The big-picture reasoning behind President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget is solid: This economic recovery is too fragile, and too many are teetering on the edge of falling out of the middle class, for immediate government austerity.
The president is correct to suggest that first this nation gets healthy, then we slim down. Investing in our future is called for, from maintaining Pell Grants to fixing bridges to expanding mass transit. All would create jobs now plus essential infrastructure to position this country for the future.
Obama’s plan includes some deficit reduction by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy and by tweaking entitlement programs.
But, once again, the president has failed the American people by refusing to tread into Social Security reform, and by offering only token reform in Medicare. They are the largest and fastest growing drivers of our national debt.
As his own debt-reduction commission suggested two years ago, Social Security reform doesn’t have to be immediately painful. There are a few common-sense solutions that liberals and conservatives know are needed.
Raising the Social Security eligibility age is one. When Social Security was established with a retirement age of 65, the average life expectancy was 62. Today, the eligibility age is slowly climbing toward 67, while the average American life expectancy is above 78 and expected to near 84 by 2050.
Slowly increasing the retirement age would go a long way toward securing this vital program for future generations, as would eliminating or increasing the income cap for paying into the system.
Medicare reform is more complicated, but Obama’s proposed $364 billion in savings over the next decade won’t be enough to secure the program.
A common GOP complaint about Obama’s proposed 2013 budget is that it’s a political, not a practical, document. While every budget is political, in that it reflects the priority of those making it, Republicans are wrong to see no practical sense in this one. The nation has great short-term needs.
But, at the same time, President Obama soon must come to terms with the need for serious entitlement reform. America’s long-term health demands it.
Kansas City Star (Feb. 15)
I’ve noticed on the news this budget has been criticized for “not being serious.” Seems serious to me, seems like Obama’s ideal budget. But does it matter if it is serious or not? Even when Obama makes very serious proposals they’re blocked regardless. Look how many of his non-controversial judicial nominations are just sitting there, even as our court systems are severely over-burdened.
Yes, good point on non-controversial appointments. Time to make more recess appointments.
I’m a little disappointed, however, that he isn’t tackling Social Security. I know it’s a political third rail, and he probably didn’t want to go there in an election year. However, every other year is an election year, and we have to deal with this issue some time soon.
Even for the BDN this is a staggeringly idiotic puff piece from the Obama lickspittles in the old media.
Insults are evidence of a weak argument.
If you listen to the BDN there’s never a good time for government austerity. The only answer is spend more and if that doesn’t work then spend even more.
The budget cuts billions yearly and trillions from the deficit over the decade.
Blooter, mooncalf
And if you listen to the Republicans it’s always a good time to give billionaires another big tax break. Surplus? Cut taxes. Deficit? Cut taxes. Prosperity? Cut taxes? Deep recession? Cut taxes. Give the biggest tax breaks to those who don’t need it at all, and are already paying half the rate of us woking stiffs. Same old, same old.
Top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. Top 10% pay 67% of the taxes so who gets a break?
Bottom 50% pay 0% of the income taxes, but they still want a tax break. Here’s a clue. a 10% tax break on $0 in taxes is $0.
I like your math!!
The really excellent thing, though, is when Republicans give the billionaires tax breaks, I get one too!! And I am just a lowly middle classer, hovering on the low income category according to the most recent definition. And all the government program spending in the world has not given me one more penny or helped me one bit more than those sweet tax cuts of the Bush era…
The biggest driver of the deficit is the effects of all the tax cuts have had on the revenue stream. When most of the big corporations thru loopholes and subsidies pay an effective tax rate of 0%, and high income earners are being taxed at historicaly low rate, of course there is not enough to pay for the military bill, including two undclared wars and occupation, and adaquately funding needed social programs that ensure a secure society. Raising taxes of the highest income earmers, and rewriting the corporate tax code to lower their rate while closing the loophole the biggest corporations now enjoy, is the only way out of this fairly, not transfering more of the burden to what’s left of the middle class, while the rich enjoy their free ride.
George Bush Dude he’s the one behind all of it man!
Don’t be so contemptibly stupid. The problem isn’t loopholes that corporations enjoy, it’s loopholes that all of us take advantage of. Everyone from the janitor to the CEO should pay tax and all loopholes should be eliminated. Blaming the rich and corporations is moronic. Blame everyone who does not contribute.
Just like the boy President to avoid tackling any real systemic issues.