Obama's $3.8T Budget Heads to Congress

(CBS/AP)  President Obama is sending Congress a $3.8 trillion budget on Monday that will increase spending in the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a number of government programs.

The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.6 trillion, according to a congressional official who had access to a White House summary document. That deficit would easily top last year's then-record $1.41 trillion gap.

The congressional source, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the budget's official release, said the deficit would remain above $1 trillion in 2011 and would average 4.5 percent of the economy over the next decade, a level that economists consider a threat to long-term economic prosperity.

In an effort to address the deficit, the president's budget would institute a three-year budget freeze on a variety of programs outside of the military and homeland security as well as increasing taxes on energy producers and families making more than $250,000.

To support the pledge in his recent State of the Union address to make job creation his top priority, Obama was putting forward a budget that included a $100-billion jobs measure that would provide tax breaks to encourage businesses to boost hiring as well as increased government spending on infrastructure and energy projects.

Obama Takes Trip to Tout Jobs Plan
Special Report: Obama's 2010 State of the Union

After a long battle on Obama's sweeping health care reform dominated his first year in office and led to a string of Democratic election defeats, the administration is hoping that its new budget will convince Americans the president is focused on fixing the economy.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

Even before the budget arrived on Capitol Hill, Republicans complained about Obama's proposed tax increases and said the huge projected deficits showed he had failed to get government spending under control.

"I don't think anybody in the country thinks we have a problem because we tax too little. I think the problem is we spend too much," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday.

Face the Nation: Debating Obama's Plea for Civility

But administration officials argued that Obama inherited a deficit that was already topping $1 trillion when he took office, and given the severity of the downturn, the president had to spend billions of dollars stabilizing the financial system and jump-starting growth.

Much of the spending surge over the past two years reflects the cost of the massive $787 billion economic stimulus measure that Congress passed in February 2009 to deal with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The surge in the deficits reflects not only the increased spending but also a big drop in tax revenues, reflecting the 7.2 million people who have lost jobs since the recession began.

Obama's new budget attempts to navigate between the opposing goals of pulling the country out of a deep recession and getting control of runaway budget deficits.

In a bow to worries over the soaring deficits, the administration proposed a three-year freeze on spending beginning in 2011 for a wide swath of domestic government agencies.

CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the budget freeze would likely see 120 government programs severely trimmed, or cut altogether.

Click below to watch Dozier's report - "America's Spending Diet":

Watch CBS News Videos Online

NASA's mission to return astronauts to the moon would be grounded with the space agency instead getting an additional $5.9 billion over five years to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts.

Obama's budget repeats his recommendations for an overhaul of the nation's health care system even though prospects for passage of a final bill have darkened given the stunning loss of a Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in a recent special election to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, depriving Obama's party of a supermajority.

Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that the push for health care was still alive, but McConnell said the public was overwhelmingly against the bill and the administration should "put it on the shelf, go back and start over."

In addition to the freeze on discretionary nonsecurity spending, Obama is proposing to boost revenues by allowing the Bush administration tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of this year for families making more than $250,000 annually. Tax relief for those less well-off would be extended.

[ohcrymeariver]

(AP) Top administration officials tried to steer President Barack Obama's new $3.8 trillion budget through a congressional minefield on Tuesday as the day-old plan drew fire from Republicans and Democrats alike.
______________________

Nice to see CBS reporting fair & Balanced news.

This administration is spiraling downward at a record rate - add to that the fact that we are much more divided now than EVER before as a nation.

[lakota2012]

by Mortar_29:
"What is FAUX NoNooz?"
--------------------



It's a delusional republiCON state of mind, created by roger ailes for the murdoch network, where lies, deceptions and one-sided propaganda is broadcast 24/7 to the GOP Kool-aid guzzlers.

[FauxNews]

That explains why Americans like it so much.

[chevyhotrod]

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

John F. Kennedy

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

[Mortar_29]

We need another Tommy!

[mary-miami]

We need even more government intervention. If left to their own devices, the wealthy would revert a hundred years or more; and have child slave workers and a feudal society where the "land-lords" owned not just the property but the lives of the people who lived on it. Thanks to government intervention, we have minimum wages, equal pay and no child workers...etc. We need an increase in minimum wage to no less than 10 dollars an hour and increase taxes on anybody earning 250,000 or more a year. It was the Bush-republicans that crashed our economy...Bush had a government that gave privileges to the rich...the same people who laid off thousands and flew away to spas in their private jets. Thank God for President Obama, the best leader the U.S. has had in a long time. Four more years!

[stormerF2]

I thought it was Obamas Budget? not Bush's. Bush did not sign the pork laden 2009 budget because it contained too much pork,but Obama did with out reading it,That is no suprise now is it?..Why is it so hard for the Dimocrats to understand when you cut Taxes you increase productivity,and Jobs? They seem to believe you can spend your way out of debt,You can not. I want to be Obamas Math CZAR,I can do simple math.

[chevyhotrod]

Come on stormer, everything the Democrats and Obama are doing today is all Bush's fault. Get with the program already.

[lakota2012]

by stormerF2:
"I thought it was Obamas Budget? not Bush's. Bush did not sign the pork laden 2009 budget..."
--------------------------



NO, actually bush submitted the 2009 budget on Feb. 4th, 2008, and can be blamed for a full $1.2 Trillion of the actual $1.4 Trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009, from Oct. 2008 to Sept. 2009.

"Most of the '09 deficit is also Bush's, since it's his budget" -- conservative Heritage Foundation

The report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which examined federal spending stretching back almost a decade, found that Obama ?is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits?:

America?s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama?s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II.

The first category ? the business cycle ? accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It?s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists? assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama?s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies ? together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama ? account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama?s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

[lakota2012]

by chevyhotrod:
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity..."

"What percentage do you believe...?"
-----------------------



Actually, your ludicrous "laffer curve" has been proven during bushworld to have taxation entirely too low for our present economy, driving budget deficits even higher by with an estimated $2 Trillion in lost federal revenue since 2001.

Just think of it this way for a change, while leaving your ideology in the back seat. We had a $226 Billion surplus in 2000, that dubya had to give his wealthiest buddies in 2001. That was before TWO WARS, Medicare Part D (both not paid for) and a doubling in health care costs in just the past 8 years, thoroughly straining both Medicare and Medicaid costs.

Now, factor in a huge increase in the "defense" budget along with everything else in our government including education, homeland security, etc....especially since we have a larger population and bush/cheney grew our government even bigger after Clinton.

That means, to fund our entire government, even if we found cuts across the board and froze spending in others, the current rate of taxation would not even come close to balancing the budget today. Thus, the reason why we at least need to go back to the Clinton taxation rates to increase federal revenue back to the 2000 rates.

We would still have the endless spending to the military/industrial complex of close to $200 Billion per year and probably another $200 Billion in pharmaceuticals due to Medicare Part D each and every year, so there's $400 Billion more in spending that even a $226 Billion surplus cannot cover! And......until we can get a handle on our spiraling health care costs, we will still have budget deficits even WITH the sunset of the bush tax cuts -- but at least it's a good start to help balance the budget!

[chevyhotrod]

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased, not a reduced, flow of revenues to the federal government."

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

Where is someone like this guy now, I would vote for him in a second.

lakota2012, if you are arguing that Bush and the Republicans spent to much and grew the government to much you will not get an arugment out of me, I agree 100%.

I say if Medicare Part D cost to much, repeal it. Bring the troops home, from everywhere, not just the Middle East. Cut government spending by 10% across the board, including military. Raise the retirement age to 70 and in ten years to 75.

For the past 10 years, 7 years controlled by Republicans the average deficit was 108 Billion (very bad) for the 3 years controlled by Democrats the deficit was 1.2 Trillion (OMG).

Our country is going broke, from both Republicans and Democrats and this must stop, while leaving your ideology in the back seat.

[chevyhotrod]

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

John F. Kennedy

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask how much money I can give you, from your fellow citizens."

Barack Obama

[starving1968-2]

by chevyhotrod February 1, 2010 12:21 PM EST
S-Chip $35 Billion
Recovery Act $787 Billion

Who has created the healthcare reform and cap&tax??

Omnibus was increased 24% from 2008, did the Republicans increase it?

mandatory government spending??? this needs to change, change we believe in.

"If I'm the ONLY person that believes this, then why can YOU not prove it?!?"

Mass, Virginia & New Jersey and the hits just keep on coming.







AGAIN -- how much have ALL DEMOCRATS PROGRAMS AND POLICIES, added to the national debt / budget deficit.

You can't cry about "$787 BILLION STIMULUS", when 60% of it was NEVER SPENT!!!

You can't cry about "$35 BILLION SCHIP", when it saved the states tens of billions in Medicaid payments.

AGAIN -- POST ACTUAL DOLLAR FIGURES, ACTUALLY ADDED TO THE DEFICIT AND THE NATIONAL DEBT!!



Until you do, you will continue to have ZERO CREDIBILITY, just like Haiti's newest citizen - Mort.

[chevyhotrod]

The Democrats and Obama are the ones with ZERO CREDIBILITY and the American people are waking up to this disastrous nightmare. Can you hallaula Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states.

[lakota2012]

by chevyhotrod:
"federal revenue increased under bush"
-------------------------


HA!...HA!...HA!....You supply-siders are completely delirious!

Federal revenue peaked under Clinton at almost 38% of GDP in 2000, and during the "ronnie the rat" raygun years as well as the bushevik mistake years, it averaged barely 31%, with only 2005/2006 finally back to the post- WWII AVERAGE! For most of bushworld, federal revenue was disgustingly poor and well-below the post-WWII average! Please stop the FAUX NoNooz propaganda, since you have me ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Revenue%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP

[Mortar_29]

What is FAUX NoNooz?

[starving1968-2]

by chevyhotrod February 1, 2010 12:14 PM EST
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government."

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

It is not a number but a philosophy, it is what it is and it works every time it is tried.

What percentage do you believe the Government should have a right to confiscate from it?s citizen?s starving? Give us a number?







Works "every time" that it's tried?!?!?

Laughable!!!!

If it works "every time", and the wealthy have been getting "tax cuts" since 2001, then WHY is unemployment at 10%+, why is our economy in the dumpster, why has our stock market nose dived, etc, etc ?!?!?!

Too funny!!! History is staring you right in the face, PROVING that tax cuts DO NOT work to stimulate ANYTHING, and your claim is that they work "every time"?!?!?!



Wow!!!! Too much.....

[Mortar_29]

You see, Chevy?

[starving1968-2]

See Chevy?

Mort STILL has NOTHING to add to the conversation.

[starving1968-2]

by chevyhotrod February 1, 2010 12:09 PM EST
Peter R. Orszag, Director

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf






And they would have went up by $601 BILLION MORE from 2004 - 2006 WITHOUT those cuts.

[starving1968-2]

by chevyhotrod February 1, 2010 12:09 PM EST
Peter R. Orszag, Director

Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf






http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

"Sen. John McCain has said President Bush's tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them."