New Obama budget totals $3.77 trillion

posted at 9:21 am on April 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

As the Senate prepares to produce its first budget since the FY2010 cycle four years ago, Barack Obama will finally submit his own budget proposal — two months late, of course.  The last actual normal-order budget passed by Congress spent, according to the White House’s own figures, $3.456 trillion dollars on revenues of only $2.163 trillion.  With even the President talking about fiscal discipline and deficit control, we must be seeing some cuts in this budget cycle, no?

No:

President Obama plans Wednesday to unveil a $3.77 trillion spending plan that proposes modest new investments in infrastructure and education, major new taxes for the wealthy and significant reforms aimed at reducing the cost of Social Security and Medicare.

In case you’re keeping score — because the Obama administration clearly isn’t — that’s an increase of 8% over FY2010, which has served as the baseline spending level for all of the continuing resolutions and short-term budget deals that have followed since.  That makes the Washington Post’s next paragraph even more ridiculous:

As Washington barrels toward another potential showdown over the federal debt limit later this summer, administration officials said the blueprint lays down the president’s bottom-line offer for getting federal borrowing under control.

Spending more money gets borrowing under control?  Even credit-card companies wouldn’t try making that argument.  The administration doubled down on this spin, though:

“So this is our sticking point,” the official said. “And the question is: are Republicans going to be willing to come to us to do serious things to reduce our deficits” – including raising taxes on millionaires.

Why not do something actually serious, like reducing spending?  What are these “modest new investments,” for instance?  We spent nearly a trillion dollars on “modest new investments” in 2009-10, which we still haven’t paid off.

The Post reports that Republicans are laughing this off, much like the last two presidential budget proposals, which couldn’t even win a single Democratic vote in Congress in three floor votes.  This is why:

While the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts $3.6 trillion in outlays in the fiscal year that begins in October, Obama calls for $170 billion more.

And while the CBO forecasts a deficit of $616 billion in 2014, Obama calls for a larger gap between spending and revenues of $744 billion, administration officials said, or 4.4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

The $170 billion increase in spending is exactly twice what the sequester was supposed to cut from next year’s budget.  Obama doesn’t want any spending cuts — he only wants more tax hikes, as Politico reports, calling them “revenue”:

His $3.77 trillion proposal would reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion by adding $580 billion in new taxes on the wealthy, according to senior administration officials. It also includes an estimated $230 billion in savings by reducing cost-of-living adjustments for federal entitlement programs.

But all of those cuts — which White House aides say the president is ready to make — depend on whether Republicans agree to new tax revenues, including requiring people who make $1 million or more to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes and limiting deductions for the top 2 percent of earners.

“If they refuse to include revenues in any deal, then there will be no deal. It’s that simple,” a senior administration official said in a briefing call with reporters Tuesday.

Their justification, they say, is simple: Obama won a second term in November, and he’s not interested in negotiating away from the positions he took on the campaign trail to get to it. This is about a plan they say is out to help the middle class by increasing that tax burden on the wealthy.

In other words, Obama wants Republicans to agree to tax hikes today for down-the-road cost savings in entitlement programs that are necessary whether we hike taxes or not.  In exchange, he wants to increase spending in most or all other categories.

What a deal! It’s very reminiscent of this one:

He’s called Wimpy for a reason, folks.

Update: Darn — the first Wimpy clip wasn’t embeddable. Here’s a longer Popeye with Wimpy instead.


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

Clueless.

hillsoftx on April 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM

I say he doubles the number of votes he has received on his last two budgets…

right2bright on April 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM

…i n v e s t m e n t s…!

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Queue Dr. Evil!

$3.77……………TRILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!

pilamaye on April 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

He’s just going along with the polls. The public doesn’t want anything cut. They do want the rich to pay more.

America is a joke on itself, and the entire fault is the failure of the media to work to inform anyone of anything.

But hey – today’s recipient of government avoidance won’t be the ones who have to pay the piper, and most of the rich vote Democrat anyway, so big deal.

beatcanvas on April 10, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Seriously? “tax the wealthy to help the middle class” is another Obama marxist lie. The Govt should be made to clean up all of the wasted billions of dollars before they confiscate more money from taxpayers so Obama can double down on the $7 trillion debt he has given us since he got elected

HAGGS99 on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

His $3.77 trillion proposal would reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion by adding $580 billion in new taxes on the wealthy

I assume that’s over 10 years. Considering he just got more than that amount back in January($600 billion), exactly how high of an income tax rate is he looking to hammer “the wealthy” with? They’re already at 39.6%. This sounds like it’ll put them in the mid-40s.

Doughboy on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

As the Senate prepares to produce its first budget since the FY2010 cycle four years ago, Barack Obama will finally submit his own budget proposal — two months late, of course.

65 days late to be exact. But hey, all those vacations have really filled up the old schedule this year.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Can we stop calling this stuff “investments?”

It is spending, profligate and obscene. Spending.

Not government’s money, but ours, those who pay taxes…taxes…not donating revenues or bearing our share…but taxes, being taken from us at the point of a gun…

And can we actually get the so-called fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill to make real cuts in spending, not just bending the baseline a tad?

coldwarrior on April 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Balanced

In a satanic kind of way.

acyl72 on April 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Why not ten trillion?

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM

ARE WE CLEAR AS TO WHAT OBAMA’S GOAL IS YET?

tom daschle concerned on April 10, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Nothing is ever going to change with this liar. How can he keep a straight face when he claims that soaking the rich somehow helps the middle class?

All this middle class language that he seems obsessed with is straight out of Alinsky who cautioned against scaring the middle class because “eventually you will need them.” Nothing has changed. This is still a radical leftist, pragmatic enough to understand limits of what can be done now, and what will need to be “accomplished” later.

We must not make the mistake of buying the head fake that this budget is left of the House but right of the Senate. It is only part of the Obama machine lurching left. All of it is.

theosdad on April 10, 2013 at 9:45 AM

What time does the next spaceship arrive to take me to another planet? I f-cking want off this rock already. When do I get to wake up one day and not have to roll my eyes at my president? When do I get to wake up and see that the men in Washington have penises and testicles??? When?

GhoulAid on April 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Obama is the 20th hijacker.

What Osama started, Obama is finishing.

Complete financial collapse.

portlandon on April 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM

How clear can it get that Obama want’s to bring down the USA, which he doesn’t like, to a lower level of prosperity.

BTW he always seems to have tax money aid for Islamic states. And what about 140,000 teargas canisters apparently having been shipped to the Egyptian Interior Ministry for the Muslim Brotherhood’s use? Looks like Obama wants to help his MB friends keep those pesky freedom loving Egyptians in line.
http://bit.ly/14VcNYt

Chessplayer on April 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM

*shaking the head *

Gop are constructionists in 5…4…3
-lsm

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Dang Android

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM

ARE WE CLEAR AS TO WHAT OBAMA’S GOAL IS YET?

tom daschle concerned on April 10, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Ummm, NO…. There are certain words, that the “Professional Blogging Class” cannot say. Words like Cloward-Pivens Marxist or Traitor. Words that would cause them to loose their Fifth Column Treasonous Media creditability. So, no, we absolutely positively are not clear what his goal is yet.

SWalker on April 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

In trillions:

Year 2000: Spending 1.73, taxes 1.88.
Year 2013 Spending 3.77, taxes 2.50

Spending increase 118 pc over 13 years
Tax increase 33 pc over 13 years

How any honest and rational person can keep saying it’s a
‘revenue’ problem and not a spending problem is beyond me.

I know they’re not honest or rational. I answered it myself

levi on April 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

In passing, it’s also unspeakably pathetic that the piece Drudge links to is in the UK’s Daily Mail.

It’s far from the first time and far from the last time that you have to reach for a British news source for a balanced and skeptical analysis of what’s going on here.

And US newspapers continue to wonder why they’re losing customers.

Drained Brain on April 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Another year, another Obama budget…….that won’t get a single vote from anyone.

GarandFan on April 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Who ever said that a community organizer doesn’t know his way around complicated economic and budgetary issues? Bark is a damn genius.

Bishop on April 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Boehner will just sit on the seqester and take smaller increases for no cuts and kickthe can downj the road until 2016. There is no other choice.

Obama has zero leverage in this one. We will wail and scream about the next debt ceiling – but the fact is the template has been set. No more tax increases – small decreases in the amount of increase.

Obama calling wolf on the sequester pretty much killed his position.

Yawn – nothing to see here.

Zomcon JEM on April 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I gagged when Nina Easton reported on the Fox News panel last night that Republicans were against ‘revenue’. She had been one of the more intellectually honest democratics at Fox News.

Our language is being destroyed by the proggies in order to move the low-information voters.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM

In passing, it’s also unspeakably pathetic that the piece Drudge links to is in the UK’s Daily Mail.

It’s far from the first time and far from the last time that you have to reach for a British news source for a balanced and skeptical analysis of what’s going on here.

And US newspapers continue to wonder why they’re losing customers.

Drained Brain on April 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Yep. UK papers are missing an opportunity here. They should be turning up their US staffing and printing a US edition. I wonder if in the future the only reliable news we will get will be from outside the gates.

Fox News desperately needs some real competition as well.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM

FEMA should declare this asshat a national disaster.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Call his bluff, Boehner should have a vote on the Presidents bill to see which Democrats will go along with it. Last time he got 0 votes.

Tater Salad on April 10, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Obama’s so-called budget is going nowhere fast. Increases spending by 6% and will be in the dumpster next week. He is just not serious to control spending. Major changes coming in the next elections with more Democrat dumping.

Amazingoly on April 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

“. . . modest new investments. .”?

Isn’t that what the Dems call “Taxes?”
Or are we talking Solyndra here?

Hold on ta yer wallets.

TimBuk3 on April 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Like the “savings” in Obamacare by “ending” the “Doc Fix”, the cuts to the cost of living adjustments will never happen either. The “Doc Fix” will keep getting passed and politicians will keep feeding the largest voting block their CoLA’s. There’s no real structural reform, short or long term.

PastorJon on April 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM

There needs to be an App for that. Anyone with a lick of fiscal sanity understands the need to restrain government spending. So how do you round up the millions of low info voters and restore their fiscal sanity? Well, you gotta give away free stuff and it has to play as an App on their smart phone.

Perhaps Conservatives should EXPAND government by proposing a NEW government agency devoted to rewarding citizens for exposing government waste and corruption? Make it real big with a lot of power and a lot of employees who also get rewarded if their citizen client idea proves worthy. Make it like a game with a smartphone APP and throw some serious marketing money at it. Make sure the new agency really has some teeth so that it can enforce the weeding out of corrupt practices and corrupt employees. Make it like Survivor. And make the beast feed on itself.

Metanis on April 10, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Yes, by all means. Let’s invest MORE in infrastructure and education. Because the $787 billion invested 4 years ago worked out so well and the Trillions we’ve invested in education previously has us #1 IN THE WORLD, right?

Will someone please remind this socialist jackass the definition of insanity again?

Sponge on April 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM

New Obama budget totals $3.77 trillion

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:

FY 2013 Revenues: $2.708 Trillion (as projected by the CBO)

FY 2007 Outlays: $2.729 Trillion (as reported by the OMB)

If FY 2013 Outlays had been capped to FY 2007 dollar levels (the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President), and if the CBO Revenue projections for FY 2013 are correct, then the deficit in FY 2013 would have only been $21 Billion.

$2.708T Revenue
- $2.729T Spending
——————–
= -$0.021T (Deficit of only $0.021 Trillion, or $21 Billion)

We don’t have a revenue problem.
We have a spending problem.

Democrat majorities since then (including Obama the entire time, first as Senator, then as pResident) have sent spending and deficits through the roof.

==================================

FY 2007 Last Republican-Majority Budget Spending Outlays: $2.729 Trillion

FY 2014 Obama Budget Spending Outlays: $3.77 Trillion

An increase of over $1.04 Trillion, or over 38%, in just 7 years.

==================================

Let the Dems start by explaining why they have raised federal government outlays by nearly 40% since FY 2007. If they can’t justify that increase in spending, then they can’t ask for any more revenue.

And by the way, if they actually wanted higher revenue, they would LOWER tax rates, not raise them.

The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts cut tax rates for everyone who paid taxes, and revenues went UP every year for the next four years! FY 2007 revenues were 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

It’s logical to think that raising tax rates will have the OPPOSITE effect, and revenues would go DOWN, not up.

===============

Republican majority control: Revenues went up 44% in 4 years (FY 2004-2007) and deficits shrunk.

Democrat majority control: Outlays (spending) went up nearly 40% in 6 years (FY 2008-2013) and deficits grew so much that those are the six biggest deficits in the history of America.

ITguy on April 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

During the years from 20001 through 2008 the federal government’s revenue was $2.0 to $2.4 trillion.

Now, during a severe recession, we are going to spend $3.77 trillion?

Anyone who thinks this is not an orchestrated attempt to circumvent our constitution, bankrupt the country, and install a rogue government doesn’t have their head on straight.

Amjean on April 10, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I have noted this many times in many places. Using inflation adjusted number we spent about $8,000 per citizen during the Clinton / Republican Congress days (or Saint Bill for those liberals who may be within eyeshot). We are now spending about $10,500 per person.

I simply don’t recall that the 1990′s were beset by famine, pestilence, dark days and destruction. Why can’t we simply drop back to those spending levels? Doing that essentially eliminates the deficit.

mrveritas on April 10, 2013 at 7:50 PM