Budget Hands Dems A Map And GOP A Target

President Obama's Ambitious Plan A Likely Focus For 2010 Elections

(CBS/ AP)  With ambitious plans to change health care, energy, farm payments, taxes and more, President Barack Obama's budget gives congressional Democrats goals to reach for. And highlights political targets for Republicans to aim at.

"Our work is well cut out for us," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said as she praised a "wonderful blueprint" from the administration that looks beyond reviving a weak economy and restoring order to the credit markets.

While Pelosi focused on calls for expanded health care, environmentally friendlier energy policy and improved education, Republicans saw higher taxes, soaring government spending and record federal deficits in the budget released Thursday.

"I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hardworking American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate Republican leader.

The White House says the goal of the tax changes is to reverse the trend of the George W. Bush years when "the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer," reports CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

The plan has become grist for the 2010 congressional election campaign as well.

As CBSNews.com's Declan McCullagh notes, the president's unveiling of his budget was more partisan than those of his recent predecessors.

Mr. Obama lambasted "profound irresponsibility" among those in power in Washington, D.C. - that is, the Republican Party - saying it had "a legacy of misplaced priorities" and a "legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities" that were responsible for "policy failures of the past eight years," McCullagh wrote.

Appearing on CBS' The Early Show, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the proposed budget, calling it a "higher tax,
weaker economy, fewer-jobs budget" that increases the power of government.

Democratic leaders, in control of both houses of Congress, have pledged to begin work promptly on translating Mr. Obama's blueprint into legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said earlier this week he hopes to have legislation ready for a vote within a month or so on an energy bill that includes steps to spur development of renewables and increase efficiency. A key element would be a national requirement for utilities to produce a certain percentage of their electricity from the wind, sun and biofuels, he added in an Associated Press interview.

In the House, Rep. Henry Waxman has pledged action this spring on a bill combining energy issues and climate change. "Global warming is one of my key priorities. I am committed to moving a comprehensive climate and energy bill in the committee before the Memorial Day recess," the California Democrat said.

A key element would be a so-called cap-and-trade system of limits and pollution allowances, especially for industries such as utilities with coal-burning power plants. The program would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while generating revenue.

Health care legislation would come next, possibly by summer in the Senate. Nor has a decision yet been made about a timetable in the House, where Waxman's committee will again play a pivotal role.

The White House has yet to name a replacement for former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who had been in line to be the administration's point man on health care. He withdrew several weeks ago as candidate for secretary of the Health and Human Services Department. And Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a dominant Democratic voice on health care, has been working from Florida while he recovers from surgery for a brain tumor.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has promised to make the legislation a top priority. He has outlined a plan that differs in some details from Mr. Obama's. For example, it contemplates taxing some health insurance benefits to raise money for expanded coverage.

Pelosi told reporters during the day that majority Democrats will have a nonbinding budget blueprint ready for a vote next month, detailing targets for spending and taxes. Senate action would follow, and agreement on a compromise would clear the way for routine spending bills that Democrats will use to underscore differences between their priorities and those of the Republicans.

Among early examples, Mr. Obama wants to increase funding for cancer research and reduce it for a proposed nuclear waste site in Nevada, a facility the president opposed in his campaign for the White House.

Mr. Obama's blueprint also envisions changes affecting entire industries, creating a series of prospective winners and losers - and political battles in the process.

His plans for health care calls for taking $175 billion over a decade from the fees the government pays insurance companies that cover more than 10 million people in private Medicare. The administration said in its budget plan the private plans cost 14 percent more than traditional Medicare, and as a candidate, Mr. Obama campaigned to eliminate the difference.

The administration also wants to cut federal payments to large farm operations, an issue that has proved controversial in the past.

Mr. Obama called for higher taxes on income and investment gains on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples who make $250,000 and above, as well as on oil and natural gas companies.

Tax cuts would generally go to lower- and middle-income wage-earners, although the president proposed a permanent adjustment in the alternative minimum tax to avoid penalizing middle-class and upper middle-class taxpayers.

Peter Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, said no taxes would go up until 2010, when the administration predicts the recession will be over.

But Republicans quickly criticized the plans.

"The era of big government is back and Democrats are asking you to pay for it," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House GOP leader. "The administration's plan I think is a job killer, plain and simple. And it raises taxes on all Americans while we're in the middle of a recession."

[nevminer]

This meltdown is going to be blamed on Clinton because he signed the bill that allowed the banks to expand their influence into other markets. It is, as far as my research goes, a known fact that Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican, was the driving force behind the 1999 bill to deregulate the banking institutions and scrap the Glass-Steagall Act. Haven?t we heard lately about this radical Republican? It wasin 2000, this same outgoing Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) who attached a 262-page rider to an appropriations bill to deregulate derivatives trading and other complicated financial instruments like collateral debt obligations. This was the final straw that eliminated the protection from greedy bankers guaranteed under the Glass-Steagall Act.
It took the Republicans all night to negotiate with the Clinton Administration to get this bill passed. I personally believe that President Clinton at this point was tired of battling the Republicans who had control of the Congress. The Republican assault on his Administration started the day that he took office and lasted until his term ended.
When the Republicans use vague worlds like re-organization, better oversight, restructuring, and other words that have a loose meaning and hold no specific plan to fix the problem, this is a smoke and mirrors, bait and switch scam.

[joule18]

Worries about the middle class vanishing, shrinking, or otherwise dwindling are hardly new, of course. Time magazine ran a lengthy story in 1986 with the provocative title: "Is the Middle Class Shrinking?"

As far back as 1960, the Hartford Courant newspaper was publishing articles such as one with this quotation: "I also plead for the vanishing middle class that cannot afford to be sick."

In reality, it seem as though the middle class has grown considerably since the 1960s. A 2004 analysis at Econlib.org says that in 1967, 21.7 percent of households made less than $15,000. In 2003, only 15.9 percent made less than $15,000 -- a substantial drop. (These figures are in 2003 dollars and adjusted for inflation.)

I ran the numbers for 2007, the most recent data available, using Census Bureau figures. The percentage of households making less than $15,000 is just 13.2 percent in 2007 dollars.

Similarly, only 8.2 percent of households made more than $75,000 in 1967, and a whopping 26.1 percent did in 2003. In 2007 dollars, 32 percent do.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/business/main500395.shtml

[joule18]

Madoff, etc...these aren't democrats retard
Posted by texasbeta at 2:27 PM : Feb 27, 2009

Madoff is most certainly a Democrat. One of the most pervasive lies on this site from posters that everyone with any amount of money is a Republican. Tell that one to Hollywood where Republicans hide or get blackballed.

[joule18]

On January 9th, 2009, Obama said, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

However, that statement is false.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Signed by 200 academic economists, including three Nobel prize-winners.

[enriquecaliente]

8 Years the Repubs ran the country. And now they're complaining. It is because of them that this has to be done now. In the 8 years of their rule, trickle down economics didn't work. Cause the people at the TOP kept everything for themselves. Middle class salaries hardly moved, while the salaries of those at the top increased beyond all reason. The corporations complain about how here in America they have the highest Corporate Taxes in the world. What they don't tell you is after their tax breaks and shelters and write offs and whatnot, it's pure luck if they pay a quarter of what the original tax was. The headlines of doom that you see, spewed by the conservative news papers and stations are there because BUSH and his crew did nothing, but sit on their hands. They were successful in allowing 911 to occur, and then used fear to start a war that was unnecessary, (find any WMD's), Sat on their hands when KATRINA hit and spent the dollars like it was nobody's business. PLEASE.

[dhutch88]

The top 2% of the earners in this country pay 80% of the taxes, seems funny the Dems want to raise there taxes to 39.6% while those who get money back pay nothing. Those the bottom feeders vote for Dem party

[dhutch88]

Its alway nice to see the Democrates with there hands out and not wanting to work for it. Everyone on welfare is for Obama because they see there checks getting bigger off the backs of those who work. Reward for doing NOTHING.

[texasbeta]

when has government ever done anything efficiently?
Posted by mjvwsr

When Democrats run it

[texasbeta]

The liberals are out to destroy this country.
Posted by zgomer

Hey monkeyboy...so the history of the country started in Jan 2009? Destroy the country? Do you have any clue what has been going on? This ENITRE crisis was caused by your parties deregulation bills, your elimination of oversight, and your culture of screw everyone except the top 2%. Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Bros, Madoff, etc...these aren't democrats retard

[mjvwsr]

doesn't it concern anyone that the government is planning on spending $11,833 per person next year? when has government ever done anything efficiently?