work leads to a decent living. It expands early
childhood education to give children a foundation for lifelong learning.
It supports a partnership with communities to help them thrive and
rebuild from the Great Recession. It creates pathways to jobs for the
long-term unemployed and youth who have been hard hit. It rewards hard
work by increasing the minimum wage so a hard day’s work pays more. And
it strengthens families by removing financial deterrents to
marriage and supporting the role of fathers.
We'll get to specifics in a moment.
o Creates Promise Zones to rebuild high-poverty
communities across the country by attracting private investment to build
new housing, improving educational opportunities, providing tax
incentives for hiring workers and investing within the Zones, reducing
violence and assisting local leaders in navigating Federal programs and
cutting through red tape.
So we're offering new tax incentives, eh? For our "simpler" tax code.
"Promise Zones" are just another "enterprise zone" or "empowerment zone" concept: in other words,
corporate welfare.
What means are being used to "reduce violence"? A noble goal often sought through ignoble means.
Ah, and the ubiquitous bête noir, “red tape.” In other words, let’s just slash and burn some regulations.
o Creates a Pathways Back to Work fund to support summer
and year round jobs for low-income youth, subsidized employment
opportunities for unemployed and low-income adults, and other promising
strategies designed to lead to employment.
This sounds too much like the UK's corporate-welfare-rich
workfare system.
o Supports the President’s call to reward hard work by raising the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.
As I noted earlier, this isn't much of a budgetary issue, and he was
much more progressive when campaigning in 2008. Senators, like
Tom Harkin have also proposed legislation to raise it even higher than $9. However, it's better than the status quo at least.
o Strengthens families by allowing Federal programs like
the child support program to implement models that get more men working
and engaging with their children, and by addressing financial deterrents
to marriage.
Financial deterrents to marriage? Like poverty? Income insecurity?
Unemployment? Address those, and you'll be set because the health of
marriage correlates strongly with
economic security.
Cutting the Deficit in a Balanced Way
The President is committed to continuing to reduce the deficit in a
balanced way. (He is determined to do this in a way that replaces the
economically damaging across-the-board cuts of sequestration with
smart, targeted efforts to cut wasteful spending, strengthen
entitlements, and eliminate loopholes for the wealthiest through tax
reform.
“Strengthening entitlements”? Doublespeak alert! If I cut down on your
portions at dinner, I wouldn’t say that I’m “strengthening” your meal.
But, then again, I’m not a politician. Also, can we please stop using
the word “entitlement”? “Earned benefits” works. “Social insurance”
also works.
The President stands by the compromise offer he made to
Speaker Boehner during “fiscal cliff” negotiations in December 2012. The
Budget includes all of the proposals in that offer, which would achieve
$1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years,
bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion. This represents more
than enough deficit reduction to replace the cuts required by the Joint
Committee sequestration.
Which Boehner rejected. Obama, however, can't let go of his Holy Grail of a grand betrayal of a "Grand Bargain."
By including this compromise proposal in the Budget, the
President is demonstrating his willingness to make tough choices to find
common ground to further reduce the deficit. This offer includes some
difficult cuts that the President would not propose on their own, such
as an adjustment to inflation indexing requested by Republicans. But
there can be no sacred cows for either party.
Why wouldn't he propose them on their own if he thinks that they are
worth including in the budget? If it’s good, it’s a good idea
regardless. If it’s bad, you don't put it in your starting bid,
especially one that just rolls right over the work of Patty Murray and
Harry Reid to push the whole debate to the right. I’m sorry, but if you
put s**t in a sundae, it’s still s**t. And, Mr. President, your budget plan is no sundae.
And, yes, progressive Democrats don’t want to make cuts that will
affect the vast majority of the public and which are opposed by large
majorities. Republicans want to preserve tax cuts for a very small percentage of the population, and they are opposed by a
majority
of the public, too. It always seems like a crude throwback to the
religions of yore to offer up the elderly, the sick, and the poor as a
human sacrifice for the gods of wealth and war.
o $580 billion in additional revenue relative to the
end-of-year tax deal, from tax reform that closes tax loopholes and
reduces tax benefits for those who need them least
And will they all get voted back?
o $400 billion in health savings that build on the health reform law and strengthen Medicare
Remember what I said about the word "strengthen"? There are good ways
to reduce Medicare spending like allowing the government to
negotiate
for prescription drug prices. Means testing, on the other hand, is
simply bad policy. You have to set the income threshold quite low to
get any real savings, and over time, you'll likely whittle it down into a
welfare program--and we all know how much people love those. Moreover,
if you want to do 'means testing,' why not just make FICA a progressive
tax--means testing on the front end?
o $200 billion in savings from other mandatory programs,
such as reductions to farm subsidies and reforms to federal retirement
benefits
Cutting farm subsidies?
Good. Slashing the pensions of federal employees? Not so good.
o $200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts from defense and nondefense programs;
So here's where we see how the President reduced the defense cuts from
sequestration. The Pentagon, as we saw earlier this year, is so
shamefully mismanaged that it cannot be
audited. Defense cuts constitute
20 cents for every dollar of federal spending. Internationally, our
defense budget
is 5x greater than the next largest (China's) and over 10x greater than
any defense budget in Europe. We also face no existential threat and
are protected well by two oceans on either side. But a rant on our
defense budget would take too long in an already long post. Let's move
on to find out the source of the money that softened the defense cuts.
o $230 billion in savings from using a chained measure of
inflation for cost-of-living adjustments throughout the Budget, with
protections for the most vulnerable;
There it is! That's the money being used to soften the blow to the
Pentagon. That's right: Your earned benefits and the benefits we
provide to orphans, widows, and disabled veterans are being cut to line
the pockets of war profiteers like
Dick Cheney.
And, also, don’t tell me that you will have “protections for the most
vulnerable.” If you have to make such protections, then you have to
admit that you’re cutting Social Security. And you know what? You have
to specify the protections, too. I have an idea! Let’s say that the
“most vulnerable” incorporates those who are retired, the disabled,
widows, orphans, etc.--in other words, EVERYONE ALREADY RECEIVING
BENEFITS. Problem solved. Move along now.
Social Security has often been spoken of as one leg in a
"three-legged stool" of retirement security--along with pensions and
savings. Private sector pensions have been rapidly
disappearing.
In the private sector, the percentage of Americans with pensions fell
from 38 percent in 1979 to 15 percent in 2010. So there goes one leg of
the stool. How about savings? The Wall Street crash depleted some
people's savings--or at least cost them dearly. Currently, because of a
mix of bankster greed and Fed policy, interest rates for savings
accounts are near zero. Before I closed my Wells Fargo account to
switch banks, my interest rate was an exact 0.0%. There goes the second
leg of the stool. Why kick the third?
A Democratic President unraveling the New Deal and cutting a program
that doesn't even contribute to the federal deficit. And he wants to
cut Social Security even though the government has been
robbing the Trust Fund for decades.
Obama really wants to
kill Santa Claus, doesn't he?
Oh, and one more thing: Chained CPI is also a
stealth tax increase, one that disproportionately hits the lower end of the income spectrum.
o $210 billion in savings from reduced interest payments on the debt; and
o $50 billion for immediate infrastructure investments, as noted
earlier, to repair our roads and transit systems, create jobs, and build
a foundation for economic growth.
In addition, the Budget includes a series of new proposals
to root out waste and reform and streamline government for the 21st
Century. In total, it includes 215 cuts, consolidations, and savings
proposals, which are projected to save more than $25 billion in 2014.
I haven't read a long-form proposal, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't name every single one of the 215.
