Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






The spending blueprint is a back-door scheme to bust the budget caps that already were raised just last December.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obama’s $4 Trillion Budget: Liberalism’s Last Hurrah?
Stephen Moore, The Heritage Foundation
Barack Obama keeps saying there isn't a government program for every problem in America, but you wouldn't know it from reading his new 2015 federal budget.

This nearly $4 trillion document would spend more federal dollars on everything from climate change to green energy to transit systems to welfare state expansion to federal land purchases to day-care subsidies.

The spending blueprint is a back-door scheme to bust the budget caps that already were raised just last December.

It calls for spending $56 billion above those caps, to be paid for by "loophole closing" tax increases to pry more money from businesses and investors. This is a violation of the budget rules Obama agreed to.

And even if the tax loopholes deserve to be closed, the money should be used for a broad reform of the tax code and lower tax rates, as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan called for last week, not as a toll to finance bigger government.

The theme of this budget is "an end to austerity," which is an almost laughable claim given the first-term spending blitz under Obama and the $5 trillion glommed on to the national debt.

As in recent years, this budget camouflages domestic program hikes, partly by pairing them with major reductions in the military budget.

More Roads
Deficit reduction in recent years has come almost exclusively from reductions in troop levels and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The defense budget is down nearly $100 billion since 2011 and further cuts are on the way this year.

But instead of using those savings to start eliminating an expected half-trillion-dollar deficit, the White House wants to spend $302 billion over four years, including a new infrastructure bank, to finance transportation projects.

Democrats continue to claim that infrastructure spending has been underfunded in recent years, but the budget reality is quite at odds with that assessment.

According to St. Louis Federal Reserve data on highway and road expenditures, public spending rose from $58 billion in 2003 to $74 billion in 2013 -- a 46% hike over the past decade (not adjusted for inflation).

Overall public construction spending rose by more than 25% over that 2003-13 period to $267 billion.

These programs aren't being pinched of pennies. And by the way, the cost of federal construction projects might be cut by 10% to 20% -- meaning more repaired bridges and more covered potholes -- if it were not for federal Davis-Bacon laws requiring de facto union wages paid on all federal construction projects.

Food Stamp Binge
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan reminds us that, for all the talk of spending austerity, the budgets of most domestic agencies and bureaus rose by more than 30%-40% in Obama's first two years of stimulus programs, when $800 billion got passed around.

There are no major entitlement savings in this budget -- in fact, there are expansions.

The welfare state has already expanded to new heights under Obama with record enrollments in Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability. One in seven families is now collecting food stamps.

The White House is seeking to enroll almost 6 million more Americans in the earned income tax credit program, at a cost of $60 billion.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a cash subsidy to working poor families. Obama is not suggesting this as a replacement for existing programs, but in addition to the $1 trillion a year and counting diverted to the welfare state.

We have here on display Obama's vision of liberal governance -- a government that will solve every societal problem from obesity to rising sea levels.

It's a budget that should be dead on arrival, but if by chance it still has a heartbeat, sign it up for Obamacare. That would be a deserving death sentence.

Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 03/04/2014








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server