Obama to Unveil Deficit Reduction Plan

Monday, September 19, 2011

President Obama will announce a deficit reduction plan that will reduce government spending by $3 trillion through cutting entitlements, tax increases, and war savings. The plan is the White House's opening offer to the Congressional "super committee," which has until Dec. 23 to reach a deal on deficit reduction. GOP lawmakers have already labeled the proposed tax hikes "class warfare," particularly the so-called "Buffet Rule" — a minimum tax rate on those earning more than $1 million per year named for billionaire Warren Buffett.

Takeaway Washington correspondent Todd Zwillich and Sylvia Nasar, economist and author of "Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius," analyze the policy and politics behind the White House's plan.

Comments [4]


I've already mentioned elsewhere, that The Takeaway erred in repeating one of the New York Times' mistakes; the Obama "plan" does not reduce federal government spending by $3 trillion. The Obama "plan" claims to reduce spending by half that amount, $1.5 trillion, and it proposes to raise taxes by $1.5 trillion.

The net effect is to reduce the federal debt by $3 trillion in total. But Obama is not reducing spending that much. He wants to tax his way halfway to that goal.

The New York Times, which originated that particular error for The Takeaway, has issued a correction. The Takeaway hasn't caught up yet.

And isn't it worth mentioning; that when Obama wants to spend a whole lot of money on government jobs, he sends a "bill" to Congress. "Pass this bill," he says. Again and again. "Pass this bill, right away."

But when Obama wants to raise taxes, he puts it out in a "plan," merely as part of a speech, and lets Congress do that work for him. Congress will not only need to pass that particular bill. Congress will apparently have to write that bill. Or so he thinks.

Sep. 19 2011 05:01 PM
Rachel from Denver, Colorado

Unfortunately, I've had to turn The Takeaway off this morning, thanks to the bilgewater spewing forth from Grover Norquist . Job creators? Where are the jobs? Class warfare? Please. Grover Norquist pays the lowest federal income tax rates since the Fifties and now he'd like to hurt the people who had the least to do with the causes of this mess even more. Shame on him.

Sep. 19 2011 09:41 AM

"President Obama will announce a deficit reduction plan that will reduce government spending by $3 trillion through cutting entitlements, tax increases, and war savings"
In other words.....
The Titanic will cut its massively high traveling and operating costs by sinking half way to New York.

In this segment the President's three trillion dollar proposal was described as "a detailed plan" and later described as "short on specifics". The confusion with this administration seems to be par for the course.
So the grand mendacity of "compromise" as well as "civility" sermons proposed by the President and his party who scolds his opposition not to put politics over the national interests is cast aside and now we are to praise his "political genius" to get himself re-elected to apparently launch more of the same.

It is amazing how swiftly one fraudulent narrative is discarded and another loving placed on the shoulders of this President by his loyal media valets.

Doesn't Buffett owe back takes over the last decade up to a billion dollars?
Why did GE pay no federal taxes last year and the CEO was a VIP at the jobs speech along with zealot union leaders? Are some billionaires and uncivil activists more equal than others with this administration?

In the short term, taxing some millionaires sounds great in an election but profoundly pernicious for the long term economy where the middle and lower classes would get hurt the most....and that is the whole point. Get past the election finish line and worry about the economic carnage as a lame duck with the loyal media defending and distracting.

As for the promised veto, does this mean the President will obstruct Democrats in the Congress who after supporting him for years will be selfishly tossed aside as they face a daunting 2012 election?

Sep. 19 2011 09:13 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The economic problems were predicted in the 1970s: if we kill so many children in abortion, who will buy the products, support older people, pay into social security? Now we're seeing the results on society.

Sep. 19 2011 08:10 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.