Obama: Why, we can’t cut spending by 2.3 percent!
Today, the Congressional Budget Office projected this year’s deficit to be $845 billion. It would be the first time during Barack Obama’s presidency that the deficit could be measured with only a 12-digit number. Hooray?
CBO expects higher tax revenues, including the tax increases included in the Jan. 1 deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, to contribute $259 billion toward deficit reduction. (Here, I repeat my standard disclaimer that CBO almost always over-estimates the increase in revenues that comes with higher tax rates because it does not even attempt to consider how people will change their behavior to avoid paying higher taxes.)
Yet, also today, Obama said he does not want to see spending cuts of just $85 billion due to the sequester take effect.
For those keeping score at home, the cuts he opposes equal (take your pick):
- just 2.3 percent of all federal spending this year;
- just 10.1 percent of even this year’s deficit;
- a mere $1 for every $3 in deficit reduction due to higher revenues (the bulk of which, according to the CBO report, are related to the fiscal cliff deal) — that is, the reverse of the standard ratio discussed for taxes vs. spending in a deficit deal.
Instead of such paltry cuts, Obama wants smaller cuts, even more tax increases, and yet another punt of the larger deficit issue.
Oh, and he missed yesterday’s deadline for submitting a budget to Congress — the third straight year he’s done so.
And some people wonder why conservatives accuse Obama of not being serious about our deficits and debt.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
179 comments Add your comment
Politico
February 5th, 2013
4:15 pm
“The media declaring dear leader Obama the winner is about credible as asking Michelle Obama who lost!”
Romney lost. No need to ask Michelle. Heck, even you should have heard by now.
Michael H. Smith
February 5th, 2013
4:15 pm
Oh and didn’t the economy actually contract last quarter Kyle?
Cutty
February 5th, 2013
4:17 pm
Kyle voted for Newt. Nuff said.
joe
February 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
Brad=loony liberal left bafoon
getalife
February 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
These gop self inflicted wounds are getting old.
We want unemployment down not up cons.
Talk about needless regulation.
Michael H. Smith
February 5th, 2013
4:21 pm
Romney lost. No need to ask Michelle. Heck, even you should have heard by now.
And you should know, before trying that lame retort, that a wife cannot testify against her husband was being compared to the media’s relationship with your dear leader as both share a bed with him !
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
February 5th, 2013
4:23 pm
Republican = A person ( usually a white guy ) that thinks his opinion is the only one that matters and is willing commit suicide to prove it.
Politico
February 5th, 2013
4:24 pm
Whose testifying? No wonder you seem lost so often
Michael H. Smith
February 5th, 2013
4:25 pm
Libs want unemployment down not up?
Y’all have a very strange $5 trillion ineffectual way of achieving that goal!
Decatur Guy
February 5th, 2013
4:25 pm
“You still don’t get it getalife.”
Understatement of the year.
Scooter
February 5th, 2013
4:27 pm
Obama’s deficit commission recommended the sequestration deal so let it happen. That will show if creating the commission was simply The Obama’s way of voting present on deficit reduction.
Michael H. Smith
February 5th, 2013
4:28 pm
Whose testifying?
Your reading comprehension is lousy, though not as bad as your boring failed attempts at humor.
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
4:40 pm
Tealiban @ 4:08: Spending in the U.K. is down 1.7% this year. If that’s crippling austerity, the entire West is doomed.
Pizzaman
February 5th, 2013
4:48 pm
All talk and no action from either side. Both responsible. Both guilty. Why even care till someone does something?
md
February 5th, 2013
4:52 pm
“The problem seems to be-with tens of billions of dollars flowing out of the economy, (and into the hands of the uberwealthy, where it is not invested-but accumulated)”
And you really can’t see where it goes? The rich bogeyman really gets it all?
Ask yourself a few questions…..all those products you and your neighbors are buying that are made in another country, does any of that go back to the other country?
After our car czar sold Chrysler and Jeep to the Italians, does all the profit stay in the US?
Put your thinking cap on and follow the money……..
MarkV
February 5th, 2013
4:52 pm
As usual Kyle’s article avoids any specifics of his viewpoints. He criticizes the President for “paltry cuts.” So why don’t we hear from Kyle, which cuts he wants the President to make. Does he want to cut military spending, subsidies for oil companies, or research, education, healthcare for low income people?
md
February 5th, 2013
4:53 pm
“Spending has dropped and unemployment is dropping .”
Who you trying to fool get? The unemployment number just went UP…..
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:09 pm
Kyle wants him some of that triple dip recession like England with their high unemployment rate.
Not on my watch Kyle.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:11 pm
Our President’s 4 trillion cut is still on the table.
Why won’t the gop accept it?
That is the question.
You cons need to fight back to rove.
He represents the gop establishment.
Get him.
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
5:11 pm
The Guardian, Jan. 23: “U.K. unemployment rate falls to 7.7%”
The Guardian, Feb. 1: “U.S. unemployment rate climbs to 7.9%”
Your watch ain’t going so well, getalife.
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
5:12 pm
getalife @ 5:11: Obama’s $4 trillion proposal counts as new the military spending he’s already planned by pulling out of Afghanistan. Among other gimmicks.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:13 pm
Kyle,
Now do England’s unemployment rate.
That is what you want. .
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:14 pm
“he’s already planned by pulling out of Afghanistan. Among other gimmicks”
Ending occupations is a gimmick?.
Reaching.
CC
February 5th, 2013
5:14 pm
md:
“Ask yourself a few questions…..all those products you and your neighbors are buying that are made in another country, does any of that go back to the other country?”
The term “favorable balance of trade” is foreign to most libs . . .
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 5th, 2013
5:19 pm
I’m just hoping the “sequester” cuts are even real and not just another obozo spending increase, like all the other “cuts” we’ve made in the last four years..
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:19 pm
Just pretend rove is President Obama and attack the same.
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
5:20 pm
Counting it as new is the gimmick, getalife. As for England: Why would I compare the whole U.S. to one part of the U.K.?
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:24 pm
Because you look silly crying about unemployment when you want to cut to make it higher.
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
5:26 pm
Nice non-answer.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:26 pm
Kyle,
What is the unemployment estimate for your cuts?
How many American jobs will be lost?
Stephenson Billings
February 5th, 2013
5:31 pm
So much for Obama’s statement that if you like your insurance, you can keep it (of course those of us paying attention knew this would happen all along):
Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law
“President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:32 pm
We are definitely on the right track but need the gop to get out of the way.
The idea is to lower unemployment not raise it.
Perhaps switch your focus from getting our President to fixing your party.
Tealiban Party
February 5th, 2013
5:39 pm
Kyle Wingfield
February 5th, 2013
4:40 pm
You only need to go back to 2010 Kyle when the UK Austerity measures kicked in. Here are the highights Kyle.
About 490,000 public sector jobs likely to be lost
Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets
Structural deficit to be eliminated by 2015
£7bn in additional welfare budget cuts
Police funding cut by 4% a year
Retirement age to rise from 65 to 66 by 2020
English schools budget protected; £2bn extra for social care
NHS budget in England to rise every year until 2015
Regulated rail fares to rise 3% above inflation
Bank levy to be made permanent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11569160
That sounds a little more draconian than your end of western-civilization as we know it 1.7% cut. Or perhaps the English quickly realized they “can’t cut their way to prosperity.”
CC
February 5th, 2013
5:40 pm
getalife doesn’t ‘get it’. getalife personified Peter’s Principle by merely being born . . .
Stephenson Billings
February 5th, 2013
5:41 pm
If cutting spending just a little bit causes a big jump in unemployment, then I’d say we have too many gov’t workers.
indigo
February 5th, 2013
5:42 pm
Stephenson Billings
Business has been trying, for some time now, to weasel out of sharing healthcare costs with their employees.
Obamacare has given them the perfect excuse to increase their profits at the expense of their employees all the while crying “poor”.
Predatory American Capitalism at its very best.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:43 pm
“About 490,000 public sector jobs likely to be lost”
Stephenson Billings
February 5th, 2013
5:46 pm
certainly didn’t take long for someone to blame the businesses, not the new regulations….. not surprised though.
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:47 pm
cc,
What are you mumbling about?
getalife
February 5th, 2013
5:49 pm
“Or perhaps the English quickly realized they “can’t cut their way to prosperity.”
Yeah, their numbers look awful.
So bad they will vote to leave the EU.
MarkV
February 5th, 2013
5:49 pm
“CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.”
Higher fees – the government will be able to subsidize those who lose insurance.
“Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government;” The solution is obvious – increase the penalty.
Stephenson Billings
February 5th, 2013
5:51 pm
And, IMO, employer provided health insurance is an outdated WWII era relic that employees regarded as something expected and not a benefit as part of their compensation.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 5th, 2013
5:55 pm
Obama is never going to get serious about spending cuts, he wants larger government that does more things for more people. You can’t get there with spending cuts.
The GOP has little power at this point, but Obama boxed himself in a corner, when he suggested the sequester. Now he thinks this was a bad idea. The GOP should answer that you made your bed, now sleep in it.
As far as austerity. Much of it in Europe is imposed by circumstances/creditors. They have the same spendthrift politicians they have always had, except for Merkel. Our coming austerity will be forced as well by creditors as we don’t have the cajones to proactively bring our budget under control.
indigo
February 5th, 2013
5:56 pm
CC – 3:41
You still hiding from reality?
Lee
February 5th, 2013
6:01 pm
The fact remains our federal government is going to have to make spending cuts – TRUE spending cuts, not cutting the increase – in order for this country to right itself fiscally.
The second thing is that our politicians do not have the discipline to cut – anything. As long as they can attach a spending bill as a rider to any peice of legislation, they will continue to do so and thereby continue to spend us into oblivian.
Some hard questions must be answered:
- Why are we still in Iraq / Afghanistan?
- Why is our military still in S. Korea, Germany, Japan, and a hundred other points across the globe?
- Why are we giving money away to countless countries that hate our guts and work to destroy us?
- You think 20-30 ILLEGAL ALIENS in this country taking advantage of our healthcare, education, and public assistance systems have any effect?
But our politicians cannot cut 2-3 percent? Our country is in for some very hard times ahead. At some point, the choice to cut spending will be made for us – and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Politico
February 5th, 2013
6:10 pm
MHS
Don’t let that ODS get out of hand
getalife
February 5th, 2013
6:13 pm
This 85 billion cut loses how many jobs?
Then you will cry about high unemployment.
You can’t have it both ways.
I doubt congress will come up with a plan so you might win this one but don’t cry when unemployment goes up.
md
February 5th, 2013
6:15 pm
“So bad they will vote to leave the EU.”
It’s not all about their economy, it’s about their sovereignty….seems it’s a bit hard handing over the reins to that new one world gov’t. Once they push all in, it’s a whole lot harder getting out and I think the Brits are now seeing that.
A bit like the States when they created that monster that now controls them……
getalife
February 5th, 2013
6:18 pm
md,
They listened to Germany, a country that bombed the crap out them.
Pretty bizarre but it is what it is.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 5th, 2013
6:24 pm
In November 2011, President Obama lamented that “some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts” that were part of that August’s deal to raise the debt limit. “My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”
Heh, for once obozo said something that is true.