Democrats’ budget to include almost $1 trillion in new taxes

posted at 7:21 pm on March 12, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

A handy-dandy preview from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of what we’re in for with the Senate Democrats’ long-awaited — and let me just repeat that, long-awaited — budget; in a nutshell, more class-warmongering and still higher taxes, more government spending and “stimulus” to spur the economy, and a whole lotta’ “balance” that doesn’t actually mean what we think it means. Click the image to watch at RCP:

 photo Screenshot2013-03-12at55017PM_zps7728361d.png

Democrats believe it is critical that we stabilize the deficit. But it will take more than accounting gimmicks to achieve real deficit reduction. And at a time when corporations are making record profits, the stock market is soaring and wealthy Americans’ income continues to rise, that deficit reduction shouldn’t be come at the expense of middle-class families, senior citizens and the poor.

Americans have demanded a fair approach to deficit reduction that makes sensible cuts, but asks profitable corporations and the wealthiest among us to share the burden. Democrats have been listening. That’s why this week Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray will introduce a budget that reflects those balanced principles. The Democratic plan will cut wasteful spending and reduce the deficit, close tax loopholes that benefit the rich and invest in what the economy needs to grow. It will encourage a strong middle class.

Congressman Ryan and his Republican colleagues in Congress have taken a different approach – an approach that makes it plain they missed the message of the November elections. Their budget will once again put moneyed special interests ahead of middle-class families. And no amount of rebranding will hide that.

More specifically, Democrats plan to counter Paul Ryan‘s oh-so-blackguardly budget by proposing that we steer nice and clear of even approaching balancing the budget, and instead focus on about $1.85 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years. …Which might sound like a lot, until we remember that we already have $16 trillion in debt and we’re merely talking about adding to that grand total at a slightly lesser rate, and that they intend to do so by getting Americans to pay a trillion dollars more in taxes over that decade.

Senate Democrats will propose raising $975 billion in new taxes over the next decade in the budget they will release this week, setting up a sharp contrast with a House Republican plan to balance the budget over 10 years without new tax increases.

In their first budget since 2009, Senate Democrats will propose reducing the federal budget deficit by $1.85 trillion over the next 10 years through equal doses of new taxes and spending cuts, according to a Democrat familiar with the proposal.

The plan is part of the budget blueprint for fiscal-year 2014 that Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D., Wash.) is expected to formally release on Wednesday.

… They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest payments on the federal debt.

Yes, because enabling to government to take even more money out of the private sector and decide how to spend it for us is such a historically great way to create wealth and jobs — just what our ‘recovering’ economy needs! But, heck, at least we’re actually bothering to go through the normal, constitutional process of each side producing a budget and debating from a concrete standpoint, finally.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t write this down before the election…

Washington Nearsider on March 12, 2013 at 7:23 PM

…S U R P R I S E …!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Wow, Murray is still a communist!

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM

A trillion?

That’s it Obama?

Why not a gadzillion?

Or a bonzofillion?

Electrongod on March 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM

…S U R P R I S E …!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Heh – Murray is still stupid and ugly.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Today

“Will the WH balance the budget?”

“We’re looking for a balanced approach, higher taxes and cutting spending” — Stupid Jay Carney

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2013 at 7:30 PM

close tax loopholes that benefit the rich and invest in what the economy needs to grow. It will encourage a strong middle class.

‘Cuz, like, ya know, um, “investment” is only good when government – run by Democrats, natch – does it.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 7:30 PM

…I N V E S T…!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Call me dense, but why wasn’t $600 billion more in January enough?

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Yes, because enabling to [the] government to take even more money out of the private sector and decide how to spend it for us is such a historically great way to create wealth and jobs — just what our ‘recovering’ economy needs!

It’s not meant to create wealth and jobs for the lowly riffraff like you. It’s meant to create even more wealth and even more power for them, the royalists.

VorDaj on March 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

I wonder how much of these “record profits” are the fake stock prices due to pumping? I wonder if the intent of the pumping isn’t just to hide the 2nd Great Depression, but to give wind to the argument that companies need to pay more.

Spartacus on March 12, 2013 at 7:35 PM

It is not the function/purview of the Senate to legislate taxation.

And at a time when corporations are making record profits, the stock market is soaring and wealthy Americans’ income continues to rise, that deficit reduction shouldn’t be come at the expense of middle-class families, senior citizens and the poor.

Who is taking away from “middle-class families, senior citizens, and the poor,” Harry? None of the three factors that you cite– “record profits, the stock market, and “wealthy Americans’ income– diminish the wealth of the other folks. The “pie” is not limited, you jerk.

onlineanalyst on March 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Dear Harry, Pelosi, and Patty: You have enjoyed wasting nearly a million dollars extra each year via the first stimulus and the baseline budgeting that has given you that same amount again and again via continuing resolutions. Your math skills are skewed.

onlineanalyst on March 12, 2013 at 7:39 PM

It is not the function/purview of the Senate to legislate taxation.

onlineanalyst on March 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM

You are exactly right. The Senate isn’t allowed to “counter” a House budget, only amend one that is sent to them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Call me dense, but why wasn’t $600 billion more in January enough?

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Obamacare. If you are going to pay out subsidies for millions to have health-care, you are going to need a lot of money.

rickv404 on March 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Harry, the “investments” in green energy for your cronies have already cost the taxpayers millions (billions?) through their failures and bankruptcies. Isn’t it time that we knocked off the charade?

Spartacus: You are right about the “record profits” in stock prices being a government-generated bubble initiated in phony money.

onlineanalyst on March 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

A**holes.

They could have done this long ago, and that idiot would still have been elected.

Everyone expected this.

The fact that they refused to do it, lacked the guts to do it despite their advantage should tell it all.

Then again…. most of the population is asleep, ignorant beyond redemption – or they simply don’t care.

A measly trillion?

The Dems will tax every breath you take and every move you make.

Cody1991 on March 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

BIG SURPIRSE! MORE taxes. MORE spending.

Right, you senile old fool. Your state DESERVES to be a nuclear waste dump, the voters of Nevada having you inflicted on the rest of us!

GarandFan on March 12, 2013 at 7:46 PM

They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest payments on the federal debt.

Is this a frickin joke?

So they’re not going to really cut the $242B, they’re just gonna hope..you know..for a lower interest rate ignoring the fact the the Federal Debt will continue to grow and that the FED WILL withdraw liquidity eventually, driving interests substantially higher.

WisRich on March 12, 2013 at 7:46 PM

My wife and I had our taxes done this week.

It was rough. My wife was in tears.

Middle Class is getting screwed. AGAIN.

We’ll be eating hot dogs and Mac & Cheese so the Welfare Kings/Queens can smoke cigarettes, drink beer, have cable tv, Obama Phones and eat steaks on the BBQ.

F— the redistribution liberals.

portlandon on March 12, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Ryans BluePrint:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PaulRyanfy14budget.pdf

(91 Pages)

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 5:24 PM

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

We’ll be eating hot dogs and Mac & Cheese so the Welfare Kings/Queens can smoke cigarettes, drink beer, have cable tv, Obama Phones and eat steaks on the BBQ.

F— the redistribution liberals.

portlandon on March 12, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I guess “A Balanced Approach”…
has a time lag.

Electrongod on March 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Results for #budget

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23budget

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

portlandon, you forgot dope.

Schadenfreude on March 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Why isn’t it more?
-msdnc talking head

cmsinaz on March 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Democrats’ budget to include almost $1 trillion in new taxes

If obama and his dems are smart, they will sign Rubio up ($$$) as the, uh, “conservative” spokesperson for their budget – I mean, Rubio has done wonders for their amnesty plan – maybe he can sprinkle some of his magic “I ♥ illegals” pixie dust around and build conservative support for the coming tax hikes!?!

Pork-Chop on March 12, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Why isn’t it more?
-msdnc talking head

cmsinaz on March 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM

“Because this is only a down payment on America’s future. We still have a long way to go.”

Lib legislators have already used that line, years ago. Time to dust it off and bring it out again when people starting asking, “Why?”

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Congressional Democrats, 2013:

Democrats believe it is critical that we stabilize the deficit.

Note that they didn’t say stop deficit spending and stabilize the total national debt.

No, they have no intention at all of balancing the budget.

They have every intention of never-ending deficits, just a “stabilized” version of ongoing annual deficits and ever-increasing total national debt.

Compare that to what Congressional Democrats put in writing in 2006 in a successful attempt to portray themselves as more fiscally responsible than Republicans and win control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections…

Congressional Democrats, 2006:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

And as soon as she took control of the House in 2007:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

7 years ago, Democrats promised, both in writing and spoken publicly on C-SPAN: “no new deficit spending”

Play that over and over and over and over.

Make the public aware of the LIES that Pelosi and Reid told.

Far from ending deficit spending, Pelosi and Reid roughly TRIPLED deficit spending in their first budget (FY 2008) and roughly TRIPLED DEFICIT SPENDING AGAIN in their second budget (FY 2009), and we have been running $1T+ deficits each and every year since!

They lied when they promised “no more deficit spending”.

Now the best they will promise is that “Democrats believe it is critical that we stabilize the deficit.”

How about keeping your promises of “no more deficit spending” and actually stabilize the total national debt, not just stabilize the annual deficits and increases to the ever-growing national debt?

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

We’ll be eating hot dogs and Mac & Cheese so the Welfare Kings/Queens can smoke cigarettes, drink beer, have cable tv, Obama Phones and eat steaks on the BBQ.

F— the redistribution liberals.

portlandon on March 12, 2013 at 7:51 PM

You people are hilarious. The only redistribution that’s occurring is from the bottom up, further enriching the upper class. You’re not a victim.

There’s no way to avoid higher spending given the rapidly aging population. It’s a reality of given the elderly benefits. Unless you drastically change the structure of entitlement programs, you have to cut discretionary spending and raise taxes to balance the budget.
This mixed approach is the foundation of Bowles-Simpson which the GOP champions whenever it serves their immediate political goals.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Good one Liam

Did you see drudge
Obama to gop ‘you need me’….
?????

cmsinaz on March 12, 2013 at 8:06 PM

7 years ago, Democrats promised, both in writing and spoken publicly on C-SPAN: “no new deficit spending”

Play that over and over and over and over.

Make the public aware of the LIES that Pelosi and Reid told.

You mean higher fed spending occurred after a once in a generation financial crisis, only comparable to the great depression?

Shocking! So glad you pointed that out.

Compare that to what Congressional Democrats put in writing in 2006 in a successful attempt to portray themselves as more fiscally responsible than Republicans and win control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections…

During those 6 years of total GOP control, fed spending increased by about 40%. It’s not a single party issue.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Bowels-Simpson is ridiculous leftist trash. Take care of your own grandparents. I took care of mine. And if you don’t have grandchildren or they are turds like yourself and won’t help you then don’t look to me. You don’t get to pass your family obligations off to me. Take care of your own.

And then there’s the other trillion of leftist cr@p in the budget that gives money away to every victim group they can find and wastes money on every idiotic leftist scheme they can come up with.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM

To Contain Future Budget, US Must Raise Taxes By 35%, Cut Entitlements 35%; Without Cuts, Taxes Must Rise By 88%

To restrain the U.S.’s future budget crisis, the federal government must raise taxes by at least 35% and cut entitlements such as health care and Social Security by 35%, International Monetary Fund economists warned Monday in a new working paper.

While the projected ballooning of future costs of entitlements as the so-called baby boomer generation enters old age isn’t new, the IMF paper’s quantifying just how much the federal government will have trim its balance sheets sheds fresh light on the political hurdles ahead.

Raising taxes and cutting spending on health care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are some of the most sensitive issues for voters.

The IMF paper, written by Nicoletta Batini, Giovanni Callegari and Julia Guerreiro, shows that if the government doesn’t cut entitlements, it will have to raise taxes by 88% to pay for their costs.

Since the federal government has historically collected around 18% of gross domestic product in taxes, the mandatory entitlement programs may absorb all federal revenues as early as 2026, when the cost of servicing the debt is included in the calculation, the economists say.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Bowels-Simpson is ridiculous leftist trash.

When the far left and far right hate it, there’s a sign of hope.

Take care of your own grandparents. I took care of mine. And if you don’t have grandchildren or they are turds like yourself and won’t help you then don’t look to me. You don’t get to pass your family obligations off to me. Take care of your own.

Problem is, people have paid taxes specifically to fund their future social security payments. Of course the actual funding mechanism is nothing like a trust or retirement savings account, but that’s not relevant to those who paid into the system.

Take care of your own, the Mexican approach to retirement. Nice.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Not to mention the millions being sent to Egypt and the Syrian ‘rebels’ for nothing in return to the US. Then the $2 billion Obama gave to Brazil for their oil industry, among whatever else is being given away. Does anyone think any of those things are one-time deals?

Liam on March 12, 2013 at 8:18 PM

The DemonRats Plan:

House Budget
FY2013 Budget
Democratic Budget
Statements

Van Hollen Introduces Democratic Budget Alternative

Reports, Analyses and Fact Sheets

Summary of the Democratic Budget
Democratic Budget by the Numbers
Top Reasons to Support Democratic Budget Alternative

Detailed Report

The Democratic Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2013
Make it in America,Preserve the Medicare Guarentee and
Provide Tax Relief For Working Families

while Responsibly Reducing the Deficit
========================================

http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/03.28.2012%20-%20Report%20on%20the%20FY%202013%20Democratic%20Budget%20Resolution.pdf

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM

1. A “balanced approach” it’s balanced, oh, but not the budget, this budget doesn’t ever come in balance.

2.

Democrats believe it is critical that we stabilize the deficit.

Stabilize it? Like it is in ICU, right?

Why do you think they said “stabilize?”

3. Please note that people do not know the difference between the national debt and the yearly deficit.

They also think the deficit spending started under Bush and call that the debt. They think that Bush spent a tangible surplus of money, but a surplus only accrues from current revenues that are coming in larger than expenses or than predicted. If you adjust the tax rate to give everyone a tax break you are not collecting at a rate that will accumulate a surplus. A surplus either means the economy is going gangbusters, or the tax rate is too high. Democrats like to collect more taxes than they need that is why they like a surplus, then they like to spend it. The dot.com bubble and the 9-11 attack on our American financial center and pentagon ruined the economy, and revenues plummeted. No one collected a surplus.

Fleuries on March 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Le Oops,..me forgots the DeMonRat Budget Linky:

http://democrats.budget.house.gov/budgets/congresss-budget

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM

SSDD from the dems Canopfor :)

cmsinaz on March 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

You mean higher fed spending occurred after a once in a generation financial crisis, only comparable to the great depression?

Shocking! So glad you pointed that out.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Comparing the Great Recession to the Great Depression is not in your best interest.

It’s now widely accepted that FDR and his Leftist policies unnecessarily prolonged the Depression (even Cass Sunstein agrees), just as Obama and you Leftists are unnecessarily prolonging this recession.

visions on March 12, 2013 at 8:31 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Note well that Bill Clinton never had a surplus with a Democrat House and Senate.

Surpluses only came when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and Clinton was smart enough not to veto that, and sly enough to take credit for it.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, one could truly say that he “inherited” the economy, because he had not been a part of the Congress that helped create that economy.

And what W. inherited was the Dot Com bust, followed shortly thereafter by the 9/11/2001 attacks, which created an economic double whammy. Employment was decreasing in 2001, 2002, and early 2003, and it was not until the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were signed into law that the economy turned around, employment rose, and tax revenues rose along with that rising employment. The low point of employment in 2003 was 62.0% in September 2003. By December 2006, employment was up to 63.4%. Thanks in large part to the Bush Tax Cuts, the economy grew, employment grew, and tax revenues grew. Tax revenues in FY 2007 were a whopping 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues! That was the effect of Republican-backed policies.

That improvement hit an inflection point when the balance of power shifted from Republican to Democrat on January 3, 2007. Democrats raised the minimum wage 3 times, in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and while may sound good to you, the fact is that whenever the minimum wage is raised, some people who would have been employed at minimum wage previously do not end up making more, but rather end up unemployed. There is a reason why youth unemployment is higher now than it was 6 years ago. The financial crisis of 2008 of course increased unemployment (/decreased employment), but again Republicans had warned of, and tried to stop, that crisis, but Democrats thwarted attempts at reform and additional oversight.

We’ve now had six continuous years of Democrats holding majority control of Washington, D.C.
Average employment over those six years has been 59.9%, and we haven’t had a month above that average since February 2009.

The average over Obama’s pResidency has been 58.7%, and we haven’t had a month above that average since August 2009.

One really can’t say that Obama “inherited” an economy on January 20, 2009, because he had been a Senator since January 3, 2005 and helped create that economy. When Democrats in Congress took majority control on January 3, 2007, they inherited a GOOD economy.

But, even if one insists on saying Barack H. Obama “inherited” a bad economy from George W. Bush on January 20, 2009, that economy was a lot better than the one that Barack H. Obama “inherited” from himself on January 20, 2013. The economy now, after Obama’s first 4 years, is worse than it was 4 years ago.

12 years of Republican majority control: Avg. 63.3% employment.
6 years of Democrat majority control: Avg. 59.9% employment.
4 years of Obama pResidency: Avg. 58.7% employment.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Note well that Bill Clinton never had a surplus with a Democrat House and Senate.

Surpluses only came when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and Clinton was smart enough not to veto that, and sly enough to take credit for it.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, one could truly say that he “inherited” the economy, because he had not been a part of the Congress that helped create that economy.

And what W. inherited was the Dot Com bust, followed shortly thereafter by the 9/11/2001 attacks, which created an economic double whammy. Employment was decreasing in 2001, 2002, and early 2003, and it was not until the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were signed into law that the economy turned around, employment rose, and tax revenues rose along with that rising employment. The low point of employment in 2003 was 62.0% in September 2003. By December 2006, employment was up to 63.4%. Thanks in large part to the Bush Tax Cuts, the economy grew, employment grew, and tax revenues grew. Tax revenues in FY 2007 were a whopping 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues! That was the effect of Republican-backed policies.

That improvement hit an inflection point when the balance of power shifted from Republican to Democrat on January 3, 2007. Democrats raised the minimum wage 3 times, in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and while may sound good to you, the fact is that whenever the minimum wage is raised, some people who would have been employed at minimum wage previously do not end up making more, but rather end up unemployed. There is a reason why youth unemployment is higher now than it was 6 years ago. The financial crisis of 2008 of course increased unemployment (/decreased employment), but again Republicans had warned of, and tried to stop, that crisis, but Democrats thwarted attempts at reform and additional oversight.

We’ve now had six continuous years of Democrats holding majority control of Washington, D.C.
Average employment over those six years has been 59.9%, and we haven’t had a month above that average since February 2009.

The average over Obama’s pResidency has been 58.7%, and we haven’t had a month above that average since August 2009.

One really can’t say that Obama “inherited” an economy on January 20, 2009, because he had been a Senator since January 3, 2005 and helped create that economy. When Democrats in Congress took majority control on January 3, 2007, they inherited a GOOD economy.

But, even if one insists on saying Barack H. Obama “inherited” a bad economy from George W. Bush on January 20, 2009, that economy was a lot better than the one that Barack H. Obama “inherited” from himself on January 20, 2013. The economy now, after Obama’s first 4 years, is worse than it was 4 years ago.

12 years of Republican majority control: Avg. 63.3% employment.
6 years of Democrat majority control: Avg. 59.9% employment.
4 years of Obama pResidency: Avg. 58.7% employment.

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I’m waiting for my comment to appear… I’m not sure what would have made it go to moderation…

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Bayam
May I suggest that you go back to school and take a basic math class, a basic budgeting class and an economics class not taught by Paul Krugman. Then try to find a book that reports accurately on the great depression and the negative consequences of government intervention.

hopeful on March 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

The balance of power shifted from Republican to Democrat on January 3, 2007.

When Nancy Pelosi took control of the House, and Harry Reid, along with then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton took control of the Senate on January 3, 2007, Democrats inherited the FY 2007 budget that had been passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and President Bush in 2006.

That FY 2007 budget, inherited from Republicans, produced a deficit of less than $161 Billion.

That’s less than each of the Deficits under Bill Clinton when he had a Democratic Congress. It’s true. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress passed the FY 1994 and FY 1995 budgets, which produced deficits of $203 Billion and $164 Billion.

Even with inflation, the FY 2007 budget deficit was under $161 Billion. For FY 2007, Bush and the Republican Congress did better than Clinton and the Democratic Congress did in FY 1994 and FY 1995.

And don’t try to tell me that Republicans were responsible for the Fannie/Freddie mess in 2008. Look at Carter’s and Clinton’s roles in the Community Reinvestment Act, and look at what Obama did as a lawyer representing ACORN.

One party tried to reform Fannie/Freddie, while the other party obstructed, protected their own special interests, claimed that there were not any “safety and soundness issues” at Fannie/Freddie, and slandered opponents in the other party.

The CSPAN footage doesn’t lie.

The financial crisis happened on the Democrat’s watch, and was the result of the Democrats’ policies.

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Obamacare is the single most expensive part of discretionary spending. It has to be on the table for any serious discussion about deficit reduction.

If the rat-eared wonder is willing to idle aircraft carriers and whole segments of the economy to keep his signature piece of legislation from any change then he needs to be impeached. He is destroying the nation out of vanity.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Problem is, people have paid taxes specifically to fund their future social security payments. Of course the actual funding mechanism is nothing like a trust or retirement savings account, but that’s not relevant to those who paid into the system.

Take care of your own, the Mexican approach to retirement. Nice.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

People have NOT paid taxes to specifically fund their future social security payments. They’ve paid taxes to pay for OTHER PEOPLE’S SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS.

Also, there is no right to either Social Security or Medicare. NONE. See Flemming v Nestor and Heckler v Ringer.

If you reactionary idiots continue to be so intransigent in your refusal to reform the three main drivers of deficits and future debt because you believe that the Brokest Nation in the History of Civilisation should continue to fund the Medicare of and send Social Security cheques to Mitt Romney, Al Gore, and Warren Buffett instead of worrying about keeping the programmes viable for their secretaries, well, then, if I were you, I’d start putting up signs that state “Please don’t feed the humans.”

When I heard that the National Parks Service “had” to cut the bison maintenance programme due to Sequesterquatch, all that I could think was:

“Well, thank goodness the government had the foresight to tell visitors to Yellowstone National Park not to feed the animals. If they hadn’t, how would those poor bison survive now that the teat has run dry?”

Entitlement programmes are unsustainable and Stein’s Law will, eventually, come into play whether or not you like it.

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

hopeful on March 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Byam is a concern troll, not worth the effort of refuting.

Happy Nomad on March 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Dingy Harry should double down and demand 2 TRILLION in new taxes!!

Khun Joe on March 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Dingy Harry should double down and demand 2 TRILLION in new taxes!!

Khun Joe on March 12, 2013 at 8:59 PM

…so they can spend 5 trillion!

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2013 at 9:01 PM

FY 1996-2007, Republican majorities increased total national debt by $4 Trillion in 12 years.

FY 2008-2013, Democrat majorities will have increased total national debt by more than $8 Trillion in just 6 years. And Obama was an active part of the Democrat majority in each and every one of those 6 Fiscal Years… first as Senator, and then as pResident.

What Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, etc., and Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats “inherited” when they took majority control on January 3, 2007 was:
December 2006 Employment-Population ratio: 63.4%
December 2006 Unemployment:4.4%
FY 2007 budget deficit: less than $161 Billion.

What the Democrats inherited was a good economy and a shrinking deficit.

What Democrat majorities did was
obstruct attempts to reform Fannie & Freddie,
raise the minimum wage three times,
roughly triple the deficit in FY 2008,
roughly triple the deficit AGAIN in FY 2009,
pass TARP,
pass “porkulus”,
pass “cash for clunkers”, etc.

Democrats inherited a good economy and a shrinking deficit.

Democrats then helped tank the economy and make Trillion+ deficits their status quo, after lying through their teeth and promising “no more deficit spending”.

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Would there be a pleasant way to instruct Progressives/Fascists/Communists/Liberals/Democrats to go f_ck themselves with sharp objects?

I’m pretty much done with pleasantries.

Polish Rifle on March 12, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Democrats’ budget to include almost $1 trillion in new taxes

Followed by $3 trillion in new spending.

Kingfisher on March 12, 2013 at 9:31 PM

SSDD from the dems Canopfor :)

cmsinaz on March 12, 2013 at 8:30 PM

cmsinaz:Ain`t that the truth-:)

canopfor on March 12, 2013 at 9:33 PM

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Slight correction: The GOP didn’t control the Senate between 6 June 6 2001 and 3 January 2003. Tom Daschle was Majority Leader.

:-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Slight correction: The GOP didn’t control the Senate between 6 June 6 2001 and 3 January 2003. Tom Daschle was Majority Leader.

:-)

Resist We Much on March 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM

I know, but Republicans still held overall majority control of budgeting and spending. Why? Becuase Republicans held a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency the entire time from Jan 3, 1995 – Jan 2, 2007

Even when the Dems took control of the Senate (when RINO Jeffords took of his RINO costume and became an “Independent” caucusing with the DEMOCRATS) Republicans still held majority control because Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the Presidency.

ITguy on March 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Problem is, people have paid taxes specifically to fund their future social security payments. Of course the actual funding mechanism is nothing like a trust or retirement savings account, but that’s not relevant to those who paid into the system.

Take care of your own, the Mexican approach to retirement. Nice.

bayam on March 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Unfortunately, bayam, we know that Obama cheats like you don’t pay your taxes.

Those who make the rules should play by them. Especially a White House that lectures the rest of America about the importance of paying your “fair share” of taxes.

So we were struck by IRS reports that no fewer than 40 aides to President Obama still owe the federal government a combined $333,485 in back taxes. In terms of people, that’s four more tax delinquents on the White House staff than last year, though a decline in the total amount owed.

We know these numbers because the IRS is required by law to disclose how many federal employees, by department (and including retirees), are behind in their taxes. This year, some 312,000 of Uncle Sam’s own employees owe the IRS a whopping $3.52 billion.

And there’s even more, bayam; your leaders and Obama Party Senators are tax cheats too.

The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

And of course, every single Obama Party member in the House cheats on their taxes too, just like the leaders of the Congressional Racist Caucus:

This, of course, is the same Charlie Rangel who failed to report $75,000 in income he’d received from a three-bedroom, three-bathroom rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. At the time, Rangel owed back taxes on the property for at least three years.

This is also the same Charlie Rangel who took a “homestead” tax break on the home he owns in Washington D.C. for several years. Problem is, Rangel simultaneously occupied multiple rent-controlled apartments in New York City.

And lest we forget the time he (ahem) forgot to include the sale of a D.C. home on his annual financial reports; the “discrepancies” in the reported value of a home he owned in Florida (anywhere between $50,000 to $500,000, depending on who you ask); or the inconsistencies in his reporting of his investment funds.

So sick little bayam, your lies don’t work here. We know you’re a tax cheat and welfare fraud, just like your Obama Party leaders and just like your Barack Obama.

Pay your fair share, bayam. Or is your screaming Obama a liar?

northdallasthirty on March 13, 2013 at 12:01 AM