Can America Afford Obama's Vision?

Washington, Washington D.c. (PressExposure) April 06, 2009 -- President Obama's vision of what America ought to look like in the future, would hugely raise government spending on health care, energy and education, and taxpayers would have to foot the bill for a larger, more intrusive government.

His $3.6 trillion debt proposal isn't simply a bunch of numbers and tables however, but it's the basis of his underlying philosophy. He believes that throwing staggering amounts of money at schools, hospitals and environmentally friendly industries, will also lay the foundation for the next economic boom.

Do his figures add up?

The Budget Office forecast is for a 10-year cumulative deficit of $9.3 trillion which is $2.3 trillion higher than the administration's estimate, and it predicts that the government would spend an average of 23.7% of its GDP yearly, while only receiving 18.4% of GDP in revenue during the same period.

What would that mean?

It would mean yearly federal deficits averaging 5.3% of GDP and a budget gap of about $1.2 trillion by the year 2019.

What does Obama have to say on the subject?

"We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end."

It is not surprising then, that many Conservatives who envision a totally different society are in growing opposition to Obama's plans. They mostly envisage prosperous and thrifty two-parent families who pay for their own health and auto insurance, and an economy in which a middle-class family's tax burden is so low that there is money left over to save for education and retirement.

The Republicans are not the only ones that are showing mounting concern however, and Senator Kent Conrad, who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, recently expressed his skepticism about making the president's "Making Work Pay" tax break, a permanent one.

Obama's proposed tax plan would phase out at family incomes of $190,000 or more and carry a 10-year cost of $537 billion, and he has also requested an additional minimum of $234 billion in individual, and $100 billion in business-breaks on top of the initial one.

Obama's highly ambitious agenda, which includes healthcare expansion, new spending on clean energy and education, and a cap-and-trade system (a cap and trade system is a market-based approach to controlling pollution that allows corporations or national governments to trade emissions allowances under an overall cap, or limit, on those emissions. to combat global warming) has also caused many others to express their concerns too.

U.S. Representative Richard Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is a longtime member of the House Ways and Means Committee said, "I think the reality is going to settle in that we are going to have to pull back on something".

James Horney, who is the director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, "Over the longer term, the federal government is going to need more revenue than Obama is proposing and anybody who has looked at the problem and doesn't have ideological blinders on reaches that conclusion".

Will taxes have to go up if Obama's plans are passed?

Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office says, "The unvarnished truth is that as we move forward over the next five to 10 years, we are going to have to raise taxes across the board or significantly cut back programs which affect the middle class and the lower class", and Bob Bixby, who is executive director of the Concord Coalition said, "One of the mistakes Obama is making is saying nobody under $250,000 is going to be affected. The deficit is just too big, and you can't get it all from families earning more than $250,000. Taxes are going to have to go up at some point!.


Our Changing Globe [] features regularly updated news on politics and the economy. The articles are in depth and informative, but are written in an easy to read style that won't make your head spin. And we now have a completely redesigned website!

Press Release Source:

Press Release Submitted On: April 06, 2009 at 3:05 am
This article has been viewed 34967 time(s).