Obama's budget: Mr. Usurious
President Obama trotted out his fiscal 2014 budget on Wednesday. It already has been filed in the “fiction” section of the Library of Congress.
Among the lowlights of the inventive but unsustainable $3.78 trillion spending blueprint that The New York Times refers to as “a host of better ideas that put Republicans on the spot,” a plan that, for next year, will see the debt rise to more than 78 percent of the nation's gross domestic product:
• Increased college aid, which will only give colleges more cover to keep jacking up tuition far in excess of inflation
• Increasing the minimum wage, a surefire way to increase unemployment among teens and minorities
• More money for “high-speed rail,” the feel-good boondoggle of the decade
• Lots and lots (and lots) of money for “green energy,” tripling down on the administration's mantra of “If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again.”
Deficit reduction doesn't come from real cuts — or even Washington's interpretation of cuts (reductions in the rate of spending increases) — but from, SOO-PRISE! SOO-PRISE!, tax hikes.
Savings? Penalized. Investment? Penalized. Profits? Penalized. And most all of it at rates that, if charged by the lending industry, would redefine “usurious.”
“The president promises that more government spending will boost the economy,” says S.T. Karnick, research director for The Heartland Institute. “That is just more failed Keynesianism — the premise that government spending magically grows the economy.”
Mr. Obama's budget “is a fine prescription for a recession,” Mr. Karnick says. It is an unserious document that, if enacted, would have fatal consequences.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- A manger’s light
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Pa. open records: Kathleen Kane’s ‘shell game’
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances