CBO: Obama Budget Would Cut 10-year Deficits by $1.1 Trillion

[Hissyspit]

Source: Washington Post

CBO: Obama budget would cut 10-year deficits by $1.1 trillion

By Lori Montgomery, Published: FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2:39 PM ET

President Obama’s budget request would raise taxes by nearly $1 trillion compared with current law and cut spending by nearly $200 billion, congressional budget analysts said Friday.

All told, the president’s most recent request, released in April, would reduce projected borrowing by more than $1.1 trillion over the next decade, pushing the national debt below 70 percent of the overall economy by 2023, the Congressional Budget Office said.

Those figures differ sharply from the White House presentation of the president’s budget, which was touted upon its release as reducing borrowing by $1.8 trillion over the next decade and proposing only $600 billion in new taxes.

However, the difference is due primarily to the scope of the analysis. When they released the president’s budget, White House officials focused attention almost exclusively on a compromise deficit-reduction plan that Obama offered Republican leaders. In its report released Friday, the nonpartisan CBO analyzed the entire White House budget, including various proposals outside of that offer, such as plan to make prekindergarten classes more widely available and to cover the cost by raising taxes on cigarettes by nearly $1 a pack.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cbo-obama-budget-would-cut-10-year-deficits-by-11-trillion/2013/05/17/fe1c2210-bf1e-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html

[JDPriestly]

1. No to Obama's budget. No to cuts to Social Security and other such programs.

No to the chained CPI.

[Joel thakkar]

2. Don't Worry...

Republicans won't accept the budget...

[FairWinds]

3. A Much Better Question Is . . .

How much would the 10-year deficits decline if the 1 % paid anything like their fair share.
The real evil here is that they are exempted from nearly all the pain.
That is not "shared sacrifice".

[Bigmack]

4. And then there's the "defense" budget.... nt

[Doctor_J]

5. And how many seniors will have to cut back their daily AllBran rations

to "help" this phony crisis?

[xtraxritical]

9. I already gave up chicken breasts for legs, wings, and theighs.

[Doctor_J]

11. well look at the bright side

You are living with the minor inconvenience of switching to dark meat so that

1. The Koch brothers can pay half the tax rate that I do, and
2. The president can score some political points on a phony issue.

You are a true patriot.

[xtraxritical]

12. Unchain my CPI!

[the_chinuk]

6. Did anyone else notice the telling difference between the URL and the headline?

URL features the words "cbo-obama-budget-would-cut-10-year-deficits-by-11-trillion".
Headline: CBO: Obama budget would raise taxes by nearly $1 trillion.

The URL … which nobody will read or remember … gives the President credit for wise leadership.
The Headline … which everyone will remember … trashes the President.

Schizy much, WaPo?

[Igel]

13. And yet it refers to the same fact.

In other words, the difference between "give credit" and "trash" is entirely one of form and not of substance.

Put lipstick on a pig and suddenly it's Marilyn Monroe, in other words.

[Psephos]

7. You have to be naive, illiterate, or both to trust CBO's or OMB's ten-year predictions.

For example:

"In 2000, after more than 40 years of nearly consecutive budget deficits, both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected decade-long budget surpluses. Moreover, both agencies projected that publicly held government debt (then about $3.5 trillion) would be eliminated by 2010."

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/12/01/21-40Kliesen.pdf

[DavidDvorkin]

8. But that was before Bush

Projections in 2000 would have assumed a continuation of Clinton-era budgets.

[Igel]

14. Projections in 2000 would have included more.

It included Clinton-era spending caps and pay/go the entire goal of which was to achieve a balanced budget and no more.

It included Clinton-era growth rates, which included a lot of income from capital gains from the tech stock bubble and income from the humongous Wall Street and Silicon Valley bonuses being paid, as well as from the very low unemployment numbers that the recession would have, in any event, ended. By 1/21/2001 the recession was a done deal. It started 9 days later, when the bubbly from the inaugural balls was just going flat.

In other words, the point stands: Yes, it assumed a continuation of Clinton-era budgets, but also Clinton-era fiscal restraint as well as Clinton-era budget assumptions, including Clinton-era stock bubbles and unemployment.

[xtraxritical]

10. Yes, that's exactly the situation B. Clinton left for G.W. and G.W f'ed it all up.

[underpants]

15. Reported earlier in the week and ignored because of the SCANDALS

It is working. Of course it is ..it always has