Good news: $1.75 trillion deficit expected in 2010
The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama proves himself to be truly fiscal responsible:
President Obama’s new budget blueprint estimates a stunning deficit of $1.75 trillion for the current fiscal year, which began five months ago, then lays out a wrenching change of course as he seeks to finance his own priorities while stanching the flow of red ink.
It’s the new fiscal responsibility: spend like an angry and drunk women shopping with the credit card of her ex.
By redirecting enormous streams of deficit spending toward programs like health care, education and energy, and paying for some of it through taxes on the rich, pollution surcharges, and cuts in such inviolable programs as farm subsidies, the $3.55 trillion spending plan Mr. Obama is undertaking signals a radical change of course that Congress has yet to endorse.
The deficit he inherited, a shortfall of more than $1 trillion as the current fiscal year began, has continued to swell in recent months with additional bank bailouts, the first wave of spending from a newly enacted stimulus plan and the continuing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration, as it had announced, will try to cut that amount sharply by 2013.
Hmm, let me think. Why would the new administration try to “cut that amount sharply” before / around 2013? Hmm. I’m sure there’s something going to happen at the end of 2012. What’s that again? O yeah, now I remember: presidential elections! That’s funny. Probably a coincidence I guess.
Meanwhile, I guess parents are thrilled to know that they and their kids will be burdened with a tremendous debt, big enough to paralyze them all.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
And how is he going to close the gap? By hiking taxes, sometimes in stealth ways without considering unintended consequences.
I’ll be among those who will lose a portion of deductions for charitable contributions and home mortgage. We always give a good bit more to charity than the maximum we can deduct anyway, but with times getting tougher there’s no doubt that some people will have to cut back at giving money that doesn’t help reduce one’s tax liability.
I think it’s less likely that this will affect housing because I doubt most people make decisions on buying homes based on the size of their deduction, but nonprofits are already bracing for severe downturns in their revenue (plus, many have already had to deal with losses in their investments) and this will hurt.
Obama’s got a tough road ahead of him. After years of the Federal government running large deficits during times of economic expansion, there is no government rainy day fund, which is what the Republicans and Clinton tried to create in the 1990s through their budget.
We had better hope the economy is recovered by the time these major government cuts are set to come in, otherwise it could deepen our economic woes and make the future budgets look even more bleak or debt ridden.
While I share some of your frustration with the rising deficit, I think you’re overplaying your hand:
“Hmm, let me think. Why would the new administration try to “cut that amount sharply” before / around 2013? Hmm. I’m sure there’s something going to happen at the end of 2012. What’s that again? O yeah, now I remember: presidential elections! That’s funny. Probably a coincidence I guess.”
Would you expect him to set a goal for 2016? If he did, you’d be criticizing him for presuming he’d be re-elected. He’s made no secret that the goal is to cut the deficit by the end of his first (and maybe only) term. If you’re implying he’s being secretive about his motives, I think you’re just fishing for reasons to criticize Obama. In any case, since most of the deficit reduction will be in the form of tax increases, I’ve never heard anyone argue that tax increases before an election are a good idea, so I don’t see your point. It’s perfectly reasonable for a president to set out goals in 4 year periods, considering the time they serve is broken up in those terms.
We should know we’re in trouble when Robert Reich thinks the budget is audacious.
I love his closing sentence. No worries about confiscating money from the most productive members of society because:
“The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.”
that would be nice – if it were true Cris