Obama: 2013 budget reflects "tough choices"
President Obama's 2013 budget blends short-term stimulus spending aimed at boosting job-creation with longer term measures seeking to gradually balance the nation's books.
Speaking at Northern Virginia Community College in Annondale, Va., Obama echoed many of the themes that have featured in his recent speeches, including the need for all Americans to contribute their "fair share" and to play by the rules. "We've got to renew the American values of fair play and shared responsibility," he said.
Obama also said he is making "tough choices" in cutting government spending in order to put the country on a sustainable economic path. Yet he warned that excessively large cutbacks would threaten the recovery, which he said is gaining strength. "The last thing we need is for Washington to stand in the way of America's comeback," he said in urging lawmakers to approve a two percent cut in payroll taxes. "Congress needs to stop taxes from going up on 160 million Americans," he added.
The budget for the government's next fiscal year, which takes effect Oct. 1, would shrink the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years by cutting federal spending and by raising taxes on people earning at least $250,000 per year. For 2013, the White House projects a deficit of $901 billion, or 5.5 percent of GDP. That figure is down from an estimated $1.33 trillion in fiscal-year 2012, 8.5 percent of GDP. The goal is to reduce the budget gap to 2.7 percent percent of GDP, or $575 billion, by 2018.
The plan calls for deficit reduction to be achieved chiefly by slashing government expenditures. Obama is proposing $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar the government would raise in revenue by raising taxes on high income-earners and from eliminating corporate tax breaks. Discretionary spending, annual government outlays approved by Congress on everything from health research and pollution control to education and child care, is slated to decline from 8.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5 percent in 2022. As part of these cuts backs, the defense budget would decrease $487 billion.
Mandatory spending programs -- those authorized by law, rather than set by Congress every year -- also would take a hit. More than $360 billion in savings would come from trimming Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs over 10 years, mostly by reducing payments to health care providers.
Obama sends 2013 budget proposals to Congress
Big fight looms over Obama's budget proposal
Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
Obama budget plan: $901 billion shortfall in 2013
Obama's full fiscal-year 2013 budget
The tax measures included in the budget have long been on Obama's wishlist. He is pushing to let tax cuts for wealthier Americans enacted under President George W. Bush lapse, as scheduled, by year-end. Also on the agenda is the so-called Buffett rule, named after investor Warren Buffett, under which any U.S. household with annual income of more than $1 million would pay a minimum federal tax rate of 30 percent. These changes to the tax code would increase tax revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, according to the White House.
"That's not class warfare, that's common sense, " Obama said in rejecting criticism that his tax proposals are unfair to wealthier Americans.
One new source of revenue envisioned under the president's budget -- a "financial crisis responsibility fee" levied on big banks that would raise $61 billion over 10 years. The charge is aimed at repaying taxpayers for bailing out large financial firms in 2008 and 2009.
To boost employment starting this year, Obama is asking for roughly $350 billion to extend and expand the payroll tax cut and to continue unemployment benefits through the end of the year. Part of that funding also would go toward rebuilding the nation's roads, railways, and airport runways; renovating schools; and helping states and municipalities hire and retain teachers and emergency personnel.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Bernanke sends stocks, bonds skittering
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Bernanke holds the line on Fed monetary policy
- Why geniuses don't have jobs
- Service helps you use Twitter to find a job
- Microsoft slashes Surface prices to lure buyers
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- Stock market falls as traders fear stimulus cuts
sailrick, this statement does not mean take from the rich to give to the poor. It does not mean provide endless dole-outs. It does not mean everyone is supposed to have economic equality. It does not mean that if you are successful your tax rate should be higher than everyone else's. Go ge4t and education and learn what it means, please.
The rich are also paying the lowest effective taxes in 60 years.
_________________________________________________________________
So is everyone sail. More wealth envy voodoo math. The top earners already pay 70% of total federal tax revenue. You can look it up at the IRS. Out of 139,960, 000 individual tax returns in 2010, the top 10% of earners or those earning more than $113,000 paid 70% of Federal tax. The top 1% paid 38%. The bottom 50% paid 2.7% of ALL FEDERAL TAX REVENUE.
There is nothing that says you deserve to have others more successful than you pay more of their income in tax, except Marx or the communist manifesto. Revel in your warm cloak of popular sentiment sailrick. You will not turn this country into a Socialist state. Ever.
Obviously the Republicons have been wrong about this for over 30 years. And their lies are being exposed finally. They are a failed and obsolete party of clowns that represent only the Top 1%.
The SOB Republicons campaigned in 2010 on creating jobs yet all they do is block job creations. What's up knucklehead numbnuts?
didn't think you would answer that question, its not in you narrative. proofs in the pudding, tax cuts to the corporate wealthy do not create jobs. who's talking about raising taxes? letting "temporary tax cuts expire, is not raising taxes
__________________________________________________________________
You can't refuse answer my question and claim you win, unless you're 6. You aren't answering because you can't without saying that no jobs will be created. You libs are all the same, nothing but double talk.
What is the net effect of today's corporate tax rate if the cut "expires". You can call it whatever you want but in the end, do they pay more or less than they are now.
You want corporations to pay more tax. Can't say I completely disagree with you there. But this is being presented as something you're entitled to have done to top earners based on a Socialst/Marxist/Communist concept of fairness (in other words, a fantasy that has just been made up). You're also presenting it as the silver bullet that will end all our suffering. I am simply asking, if your increases were to take place and ARE the silver bullet, exactly how much benefit would we receive in the form of job creation. My position is that it's not going to help do anything but make a lot of 9-5'er's feel a bit satisfied. Nothing more. Your refusal to answer my question tells me that you don't have an answer that wins your argument so you're throwing out a bunch of double talk - liberal to the core.
No one will answer me when I ask how much the increase needs to be and how many jobs they expect to create as a result of the increased taxation. Mostly because there is not answer that anyone wants to admit. It's much easier for them to call names and label a demographic as the source of all our ills.
Some attempt to excuse President Obama by stating that he didn't know how bad things were. So, these people are stating that President Obama didn't know what the heck he was talking about. President Obama either didn't have a clue as to what he was talking bout, or he was tossing our political bull crap. It is one or the other. Take your pick.
According to this CBS article "The plan calls for deficit reduction to be achieved chiefly by slashing government expenditures. Obama is proposing $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 dollar the government would raise in revenue by raising taxes on high income-earners and from eliminating corporate tax breaks."
Guess what.. there are no tax increases or elimination of tax breaks. This is pure hypothetical dreaming, and it does not deal with the REAL figures at hand. THIS IS NOT A REAL BUDGET. President Obama's budget cuts military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be cut anyway. He isn't addressing the massive federal over spending at all. A responsible budget is when you take a look at your revenue, and you adjust spending to match. You can not have a budget based on what you wish to happen (tax increases or elimination of tax breaks); you have to deal with reality - and this "budget" does not. It is pure bull crap.
a better question, how many were created by cutting taxes in half? how much of the deficit was created by the bush tax cuts?
_______________________________________________________________
Actually, that is a worse question, since my question is more pertinent to the discussion, since we're talking about RAISING taxes you see. Taxing the rich has to have a goal. Is the goal just to be fair? I doubt it, since the fairest taxes in the world aren't putting Frankie or Hector back to work digging their ditches or flipping their burgers. Do they want taxation to be fair or do they want a job? What is going to feed their kids first? A "fair" tax on the rich? Or a job?
So I'll ask it again - moving forward, how many jobs are going to be created by a tax hike, and how much of a tax hike is needed to achieve that goal?
If you cannot answer the question, then you cannot defend tax hikes because your real goal is to just take from one demographic to give it to another.
Additionally, I'd like you to tell me who decides what's fair, where to they get their qualifications and who appoints them? (or do we all raise our hands yay or nay?)