Obama's been acting like a petulant child since his sequestration plan showed signs of backfiring. It was intended to force the Republicans to cave to his demands for yet another "balanced approach" to deficit reduction because he took the gamble that the Republicans would never, ever allow sequestration/defense cuts to happen. He tried everything from inciting fear to media collaboration to foist new taxes upon us.
Thankfully he lost that gamble, and the Republicans held fast (so far!) on ensuring that real cuts to government took place. They, like most of America, have grown tired of Obama's game-changing plans. They, like most of America, are tired of the empty rhetoric, class warfare, and repeated attempts to squeeze taxpayers out of more money by calling it "revenue".
Just what was in Obama's alternative plan to avoid sequestration? Investors.com has the scoop:
There are no details, for example, about the $200 billion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary programs, other than that Obama wants them split evenly.
And while he offers $400 billion in "health savings," 30% are lumped in a bucket labeled "other."
Worse, Obama's "balanced" plan actually counts hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions." Examples:
• His plan to "strengthen" unemployment insurance is labeled as a cut, but it's really a $50 billion tax hike.
• The $35 billion from the federal worker retirement programs involves boosting worker contributions.
• Most of the $35 billion in Medicare savings comes from charging wealthy seniors more.
• The $140 billion in "reduced payments to drug companies" are in fact rebates Obama wants drugmakers to pay Uncle Sam for selling drugs to poor seniors.
• Then there's the $45 billion in spectrum fees and asset sales that Obama lists as spending reductions.
Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases. As a result, instead of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts called for by the sequester over the next decade, Obama would add more than $1 trillion in revenues, while cutting outlays only about $600 billion. And much of those aren't real cuts, but tiny reductions in projected spending growth over the next decade.
Considering that the $85 Billion in cuts is just a fraction of the total "budget" of our government, though sequestration may be hard for some, it is necessary.
Obama's plan, however, only proves that sequestration was never about cutting the deficit. It was only about playing games with people's livelihoods and using Chicago - style tactics and fear mongering to try to force the Republicans to get what he wants: more taxes, especially on the rich.
His insatiable appetite for new taxes didn't stop at the Fiscal Cliff "deal-without-spending-cuts" that raised rates on the wealthy just two months ago (whose revenue was quickly spent on the Sandy Bill). For Obama, it's never going to be enough.
This is wealth redistribution. This is legal plunder. This has got to stop.
We must continue to expose the destruction.
UPDATE: 2:45pm from The Hill -- Pelosi: No Budget Deal Without New Revenues
Crossposted at alanjoelny.com