$300 Billion In New Revenues Called 'Spending Cuts'


#1

Budget: When President Obama put out his “balanced” plan to avoid the automatic sequester cuts, no one noticed. Which is probably just as well for Obama, given how embarrassingly unbalanced it is.
Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote about how Obama "hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."
Turns out, Obama did have one, although Brooks can be excused for not knowing it, since the administration hasn’t exactly been promoting this so-called plan.

Read More At IBD: Obama’s Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called ‘Spending Cuts’ - Investors.com Obama’s Sequester Math: $300 Billion In New Revenues Called ‘Spending Cuts’ - Investors.com

Obama has no intention of reigning in spending and is working to expand it. Obama wants more largeese to hand out to the people.


#2

Obama has been calling for a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction. Of course, as everyone but the brain dead have now come to realize, “balanced approach” has always been this administration’s code for tax hikes and continued borrowing/printing $$ in order to continue spending leading to increased indebtedness. The nation’s leading community organizer’s argument continues to be that we must have both tax increases and the PROMISE of spending cuts in order to reduce the debt.

Confronted with that rhetoric, it seems to me that at least one member of the Party Of The Tongue Twisted, aka: the Republican Party, should have stepped forward and reminded Obama that we had the tax increase part of his so-called balanced approach formula on Jan 1st, now we’re demanding the spending cuts part.

Of course, the smartest man in America would have come back with, “We’ve reduced spending by $1.2 trillion under my administration.” At which time a member of the Party Of The Tongue Twisted might have wished to point a finger in the direction of the National Debt Clock on display at 6th Ave in New York!!

As for his claim of a trillion+ $$ in spending reductions - Well, Obama has always been adept at pulling numbers out of his anus. Wonder how adept he would be at removing the National Debt Clock from that same anatomical location??


#3

Typical politician math.


#4

On a similar note:

"Democrats like to pretend that every last penny of government spending is wise, benevolent and essential. My guess is that perhaps 15 percent of discretionary spending meets all three of those criteria, but we’ll never know because government programs are rarely evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency or necessity. According to the Government Accountability Office, the government runs 50 different programs for the homeless across eight agencies, 23 programs for housing aid in four agencies, 26 programs for food and nutrition aid among six agencies, 27 programs on teen pregnancy, (obviously totally wasted money) 130 programs for at-risk youth, 10 agencies to promote exports and 342 programs for economic development. The federal government runs 47 different job-training programs at a cost to the taxpayer of $18 billion annually. *(What good are these programs if there are no jobs to be had?) *The GAO found that “Only 5 of the 47 programs … examined had done detailed impact studies” and that among those “the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”

“Entitlements eat up two-thirds of federal spending and are excluded from sequestration, which is too bad because an estimated $20 billion is wasted on Medicare fraud every year. As for Medicaid, a New York Times investigation found that between 10 and 40 percent of New York’s spending was lost to fraud and theft yearly. Other estimates suggest that 33 percent of Earned Income Tax Credits (about $9 billion annually) are erroneous or fraudulent.” Mona Charen “Gullible Nation”