(AP) Obama’s budget: Government still getting bigger

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Taking a pass on reining in government growth, President Obama unveiled a record $3.8 trillion election-year budget plan Monday, calling for stimulus-style spending on roads and schools and tax hikes on the wealthy to help pay the costs. The ideas landed with a thud on Capitol Hill.

Though the Pentagon and a number of Cabinet agencies would get squeezed, Obama would leave the spiraling growth of health care programs for the elderly and the poor largely unchecked. The plan claims $4 trillion in deficit savings over the coming decade, but most of it would be through tax increases Republicans oppose, lower war costs already in motion and budget cuts enacted last year in a debt pact with GOP lawmakers.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, PoliticsEconomyThe U.S. GovernmentBudgetThe National DeficitPolitics in GeneralOffice of the PresidentPresident Barack Obama* TheologyEthics / Moral Theology

9 Comments
Posted February 14, 2012 at 5:30 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br. Michael wrote:

And this is surprising in what way?

February 14, 7:08 am | [comment link]
2. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

First rule of government: Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.

February 14, 8:33 am | [comment link]
3. evan miller wrote:

Typical of the Democrats.  They cut one of the few functions of the federal government actually authorized by the Constitution - national defense.  Say good-by to our “super power” status.

February 14, 11:06 am | [comment link]
4. Cennydd13 wrote:

Evan, I have been saying this for months.  Like so many other veterans, I know what freedom costs.  I have seen war up close, and it isn’t at all pretty!

You can’t run the armed forces on a shoestring budget; it is impossible.  Congress found that out on December 7th, 1941. 

Yes, some programs do need to be trimmed back, and some positions need to be eliminated entirely.  Do we need a large Navy?  Yes, but large enough to do the job and be prepared for any contingency.  Do we need a large Army?  Again, yes, but only large enough to do the job and handle any contingency and no more…..and that means the Organized Reserve and National Guard must continue to be an active part of the Army.  Do we need and Air Force?  Sure, but again, only large enough to do the job…..with the Reserve and Air National Guard.  The Marine Corps?  Yes, but NOT as a second land army.  How about the Coast Guard?  Absolutely, but they must be trained and equipped to do their job…..and they’ve only been given short shrift until just recently, and that’s changing.

“The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance” still applies today, and we can’t afford to cut back on that vigilance to the point of a weakened defense.

February 14, 12:07 pm | [comment link]
5. Paul PA wrote:

We’ll find out in November - but I suspect/believe this is the government most of the country wants (Not saying I agree - just saying that its moving more and more this direction)

February 14, 1:54 pm | [comment link]
6. Cennydd13 wrote:

Those who want to slash spending to the bone will soon find out what that really means, and they might not like what they get for it.

February 14, 5:33 pm | [comment link]
7. Yebonoma wrote:

And the latest great leap forward brought to you by Obama is the plan to unilaterally cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal to around 300 warheads; well below what experts say can provide any real from of deterrent.  This is fewer warheads than China has.  I am now persuaded that Obama is the most dangerous president I have ever seen.  He is either incompetent or is willfully destroying this country.  God help us all.

February 15, 12:48 am | [comment link]
8. Cennydd13 wrote:

Fortunately, in our Constitution there is the system of checks and balances;  Executive vs Legislative vs Judicial, in which no branch of the Federal government has the predominant power.  It is up to Congress to approve Obama’s giveaway of our nation’s nuclear arsenal, not Obama himself.  He may be the Commander in Chief, but he does not have the power or the right to dismantle our defenses; he only thinks he does.  Remember:  HE works for US!

February 15, 1:32 am | [comment link]
9. Br. Michael wrote:

8, really?

Welcome to our brave new world of fiat money and fiat rule, where auto makers, banks and insurance companies can simply be expropriated at the command of the ruler as if this were a banana republic.

What President Obama cannot seize by legislation, he takes via executive branch regulation, recess appointments, emergency decrees or mandates. By mandate he can simply order a private corporation, such as today’s health insurance companies, to pay the cost of something he wants. Such mandates are, in effect, Constitution-circumventing, presidentially-decreed taxes. Regulations are mandates whose cost is borne by those regulated, and those costs are passed on to all of us in higher prices.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama’s Evita-Like ‘Accommodation’
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/Obama-contraception-mandate-Catholic/2012/02/14/id/429358

February 15, 11:21 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): ([London] Times) Many ‘Christians’ are non-believers

Previous entry (below): Robert Samuelson—Budget quagmire revealed by Social Security disability program

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)