A day late and about $3 trillion short

ETWolverine · #1 Jun 11, 2009, 10:35 AM

After spending trillions of dollars on failed bailouts, TARP and economic stimulus that hasn't stimulated anything, Obama has been watching the polls. These polls show that while his personal approval numbers are at around 67%, the support for his POLICIES is at about 30%. Eventually, he realizes, if this trend continues, his policy numbers (a lack of approval for his policies) will end up pulling down his personal approval numbers.

So he is acting as quickly as possible.

His action: to propose "paygo". That is, to propose a balanced budget amendment that requires "pay as you go", wherein the government cannot spend a dollar that it doesn't have. It cannot spend without either earning that money in some way, or else cutting it from another part of the budget.

In concept, I like the idea of "paygo". It is a concept that a whole bunch of conservatives have supported for a long time.

However, there are several items that bother me.

The first is that "paygo" could be used as an excuse to raise taxes, ei: "We NEED this 'tunnel to nowhere' in order to create make-work programs, and since we have "paygo" we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for it." Every little item that the Obama admin decides ""needs" to be done will result in an increase in taxes to pay for it, rather than resulting in a decrease in spending elsewhere.

Another thing that bothers me is that this is being proposed by the man who just created the single largest spending program in US history, resulting in the quadrupling of the budget deficit, trillions in new debt for our children, and massive inflation that we haven't even BEGUN to see yet. And he's proposing it as a way to do spin control, rather than as a way to actually balance the budget. Talk about a day late and a dollar (or three trillion dollars) short.

And finally, what bothers me most is that he is specifically EXCLUDING healthcare reform from his "paygo" proposal. That is, he's saying that anything that the government spends in order to nationalize healthcare will not be subject to "paygo", which means he can spend us into increased poverty for his healthcare reform agenda. Which essentially means that this "paygo" proposal is nothing but a farce.

What say you?

Elliot

speechlesstx · Jun 11, 2009, 10:59 AM

Definitely a farce. He'll have no choice but to raise taxes to pay for all of his outrageous, totally irresponsible spending so there goes another flop. If we're making less than $250,000 our taxes won't go up a dime wasn't it?

Everything he says should be under suspicion. He wasn't interested in the government running car companies and banks, right? When it comes to his healthcare proposal he's only interested in providing Americans a "public option." Is that all he means?

tomder55 · Jun 11, 2009, 11:55 AM

The history of "paygo " is a history of broken promises that extend to both parties. Before this last reincarnation Nancy Pelosi and co. promised the same pablum to get the blue dogs to hitch a ride. Pelosi claimed the Republicans let paygo provisions slide . Reinstated them and in less than a year abandoned them.

Either way they are lying according to the Wall Street Journal because there are built in exceptions .paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending.Even as Obama announced the latest reincarnation ,the House Appropriations Committee approving a 12% increase in 2010 nondefense discretionary spending.

Quote:

Or consider that the 2010 budget resolution included a $2 billion increase for low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change that should be subject to paygo. But Congressional Democrats simply classified it as discretionary spending, thereby avoiding the need for $2 billion in cuts elsewhere. C'est-la-paygo.
Mr. Obama's new proposal includes even more loopholes. There's an exception for Congress's annual alternative-minimum tax "patch," which is worth at least $576 billion over 10 years; for any of the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama decides he wants to extend past 2010; and to protect against planned cuts in Medicare doctor payments. These carve-outs alone spare Democrats from having to come up with some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts or new taxes. To add insult to profligacy, the rules also allow the Administration to run huge early deficits for its looming health-care bonanza, and only pay for it later -- say, after 2012.

The 'Paygo' Coverup - WSJ.com

galveston · Jun 11, 2009, 02:08 PM

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Obama has fooled much of the public several times already. That doesn't say much for our collective IQ does it?

speechlesstx · Jun 11, 2009, 02:12 PM

The new Obamacare posters are out...I like this one:

inthebox · Jun 11, 2009, 08:03 PM

Heck, even MsNBC can see through this.

Will health insurance ?haves? pay for ?have-nots?? - White House- msnbc.com

Quote:

Obama’s new openness to the idea stands in contrast to what he said six months ago as a presidential candidate, when he harshly criticized his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, for proposing that employer-provided benefits should be taxed

HOw does Obama do that talking out of of his gluteus thing?

Should he be pulling a Jim Carey?

G&P



At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to: Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics. Accept money for answers that you provide. Communicate privately with other members (PM). See fewer ads. Sign Up!