Republicans criticize Obama's budget plan
WASHINGTON — Republicans are trying to build on some bipartisan misgivings over President Barack Obama's ambitious spending blueprint, claiming that the deficits and taxes he envisions are "destroying opportunities for the next generation."
"The president and his allies in Congress want to spend too much, tax too much, and borrow too much," Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa says in the Republicans' weekly radio address. "Somebody has to pay — if not the middle class now, then later. Eventually the middle class gets hit."
Grassley said Obama's budget proposal to raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000 will hurt small businesses.
"These small businesses happen to create 74 percent of all new private sector jobs in the United States," Grassley said. "Tell these business owners their taxes will go up. Odds are, they'll cut spending. They'll cancel orders for new equipment, cut health insurance for their employees, stop hiring, and lay people off."
He also said Obama's proposal for mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change will lead to higher energy costs and amount to an "average hidden tax increase of around $3,000 per household a year." The Obama administration maintains that revenue from auctioning off carbon emission allowances would offset much of the higher energy costs for many Americans.
In the past week, Obama's proposals for major health care, energy and education changes amid a recession faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, called the track of future deficits "unsustainable."
Obama is projecting a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, by far the largest in history, but says he can get it down to $533 billion by 2013.
On Saturday, Grassley criticized Obama's proposals for tax increases as failing "to connect all the dots." The senator said the major tax increases will only force people to drop out of the work force, reducing tax revenue to pay down the deficit.
"There's evidence that the president and his people understand this, even if their budget doesn't show it," Grassley said. "They say they don't want to raise taxes until 2011 because the economy is too weak. ... Well, if the president admits that tax increases hurt the economy, that will be true in two years as it is true today."
Mar 14, 2009 at 11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blame whoever you want. This kind of spending is unsustainable. The "earmark" crap is unacceptable. And the lack of true representative government is unconscionable. Both repubs and dems have brought us to this point. To debate the partisan ownership of the problems we face is a distraction. The bottom line is, if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. The best way to eliminate partisanship bickering is to eliminate the partisans. It's like an ant bed...you can knock over the mound but it will be rebuilt by morning. You have to get rid of the ants.
Mar 14, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
President Obama will pursue his ends in a more intelligent and a more publicly palatable way than Senator McCain would have, and he will very likely be more successful in attaining them because of it. But what remains the same are the ends themselves. Ultimately, both stand for upholding American empire overseas and expanding the scope of the state in people's lives and government intervention in the economy at home.
Mar 14, 2009 at 10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
"There is one difference. President Obama is smarter than former President Bush or Senator McCain." Yet you also say "Four years from now, an Obama presidency will not look very different from the George W. Bush presidency, or from what a John McCain presidency would have"
-
Question: If he is smarter (your words) why do you conclude he will do no different?
Mar 14, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Four years from now, an Obama presidency will not look very different from the George W. Bush presidency, or from what a John McCain presidency would have brought. In four years...
-
1. The US will have attacked at least one more country that poses no direct threat to us. (I'm not even going to count Obama's early air strikes on Pakistan.)
-
2. Military spending will have increased.
-
3. More than 1% of US adults will still be in prison.
-
4. We will still suffer from the kind of police abuse that is becoming more and more common: military-style raids on unarmed civilians in their homes; the shooting and tasering of unarmed citizens.
-
5. There will be more restrictions on gun ownership and the right to self-defense.
-
6. Government surveillance of US citizens will continue (remember that bill Obama voted for that gave immunity to the telecoms companies that assisted with this in the past?).
-
7. The US will have massive inflation. The dollar will lose at least 50% of its value against most goods and services, and certainly against the goods and services most people use every day.
-
8. Unemployment in the US will be worse than it is now.
-
There is one difference. President Obama is smarter than former President Bush or Senator McCain.
Mar 14, 2009 at 7:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
I stand corrected, the bill passed by high enough majorities that a Clinton veto would have been overrode.
Mar 14, 2009 at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retired Air Force, I didn`t say the Republicans had passed any policy that hurt the economy, I was asking toasty if he could enumerate the ones, any one, that the Democrats passed that he said hurt the economy. I was asking him a question, not blaming anyone for anything. If I was going to make an accusation about a policy change that hurt the economy it would be Phil Gramm`s sliding in of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall(sic) act into the final budget bill that Clinton signed, that had major consequences in the housing debacle. I guess Clinton could have vetoed it, if he wanted to shut down the government on his way out of office, just like Obama could have shut down the government by vetoing the bill last week.
Mar 14, 2009 at 7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Toasty, can you name a policy that the Democrats passed in those two years that hurt the economy?"
-
Can you name a policy the Republican's passed that hurt the economy?
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Republicans criticizing Obama's budget plan are like a drunk with a totaled car telling the tow truck operator to drive carefully.
Mar 14, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Toasty, can you name a policy that the Democrats passed in those two years that hurt the economy? And to Mr. Grassley, only 2% of small businesses make over $250,000, and the increased tax is only on the amount above that, the same as in the good old Reagan years(raise the debt 150%)! The auto loans ended up with the exact same terms that they would have gotten from Congress, it was a wash.
Mar 14, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
tosty2k, although the Democrats had somewhat of a majority in Congress, they did not have control. The Republicans basically blocked whatever bill the Democrats put before them by threatening a filibuster every step of the way. One party may have a majority, but you need an overriding majority to pass your bills without help from the other party. For proof of that, look what happened in December with the auto loan. The republicans stopped the loans in its tracks. It ended up going to the President to pass the loans. This may end up being the best thing he did in those 8 years.
Mar 14, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Progressive6, you are right the republicans had control 6 of the 8 years Bush was President. The last two years the democrats ran congress, wrote and passed the policies. Now do you know when the economy took a nose dive? Here is a hint...the republicans didn't control congress at the time. So really whose policies are we seeing the results of? now wake up!
Mar 14, 2009 at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's high time for the Republicans to sit this one out. They had full control of the government for 6 out of the 8 years they had the presidency. What we have now is the results of their policies. If they think they are so damn smart, why didn't they prevent this meltdown in it's beginning stages?
Mar 14, 2009 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Omg the Republicans are suddenly worried about the effects of Keynesian economic policy! Suddenly deficit spending (after something like nearly 50 uninterrupted years of it!) is BAD!
The Congressional Republicans need a "time out."
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.