Obama Proposes $3.8 Trillion Budget

[Chris]

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for the coming fiscal year raises taxes on businesses and upper-income households by $2 trillion over 10 years and cuts spending on programs with considerable political support, but will still leave the nation with $8.5 trillion in added debt over the next decade.

The budget plan for fiscal 2011 calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases on families with income above $250,000 over the next decade—largely by allowing tax cuts from the administration of George W. Bush to expire. But extensions of Bush tax cuts for the middle class, plus new tax cuts in Mr. Obama's jobs program, would cost the government $284 billion over the coming decade.

Banks and multinational corporations would face new fees and levies. And oil companies would lose $36.5 billion in tax breaks over the next decade.

The two top income-tax brackets would rise to 36% and 39.6%, from 33% and 35% respectively. For families earning at least $250,000, capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20% from 15%. All told, upper-income families would face $969 billion in higher taxes between 2011 and 2020.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038733246595218.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

[LC EFA]

Ouch.

That's gotta hurt.

[Lacarnut]

Obummer can propose till the cows come home but it's the Congress that has the final say. Many Democrats are not going to be too thrilled with those budget busting amounts when their butts are on the line come election time. 

[Carl]

That is frightening and as much as we all hated and complained about spending with an (R) Congress and President the contrast is staggering.

Even worse is the long range projection.

[5412]

That is frightening and as much as we all hated and complained about spending with an (R) Congress and President the contrast is staggering.

Even worse is the long range projection.

Hi,

Anyone see Beck last night.  Included in the revenue projections is income from Cap and Trade which is really BS.  That is rather presumptive dontcha think?

regards,
5412

[BlueStateSaint]

I got this over at RedState:

Stupak: ‘Disappointed’ With Obama’s Scholarship Cut   [Robert Costa]



With tax hikes dominating today’s budget debate, you will not hear much about the smaller federal grants that President Obama is hoping to slash. One proposed cut sticks out: Obama’s budget eliminates a $1 million scholarship program for aspiring Olympic athletes at Northern Michigan University. Here’s why it matters: In 1998, the program was renamed to honor B. J. Stupak, the late son of Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.), who committed suicide in 2000. Is the cut related to Stupak’s playing hardball on health care last year?

Stupak won’t speculate on the politics of the decision, but he does tell National Review Online that he is “disappointed” to hear about the cut. He says he found out about it through the media, not the president or the Democratic leadership . . .

The rest of it is at:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQzOTU3YjA3MzA1OTY4ZDZhMTcwMjZlMzdhNjIxNDA=

The Vancouver Olympics begin in what, nine days?  What assholes.  Chicago politics at its lowest.  The guy won't go along with abortion funding (one of the Sacraments of the Church of The Left), and this gets cut.

[Oceander]

That is frightening and as much as we all hated and complained about spending with an (R) Congress and President the contrast is staggering.

Even worse is the long range projection.

That's usually the case.  And here's the kicker - this really is a back-to-the-future deal, because the Democrats are expecting that, just as in the 60s and 70s, it will be the responsible adults in the Republican party who actually raise the taxes - or who are seen to be the ones raising the taxes - necessary to pay for this bull if this asinine, nation-killing budget is actually enacted by Congress.

[JohnnyReb]

Lets see here....a salary of $250,000.00 and above is 'rich'....Why do they draw the line at that point?......could it be that congress critters make slightly less that that?  ....you know, not counting "TIPS".

[debk]

Lets see here....a salary of $250,000.00 and above is 'rich'....Why do they draw the line at that point?......could it be that congress critters make slightly less that that?  ....you know, not counting "TIPS".

Isn't that a "combined income" of a married couple or household?

When is a single person income considered "rich"? If it's been mentioned, I haven't heard what it is.

If it's a combined household income.....there are usually children in that household. Having raised 2 of them...they weren't cheap!



It was all over Fox last night that the budget is based on "projected" income on stuff (primarily C & T )that may not be obtainable.

Beck is talking about it again now.....

[bkg]

Isn't that a "combined income" of a married couple or household?

Combined. $200K for an individual.

$65K is considered righ (single) in MN... and by many fed standards.

[jason41224]

i'm most afraid of taxes on oil. $5/gallon gas, anyone?

SOTU anyone? "as president, i've implimented tax cuts across the board..."

well maybe all these were on a different board or something.

[thundley4]

ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could be eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in the $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint that President Obama unveiled yesterday.
The $3.99 billion comes from a congressional slush fund known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) $48.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget. CDBG grants, which are awarded to states and localities, pass indirectly to ACORN.
How is more funding of ACORN possible when Congress passed a ban on funding the group and its affiliates just last year?
Congress has already hinted it might vote to restore funding to ACORN. On Dec. 8 the House Appropriations Committee rejected on a party line vote of 9 to 5 an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) that would have blocked federal funding of ACORN.
And in December federal Judge Nina Gershon restored federal funding of ACORN by issuing a temporary injunction against the congressional funding ban. The Brooklyn-based Gershon, a Bill Clinton appointee, determined that depriving ACORN of taxpayer dollars was an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" that singled out ACORN for punishment without trial.
You might be familiar with Gershon's oeuvre. In 1999 she ruled then-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had no right to cut off city funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art when it displayed dead animals and a painting of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/02/show-acorn-the-money

[Lacarnut]

i'm most afraid of taxes on oil. $5/gallon gas, anyone?

New taxes on oil, natural gas, home heating oil, coal, etc are on the way so that the government can pick winners and losers in the energy business. You see, green energy like Ethanol, solar, wind could not stand on it's own without huge government subsidies. So, take money away from the efficient energy companies and give it to the inefficient to prop them up. This policy makes absolutely no sense and will not do a damn thing to lower our dependence on foreign oil. It's 70% today; 10 years and billions of dollars wasted, the percentage will be higher. Carter, Reagan, Nixon all misled us about lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

[thundley4]

New taxes on oil, natural gas, home heating oil, coal, etc are on the way so that the government can pick winners and losers in the energy business. You see, green energy like Ethanol, solar, wind could not stand on it's own without huge government subsidies. So, take money away from the efficient energy companies and give it to the inefficient to prop them up. This policy makes absolutely no sense and will not do a damn thing to lower our dependence on foreign oil. It's 70% today; 10 years and billions of dollars wasted, the percentage will be higher. Carter, Reagan, Nixon all misled us about lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

These taxes are kind of an end run around the Cap & Tax bill which is probably DOA.  Look for the EPA to compound the effects of these taxes with new regulations .

[debk]

Combined. $200K for an individual.

$65K is considered righ (single) in MN... and by many fed standards.

That doesn't seem fair to a married couple.

If there are two people, living together, with high income jobs....why would they get married when $$250k is the limit for married...yet they could be at $200k each if they stay single without being considered rich.

With a $150k gap.....they'd be crazy to get married.

I'm surprised no one has used this as an argument that the government penalizing married couples.

[AllosaursRus]

That doesn't seem fair to a married couple.

If there are two people, living together, with high income jobs....why would they get married when $$250k is the limit for married...yet they could be at $200k each if they stay single without being considered rich.

With a $150k gap.....they'd be crazy to get married.

I'm surprised no one has used this as an argument that the government penalizing married couples.

Nothing new, it's been happening since the 60's. Take a look at deductions. Single head of household get's a better deduction than married filing joint if you consider it on an individual basis.

[thundley4]

That doesn't seem fair to a married couple.

If there are two people, living together, with high income jobs....why would they get married when $$250k is the limit for married...yet they could be at $200k each if they stay single without being considered rich.

With a $150k gap.....they'd be crazy to get married.

I'm surprised no one has used this as an argument that the government penalizing married couples.

There was the same kind of limits built into the proposed health care bills. Married people were being penalized more than singles.  You have to remember , marriage doesn't mean the same to conservatives and liberals.

[bkg]

That doesn't seem fair to a married couple.

If there are two people, living together, with high income jobs....why would they get married when $$250k is the limit for married...yet they could be at $200k each if they stay single without being considered rich.

With a $150k gap.....they'd be crazy to get married.

I'm surprised no one has used this as an argument that the government penalizing married couples.

  fair?
clearly, what is not fair is that some people make more than others... 

[Linda]

7 Charts Worth How Many Trillion Dollars?
From the House Republicans’ Committee On The Budget (a pdf file):


Here are 5 of the 7 charts: