Obama, Democrats want to tether middle class to more reliance on government

The president of hope and change had some harsh words for the only serious budget proposal out there. He called Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which outlines a fiscal austerity plan that includes providing more budget autonomy to states, “social Darwinism.” He claimed the GOP wants to cut off care for those with Down Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, autism, cancer, etc. He even said that the GOP budget would threaten weather reports!

This lack of civility from a leader who was supposed to restore civility to public discourse is intentional. The president, and his party have no publicly announced serious plan to address excess spending, tax reform, entitlement reform, and deficits that surpass $1 trillion a year. Obama’s “budget plan” failed to garner a single vote in the U.S. House. Democrats control the U.S. Senate, but have failed to provide a budget in well over 1,000 days. even though only 51 votes is needed to pass a budget.

I mentioned the Democrats have not publicly offered a budget. They have a budget plan for the future but they’re afraid to unveil it. What they want is to make the middle class dependent on government for a comfortable existence. It’s how the Democrats remain in power. To try to achieve this power, significant tax increases are needed. There’s no other way to even hope to have a chance to fund Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and Social Security, etc.

What the Democrats want are a value added tax that would approach 30 percent. In a nutshell, a VAT of 30 percent would increase prices 30 percent. Democrats would also like to take the FICA tax (taxes which are supposed to fund Social Security, Medicare …) and remove any limits on how much a person earns before the tax is withheld.

These are very unpopular proposals, and I doubt they could even solve the long-term fiscal entitlement problems we have. However, they would at least be honest solutions from the president and his party, rather than the demagoguery and fear-mongering that Obama and others have launched on the Ryan budget.

Ryan’s budget is far from perfect; it needs bipartisanship. But it has concrete steps to end the fiscal insanity. They include two tax brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent, and a Medicare reform plan that provides seniors subsidies that could be spent on traditional Medicare or private care. It also repeals ObamaCare. Most importantly, the Ryan budget hopes to eventually set non-entitlement spending at 5.75 percent of the budget. It’s currently at 12.5 percent. The goal to get that low is 2030.

It’s an audacious plan, and counters the Democrats’ goal to make government the decider of middle class comforts. Hence the attacks. It’s an important issue. It would help if the Democrats would address these issues honestly.

This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Obama, Democrats want to tether middle class to more reliance on government

  1. Bob Becker says:

    Until Mr. Ryan lists the alleged “tax loopholes” which he insists will raise billions for his plan, but that he won’t tell anyone about, his budget is not to be taken seriously. Note, his plan to put the nation, he says, on a sound financial footing not only does not include a single dime of increased revenues, it proposes to cut federal revenues by billions more by cutting taxes, mostly for the wealthiest Americans even more.

    The major “cuts” in his plan nearly all involve cuts to programs that middle class and elderly Americans, and the poor across age groups, rely on as safety nets: Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, etc. And yes, Doug, linking huge cuts in food stamps, Meidcaid, Medicare to more tax cuts for the wealthy does smack of “devil take the hindmost” social Darwinism.

    But even conceding Ryan’s good intentions, until he can name and cost out the “tax loopholes” he intends to close that will, he says, pay for much of his plan, no one should take it seriously. Until that happens, the plan is, as Paul Krugman noted, a fraud.

    • Brent Glines says:

      Bob, Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee. It is inappropriate for his committee to draft legislation concerning taxes. That is the province of the House Ways and Means Committee.

      It helps to know how our system of government works if you want to comment on it.

  2. Doug Gibson says:

    You and I have vastly differing opinions on Paul Krugman, who wants an increase in the deficit larger than the even the president is willing to allow. However, I did mention that it would nice if Ryan’s plan could muster some bipartisan advice, rather than the fear-mongering. By the way, I’m still wondering where hundreds of billions of alleged Medicare cuts under ObamaCare will come from. Again, where are the serious budget plans? Are the Democrats fit only to snipe and fear-mong on this issue?

  3. TV says:

    And, Bob, since Ryan is chair of the House Budget Committee, why would his budget mention anything about food stamps, since food stamp expertise is the domanin of the department of agriculture. And why would he have an opinion about medicare and medicaid, since expertise on those matters is the realm of department of Health and human services. Nah, as chair of the budget committee, Ryan is only allowed to think about numbers — he absolutely is NOT, that is, allowed to think more braodly about plusses and minuses and how to reckon all the huge numbers on a broader scale. What a dumbass you are to think that he might be larger scope in his thinking. FYI: do note that the budget while called the Ryan plan is a budget for the entire United States of America and all of its taxpayers.

  4. Brent Glines says:

    For those who are interested, here is the text of the budget that recently passed the house. We shall have to wait for legislation to be submitted from the Ways and Means Committee to see how this budget will be implemented with respect to changes to tax laws.

    For those unfamiliar with the process, that’s how it works. You might want it to work differently, but that would be because some people are ignorant of the process.

  5. Steve Stones says:

    Oh really Doug? So what is the role of government then? If tax payers pay into government programs, then why is it such a bad thing for them to get something in return from their government? You pay tithing and donations to your religion, yet it is likely that you would never make the case that anyone sitting in church with you on Sunday is “reliant on their religion.” If the government is not supposed to provide services to its citizens, why not just have total anarchy? I would rather rely on the government for certain services then to continue giving unpaid for tax breaks to millionaires. If the Bush era tax breaks were such a grand idea, then where are all of the jobs, and why did our country suffer so badly economically towards the tail end of the Bush era and into the Obama administration? Someone once said (I’m forgetting who at the moment) that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting new results. We tried the Bush era tax cuts for millionaires for a decade. It didn’t work, so it’s time to try something else. Obama and Democrats have something else to offer. If it doesn’t work, we can start all over again (I suppose).

    • Doug Gibson says:

      Steve, I wrote this is FB too: I don’t disagree that there needs to be a significant portion of government in our lives. It would be foolish to deny taxes, entitlements, roads, etc. The debate is over how much government and the effect to which we rely on it to …have a comfortable life. About 1990, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg wrote an important essay where he posits that the key to liberalism’s, or the Democrats’, continued success, is its ability to make the middle class more dependent on government for its standard of living. That debate/power effort continues today.

  6. Brent Glines says:

    Steve, as I asked you on Doug’s Facebook page (which is a far more interesting place than here), just what is an ‘unpaid for tax break’? If you mean a tax break that is not accompanied by a corresponding cut in spending, I agree with you, but that is just what the budget recently passed by the house proproses. Yes there are tax cuts, but there are more spending cuts, and there are closures to tax loopholes, and there is tax reform, all designed to get our country’s fiscal house in order.

    Perhaps we should look at the Democratic alternative budget proposed by the Senate, but we can’t because they haven’t bothered to obey the law and produce one in over 3 years.

    It will be hard to rely on the government for anything if we can’t get our finances under control. Ask the Greeks how much they are enjoying their current financial collapse.

  7. Steve Stones says:

    I want to know why the Republicans suddenly have this calling (i.e. “Revelation”) of wanting to get the budget under control? Why didn’t they think that way nearly ten years ago when they authorized two unpaid for wars (which the Dems are guilty of too)?

  8. Cal Grondahl says:

    Weather reports come from satellites. IS the GOP budget cutting back on weather satellites? New satellites must be launched all the time and that costs a lot of tax dollars.

  9. Myth Buster says:

    US Sovereignty was lost through Debt. Congressman Jerry Voorhis recognized this after WWII and wrote “Out of Debt out of Danger”; he was replaced by the compliant Richard Nixon who then was rewarded as VP for Eisenhower.
    Sovereignty is visible by the Gold Fringe surrounding the US Flags displayed in the Congress and all Federal and State Buildings including Courtrooms to indicate the President, Judges and Governors are Bound by a higher power regulating the money supply and hence the Laws. “Debtors become Slaves to the Creditors”.
    Paul Ryan is simply playing the role of King’s Tax Collector aka Sheriff of Notingham.
    Take note of the Fasces, the symbol of Corporate Government adorning the Speaker’s Podium, Rostrum of Congress, Oval Office Doors, Supreme Court Doors and all 50 States National Guard Shields.

  10. Doug Gibson says:

    This is the kind of thinking from some that we have to deal with: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-04/don-t-worry-about-deficit-that-will-heal-itself.html

    • decider says:

      Perhaps the use of the ‘majestic plural’ will give your arguments credibility and keep “US” safe from Obama’s “secret combinations”?

  11. rls says:

    … in times of great economic distress, doesn’t it make sense that the federal government should be strengthening the social safety net, not cutting it … that kind of government spending IS up, and at times like this, it SHOULD be …

    • Efialtis says:

      But that didn’t work out so well for the Greeks, as someone pointed out.
      I believe you are looking at this all wrong. You should be increasing spending, not on social programs, but on programs to entice businesses to come and stay in America. Cut business taxes, relax some regulations, create a business friendly environment. This will create jobs, boost tax revenue, and alleviate the strain on social programs.
      The President, via regulations (EPA) has recently closed 6 power plants. This causes joblessness, increases strain on social programs, and an increase in the price of electricity. In a recession, what is better, closing businesses and raising prices? Or relaxing regulations, keeping jobs and keeping prices lower?
      Everything coming out of this Administration is backwards…

  12. decider says:

    Contrary to Doug’s “Entitlement Society” rhetoric, over NINETY -ONE PERCENT of entitlements go to: 1. THE ELDERLY 2. THE SERIOUSLY DISABLED 3. WORKING HOUSEHOLDS — now there’s a “murderer’s row” of lazy, scheming loafers who need to learn the value of hard work, huh Doug?

    Doug should also direct his attentions to some other “entitlement” slaggards; those Alan Greenspan called the “tax entitlement” profiteers; ie, The TOP FIFTH of the population who receives SIXTY SIX percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 10 percent of “middle class” entitlement benefits). And the top 1 PERCENT who receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than EIGHT times as much as the middle 60 percent of the population. The bottom fifth receives just 2.8 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 32 percent of entitlement benefits).

    The top ONE PERCENT are busy stockpiling millions/billions of ‘tax entitlements’ to prosper year after year at the U.S. Government’s expense, without working for ANY of it — even affording $10 million nest eggs so their children can ALSO frolic in the lazy meadows of tax entitlement profiteering, like dad!

    “Provide for the general welfare” is one of the most important values expressed in the Preamble — I am sure that providing for billion/trillion dollar windfalls for the wealthy was NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

    • decider says:

      If “Democrats want to make the middle class DEPENDENT on Government for a comfortable existance”, then Republicans seek to foister their own DEPENDENCY on Government ‘tax entitlements’ for millionaires/Billionaires to perpetuate self-serving anonymous SuperPac “citizens” and a lethargic culture of smug insulation among the plutocracy and its children.

  13. ctrentelman says:

    there are no alleged “cuts” of medicare — there is projected lessening of growth of the medicare budget under the affordability act you so derisively call “obamacare.”

  14. Angel says:

    Off topic but please explain?

    Question: I watch the SE obituaries (online)and why is it that every day the first picture and article in the “deaths” column is “Matthew Stewart” then the 2nd article is”Utah Politicians want Recognition for Ogden Police”
    I find this repulsive and demonising.
    Maybe you can help me understand?

  15. Mr. R says:

    Everyone depends on the government and always has… always. This debate about dependency on government is ridiculous. Besides, if not government, what? Corporate chiefs with dictatorial powers? What of a system that produces so many masses of desperate people that they are forced to sell themselves into slavery and a bunch of lucky people at the top benefit from the work of these slaves. Such can easily happen if the government is run according to evil principles such as those that Republicans advocate.

  16. We were told that the Obama stimulus plan was going to help us with jobs, and we’ve done nothing but shed jobs since he got into office. Now he promises us a special heath care (ObamaCare) insurance plan for all Americans, but how can we trust him after he’s already failed at every initiative he’s ever put forth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>