In this photo released by CBS News White house Chief of Staff Jacob Lew talks on CBS's Face the Nation in Washington Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012. Lew, who appeared on various Sunday shows, said the new budget would put the country on track to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years, achieved by raising taxes on the wealthy and trimming government spending. The president's budget would cut spending by $2.50 for every $1 it raises in new taxes. "In the long run, we need to get the deficit under control in a way that builds the economy," he said. "We do it in a way that's consistent with American values so that everyone pays a fair share."
CBS News, Chris Usher, Associated Press
The day after the Greek Parliament approved another round of deep spending cuts in the face of violent protests, President Obama released a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that offers no real solution to the United States' long-term fiscal problems. This country is hardly Greece, but Washington's current policies put it on a path to accumulate far too much debt. With the U.S. economy improving, it's past time for the administration to lay out a credible plan for bringing the deficit and debt under control. Sadly, Obama's budget proposal shows that he'd rather wait until after the election to have that reckoning.
Congress makes the ultimate decisions about taxes and spending, so the annual budget proposal from the White House typically serves as the opening bid in a months-long debate. This president, however, has waited for Republicans and Congress to go first on the tougher fiscal issues. On Monday, Obama even called on Congress to reverse one of the more difficult decisions it had made, which was to impose $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts on discretionary programs over the next decade.
In place of those cuts, the president offered a mixture of real steps to reduce the deficit — including nearly $2 trillion in additional taxes over the coming decade, mainly at the expense of high-income Americans — and bogus ones, such as almost $850 billion in "savings" from the previously planned end of foreign combat operations, a chunk of which would be spent on infrastructure and jobs programs. The one bright spot: Obama didn't ignore the rapid and unsustainable growth in health-care entitlements, as he did in last year's budget. Instead, he called for saving about $360 billion over 10 years on those programs, in part by paying drug companies less for medicines prescribed to low-income Medicare patients.
There's little chance this Congress will agree to many, or even any, of those suggestions. Tax increases seem particularly unlikely. But even if lawmakers were to adopt all of Obama's deficit-cutting measures, they wouldn't go far enough to set the budget on a path toward balance. Obama's proposals would stop the debt from growing faster than the economy eventually, but inexorably rising healthcare costs would make the respite temporary. All told, his proposal comes up about $2 trillion short of the savings his own deficit-reduction commission called for over 10 years. The economy may not be ready yet for a stiff dose of austerity, but the government needs a better plan for putting its fiscal house in order than Obama offered Monday.
- Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running shoe...
- Timothy R. Clark: Graduation advice for my...
- Letters: Threats justified
- Snapshot of 2013 in political cartoons
- My view: Nothing sinister about Common Core
- In our opinion: A darkening cloud is hanging...
- State pensions threaten to bleed states dry
- In our opinion: Limit the power of the...
- Letters: Stop the witch hunt
35 - John Florez: Show leadership on...
31 - Supreme Court, Congress, citizens: The...
27 - Letter: Media failure
25 - Robert Bennett: Sticking to facts is...
23 - Letters: Threats justified
23 - In our opinion: Limit the power of the...
18 - Doug Robinson: Utah man's new running...
17



Esquire: No, this says that Obama's plan isn't credible so they probably won't approve it. IT ISN'T A GOOD PLAN and thus won't be approved. Did we read the same editorial?
So this states that the Republicans won't go far anything that the President asks for, including a rational way to balance the budget. No matter what is proposed, the pot shots keep coming. This leaves us with cutting, and does the LA Times support More..
To cover the cost of running the Fed Gov. today, every person in the U.S. would have to pay a 75% tax rate. As we also have to pay State and local taxes, it can't be done. We simply have to get rid of some of the 'services' that Gov. provides.