February 4, 2010 6:26 PM

Obama Budget Draws Congressional Scrutiny

(AP)  Updated 6:50 p.m. ET

President Barack Obama's $3.8 trillion budget outline drew bipartisan fire on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Republicans complaining it doesn't address deficits soon enough and raises taxes too much. Democrats balked at some of Obama's spending cuts.

It was a rocky reception for the day-old document, underscoring election-year restlessness and rising public anger at bailouts, bonuses and ballooning deficits. The complaints across party lines suggested it could be difficult for Obama to win support for key parts of his budget, even from members of his own party.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called Obama's proposal to cancel NASA's manned moon return program shortsighted. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., derided his proposal to include Army Corps projects in a proposed partial three-year spending freeze. Sen. Jay Rockfeller, D-W.Va., said environmental priorities in the budget would unfairly burden coal states such as his.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, under grilling by the Senate Finance Committee, said that despite the lively crossfire he could see a bipartisan consensus building that "deficits matter, tax cuts are not free."

"The American people want to see their leaders coming together and bringing practical solutions" to the problems created by the worst downturn since the 1930s, Geithner said.

In one sign of possible common ground, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., suggested there is support across party lines for Obama's proposal to give companies a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker they hire in 2010.

"We need to work on legislation that will create jobs. And we need to work across the aisle, so that the legislation on which we work can become law," Baucus said.

See the Full Budget
Obama's 2011 Budget Highlights
Obama: Taxes Can't be "Monopoly Money"
Proposed Tax Hikes in Obama's Budget
With Budget in Hand, Congress Starts Real Work
Deficit Declines Next Year, But Debt Keeps Soaring
Billions More for Schools, but with a Catch?
Analysis: Obama Likely To Miss Jobs, Deficit Goals

Even so, Obama may not be able to count on one Republican senator who has worked with Democrats in the past. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, blasted Obama's effort to create jobs while proposing higher taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. Snowe said the tax increase would also hit small businesses, leaving many owners unwilling to start hiring again because of uncertainties over future tax liabilities. "Who is going to take the risk?" Snowe asked.

One contentious area was Obama's proposal to draw up to $30 billion remaining in the $700 billion bank bailout program, enacted in 2008, to invest in community banks to encourage them to lend to small businesses. Obama promoted the program on Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Nashua, N.H.

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg argued that money from the Toxic Asset Relief Program that is left over or repaid by banks is by law supposed to go toward paying down federal debt. "It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses," Gregg told White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Orszag replied that the administration was well aware of the provision in the TARP legislation — and that's why it is seeking legislation to authorize the program.

But separately, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told Geithner the administration shouldn't wait for legislation to OK such small-business loans, it should just extend the money — as it had done in using TARP funds to help bail out automakers and Wall Street financial giants.

The government "put the screws to the community banks and gave all the money to the big banks. Right now people are cutting lines of credit to small business," Cantwell complained.

The administration has also proposed a $90 billion tax on big banks over ten years to help recoup losses from the TARP program. Geithner told senators the U.S. might have to extend such a tax — the administration calls it a "fee" — beyond the ten years if bailout costs haven't been recouped by then.

The Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, joined Republican Gregg in faulting the administration for not doing enough to stanch the deficit flood.

"I don't see the focus on bringing down that long-term debt," Conrad said. Years of deficit spending, aggravated by the recession and two wars, have swollen the national debt to a whopping $12.3 trillion.

While Obama's economic team was sparring with members of the Senate Finance and Budget committees, his Pentagon team was defending its part of the budget before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the $768.2 billion defense share of the budget would help pay for "a broad portfolio of military capabilities" as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and help the U.S. "prepare for a much broader range of security capabilities" for the future.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel that the war in Afghanistan is now the Pentagon's top priority, adding: "The Afghan people are the center of gravity and defeat of al Qaeda the primary goal."

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 162 Comments
by flsunjnky February 2, 2010 11:21 PM EST
In November of 2008, China became the largest holder of U.S. debt. Why?
Reply to this comment
by flsunjnky February 2, 2010 10:57 PM EST
According to Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter." So, why are the Republicans so concerned now?
Reply to this comment
by curse914 February 2, 2010 5:03 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:56 PM EST
Do you want to get rid of the "Representative Republic"?

Sorry, gotta go, my hands are hurting for typing to much. I was good chatting with you.

--------------------
--------------------

I do not think a theoretical "true" Democracy would be functional. But I do think that our Representative Government is hopelessly corrupt and broken.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:59 PM EST
Chevy,

I can understand your qualms with subsides. Those corporations with the most lobbyists in Washington are going to get the most subsidies whether they are the most deserving or not.

I am going to have to fall back on my example of rural electrification via the New Deal. It worked and it was good government intervention in "The Market". But it was brought about because of desperation. This will most likely be the impetus behind any positive change in "The Market".

Where are you getting your projection for switching to Alternate Energy. It is going to happen, whether you like the economically increased time scale or not. We are right on the verge of currency collapse. Fundamental change is coming. And the Sun is right there, ready to be utilized, thus immediately decreasing our demand for oil from Saudi Arabia, Brazil, so on and so forth.

We are at the point now, that capital is not flowing into the Free Market to these deserving technologies. It seems like a unreconcilable conundrum.

BTW: I appreciate your drive and innovative spirit.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:44 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:28 PM EST
"abolishment of the Electoral College."

Why so California and New York can decide every President we have?

Nobody said anything about "all knowledge is equal". The people will have to decide for themselves, you cannot make that choice for them, unless you think you know better than the will of the people?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson

----------------------
----------------------

Majority rules in a true Democracy. Sorry, that is how it works.

The "all knowledge is equal" citizenry that you have proposed does in fact exist at this very moment, can make sound decisions based off of a flood of corporate dollars pumped into political campaigns. These exceptionally educated citizens should be able to make sound judgement calls on the fate of their fellow man.

You see Chevy, you got upset at the proposition that Class Warfare is real, but you are making the case that a select few wise gentlemen should represent us all. Education does distinguish Class; knowledge does distinguish Class. You have forced my hand with regard to Class Warfare.

"unless you think you know better than the will of the people?" This quote is ironic, given that is how a Representative Republic works.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:52 PM EST
Education does distinguish Class? What class is that?

Knowledge does distinguish Class? What class is that?

I was talking about the will of the people that is represented by their elected official/individual. Many of the elected officials/individuals are not voting with the will of the people in their district. This is what I was referring to; maybe I should have been clearer.
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:56 PM EST
Do you want to get rid of the "Representative Republic"?

Sorry, gotta go, my hands are hurting for typing to much. I was good chatting with you.
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:31 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:17 PM EST
I am all for Free Trade, provided is applied equally to all partners.

American's can compete with anyone when the playing field is level.

America was built on manufacturing goods and services. There is no reason to believe we cannot be #1 in everything we do. China has to steal technology just too even think about competing. Our technology is second to none and allows us to be more productive than anyone. There are billions of customers out there just waiting for the superior products that American's can produce.

A balanced budget would fix our economy today and we would be booming.

-------------

-------------

Last I checked we were actually selling our superior technology to the Chinese; they do not have to steal it. Google away, we are selling everything from dairy technology to pharma.

The playing field is not "level". How do you propose we level the playing field? Until such a time, an admission that Free Trade is not "Free" should be forthcoming.


You have remained silent on the proposition of Alternate Energy. What is this magic industry that is going to save America once your theoretical level playing field take shape?
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:41 PM EST
Sir,
I am all for Alternate Energy. I spent 2 years working on Oxy-Coal Combustion and my family (father) has spent the last 30 years working on Supercritical Wet Oxidation Technology that destroys toxic and hazardous wastes. It also converts municipal garbage to ethanol. Google Genesyst International.

It will cost time and energy to get these things going and will not fix the problems we have today. It will take 150 years to get the alternative technology to replace what we have today. It took us 200 years to get where we are, it will not change in 20 years. The free market will decide what will work and what will not. Government subsidies are killing the free market and deciding which technologies will get money and which ones won't. Other words, only people who pay for campaigns get government contracts. This is not right. The superior technologies should win, not how much you contribue to a campaign.
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:16 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:09 PM EST
When I said across the board, I meant across the board spending cuts and/or tax increases. This class warfare crap has to end. We should all pay equally.

------------------
------------------

I would love to discuss Class Warfare with you, but it will act as more of a distraction then to facilitate rational discourse.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:22 PM EST
curse,
I have worked hard all my life to make a better life for me and my family. After 20+ years of hard work, sometimes three jobs at once, I am finally making a good living and the government is going to take 50% plus from me. With this money I could put all my kids through college with room and board, but every year they take it from me. I believe in helping others, just not to the extent to bring me down. With the new generation, why work, when the government is will to pay for everything? I have made good life choices. I did not have kids until my middle 30's and I could support them with a decent home and living. These kids that are having kids are killing society and nobody seems willing to do anything about it. I am punished for doing the right thing and they are rewarded by doing the wrong thing.
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:12 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:00 PM EST
"corporations not contributing to political campaigns"

It is still against the law for corporations to contribue to any political campaigns.


FIRST Amendment (the very first one)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Please do not allow Congress to abridge any freedom of speech, the citizen will have to deside for themselves what is right and what is wrong, it is not up to our government to decide for them.

----------------
----------------

Fine, I will give you your "all knowledge is equal" citizenry if you give me the abolishment of the Electoral College. Because, if "all knowledge is equal" the premise of a Representative Republic seems childish. Your theoretical highly educated populace should be able to live in a true Democracy at that point.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:28 PM EST
"abolishment of the Electoral College."

Why so California and New York can decide every President we have?

Nobody said anything about "all knowledge is equal". The people will have to decide for themselves, you cannot make that choice for them, unless you think you know better than the will of the people?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson
by curse914 February 2, 2010 4:06 PM EST
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 3:55 PM EST
Spending is absolutly killing our economy. Business do not know what their cost are going to be Energy, Healthcare, Taxes, Labor are all going up, they just don't know by how much. When our government spends money, they have to get it somewhere, so it comes out of the private sector.

I am all for a flat tax or I like the FairTax plan better.

-------------------
---------------

I am losing you. Without a sound economy a flat tax, fair tax, whatever you want to call it is rendered moot. Unless you are saying a balanced budget is going magically fix our economy.

Do you agree that spend at least could be a symptom of fractures in our economic model?

Free Trade is a fracture.
A Service based economy is a fracture.

I would love to know, ideologically, where you stand on Free Trade and the theory of Service Base Economies.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod February 2, 2010 4:17 PM EST
I am all for Free Trade, provided is applied equally to all partners.

American's can compete with anyone when the playing field is level.

America was built on manufacturing goods and services. There is no reason to believe we cannot be #1 in everything we do. China has to steal technology just too even think about competing. Our technology is second to none and allows us to be more productive than anyone. There are billions of customers out there just waiting for the superior products that American's can produce.

A balanced budget would fix our economy today and we would be booming.
by charlie3814 February 2, 2010 4:02 PM EST
Sha..
Reply to this comment
See all 162 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook