That the Deseret News finds Obama's budget abhorant is no surpise. Permit
me to take the Deseret News out of its comfort zone to the world of Marxian
econometrics. Marx in "Capital" tried to answer a simple question:
"in a market system which sees mostly the exchange of equivalents where to
do profits come from?" The answer he gave, as a result of exhaustive
theorizing was the exploitation of labor, that is employed labor not being
compensated completely for the value it creates, engendered by the fact that
labor is capable of producing more value than is necessary for its support.
What does this have to do with the current debate and the D-News position?
Simply this:The exploitation of labor makes appropriate and just
higher rates of taxes on the wealthy, that is, the owners of capital. If such
were taxed at the higher rates of the 50's and 60's there would be no
problems with government deficits whatsoever. But this is mighty foreign
territory for you so you continue to stick it to labor and defend capital as you
have consistantly done since the last century.
I guess it's not really a surprise that the DN Editorial has come out
against the President's budget plan - the stated reason is that his plan
only cut's the deficit by $1.8 trillion over ten years. And the
editors' interpretation of what the President means when he says it is not
an "ideal plan" conveniently fits into their narrative. But maybe the
President said that because it is not ideal for him and his desires but, in
fact, tries to meet the opposition half way - something the opposition might
consider.The tax increases agreed to by the Republicans in December
were not tax increaees at all, as the DN knows, but they were a partial return
to the tax rates that existed in the 90's, when the economy was fourishing.
The intention for those tax cuts to end was claerly laid out in the legislation
that created them, agreed to by the Republican President and the Republican
Congress. The strong economy in the 90's produced the kind of tax revenue
that got us to a balanced budget and until that economy returns, no amount of
cost cutting or tax cuts will get us close to balancing the budget.
Mr. Obama would tell us anything - except the truth. His plan does not cut the
deficit. Any "reduction" is automatically offset by automatic budget
increase. There is no "base line" budgeting where an amount is compared
to this year's spending. The "base line" he uses is the
"projected" spending that automatic increases would allow.His insincerity in even trying to balance spending to match income is
disingenuous. Those who support his budget proposal are just as disingenuous as
So DN tax increases are "piled on top of" previous tax increases (which
aren't reallyincreases), and Social Security cuts are "minimal".
Ahh, what's in a word? An attitude possibly? Like memoaning the 1.8
trillion dollar deficit reduction as woefully insufficient while failing to
mention that this increase is "piled" on top of the all ready agreed
upon 2.5 trillion in cuts since 2011 amounting to 4.3 trillion over 10 years the
exact amount Republicans have been asking for. The thing the President
isn't willing to do is eviscerate social welfare programs like the
Republicans want..not going to happen DN.The trajectory this budget
and the last budget put us on is to reduce the deficit as a portion of GDP from
10% to around 1.7% in 10 years. Will those numbers be reality probably not, who
knows but it's an important part of the discussion that somehow failed to
make the article. I wonder why..oh yea...Obama did it.
DN was never, ever going to be satisfied with an Obama budget deal.
The history of our national government over the last several years should offer
ample proof that nothing, no legislation, and no budget will even be
satisfactory from this president, let alone be ideal. But the
problem is not with his actions but because of who he is and the attitudes of
the people he has to work with.
Would the DN prefer Ryan's math which involves getting rid of Obamacare
(except he keeps the medicare cuts and all the tax increases in it... as if
that's realistic...), and several trillion from getting rid of entirely
unspecified (read: would never happen) tax credits?
It is amazing that anyone today would quote Marx as a viable economic theory and
try to make a valid economic point using him as a respected reference. Marx has
been shown over and over again to be mostly wrong about almost everything. All
of the systems of the world that have most closely tried to follow him and his
theories have themselves more or less given up and started moving to a more
capitalistic society - even Cuba is starting to allow people to own property.
We may as well state "According to the scientific theory that the Sun
revolves around the earth we can assume...." Those on the left should get
over the failure of communism and socialism. Our personal freedoms are closely
tied to economic freedom - the right to own property without everyone else,
including through Government representatives, feeling they have equal right to
what you own. Everyone should read Ezra Taft Benson's article "The
proper role of government".
So, the President presents a budget, which conservatives have been howling for
him to do, and everyone hates it, especially conservatives, because it's
not mean enough to poor people. Maybe a budget everyone hates should be the one
"The president's proposed budget, like those he has submitted in recent
years, likely isn't going to get much serious attention". So what does
the Editorial Board think will get serious attention? Should he cut and and not
raise taxes? The Editorial perfectly characterizes the disconnect we have in
our political thinking these days. It is one thing to caste dispersions but it
is another thing to make a constructive criticism. I liken it to when my wife
is cooking something and asks what should be added to make it taste better. If I
come out and say "it is no good" you can imagine the reaction. Thank you
very much...NOT. Editorial Board for a very thoughtless position paper.
Where does the DN get these figures? The Obama budget, if adopted, would
virtually eliminate the deficit by 2030 while making deep cuts in the national
debt. Now is not the time, however, to go overboard on reducing public spending
unless we want to see another crash.
Of course in the D-news opinion, the only acceptable budget would be zero taxes
on the rich, zero social programs, unlimited spending on the military so the US
can bomb several dozen poor countries into submission all at one time. Oh yea,
and raise taxes on the poor.
Ernest T. Bass Your response is stereo-typical left wing overreacting
intoleranceI know of NO republican who believes as you accuse and I have
seen no such advocacy from the DNYou created a phony stereotype merely so
you could play put uponPassive /aggression is precisely why I abhor
left-wing drama – which ironically, pushes me into the arms of the people
you claim to despise. I know no conservative who is as wacky as a left-winger
typified by your post
We are simply spending beyond our tax capacity. We can look back over one
hundred years of income taxation, and no matter what the specific tax rates, we
have never raised more than about twenty percent of GDP. We can't really
afford to spend at a higher rate than that.The big budget busters
are social spending. The democrats are in serious denial about the budget and
spending. The balance sheets are not fun to look at, but reality can't be
It's sad that the American people re-elected a man who clearly had no
interest in governing or leading a nation. A leader makes tough but necessary
decisions. A leader doesn't appoint a commission to address a problem (e.g.
Simpson Bowles) and then completely ignore their recommendations. A leader
doesn't take the easy way out and demonize one small segment of the
citizenry (the evil rich) and mislead the citizenry into thinking that by
punishing that group with higher taxes we can solve all of our financial
problems. A leader doesn't use people as props (e.g. police, firemen,
and grieving parents) as he campaigns to take away constitutional rights of law
abiding citizens. That's called a demagogue. A true leader would
explain to the American people (who aren't stupid) that when interest rates
on our debt go up (as they will at some point) and half of all tax revenue goes
to debt service then there's not going to be any money for your favorite
program whether it's defense, soc security or agricultural subsidies.
@CounterIntelligenceSure Ernest is being overdramatic but the Ryan budget
does have tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes on the poor (it's not stated but
the amount of tax loopholes he wants to close is so massive that it would affect
the poor), increases in defense spending, and massive reductions to programs
that help the poor like food stamps and Medicaid.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has some choice words for anyone
who thinks the only way to improve the economy is to tighten the country's
belt.“There is no instance of a large economy getting to
growth through austerity," Stiglitz said in an interview Tuesday on
“Bloomberg Surveillance.”Stiglitz said, "Austerity
leads the economy to perform more poorly. It leads to more unemployment, lower
wages, more inequality.”Instead of austerity, the U.S. needs
more fiscal stimulus to grow, Stiglitz said. Without President Barack
Obama’s stimulus in 2009, the unemployment rate would have reached a high
of at least 12 percent, rather than the 10 percent peak it hit in 2012, he
added.Stiglitz's austerity-doubting claims align with 80
percent of economists who in an IGM Economic Experts panel agreed last year that
the 2009 stimulus lowered the unemployment rate.
This editorial is muddling a number of things:(1) You can call the
changes to Social Security "minor" but the fact is that this change
would make Social Security funding stable for the foreseeable future. It is
disingenuous to write an editorial lamenting "entitlement programs that are
driving the nation to the brink of insolvency", and then to minimize a
significant concession from President Obama that will improve forecasted funding
for one of those entitlement programs.(2) Social Security is not a
major driver of our debt, current or future. The major contributors will be
Medicare and Medicaid. Yet the editorial fails to mention that *private*
healthcare costs are rising much faster than public programs. Costs rise slower
with government healthcare plans because the government can pool together enough
people to negotiate lower rates with huge insurance companies. This is why
healthcare spending is much lower in other developed countries, for equal or
better outcomes. We'd be better off adopting a system similar to other
developed countries, rather than this hodgepodge of private and public plans we
have now. Bet the DN isn't brave enough to admit that.
Is it me, or does the DN always seem to use pictures of Obama looking angry to
accompany articles about what he's advocating? I've noticed it with
gun control, sequestration, cabinet nominations, and now his budget.
Why the heck is this newspaper itself always against Obama? I can see a
writer's opinion .. but the paper as a whole? Is that professional
BO is 0-4 at the plate with his budgets of the last 4 years and it looks like
another swing and a miss this year. The man has no idea how to govern...and
America pays the price again and again and again and again...
Republican response: If Obama suggests it, is is clearly evil socialism, even
if I wanted the same thing 5 minutes ago.
Ho Hum.... More DN biased bunk. Your Obama hate is showing again.
The whole deficit problem was caused by the Bush tax cuts. Decreased revenue.
Restoring the tax rate on the top 1% is not going to fix the problem. We need to
go back to the Clinton era tax rates, on ALL of us. That means your taxes would
go up, back to where they were before the Bush disaster. Remember, the Clinton
era? Balanced budgets, peace and prosperity. Something CONservatives Know
The deficit was created by both Republicans and Democrats. One may have created
more debt than the other but both are culpable and the debt is enormous.Social Security is not a part of the deficit and never has been, yet
both parties seem to hanker after robbing the poor retirees to further enrich
themselves. Why not cut Congressional and Presidential salaries in
half? After all they can handle it the way they say seniors will handle further
cuts to the value of their monthly payment - by buying cheaper and cheaper
products. They can do this far longer than seniors can.Abolish the
congressional pension plan too; let them depend on Social Security.
Buy gold and guns before gold goes to 1000 and there is a limit to owning more
than twenty assault rifles.