President Barack Obama and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag will roll out a 2010 budget plan designed as a roadmap to cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of Obama's term, the report says. (White House photo.)
by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama plans to roll out a blueprint of his 2010 federal budget proposal next week, and the early word on it is that the president will lay out a roadmap for cutting the budget deficit he has inherited by half by the end of his term.
That's the word from Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly at the Washington Post, who report this afternoon that the president hopes to accomplish that deficit-cutting feat by following through on the tax increases he has proposed for the wealthiest Americans - those earning more than $250,000 a year - withdrawing troops from Iraq and making s[emdomg reforms that help restrain the growth of the budget.
The rollout Thursday will not be the phonebook-sized budget that presidents deliver each year, the Post notes, but rather a summary of how the president plans to cut the deficit over the coming four years. The federal budget, already bigger than $3 trillion, could be carrying an annual deficit between its spending and its revenue of nearly $2 trillion by the end of this year - thanks largely to the economic stimulus plans that Congress already has approved.
The president voiced his concern about getting "exploding deficits under control'' in his weekly radio address today, calling the budget that he will propose "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting'' and laying out "in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline." He said: "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control."
This apparently will come up at a "summit'' on fiscal responsibility that the White House is holding Monday -- with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders among the many invited -- and we're likely to hear about it in Obama's first address to Congress on Tuesday evening.
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor, Bill Clinton, but the annual deficit surpassed $450 billion on Bush's watch - and in the closing months of his final year the congressional approval of a bailout of the nation's financial markets pushed that deficit past $1 trillion. Since then, Congress has approved another $787-billion economic stimulus at Obama's urging.
The Post says Obama's plan allows for a deficit hovering at $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, and then sliding to $533 billion by 2013 - still higher than any of the deficits that Bush reported, but "a more manageable 3 percent of the overall economy.''
The writers, citing administration officials, say Obama will get there by cutting spending and raising taxes, including "winding down the war'' in Iraq. And he will make good on his campaign pledges to repeal the tax cuts that Bush won in 2001 and 2003 for wealthier taxpayers, retaxing those making more than $250,000 a year.
"This is consistent with what the president talked about throughout the campaign," David Axelrod, senior Obama adviser, told the Post, and "restores some balance to the tax code in a way that protects the middle class.'' With the tax cuts that Obama is seeking for lower and middle-income Americans - including tax credits included in the stimulus bill: "Most Americans will come out very well here."
See the Post report at the link above, and see the page that the president's Office of Management and Budget is building to showcase the proposed 2010 budget. It's a clean slate.
Comments
"the president (Obama) will lay out a roadmap for cutting the budget deficit he has inherited by half by the end of his term."
Yeah, and that would be a budget deficit that Shrub Jr and Darth Cheney created within a YEAR of receiving a budget SURPLUS from Bill Clintion.
Fiscal Conservatives, my arse!!!
Posted by: Hulk Smash! | February 21, 2009 5:13 PM
Well, there goes our $8 a week from porkulus. Why did he even bother with it? Tax and spend, tax and spend...
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2009 6:01 PM
With is expensive taste-
NO WAY.
Posted by: Inky | February 21, 2009 6:02 PM
And what is he going to with the budget deficit he creates - that one is getting passed on to the kids.
Posted by: Terry | February 21, 2009 6:03 PM
One thing we learned from this for sure:
the new Prez favors apples over pretzels.
Posted by: ornery | February 21, 2009 6:05 PM
----- This will be interesting. House democrats will oppose spending cuts and support tax increases while House republicans will oppose tax increases and support spending cuts. Obama will have to confront his own party at some point to make his budget plan a reality. Shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan isn't going to help cut federal spending.
Posted by: dom youngross | February 21, 2009 6:11 PM
It's about time the rich Republican oligarchs paid their share! Maybe we could tax the amount they get on the bailouts and charge fees to banks for accessing taxpayer funds too.
Posted by: Johnny Knoxville | February 21, 2009 6:21 PM
Obama isn't very good on policy details, is he?
The same old criticisms of vagueness will surely flow after he releases this...
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | February 21, 2009 6:24 PM
Republicans don't see tax rates as policy. They see them as a means of expressing a "moral" principle - i.e., it's always good to cut rich people's taxes. So they don't care what the rate is or what it becomes, as long as you cut it. If you cut rich people's taxes from 99% to 98%, you're a "pro-business" hero; if you raise their taxes from 0 to 1%, you're a "socialist." They're lunatics and morons.
Posted by: Hey Joe | February 21, 2009 6:26 PM
Cut the deficit he inherited in half by the end of his first term? What a ridiculously misleading statement. His plan for 2013 is a deficit of 500+ billion. That is higher than any year under Bush. What Obama is really doing is trying to quarter his own ridiculous first year deficit of....did I read this right? 2 trillion?
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 21, 2009 6:36 PM
Obama plans on bringing the budget to $533 billion by cutting spending (what programs..Social Security and Medicare?) and RAISING taxes (not just on those making over $250,000) all by 2013!
Not with my vote.
Posted by: Ron | February 21, 2009 6:50 PM
Everyone seems to forget the the budget surplus was created by the Congress led by real Republicans Kasich and Newt. Congress approbates and spends the money, Clinton just oversaw it, so get off this Clinton surplus liberal propaganda. As for Obama, what we will see? Just another plan or summit, grand on scale but short on specifics. Do you honestly think he will announce that all these "stimulus" programs will be scaled back or government entitlements reduced? And if you believe the market has tanked and economy is faltering, wait until he roles out these class warfare tax increases as the deceived middle class receives crumbs that actually result in increases for them. Least of all, watch as his "green" energy policies wipe out the whole shebang this summer. The wealthy have lost or removed (being smart) a great deal of capital, now it will dry up, replaced by borrowed federal dollars. The only growth will be in a bloated federal government. A true Obama economy, yes indeed. The Bush excuse is fading, we are hearing the rah, rah for the Obama leadership.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 21, 2009 7:05 PM
Sometimes people forget this: - the GOPer nuts always talk about "you shouldnt raise taxes on those who create wealth"
Well, for one:, lowering their taxes was a nightmare, and two:, we're not raising their taxes, we're just bringing them back inline to what seemed to work...and actually they will still remain MUCH lower than they ever were. Plus the super rich that the Repukelicans love so much still have good ol jurisdictional tax arbitrage at their disposal. Close up tax havens...esp for those who do not create wealth for many.
Posted by: Mayor McCheese | February 21, 2009 7:08 PM
The Repug droids will comb through the bill trying to find something about mice, or something stupid like that, and that is all we'll hear about on Fixed News Channel and Druggy Rush for weeks....oh, and Obama wants to save the mice or fill-in-the blank ridiculous diversion.
Posted by: CS Nowik | February 21, 2009 7:13 PM
Obama "hopes" to cut the deficit.....
What a crock. His own numbers prove that the deficit will be greater in the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Inconvenient Truth | February 21, 2009 7:21 PM
What???He hasn't cut the deficit yet. Well that's change you can believe in. Somewhere between the Iraq war, The Afghanistan war, the economy, and changing the republicans diapers....he certainly should have completed this by now. I think the best investment now would be pacifiers. Think of all the crying, sniffling, rabid ankle biters that will need these over the next 4 years. that's right...4 years...and why 4? Because he has been in office for just over a month. Wail away children waaa waaa
Posted by: bill r. | February 21, 2009 8:26 PM
It's about time the financial/Republican elitist class gets a dose of its own medicine.
I'm for taxing them out of existence. I'd completely destroy the wealthy Repug elites, re-establish the middle class and make sure that so much wealth is never concentrated among so few individuals.
I don't see democracy surviving unless we tackle the threat posed by permitting what is little more than a class of elitist nobles to run roughshod over the entire nation.
Posted by: JoeWillie | February 21, 2009 8:36 PM
Bubba Porter you say you're not whining? Every post, there you are. Negative. Negative.
Time for those making over a quarter mil. to start paying for George's war. Where's the problem boys?
Posted by: Flo | February 21, 2009 9:55 PM
Flo,
Crybaby Bubba Porter is Jeffy
Posted by: YouBetcha | February 21, 2009 10:10 PM
IF ONLY THE POOR PEOPLE HADN'T DEMANDED LOANS THAT THEY COULDN'T AFFORD, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS!
IT FIGURES THAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE-CLASS CITIZENS OF AMERICA WOULD RUIN IT FOR US RICH DOUGHY ELITIST REPUBLICAN WHITE GUYS.
WE NEED MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, BARACK! THAT WILL FIX THE ECONOMY BECAUSE NEWT, RUSH AND HANNITY SAID IT WOULD AND THEIR NEVER WRONG
Posted by: Wingnut Blowhard | February 21, 2009 10:27 PM
JoeWillie: You get the twinky for the best post on this thread. I don't think the pugs get it. There is smoke rising up all around them and all they talk about is pork. They are so far removed from main street that they do not see what is happening.....
Posted by: Xcellentform | February 21, 2009 10:42 PM
I think there are valid arguments on both side about this government plan. Will it raise the budget deficit? Probably. Will it help? That’s a good question, and I think reasonable people can disagree on this. Economies go through cycles. I read a good article on recessions and their history on
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2009 11:15 PM
Yes indeedy. Those making over 250k need to pay more.
Cut back on the 3rd & 4th cars, the extra vacations, the cottage on the lake over in Bridgman, etc.
They got the tax breaks for the past 15 years. Time for them to pay now.
Posted by: ornery | February 22, 2009 12:09 AM
That's all very nice, and I'm sure glad I don't make $250K per year. This doesn't mean Obama's math works yet. Getting out of Iraq is merely cutting a drain on capital; it doesn't make us any money. Reinstating the higher margin income taxes isn't going to make up the difference either. Obama still has to cut a massive amount of federal spending in order for the books to balance. Remember: Most of Duh'bya's spending wasn't in Iraq or elsewhere overseas. It was right here. Obama had better hire someone new to serve as "Efficiency Tzar" to close down those 105 plus worthless federal agencies. This time, he should at least try for someone without tax or illegal immigrant employee problems.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 1:08 AM
Why is it when I point out inconsistency in campaign rhetoric and his now wishy-washy Prez. edicts, vague plan of the day, review summit or commission to study the problem instead of a decision, or bailout of the week that you lefties cry whinner, obstructionist, dimwit, or some other herd talking point and never post any realistic persuading logic against my facts. Has obamamania kool aid dulled your intelligence? We now have a retarded, dusted off from the dust bins of historical failures, change that is so confusing, part Bushie, part socialist, divisive, flopping around, tossing tax dollars everywhere, with our Prez. voicing doom and gloom instead of hope and change we can believe in (with waivers!), that confidence is tanking and Americans are skeptical? To voice an opposing opinion is to be attacked? Where is this liberal idealism of democracy. The big tent? I'm not a sore loser, just want America to succeed. Bush was wrong, many times, and I voiced against him. You lefties better start thinking, big government is not the answer. Those who take responsibility for themselves thrive, those who depend on government are always disappointed and left twisting in the winds of the political whims of the day.
I am not Jeff or that liberal who posts under my name!!!
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 22, 2009 7:25 AM
That's all very nice, and I'm sure glad I don't make $250K per year.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 1:08 AM
Somehow that just sounds so ridiculous. Oh...I hope I don't make a quarter of a million this year so I won't have to pay a little more in taxes. Right! One thing you could do with that money is to hire a good accountant who can show you all the shelters available to you so % wise, you can pay less than the slob who makes 50K. Nothing worse in life than having to suffer through 250K a year. Our hearts go out to those poor souls.
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 9:19 AM
Obama will not be re-elected.
Too many angry, mortgage paying people (90%).
Vote in all elections.
Vote on the local, state, and federal level.
Don't bypass the local aspect as they WILL raise taxes, TOO!
Posted by: Delia | February 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Ya think, You Betcha??
I thought maybe they just took vacations together.
Posted by: Flo | February 22, 2009 9:38 AM
By increasing Bush's bloated budget dramatically? And how does he say this stuff with a straight face, 5 days after signing a $787B (+interest) spending binge?
-
Your turn at the trough, Slim?
-
And what's with the "first term"? I admire your optimism Barack, but you'll probably be neutered in the midterms next year, because you own this fiscal Frankentstein now, it's all yours. Your "stimulus" package of welfare and pork-mania will stimulate nothing except the deficit... and the GOP's fortunes.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | February 22, 2009 10:18 AM
To those Reagamorons out there: The drip that promoted the trickle down economics, none other President Reagan, can now witness the effects of that stupidity. Even the Fed head, Al Greenbacks, has to admit his complicity in that Reaganomic's lunacy. Then, we have the cheerleaders of his faulty Presidency, crying about President Obama's attempt to change that moronic mindset, that was so aptly described as, voodoo economics.
Keep going, President Obama, you and a majority in our Congress, at least, are trying to undo this Republican stupidity. We appreciate, what the Democrats, and too few Republicans, are attempting to do, for our country. Conversely, we will not forget the Republicans and their dastardly part, in this national crisis !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | February 22, 2009 10:40 AM
Does this mean the % of taxes going to Pentagon is going to be cut?????
Whoa, Nelly!
Posted by: ornery | February 22, 2009 12:40 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 9:19 AM
.
No, bill, it’s not ridiculous, and it’s not a wish. It is a fact. I don’t make $250K or more. I just re-started my law practice last year after a five year hiatus (during which time I earned $0K per year from my labor), and my start up expenses basically ate my income. That means I really, historically and factually don’t make $250K a year. I’m really beginning to wonder why simple English no longer conveys its plain meaning. Maybe this is why tasteless political cartoons are immediately misconstrued: People don’t understand the English parts.
.
And while we are on the topic of what sounds ridiculous, weren’t you the one who suggested the stock market would bottom out at about 7,500? It closed Friday at 7,365.67. Well?
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 1:49 PM
By increasing Bush's bloated budget dramatically? And how does he say this stuff with a straight face, 5 days after signing a $787B (+interest) spending binge?
So Bruce--What did you think it would cost after Bush and his deregulation crowd drove the multi-trillion dollar economy off a cliff?
Where was your outrage when Bush added trillions to the national debt with a misguided war and tax cuts for the wealthy?
That's right, it was un-American for Dems to protest, but now you are chief ankle-biter (bill r's term) of the Swamp Droogs.
Posted by: dt☢ | February 22, 2009 3:45 PM
I’m really beginning to wonder why simple English no longer conveys its plain meaning.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 1:49 PM
I don't John....this looks like plain english to me. You tell me what this means.
That's all very nice, and I'm sure glad I don't make $250K per year.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 1:08 AM
and by the way.... No I didn't say it would bottom out at 7500, there is always a percieved bottom when dealing in the market and 7500 has been what the bears have percieved as that bottm....whether you like it or not.
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 5:36 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 5:36 PM
.
Okay bill, if you need me to tell you the obvious, I will. The article stated that Obama “will make good on his campaign pledges to repeal the tax cuts that Bush won in 2001 and 2003 for wealthier taxpayers, retaxing those making more than $250,000 a year.” Thus, in the context of the article that stated this, the sentence, “That's all very nice, and I'm sure glad I don't make $250K per year” - means that I don't make $250K per year, and I am glad of this because I won't have more of the fruit of my labor eaten out by higher taxes. You mean you really couldn't figure that out?
.
Understanding and reason are gone. And then some people wonder why the hoi polloi could be happy knowing that Obama is going to reduce the deficit, adding massive amounts to the debt, and then proclaim “fiscal responsibility” as the rule. He mocks himself and us too.
.
As for the “perceived” bottom of the market (like it or not), those worthless perceptions be damned. The bears are wrong.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 6:17 PM
and I am glad of this because I won't have more of the fruit of my labor eaten out by higher taxes.
Posted by: John W. | February 22, 2009 6:17
But you see John....this is exactly what I don't understand. You would be happier making 100K and pay a little less fruit? I just can't grasp that concept. I have been blessed in business. I was able to retire at 52. I pay a great deal in taxes (property and on investment) but I don't wish I had less. I have always found that the sure way to screw up anything is to bring greed to the table, in life or business. If I pay a little more because I have seen success.....so what? I still have seen success and "its" fruit. I'll take that anytime over climbing down the ladder of success in fear of paying a little more fruit.
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 8:27 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | February 22, 2009 8:27 PM
.
What a thoughtless response, bill. I mean that, really.
.
My motivation is neither greed nor fear. I choose not to serve materialism. I am happy with what I have. As far as I am concerned, I am rich without making $250K per year because I have few needs and no extravagant tastes. The house is paid for and I have no debt. Not spending more time chasing the almighty dollar gives me more time to do the things that I feel are important. Besides, my line of work is very stressful. Try defending someone facing a multi-century prison sentence some time (like I am right now) and see how stressful it can get. To me, a longer life is more of a blessing than dying or becoming disabled from stress related illnesses after having acquired “all the toys.” After all, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his very soul? That’s where I’m at.
.
Furthermore, the more money one makes, the more complex the taxes get, and the more one ends up working for the federal government. There is a point at which the returns are diminished to where it just isn’t worth it any more. It’s not that I’m trying to make less (like you suppose), it just isn’t worth it to me to make any more at this time. Besides, when I choose to "give," I have charities to which I donate. I also do a lot of pro bono work (and sometimes more than I intend). In my view, that’s charity. Giving to the federal government isn’t.
.
Oh, and bill: Retirement isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Most people I’ve know who retired (other than my 93 year old uncle), end up dying from the sheer boredom of it. For your sake, I hope you have an alternate occupation, if not a job, to keep your mind sharp and your sense of purpose alive. I have a simpler answer. I don’t plan to retire. I may change occupations, but I hope to work until I drop dead - at a ripe old age.
Posted by: John W. | February 23, 2009 12:57 AM
What a thoughtless response, bill. I mean that, really.
Posted by: John W. | February 23, 2009 12:57 AM
What an amazing statement John...I mean that really. I basically tell you how I view a little extra taxes....and that is "thoughtless"? Was it because I used the word greed in a sentence that you find offensive? I basically state the very same view on life that you yourself seem to see, and somehow that is offensive? Holy Cow! The whole point of this was just to bring light on, to me, the silly statement of I rather not make more because I don't want to pay a little more in taxes. As a lawyer, you should have a little thicker skin than that.
As for retirement.....I fill it up with family, and friends. I also do community work and my wife, who was a teacher of EC children for 25 years, volunteers at the school 4 days a week.
Posted by: bill r. | February 23, 2009 9:51 AM