Obama's budget proposal in La-La- Land

Rick Moran
The marvel is that his administration says stuff like this with a straight face. Politico's Playbook:

-A senior administration official says the budget includes "$1.1 trillion in deficit reduction [over 10 years], with two-thirds of it from cuts. By taking a responsible approach to get us to live within our means and invest in the future, the budget will get us to a place by middle of the decade where we are no longer adding to our debt as a share of the economy and the government is paying for what it spends ('primary balance')."--N.Y. Times' Jackie Calmes: "The budget confirms that Mr. Obama is not taking the lead in embracing the kind of far-reaching deficit-reduction plan recommended in December by a bipartisan majority of his fiscal commission. It proposed saving $4 trillion over a decade."

--WashPost's Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery: "Obama would reach his target in part by raising taxes, an idea that Republicans refuse to consider. ... The White House proposal ... would barely put a dent in deficits that congressional budget analysts say could approach $12 trillion through 2021." 

I have to say that the GOP is only marginally better in approaching our titanic deficits. At least they refuse to raise taxes and have offered a serious proposal to cut $100 billion right away from the budget. And there are individuals here and there in the Republican party - Paul Ryan comes to mind - who have a clear eyed view of what must be done to get us back to fiscal sanity.

But it is depressing to contemplate that the meager, almost non-existent cuts the president proposes is considered by the administration to be enough so that the "government is paying for what it spends." Only in the La-La Land of Obama does trillions in deficits come close to government living within its means.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky





The marvel is that his administration says stuff like this with a straight face. Politico's Playbook:

-A senior administration official says the budget includes "$1.1 trillion in deficit reduction [over 10 years], with two-thirds of it from cuts. By taking a responsible approach to get us to live within our means and invest in the future, the budget will get us to a place by middle of the decade where we are no longer adding to our debt as a share of the economy and the government is paying for what it spends ('primary balance')."

--N.Y. Times' Jackie Calmes: "The budget confirms that Mr. Obama is not taking the lead in embracing the kind of far-reaching deficit-reduction plan recommended in December by a bipartisan majority of his fiscal commission. It proposed saving $4 trillion over a decade."

--WashPost's Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery: "Obama would reach his target in part by raising taxes, an idea that Republicans refuse to consider. ... The White House proposal ... would barely put a dent in deficits that congressional budget analysts say could approach $12 trillion through 2021." 

I have to say that the GOP is only marginally better in approaching our titanic deficits. At least they refuse to raise taxes and have offered a serious proposal to cut $100 billion right away from the budget. And there are individuals here and there in the Republican party - Paul Ryan comes to mind - who have a clear eyed view of what must be done to get us back to fiscal sanity.

But it is depressing to contemplate that the meager, almost non-existent cuts the president proposes is considered by the administration to be enough so that the "government is paying for what it spends." Only in the La-La Land of Obama does trillions in deficits come close to government living within its means.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky