It's on: Obama takes iron fist to GOP
President Barack Obama outlines his fiscal policy during an address at George Washington University in Washington, Wednesday, April 13, 2011.
/ AP Photo/Pablo Martinez MonsivaisUpdated 6:13 p.m. Eastern Time
President Obama may have been wearing a metaphorical velvet glove during his big deficit reduction speech Wednesday, but make no mistake about it: He took an iron fist to the Republicans.
Mr. Obama's speech was striking not for the details of his plan as much as the way he set up the choice between his proposal and the one offered by the GOP. Mr. Obama said his plan to save $4 trillion over 12 years was grounded in staying true to the idea that "each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity."
And that, he said, means protecting the social safety net - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployment insurance - even while reforming the programs involved. Those programs, he said, are integral to America's exceptionalism. "We would not be a great country without those commitments," argued the president.
He then went on to question the Republican plan for reflecting an abandonment of what makes America great, stating that it "would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one that we've known." The GOP plan, he said, cuts education, clean energy programs, and college scholarship programs - it says "we can't afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in," he told a George Washington University audience.
The Republican vision, he added, was "deeply pessimistic." The president said that Republicans are positing that America can't afford to fix its bridges, to care for seniors, to send its kids to college - that America, in the end, can't afford to be great.
And then he really went after the GOP, targeting what he said were $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans contained in the Paul Ryan Republican 2012 budget proposal.
"In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined," said Mr. Obama. "Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That's who needs to pay less taxes?"
"They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs," he added. "That's not right, and that's not going to happen as long as I'm president."
The Republicans, he argued, want to sell out what makes America special - its commitment to its people - in order to give the wealthiest Americans a little more spending money. The GOP vision for the country, he said, "is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America."
In service of the same theme, Mr. Obama later zeroed in on the GOP proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program, potentially leaving some seniors unable to pay for health care.
"I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs," he said. "I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."
Obama's goal: Cut deficit by $4T over 12 years
This was the President Obama that voters rallied around in the 2008 presidential campaign - a candidate willing and able to lay down a clear vision grounded in progressive ideals. The left has soured on Mr. Obama over the past two years as he has compromised on tax cuts for the rich, closing the Guantanamo Bay prison facility and a host of other issues. This speech seemed designed to bring disillusioned former supporters back into the fold - though they will be watching to see to what degree he stands by his words during the coming fights over the debt ceiling and 2012 budget.
Consider how he laid out the argument against lowering taxes on the rich toward the conclusion of the speech.
"I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more," said the president. "I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare or by cutting kids from Head Start or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn't be here without, and that some of you wouldn't be here without." (Watch the speech in full at left.)
He even made a progressive argument for reforming deficit-driving entitlement programs, arguing that "if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments."
The entire speech was grounded in the idea that America can live within its means and still remain great - and the corresponding idea that the Republican plan would make America less than what it has been. Such strong rhetoric has been rare for Mr. Obama, whose rhetorical move rightward over the past year has infuriated liberals. He offered the sort of argument Wednesday that Americans rarely see from Democrats - the suggestion, for example, that standing with America means standing with him. And that "preserving the American dream" - through his policies - is what true patriotism is all about.
In response to the speech, Republicans lambasted the president for, in the words of Tea Party-linked Sen. Jim DeMint, making it "absolutely clear today that Democrats will cling bitterly to deficit spending until our nation is bankrupt." House Speaker John Boehner said that the Obama plan, unlike the Ryan/GOP plan, offered no serious budget reduction proposals, adding that "any plan that starts with job-destroying tax hikes is a non-starter."
Ryan, who authored the House Republican budget, said the speech "was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our country's pressing fiscal challenges."
"What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander in chief," he said. "What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner in chief."
GOP leaders preemptively blast Obama on plan to reduce the deficit
There's little doubt about the "political broadside" part. The Ryan/GOP budget gave Mr. Obama an opportunity to frame the deficit debate as between keeping America great and putting the rich first, and he grabbed onto it with both hands Wednesday. In typical fashion, the president initially held back in the deficit debate, opting to let Republicans make the first serious move. Now he's counterattacked with a speech that offers a moral grounding for the Democratic position in the coming budget and debt ceiling debate. With the 2012 presidential election and two major battles ahead, get ready for a dogfight.
Did Biden fall asleep during Obama deficit speech?
Obama deficit reduction plan leaves deficits
Is Social Security on the table as Obama, Congress tackle the deficit?
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 692 Comments
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 471 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama
- Burma or Myanmar? WH grappling with name game
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal 279 Comments
But the really huge money pits are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases we are fighting counter-insurgency wars with conventional forces which are trained to fight conventional wars not counter-insurgencies. We have a substantial number of Special Forces who were created and trained to deal with insurgency/counter-insurgency wars. If we turned both wars over to the Special Forces it would cost about 1/10th what we are paying now for conventional forces, and we would see real results in a reasonable amount of time. This also has the added advantage of stopping a huge flow of money out of our economy into foreign economies. Also neither action would harm the domestic economy.
"The ONLY way to cut the deficit is to STOP THE DA@*N SPENDING"
It's not an either/or proposition. Yes we certainly need to cut spending, but we also need to increase revenue.
First given the current buying power of the dollar I do not consider people making $250,000 per year to be wealthy. Executives making $250,000 per year are rich, but the person who signs their checks is wealthy. 90% of all wealth in the nation is now concentrated in the hands of 2% of the people, which is those people making one million dollars per year or more. When I refer to the wealthy I mean the top 2%. When I refer to the middle class and poor I mean the other 98%.
Currently the wealthy are wealthier than ever and enjoying the lowest tax rates in fifty years. Before the crash their were slush fund managers being paid $900,000 per hour. Nobody is actually worth that much unless they urinate gasoline and defecate gold bars. $900,000 per hour would pay 40,000 workers a wage of $22.50 per hour. Do you really think that someone making $900,000 per hour would change their spending habits if that got reduced to $810,000 per hour?
Let's also not forget that when 90% of the wealth of a nation gets concentrated in the hands of 2% of the population, that is not the result of free market activity only. That is the result of subsidies, deregulation, tax breaks and back room deals with the government. Since the government has contributed greatly to the wealthy's ability to become more wealthy, it is only fair that they return the favor by helping the government in it's time of need. It is fair for them to help more than the middle class because the government has consistently helped the wealthy more then the middle class for at least 30 years. This is evidenced by the decrease in middle class earning power even as the wealthy have become far wealthier. Let us also not forget that it was the wealthy's mismanagement of the financial sector which caused the great recession.
If we raise taxes on the wealthy by 10% only the millionaires will notice, the billionaires won't flinch.
Let's also allow the increase to expire in ten years and drop their rate back to 35% when the budget is balanced and the economy has recovered. The tax increase on the wealthy would far more than pay for a tax decrease of 10% on the middle class.
If we increase the spending power of the middle class by 10% they will buy about 8% to 9% more goods and services, thus stimulating the economy (and incidentally sending more profits up the economic ladder). If there is money to be made from increased consumer demand the wealthy will invest even if they are paying higher taxes. That way the government would increase revenue substantially and stimulate the economy at the same time. But this is just one side of the coin.
We also have to reduce spending.
The ONLY way he knows how to whip up his supporters into a frenzy is to...well... LIE! His speech was full fo false numbers, no data to support his various claims, false metrics (nice try...slipping in a 12 yr metric to compare numbers - what a DOPE). He is petty, reactive, immature and wholly WITHOUT moral leadership! The guy never even presented a plan! The one thing he did slip by (how STUPID does he thnk people are? well, except for his Obamacolytes here)was the TRIGGER - did you hear that?
I will make Congress pass a budget every year (yeah, so why didn't my own party's Dominated Congress get one passed this year?) that will pay down the deficit though spending cuts and tax hikes. If they don't (and here's the coward's sneaky little proposal) we will automatically enforce EITHER (really important word in light of CutCoward, TaxHog Obama) spending cuts or tax hikes. Hear that? Automatic Tax Hikes!!!?!! No vote, no debate, no democratic representation. How fast do you think Congress will "fail to pass a proper budget"????? Obama, go home. You are a FAILURE - in so many ways.
Most businesses will not be affected by tax hikes for the wealthy. This hikes are in family incomes of over $1 million. Now how pray tell does this kind of tax hike destroy any jobs? What the tax cut did do was cost the government nearly $1 trillion, minimum, for the first year. That was discussed on ithinkrevolution.com two days ago, before Obama, or any politician seemed to notice this huge number. Neighter side discussed it last november when it was extended and no one has said anything about it untl yesterday. The fact is that tax cuts are one of the reasons the deficit is so large and raising taxes is the ONLY way to pay it off.
Your incredibly ignorant statement that "most biz will not be affected..: please, if you are of voting age, educate yourself! ALL businesses are affected (remember Obama's "wealthy" is 250,000; that's INCOME, not PROFITS!!!!)
And, you've also bought into the LIE that raising taxes will reduce the deficit. You clearly are UNAWARE of the SIZE of the deficit: According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans-most of whom are far from wealthy-were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.
The ONLY way to cut the deficit is to STOP THE DA@*N SPENDING
If we listen to The Republican Corporation, we will have another set of filthy rich robber barons while we all wallow in poverty. That is the goal of the Class War conservative morons. We have met the enemy and it is US. The terrorist are right here in the corporate boardrooms.
"We have a severe REVENUE PROBLEM, and the wealthy and corporate elite have been skating from paying their fair share for years!"
Absolutely true!
by Nmmnng April 14, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
"We have a severe "Spending problem"!!"
Also absolutely true!
Any approach which addresses one problem without addressing to other is doomed to failure.
If you are serious about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the peanuts we spend on the social safety net just don't matter. That money is a small fraction of the budget, less than 2%.
The cause of the debt crisis is two wars, one of which was utterly unnecessary, and the other of which has been mismanaged by fighting a conventional war where only Special Forces should have been used. The special forces are trained to handle insurgency/counter-insurgency, conventional forces are not. A special forces operation would cost about 1/10th the cost of a conventional forces operation and would yield positive results in a much shorter time. Pull out of Iraq and leave behind some special forces, then pull conventional forces out of Afghanistan and leave a substantial special forces presence, and you will solve most of the spending/debt crisis.
In addition close all foreign military bases which are not vital to national security (about half). Any nation that wants our protection could pay for the cost of our bases in their country. We can charge a mark-up and turn a money pit into a source of revenue.
Also the wealthy who have, and do, get a great deal more assistance from the government that the other 98% of the population combined, should pay extra for that consideration. We all have a lot to lose if the government collapses, but the wealthy have a great deal more to lose.
The wealthiest are also responsible for the economic collapse through the mismanagement of their investors money, while increasing their own wealth at the expense of the American people by investing looted money in gold.
The wealthy caused the economic collapse and they should pay for it. They enjoy special consideration and privileges from the government and they should pay for that. We are fighting two wars and the wealthy are far more wealthy than ever before, and enjoying the lowest tax rates in the last 50 years. It simply isn't right to make the middle class pay for the mistakes of the wealthy. They are given much more by the system, and they need to pay much more to maintain it. When the wars are paid for, and the budget is balanced it will be rational to talk about tax breaks for the wealthy again. When the economy has recovered it will be rational to cut domestic spending.
Right now the only rational thing to do is raise taxes on the wealthy, and cut foreign spending.
"We have a severe REVENUE PROBLEM, and the wealthy and corporate elite have been skating from paying their fair share for years!"
Absolutely true!
by Nmmnng April 14, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
"We have a severe "Spending problem"!!"
Also absolutely true!
Any approach which addresses one problem without addressing to other is doomed to failure.
If you are serious about balancing the budget and paying down the debt, the peanuts we spend on the social safety net just don't matter. That money is a small fraction of the budget, less than 2%.
The cause of the debt crisis is two wars, one of which was utterly unnecessary, and the other of which has been mismanaged by fighting a conventional war where only Special Forces should have been used. The special forces are trained to handle insurgency/counter-insurgency, conventional forces are not. A special forces operation would cost about 1/10th the cost of a conventional forces operation and would yield positive results in a much shorter time. Pull out of Iraq and leave behind some special forces, then pull conventional forces out of Afghanistan and leave a substantial special forces presence, and you will solve most of the spending/debt crisis.
In addition close all foreign military bases which are not vital to national security (about half). Any nation that wants our protection could pay for the cost of our bases in their country. We can charge a mark-up and turn a money pit into a source of revenue.
Also the wealthy who have, and do, get a great deal more assistance from the government that the other 98% of the population combined, should pay extra for that consideration. We all have a lot to lose if the government collapses, but the wealthy have a great deal more to lose.
The wealthiest are also responsible for the economic collapse through the mismanagement of their investors money, while increasing their own wealth at the expense of the American people by investing looted money in gold.
The wealthy caused the economic collapse and they should pay for it. They enjoy special consideration and privileges from the government and they should pay for that. We are fighting two wars and the wealthy are far more wealthy than ever before, and enjoying the lowest tax rates in the last 50 years. It simply isn't right to make the middle class pay for the mistakes of the wealthy. They are given much more by the system, and they need to pay much more to maintain it. When the wars are paid for, and the budget is balanced it will be rational to talk about tax breaks for the wealthy again. When the economy has recovered it will be rational to cut domestic spending.
Right now the only rational thing to do is raise taxes on the wealthy, and cut foreign spending.