President Obama’s budget proposal was unveiled today, generating all sorts of conflicting statements from both parties.
Some of the assertions wrongly focus on red ink rather than the size of government. Others rely on dishonest Washington budget math, which means spending increases magically become budget cuts simply because outlays are growing at a slower rate than previously planned.
When you strip away all the misleading and inaccurate rhetoric, here’s the one set of numbers that really matters. If we believe the President’s forecasts (which may be a best-case scenario), the burden of federal spending will grow by $2 trillion between this year and 2022.
In all likelihood, the actual numbers will be worse than this forecast.
The President’s budget, for instance, projects that the burden of federal spending will expand by less than 1 percent next year. That sounds like good news since it would satisfy Mitchell’s Golden Rule.
But don’t believe it. If we look at the budget Obama proposed last year, federal spending was supposed to fall this year. Yet the Obama Administration now projects that outlays in 2012 will be more than 5 percent higher than they were in 2011.
The most honest assessment of the budget came from the President’s Chief of Staff, who openly stated that, “the time for austerity is not today.”
With $2 trillion of additional spending (and probably more), that’s the understatement of the century.
What makes this such a debacle is that other nations have managed to impose real restraints on government budgets. The Baltic nations have made actual cuts to spending. And governments in Canada, New Zealand, Slovakia, and Ireland generated big improvements by either freezing budgets or letting them grow very slowly.
I’ve already pointed out that the budget could be balanced in about 10 years if the Congress and the President displayed a modest bit of fiscal discipline and allowed spending to grow by no more than 2 percent annually.
But the goal shouldn’t be to balance the budget. We want faster growth, more freedom, and constitutional government. All of these goals (as well as balancing the budget) are made possible by reducing the burden of federal spending.
[…] legally required back on the first Monday in February. Based on what we saw last year and the year before that, I’m not holding my breath expecting anything more than another tax-and-spend […]
[…] but I’m guessing that I’ll be sharing something very similar to the analysis I provided last year and the year […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] it’s a heck of a lot better than what the Senate Democrats have produced (nothing) and what the President has proposed (kicking the can down the […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] it’s a heck of a lot better than what the Senate Democrats have produced (nothing) and what the President has proposed (kicking the can down the […]
[…] And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. […]
[…] a reason the above chart looks familiar. It almost identical to the ones I put together last year and the year before. So give Obama points for consistency. Rain or shine, year in and year out, he […]
[…] but I’m guessing that I’ll be sharing something very similar to the analysis I provided last year and the year […]
[…] but I’m guessing that I’ll be sharing something very similar to the analysis I provided last year and the year […]
[…] was legally required back on the first Monday in February. Based on what we saw last year and the year before that, I’m not holding my breath expecting anything more than another tax-and-spend […]
[…] was legally required back on the first Monday in February. Based on what we saw last year and the year before that, I’m not holding my breath expecting anything more than another tax-and-spend […]
[…] full. At least the American people are to the right of Obama. His most recent budget proposed to increase the federal budget by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. var AdBrite_Title_Color = 'FFFF66'; var AdBrite_Text_Color = 'FFFFFF'; var […]
[…] But let’s conclude by looking at the glass as being half full. At least the American people are to the right of Obama. His most recent budget proposed to increase the federal budget by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. […]
[…] it’s a heck of a lot better than what the Senate Democrats have produced (nothing) and what the President has proposed (kicking the can down the […]
[…] a heck of a lot better than what the Senate Democrats have produced (nothing) and what the President has proposed (kicking the can down the […]
[…] part of his campaign to expand the size and scope of the federal government (and to justify his advocacy of class-warfare taxation), President Obama has been asserting that […]
[…] part of his campaign to expand the size and scope of the federal government (and to justify his advocacy of class-warfare taxation), President Obama has been asserting that […]
[…] part of his campaign to expand the size and scope of the federal government (and to justify his advocacy of class-warfare taxation), President Obama has been asserting that […]
[…] And here’s another classic, Gone with the Wind, but updated to show how the President doesn’t care that his policies will accelerate America’s slide to European-style stagnation. […]
[…] should have mentioned that Obama is MIA on the budget. The non-serious plan he proposed this year was unanimously rejected by the House of Representatives and the budget he proposed last year was […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class warfare tax […]
[…] if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] And here’s another classic, Gone with the Wind, but updated to show how the President doesn’t care that his policies will accelerate America’s slide to European-style stagnation. […]
[…] And here’s another classic, Gone with the Wind, but updated to show how the President doesn’t care that his policies will accelerate America’s slide to European-style stagnation. […]
[…] should have mentioned that Obama is MIA on the budget. The non-serious plan he proposed this year was unanimously rejected by the House of Representatives and the budget he proposed last year was […]
[…] should have mentioned that Obama is MIA on the budget. The non-serious plan he proposed this year was unanimously rejected by the House of Representatives and the budget he proposed last year was […]
[…] The Chairman of the House Budget Committee has produced a new budget plan which contrasts very favorably with the tax-heavy, big-spending proposal submitted by the President last month. […]
[…] The Chairman of the House Budget Committee has produced a new budget plan which contrasts very favorably with the tax-heavy, big-spending proposal submitted by the President last month. […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class warfare tax […]
[…] The Chairman of the House Budget Committee has produced a new budget plan which contrasts very favorably with the tax-heavy, big-spending proposal submitted by the President last month. […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class warfare tax […]
[…] on the other hand, is repeating all of Bush’s mistakes and making government an even bigger burden, and then compounding his error by pursuing class warfare tax […]
[…] Obama released his budget, I did a post showing how annual spending was going to be $2 trillion higher in 10 years than it is today. But I think I’ll steal Senator Johnson’s chart since it makes the same point more […]
[…] « According to Obama’s Budget, Burden of Federal Spending Will Be $2 Trillion Higher in 10 … It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, […]
[…] you use honest numbers, as i did when analyzing the President’s new budget, you find that the burden of government spending is going to climb by $2 trillion between 2012 and 2022. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] Unfortunately, even though the Committee normally produces good material, they messed up last week when sending out information about Obama’s big-spending budget proposal. […]
[…] the most important number in Obama’s budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if the President’s plan is […]
[…] the most important number in Obama’s budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if the President’s plan is […]
[…] the most important number in Obama’s budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if the President’s plan is […]
[…] important number in President Obama’s budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if his is […]
How can Obama make such a non-sequitur conclusion?
That’s a very good question. It depends if you expect him to be faithful to his terms of office and the constitution. Yes, he may have taken an oath, but that clearly means nothing.
When you recognize he is subject to the Public Choice theory – people in government behave in ways that maximize their self interest – that addresses his willingness to do and promise anything to get re-elected.
But that doesn’t explain everything. This suggests he must have a hidden agenda, I wonder what it could be? I wonder what the real reasons were for him being given the Nobel Peace Prize and its $1,000,000? Has he been bought? If so by whom? And what is their agenda?
[…] the most important number in Obama’s budget is that the burden of government spending will be at least $2 trillion higher in 10 years if the President’s plan is […]
[…] Comments « According to Obama’s Budget, Burden of Federal Spending Will Be $2 Trillion Higher in 10 … […]
Since 1980 we borrowed 14,000 Billion. The Tax Book was Christmas Tree filled with goodies for the Rich and Corporations. It is a shame that they take more in Exemptions than they pay in taxes.
That is why OECD ranks Us:
#2 as Least Taxed–We pay 30% of GDP in fed—state–local taxes
#2 as Least Taxed Corporations–In 2011 They paid 1.5% of GDP in taxes
# 4 on Inequality–10% own almost 80% of our Wealth and take almost 50% of our individual income..80% get the crumbs
Suggestions:
1.Fed Fund election–6 months-3 primary- 3 general-free equal tv time-one debate a week=12-adequate to evaluate candidates no $$ no pacs
2.Members of Congress and White House can accept nothing with a financial value.
Keep them on the job not on the road
3.Progressive Flat Tax(by group)–tax to pay our way not leave for kids to pay
4.Burn Tax Book–gets enough added revenue to have a surplus to attack the debt
Yes! Simple. Yes Effective.
only bug I find is how to choose candidates.
[…] 15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and d…. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might […]
If it only expanded by 2% a year, we’d have a balnced budget in 2 years. The reality is that we’ve been spending twice what we take in and the rate of spending is increasing every year. And noone in Congress or the White House seems be doing anything to stop it. And the only political candidate (Ron Paul) that even talks about it is written off as “obviously crazy”.