The Need for a Primary Opponent for Obama

I. Taxes and Deficit Reduction (continued)

President Obama’s foray into deficit reduction is bewildering, to say the least. As indicated previously, he did not make it a focus in his presidential campaign, mentioning it chiefly in relation to ending the Bush tax cuts. The first two fiscal year budgets he has submitted reflect little in the way of deficit reduction and the FY 2011 budget has a projected deficit of $1.65 trillion, with next year’s budget projected to run a deficit of over one trillion dollars.

Under President Obama;s 10-year plan submitted with the FY 2012 budget, the U.S. would need to borrow $7.2 trillion through 2021, down from the FY 2011 budget’s 10-year projection of $9 trillion of borrowing.

After Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) presented his long-term budgetary plan, which would make radical changes in how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are funded and operated, President Obama came out with a 12-year budgetary plan, focused much more on deficit reduction than his prior 10-year budgets had been. Obama proposed to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion by cutting non-military domestic spending by $2 trillion — some of which would build on cuts in the FY2011 budget — and raising revenue by $1 trillion, focused almost exclusively on eliminating tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

The base Pentagon budget would be cut by $400 billion; however, since President Obama had requested nearly $6.5 trillion for the Pentagon over 10 years in his FY 2012 budget released on February 14, 2011, a $400 billion cut amounts to a six percent cut over 10 years of projected spending.

Obama’s use of a 12-year period is unusual in itself, since future budgetary projections had customarily been limited to 10 years. An explanation for the 12-year period may be that Obama back-loaded the spending cuts into the last six years of the plan, so that even if he is reelected in 2012, the pain of the cuts will be experienced after Obama has left office.

Turning now to a debt ceiling focus on the Obama presidency, he blundered when he allowed himself to be trapped into linking spending and taxes to the issue of increasing the debt ceiling. Under Ronald Reagan the debt ceiling was raised 18 times and under George W. Bush it was raised seven times. At none of those times did the Democrats nor the Republicans try to link spending and taxation changes as preconditions for raising the debt ceiling.

Once President Obama entered the intense conflict over raising the debt ceiling, he insisted on a balanced approach — called “shared sacrifice” — between spending cuts and tax increases to get the nation to a more manageable deficit situation. If balance is defined as having both sides of a scale bear an equal weight, Obama quickly created an imbalance in which spending cuts greatly exceeded increased revenue. Obama had previously created an image as being an unskilled negotiator who makes significant concessions even before the negotiations start. Thus, the common assumption became that Obama was offering $3 dollars in spending cuts for every $1 in increased revenue.

This three to one imbalance was in existence even before President Obama suddenly announced that cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were on the table. Throwing these signature national programs on the bargaining table further widened the gap between spending cuts and tax increases; also, his action caused great unease among congressional Democrats.

On July 21, 2011, the media erupted in accounts of a near-agreement between House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama. The reported agreement reportedly called for $3 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and heavily focused on cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; however, tax increases would not even be considered until 2012 at the earliest. Upon hearing news of the pending deal, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said that the caucus of Democratic senators turned “volcanic,” as senators expressed their intense anger at what Obama seemed prepared to do. Speaker Boehner later repudiated the deal.

Very late in the convoluted battle over raising the debt ceiling, a committee composed of three Republican and three Democratic U.S. senators — dubbed the “Gang of Six” — released a four-page outline of some deficit reduction items to pursue. President Obama quickly endorsed the plan as “broadly consistent” with his own approach. If the plan was “broadly consistent,” than Obama had been grossly misrepresenting his own approach for some time.

The “Gang of Six” plan would replace the current tax rate schedule with a three-tier structure, with the top rate ranging from 23 to 29 percent. Obama had repeatedly railed against giveaways to millionaires and billionaires in the Bush tax cuts; however, Obama was prepared to give the wealthiest Americans an even more generous break from the current 35 percent tax rate. It is like the Bush tax cuts on steroids.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said, “Senator McCain will cut Social Security, I will not.” Furthermore, after Obama put Social Security on the table in the debt ceiling talks, he reportedly assured angry Democrats in Congress that he would not cut benefits for current Social Security beneficiaries. Yet because the “Gang of Six” plan outline calls for deep cuts in Social Security to take place in the next 10 years, Obama broke a firmly stated campaign vow and also violated a pledge to members of his own party.

Another specific that is in the “Gang of Six” plan is the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).The purpose of the AMT was to recover some tax revenue from those wealthy individuals and profitable corporations who would otherwise escape paying federal income taxes. Thus, by endorsing the elimination of the AMT, President Obama was providing another tax gift to the rich and powerful.

Since the AMT is not indexed to inflation, increased numbers of the middle class become subject to it every year — Congress customarily applies fixes to the AMT to prevent more taxpayers from becoming subject to it.

Because it is difficult to forecast how many taxpayers will become subject to the AMT in the near future, estimates of the revenue loss from its elimination can vary widely. Writing in the July 2011 Washington Wire, David Wessel says its elimination would reduce revenue by $1.7 trillion over 10 years. However, the Center on Budgetary and Policy Priorities puts the 10-year revenue loss in the wide range of $800 billion to $1.5 trillion. Thus, even at the low estimate, doing away with it would produce a severe revenue loss.

Endorsement of the “Gang of Six” plan wasn’t President Obama’s last change of position on long-term deficit reduction. When Senate Democrats announced a 10-year plan bearing the name of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, President Obama hurriedly endorsed the plan. The Reid plan called for $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, with $1 trillion to come from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No cuts were proposed for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

There was no explanation if Obama had abandoned his 12-year plan, nor if the previously proposed $400 billion cut in military spending would be in addition to the $1 trillion cut.

On September 19, 2011, President Obama announced spending cuts and tax increases for yet another 10-year plan.

To summarize President Barack Obama’s transformation into a deficit hawk: He exhibited little interest in deficit reduction for the first two years of his presidency.Tthe sole significant deficit reduction measure was a $178 billion cut in military spending through 2015. Then, after Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled his long-term budgetary package, Obama responded with a 12-year plan featuring domestic discretionary spending cuts that would more than double the $400 billion in military spending cuts. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were left untouched.

As Obama was drawn deeper into the debt ceiling debacle, he offered further spending cuts and then put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table. When the “Gang of Six” U.S. senators offered an outline of proposed long-range spending and taxation changes, President Obama quickly endorsed it. Through his endorsement, Obama sanctioned a 23 to 29 percent  top marginal tax rate, accepted the proposed elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax; and he also accepted a deep cut in Social Security.

Obama also endorsed the Reid plan’s exclusion of any cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; also, he accepted a cut in military spending that was more than double what he had proposed in his 12-year plan.

On September 19, 2011, President Obama unveiled yet another long-range budgetary plan. Social ;Security was left out of the mix; however, there were to be sharp cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to be achieved largely by cutting what providers would be paid.

Additional revenue was to be gained by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and ending subsidies and closing loopholes benefiting the wealthy.

The above represents a rather astonishing series of changes in position in about a six-month period.

The next blog will focus on why the American people are not being overtaxed by the national government. It will also propose a new tax structure which will add more tax brackets at the top end but also adjust the tax brackets at the lower end.

The Need for a Primary Opponent for Obama

If you have seen this post before and are wondering why I would post it again it is because being  new to blogging I don’t know if the post was seen by anyone. I have had a very hard time accessing it myself.

My name is Lauri E. Kallio and I have an acute case of buyer’s remorse, as one who contributed many hours to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in New Mexico. I have become convinced that President Obama is toxic to the Democratic Party, the nation, and, given our nation’s very large presence in the world, to the world. Although the common wisdom is that running a primary opponent against Obama would ensure a Democratic Party defeat in the general election, not challenging Obama and defeating him in a primary election would present a Hobson’s choice of either an Obama defeat in November 2012, or if he struggles through to a marrow victory, a continuation of four more years of feckless leadership.

This blog, then, will make the case that President Obama has broken many of the promises he made in the presidential campaign; he has taken policy positions that are directly contradictory to one another; he has rendered it almost impossible to know where he strands on almost any issue; he has almost deliberately alienated his most faithful supporters and tried to justify the betrayal by arguing that he is willing to make the tough decisions, even at the expense of his own party’s political fortunes; and he remains committed to the “grand bargain”, in which future spending cuts will greatly exceed tax increases — at least a four-to-one ratio by most estimates.

The two most unforgivable campaign promises that Obama has broken are: 1) his repeated promises to end the Bush tax cuts; and 2) his statement that “Senator McCain will cut Social Security, I will not.” Not only has President Obama committed himself to cutting Social Security, he will also cut Medicare and Medicaid. His agreement to a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts and reduction of the FICA tax will blow another large hole in the Social Security trust fund.

Although this blog will focus primarily on the destructive nature of Obama’s performance, it will also propose alternative policies and directions for the nation.

The topics to lfollow in this blog will include: taxes and deficit reduction, health care reform, militarily-related spending, nuclear weapons and power, the intelligence complex, terrorism, civil liberties, immigration reform, regulation of big business, foreign and war policy, education, along with miscellaneous topics.

The first topic considered will be the very important one of taxes and deficit reduction.

I) Obama on Taxes and Deficit Reduction

The promise at that was at the core of Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can!” presidential campaign was to end the Bush tax cuts for those households earning over $250,000 — a promise made 50 times by one estimate. Obama wanted to take affirmative action to end tax cuts for the financially well-off and use the resulting revenue for deficit reduction and to fund health care reform. Later, he changed his position to just let the tax cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 under the original sunset provisions.

It thus came as a surprise or even shock that with very little public preparation, Obama, in December 2010, agreed to a two-year extension of the two major tax cuts enacted in George W. Bush’s first term. Along with the extension of the Bush tax cuts, President Obama proposed and got adopted a one-year, two percent cut — from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent — in the employee’s share of the FICA tax, which funds Social Security. Obama also got a one-year extension of unemployment benefits.

Economists estimated that the tax package approved by Congress in December 2010 would reduce revenue and increase outlay by about a combined total of $900 billion. The one-year, two percent cut in the FICA tax rate would comprise $112 billion of the total.

It was political malfeasance of the highest order for President Obama and the Democratic lawmakers in control of both houses of Congress not to have adopted a budget for FY 2011 and dealt with the Bush tax cuts before the November 2010 elections. Later in the blog, a new tax structure will be proposed, in alliance with a single-payer health care insurance plan.

The next blog will focus on President Obama’s ill-fated entrance into the debt ceiling battle.

The Need for a Primary Opponent for Obama

I. The Reason for this Blog

My name is Lauri E. Kallio and I have an acute case of buyer’s remorse, as one who contributed many hours to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in New Mexico I have become convinced that President Obama is toxic to the Democratic Party, the nation, and, given our outsized presence in the world, to the world. Although the conventional wisdom is that running a primary opponent against Obama would ensure a Democratic Party defeat in the general election, not challenging Obama and defeating him in a primary election would present a Hobson’s choice of either an Obama defeat in November 2012, or if he struggles through to a narrow victory, a continuation of four more years of feckless leadership.

This blog, then, will make the case that Barack Obama has broken many of the promises he made in the presidential campaign; he has taken policy positions that are directly contradictory to one another; he has rendered it almst impossible to know where he stands on almost any issue; he has almost deliberately alienated his most faithful supporters and tried to justify this betrayal by arguing that he is willing to make the tough decisions, even at the expense of his own party’s political fortunes; and he remains committed to a “grand bargain” in which spending cuts will greatly exceed tax increases — at least a four-to-one ratio by most estimates.

The two most unforgiveable campaign promises that Obama has broken are: 1) his statement that “Senator McCain will cut Social Security, I will not.”; and 2) his repeated promises to end the Bush tax cuts. Not only has President Obama committed himself to cutting Social Security, he will also attempt to cut Medicare and Medicaid. His proposal to cut the FICA tax in half for both employees and employers will blow another hole in the Social Security trust fund.

Although this blog will focus primarily on the destructive nature of President Obama’s performance, it will also propose alternative policies and directions for the nation.

The topics to follow in this blog will include: taxes and deficit reduction, health care reform, militarily-related spending, nuclear weapons and power, the intelligence complex, the war on terrorism, civil liberties, immigration reform, foreign and war policy, regulation of big business, education, along with miscellaneous topics.

The first topic considered will be the very important one of taxes and deficit reduction.

I. Obama on Taxes and Deficit Reduction

The promise that was at the core of Barack Obama’a “Yes We Can!” presidential campaign was to end the Bush tax cuts for those households earning over $250,000 a year — a promise made 50 times by one count. Obama initially wanted to take affirmative action to end the cuts for the financially well-off and use the resulting revenue for deficit reduction and to fund health care reform. Later, he changed his position to just let the tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 expire under the original sunset provisions.

It thus came as a surprise or even shock that with very little public preparation, Obama, in December 2010, agreed to an extension of the two major tax cuts enacted in George W. Bush’s first term. Along with the extension of the tax cuts, Obama proposed and got adopted a one-year, two percent cut — from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent — in the employee’s share of the FICA tax, which funds Social Security. President Obama also got a one-year extension of unemployment benefits.

Economists estimated that the tax package approved by Congress in December 2010 would reduce revenue and increase outlay by about a combined total of $900 billion. The one-year, two percent cut in the FICA tax would comprise $112 billion of the total.

It was political malfeasance of the highest order for President Obama and the Democratic lawmakers of both houses of Congress not to have adopted a budget for FY 2011 and dealth with the Bush tax cuts before the November 2010 election. Later in the blog, a new tax structure will be proposed, in alliance with a single-payer health care insurance plan.

The next blog will deal with President Obama’s foray into the tangled web of deficit reduction.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.