Back in March, this budget didn’t even get a single vote in the House, now it’s had the same result in the Senate — which is controlled by Democrats!
A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.
In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president’s blueprint.
It’s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama’s budget.
It’s almost like he wanted the economy to tank again… or is that still?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama’s 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.
After five years, the CBO says the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.
Remember when the lefties tried claiming that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit? That fiction is now being debunked.
The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.
Obama is demagoging the Ryan budget again:
Obama on the Paul Ryan budget: “We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat. Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites and that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget.”
“History will not be kind to a president who, when it came time to confront our generation’s defining challenge, chose to duck and run,” Ryan said. “The president refuses to take responsibility for the economy and refuses to offer a credible plan to address the most predictable economic crisis in our history.
Embarrassing for the President:
The House on Wednesday night unanimously rejected an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama’s 2013 budget plan, dispatching it in a 0-414 rout.
The vote came just hours after the White House cast the pending vote as a political “gimmick,” an apparent attempt to downplay what many expected to be an ugly-looking vote for the White House.
Just another way the government spends your tax dollars:
Federal agencies spent at least $945 million on contracts for advertising services in fiscal year 2010, and that sum doesn’t include all public communications expenditures in the agencies reviewed or even all of the executive branch, a congressional report out last week shows.
Rick Perry has unveiled his economic plan, and it’s likely to pick up the nickname 20-20, from the 20% personal and 20% corporate flat tax rates. However, it has a lot more to it, as the campaign website shows:
The current economic problems faced by so many Americans were created by years of wasteful mismanagement and incompetent central-planning and cannot be fixed overnight. To be sure, there are a number of things that can be done by the president on day 1 to begin the process of restoring the American economy. But the reforms necessary to fix the broken tax and regulatory code, balance the budget, and grow the economy for the long-term will take some time and patience. Their implementation requires a clear plan, consistent leadership, and sustained resolve.
Yes, even the AP has decided that Obama isn’t always truthful:
In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Barack Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.
If this story is true, Obama just made a huge blunder… not his first, alas, and almost certainly not his last, but possibly one of the worst.
A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”
…at least that’s what The Weekly Standard is reporting, based on a Jamie Dupree tweet.
As Fred Barnes writes, it’s not clear that there are enough Republican votes for John Boehner’s new debt ceiling plan. But the speaker got a big boost on his right flank today from Congressman Allen West (R, Fla.). Jamie Dupree reports that West, an outspoken conservative and Tea Party favorite, is supporting Boehner’s plan.
A couple of days ago, I posted that the Gang of Six Plan was about the best we could hope to get… now, prodded by a man whose economic wisdom far outstrips mine, I’ve decided to change my mind. Here’s what that man–Keith Hennessy–has to say in summary:
First I’ll flag a few things I like in the plan.
- I support making a technical correction to CPI, even though it would result in higher revenues.
- Repeal of the CLASS Act is great.
- It’s good they included medical malpractice reform.
That’s it. Others right-of-center are salivating at the low marginal income tax rates described in the plan, both for individuals and corporations. I think those low rates never materialize, for both arithmetic and legislative reasons, and explain why below.
That’s the decision of this report from Duke University scholar Christopher Conover, which starts with this statement:
Between 1966 and 2007, the entire increase in the size of government relative to the economy resulted from growth in tax-financed health spending.
Given that both the Senate and the White House are in the hands of Democrats, the plan developed by the Senate’s “Gang of Six” may just be the best we can get passed:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who had pulled out of the Gang of Six in May, also rejoined the group and praised the plan as something that could win the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
With certain folks issuing loud calls for yet another stimulus, it’s worth it to take a good long hard look at the last one, and Veronique de Rugy does just that:
Myth 1:Stimulus spending can jump start the economy and fix unemployment.
Fact 1:Recent experience suggests stimulus spending won’t help.
As you can see, the administration’s promise that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would keep unemployment rates from reaching 8.8 percent and would create some 3 million jobs—90 percent of them in the private sector—did not materialize.
The unemployment rate started at 7.6 percent when President Obama took office and peaked at 10.2 percent in October 2009. Since the enactment of the stimulus bill in February 2009, the unemployment rate has not approached pre-ARRA levels, even though $382 billion has been made available by government departments and agencies (on top of tax credits and other tax-related items). In fact, unemployment recently edged up, from 9 percent in April to 9.1 percent in May.
Myth 2:Additional infrastructure spending is an effective way to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Fact 2:In theory, infrastructure spending injects more money into the economy than other types of government spending. In reality, however, politicians rarely include infrastructure spending in stimulus bills. Instead, they spend money on items like transfers and tax cuts. Only 3 percent of the last stimulus went to infrastructure.
But experience tells us that the next stimulus won’t be any better. As the chart above shows, only 3 percent of the last stimulus went to infrastructure spending. Why? Because such programs are not political winners. For one thing, they take too long to produce results. Therefore they always take a back seat to politically-popular tax credits and transfers to the states.
Myth 3:Tax rebates will stimulate the economy.
Fact 3:The evidence says they don’t. First, people usually save the extra money. Second, even if tax rebates did increase consumption, companies don’t hire employees or build new plants because of a one-time boost.
The theory that tax rebates and payroll tax cuts will result in an increase in consumption suffers from several serious problems. First, it assumes people don’t realize that the extra cash flow is temporary and that businesses don’t realize that the new consumption won’t last. Tax rebates, for example, assume that if people get extra money to increase their consumption, businesses will then expand production and hire more workers. But this is not true. Even if producers notice an upward blip in sales after the rebate checks go out, they will know it’s temporary. Companies won’t hire more employees or build new factories in response to a temporary increase in sales. Those who are foolish enough to do so will go out of business.
These are just excerpts, the charts and more data are available at the link above.