| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan
February 14, 2008 01:37 PM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link
What does "change" cost? About a quarter of a trillion bucks a year, according to Barack Obama. But first, this: "I wish Obama would go further than that, but it's a start," was the reaction of one DailyKos poster to Barack Obama's economic plan unveiled yesterday in a campaign appearance in Janesville, Wis. Some hard-core liberals may be underwhelmed by the scope of Obama's agenda—after all, there's no single-payer healthcare plan or Scandinavian-style "flexicurity" worker benefits program in the mix—but my guess is that the average person would find it all pretty aggressive. Here are the priciest parts:
A $65 billion-a-year health plan
$15 billion in green energy spending
$85 billion in tax cuts and credits
A $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid
$18 billion a year in education spending
$3.5 billion for a national service plan
Put it all together, and we are talking about a $200 billon plan, $800 billion over four years. And that does not even include fixing the alternative minimum tax, a $50 billion-a-year item that will assuredly get passed. A few thoughts:
1) Let's put aside for a moment whether the Obama plan will actually increase our standard of living, enhance productivity, or encourage innovation. As a matter of accounting, I don't get how Obama will pay for his plan. Now he claims he's paid "for every element of this economic agenda—by ending a war that's costing us billions, closing tax loopholes for corporations, putting a price on carbon pollution, and ending George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."
But I don't think that adds up. Take, for instance, eliminating those Bush tax cuts on top earners. That might gain $50 billion a year, assuming no negative economic effect. But Congressional Budget Office estimates already assume that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. So Obama gains nothing beyond, perhaps, a one-year bump in 2010 if he repeals the tax cuts a year earlier.
2) Obama clearly advocates jacking up payroll taxes as a way of creating long-term solvency for Social Security. Check out this chunk from his campaign press release:
Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama has consistently said that we may want to include a "doughnut hole" to ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle-class Americans. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security, and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.
Taken at face value, Obama is proposing no benefit cuts at all. None. He won't cut future benefit increases by linking them to the inflation rate rather than wages, nor will he extend the retirement age even as life expectancy increases. Retirement accounts, a way to make Social Security a better deal for younger workers but not a way to directly deal with the solvency issue, are also out of the question. I will update all this after I chat with Team Obama about its candidate's ideas.
It should be obvious to anyone with a lick of financial sense that Obama's economic plan cannot simply be paid for by ending the war in Iraq, ending Bush's tax cuts and raising taxes only on the wealthy. When the government spends, eventually it is the middle class that is left holding the tab. Of course, Obama's supporters are too caught in the wind of change and hope to notice this.
Anywhere is better than here
People who are not concerned about their own financial situation or repairing the planet for future situations will find it easy to criticize any financial plan that includes trying to provide health care for people who don't have it, funds for green energy, and an increase in foreign aid. After eight years of the most shamelessly irresponsible administration throwing money out the window on a war designed to make the rich richer and put on the tab of future administrations I find it hard to believe there's anything wrong with any plan that tries to redirect money to places where it's really needed. The two percent have had their moment in the sun and it's been proven time and again that they don't let that money get back into the economy once they have it. And they have enough.
of
Everyone is Not Equal
oh, do they? I suppose we will put you on top of the new socialist state you call for. Good idea, lets tell families that generations of hard work were for nothing. Lets tell poor people that they will never have a chance to get rich now, because once they have any money they will have to give it to the government. Basically the democrats are espousing a system where nobody wins and nobody loses. Rich people this, rich people that. Get real and look at the world we live in. Try to do something for yourself, and stop whining that you don't get everything you want. Chris of AZ is right: anyone with any business or financial sense immediately recognizes that the liberals have nothing but a weathervane to see which way the wind blows. Government didn't build this country. Independent thinking and hard work built this country, not handouts. The US Government is the biggest waster of money in this country already.
Why do people think that a sprawling government magically knows what to do with private citizens money, rather than the people themselves? However this is the central issue for liberals. Redistribution of wealth is not progress.
Obama Economic Plan
Where is the money coming from? Duh! It's coming from the increase in social security taxes! The CATO institute estimates the Obama payroll tax increase will raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The system is collecting more money than it pays out in benefits currently, and that is supposed to continue until 2017. The additional funds collected, as all social security taxes collected since the 1960's, will be spent, leaving more IOU's in the famous "lock-box." Interestingly, the bills start coming due just as a second term Obama leaves office. The only way to meet social security obligations remains to cut benefits, raise taxes, up the retirement age or privatize the system so that funds are used for income producing assets instead of government spending.
Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan
As one of the "rich" Americans who will be laid waste by Mr. Obama's policies, I am appalled at the idea that there can be any justification for taking the money that I work so hard for and redistributing it to anyone else. I am writing this email from the office on a Saturday. I will be in work tomorrow. Last year I didn't work about 15 weekends. I have my own business and I have nobody to push this work off to, so I must do it myself, and I work exceeding hard to finish my work, often sacrificing personal and family time in the process. My wife is a doctor who easily works 60 hours a week, unless she is on call on the weekend, during which can work up to 80 hours in a week. Our hard work creates the need for support staff, which means jobs. Our hard work creates the need for products and services associated with our businesses, which means more jobs. We spend our money in our local economy and the more we make the more we feel comfortable spending. Conversely the less we make the more we feel we have to save in order to fulfill our long term goals, such as college for our daughter. This is kitchen table economics, it is not complicated.
Not only does Mr. Obama propose to cut the amount of money that we receive for our ridiculously hard work, he proposes to shift our hard earned money to pay for a bunch of budget busting pet projects, a concept that Mr. Obama is well familiar with since he requested $321,766,475.00 dollars in earmarks last year. Does he believe that his proposals will encourage us to work even harder to receive the same income? Of course not. We will find ways to work less, which means less revenue to pay our support staffs, less need for products and services from our vendors and less jobs all the way around. Redistributing wealth does not encourage those at the bottom end of the pay scale to work harder, why should they, they will in essence be paid more for working the same amount that they are already working.
Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan will result in less money for doctors who perform lifesaving work while working hours that few blue collar workers would ever consider. How often is an assembly line person woken from a deep sleep and told to come into work at 3:00 in the morning, with no prospect of time and half? It doesn’t happen.
It is all fine for Mr. Obama, who pulled in over a million dollars last year, to call for greater taxes. After all, he works for the Senate which means he is paid $169,300.00 dollars, gets about 4 months off a year in vacations, guaranteed excellent healthcare and about a thousand other benefits, and that doesn’t include his royalties from his books and speaking engagements. If he is elected president he can expect more of the same benefits, so Mr. Obama will not feel the sting of being paid less to work more.
My wife and I work so hard because we want to leave our daughter with the resources necessary to allow her to achieve whatever she dreams. It is unjust for the rich and powerful Mr. Obama to punish us for our hard work. It is through our hard work, dedication, entrepreneurship, and willingness to sacrifice that so many related jobs have been created. Mr. Obama’s plan will squelch our drive to work, and the drive of the entire entrepreneurial class, and will result in a rippling effect of lost jobs for the very people that Mr. Obama proposes to benefit
Last edited by twotap on Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:04 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
well, better to spend it
IN
america instead of
giving it to chaney.  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:37 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:36 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
well, better to spend it
IN
america instead of
giving it to chaney.
I'd be safer hunting with Cheney that driving with Ted Kennedy. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:48 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
| Good one! Cracked me up with split screen, Bee Gee's Winds of Change on right, LTH's paddle keepin' time on the left!! Made my day! |
|
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:29 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| good point dave.. think i'll WALK my bottles to the store!! |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:20 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
