Obama stands his ground on fiscal debates

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama devoted one word - "deficit" - to the issue that brought Washington to the brink of fiscal crises time and again during his first term.
But it was the paragraph that followed in his inaugural address that foreshadowed what's to come - more hard bargaining and more last-minute deals driven by Obama's own conviction that he now wields an upper hand.
"We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future," he said. "The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."
This was the language of his re-election campaign.
And while his speech contained no reference to either political party, his pointed rejection of "a nation of takers" was an implicit reminder of Mitt Romney's infelicitous declaration that Obama's support came from the 47 percent of American voters "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
In keeping with the objective of inaugural addresses, Obama chose to draw attention to the aspirations he hopes will define him rather than the conflicts that have characterized his relations with a divided Congress. He conceded that "outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time," but forged ahead with a call for training more math and science teachers, for building roads and even for funding more research labs.
If there was a way to reconcile such spending with demands to stabilize the nation's debt, he didn't mention it.
"Inaugural addresses are intended for the ages, not for a particular moment," said Matt Bennett, a former aide to Al Gore and a vice president of the Democratic-leaning group Third Way. "We will have to wait for the State of the Union, which is addressed directly to Congress, for a clearer sense of what he wants to do in the near-term and how he wants to get it done."
Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Obama and his aides approached the inaugural speech with a belief that the president had replenished his political strength with his re-election and with his end-of-year deal with Republicans that raised upper-income tax rates on some of the wealthiest Americans.
What's more, Obama delivered the speech as House Republicans were backing off earlier threats to withhold an extension of the nation's borrowing limit if not accompanied by sharp reductions in government spending. Instead, House leaders plan a vote Wednesday to raise the government debt ceiling through May 18 to avert a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
That retreat, welcomed by the White House, takes the biggest potential crisis off the immediate horizon. But Obama and congressional Republicans still face two other fiscal deadlines: March 1, when steep automatic spending cuts in defense and domestic programs are scheduled to kick in, and March 27, when the current authority to keep government operating runs out. And then, on May 18, another debt limit crisis will loom.
"It's a matter of how you interpret it," said Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. "If you believe the Republicans will make the debt ceiling crisis a quarterly event, then this is a bad outcome. The White House playbook is that there are now enough Republican grownups in the room they can hammer out deals."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, set a hopeful tone, declaring that the inaugural was a chance to "renew the old appeal to better angels." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, referred to the "transcendent challenge of unsustainable federal spending and debt. Republicans are eager to work with the president on achieving this common goal, and we firmly believe that divided government provides the perfect opportunity to do so."
During negotiations last month aimed at avoiding a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Obama presented Boehner with a proposal that would have reduced spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs by $400 billion; reduced non-entitlement programs by $200 billion over 10 years; and lowered cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries of government programs.
But Obama also wanted some increased spending and still wants more tax revenue through changes in the tax code that would force the rich to pay more, proposals Republicans reject.
Even an ally like Bernstein pointed out that when it comes to spending outside of defense and entitlements, Obama has an incompatible goal of reducing the budget as a share of the economy to the lowest levels since President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.
"It is very hard for me to square those tight budget constraints on the non-defense discretionary side of the budget and many of the aspirations I heard today," Bernstein said. "That said, I think they are exactly the right aspirations."
And there was little about finding common ground in Obama's speech.
"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate," he said.
It was not meant as a self-critique.
But it was the paragraph that followed in his inaugural address that foreshadowed what's to come - more hard bargaining and more last-minute deals driven by Obama's own conviction that he now wields an upper hand.
"We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future," he said. "The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great."
This was the language of his re-election campaign.
And while his speech contained no reference to either political party, his pointed rejection of "a nation of takers" was an implicit reminder of Mitt Romney's infelicitous declaration that Obama's support came from the 47 percent of American voters "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
In keeping with the objective of inaugural addresses, Obama chose to draw attention to the aspirations he hopes will define him rather than the conflicts that have characterized his relations with a divided Congress. He conceded that "outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time," but forged ahead with a call for training more math and science teachers, for building roads and even for funding more research labs.
If there was a way to reconcile such spending with demands to stabilize the nation's debt, he didn't mention it.
"Inaugural addresses are intended for the ages, not for a particular moment," said Matt Bennett, a former aide to Al Gore and a vice president of the Democratic-leaning group Third Way. "We will have to wait for the State of the Union, which is addressed directly to Congress, for a clearer sense of what he wants to do in the near-term and how he wants to get it done."
Obama's State of the Union address is scheduled for Feb. 12.
Obama and his aides approached the inaugural speech with a belief that the president had replenished his political strength with his re-election and with his end-of-year deal with Republicans that raised upper-income tax rates on some of the wealthiest Americans.
What's more, Obama delivered the speech as House Republicans were backing off earlier threats to withhold an extension of the nation's borrowing limit if not accompanied by sharp reductions in government spending. Instead, House leaders plan a vote Wednesday to raise the government debt ceiling through May 18 to avert a first-ever default on U.S. obligations.
That retreat, welcomed by the White House, takes the biggest potential crisis off the immediate horizon. But Obama and congressional Republicans still face two other fiscal deadlines: March 1, when steep automatic spending cuts in defense and domestic programs are scheduled to kick in, and March 27, when the current authority to keep government operating runs out. And then, on May 18, another debt limit crisis will loom.
"It's a matter of how you interpret it," said Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden. "If you believe the Republicans will make the debt ceiling crisis a quarterly event, then this is a bad outcome. The White House playbook is that there are now enough Republican grownups in the room they can hammer out deals."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, set a hopeful tone, declaring that the inaugural was a chance to "renew the old appeal to better angels." Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, referred to the "transcendent challenge of unsustainable federal spending and debt. Republicans are eager to work with the president on achieving this common goal, and we firmly believe that divided government provides the perfect opportunity to do so."
During negotiations last month aimed at avoiding a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, Obama presented Boehner with a proposal that would have reduced spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs by $400 billion; reduced non-entitlement programs by $200 billion over 10 years; and lowered cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries of government programs.
But Obama also wanted some increased spending and still wants more tax revenue through changes in the tax code that would force the rich to pay more, proposals Republicans reject.
Even an ally like Bernstein pointed out that when it comes to spending outside of defense and entitlements, Obama has an incompatible goal of reducing the budget as a share of the economy to the lowest levels since President Dwight Eisenhower's administration.
"It is very hard for me to square those tight budget constraints on the non-defense discretionary side of the budget and many of the aspirations I heard today," Bernstein said. "That said, I think they are exactly the right aspirations."
And there was little about finding common ground in Obama's speech.
"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate," he said.
It was not meant as a self-critique.
Yeah just keep ruining our country d-bag.
Congress passes a budget, so it's up to Congress to pay for it. Beg, borrow or steal; it's not Obama's job.
Let's see. We spend more money than we take in. We've already raided the money that was supposed to go untouched in the biggest Ponzi scheme in world history. (Don't we send people to prison for that?) Our credit limit is already through the roof and we can't pay our bills without perpetually raising the "debt ceiling."Â
Â
The problem is not that we spend money we don't have on things we don't need. Nor is it that our leaders have no concept of prioritizing things we need, things that are nice, and things that are outright stupidity.Â
Â
No, the problem is that 1% of our population, who already pay more the the bottom 90% combined, are not paying their fair share.
It's political suicide, but:
Isn't it time to gut and re-write the tax code? Â Fair is fair, and if the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, how do we fix that? Â add more bloat to an incomprehensible tax code in an effort to catch them evil 1%'rs? Â
Â
make it simple, make it fair, write it in stone. Â Flat tax, pick a % of tax that applies to all above poverty level, make the budget based on that rate and mandate paying off the debt at a given rate. Â What ever is left after paying the debt is how much there is to spend, regardless of political bent.
Tax and spend, tax and spend...will it ever end? Barry, ignore future consequences for our children and grandchildren etc, I'm sure your kids will always have plenty of money thanks to the fees you'll make from speaking and book deals. You can be Al Gore of fiscal responsibility.
austerity now!
Now where could we make "reasonable cuts in spending...hmmmm
Â
"America's own budget crisis is prompting tough discussions about its defence spending, which, at nearly $700 billion, is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined."
Â
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending
While we spend 1/3 of our federal budget on the military, the notion that social security and education need to be cut because of the deficit is absurd.
 @Max Quinn Social welfare has gone up 3% since Bush has left, and education has dropped 2%.
 @Max Quinn We actually only spend 1/4 of are budget on the military.
@Max Quinn How they still get away with $700 hammers and things like this amaze me. Ever since 2 days after Kennedy was assasinated, and Johnson said were going in and were going to beat these guys at whatever cost, (when Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam)Â the military spending has been catosrophic and has never changed, other than up and down small percentages with different admins!
As long as Obama's voting base continues to TAKE (47%) then the president has an obligation to spend. aka "debt ceiling is a good thing"
Â
2006 Obama: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americaâs debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills."
Â
2011: Jay Carney: "that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."
@TimBurr Ahh the good old 47%. Looking at the total: 53% pay income tax, 28% pay payroll tax, 10% are elderly, 7% are nonelderly with income under $20,000, Iâm missing a little over 1% due to rounding and a little less than 1% are âotherâ. Shouldn't we be discussing the 7%, instead of the 47%? The majority of the 47% are paying payroll tax or elderly, so they think they are paying their fair share. Sure, let's hit them more, I'm ok with that, but they point is that they don't see themselves as the 47%.
 @JTesla  @TimBurr Effectively what Obama is doing is hitting those people you don't want no effect. The long-term effect of his excessive spending is going to be to decrease the dollar of the value and eventually inflation will also kick in.
Â
So nobody is going to win under his policies except his federal government employee buddies that their lifetime healthcare and other good benefits.
Â
Either the Democrats are grossly negligent to the people they're supposed to be representing or they're extremely naïve still thinking that our economy is going to come roaring back any minute now bringing tax revenue back up to the current spending.
Â
I'm more in belief that they're being grossly negligent than that they actually believe any minute now the economy is going start roaring from all of the things Obama stunned the last four years...
Â
@Sundowner I would love to see a study to show why and what part of our brains are working better then the others for math vs writing etc. My wife is like you where anything with writing and spelling comes easy as can be but math not so much. Complete opposite for me.
 @FreedomRocks I'll do the spelling/grammar if you'll do my math for me!  =)
 @JTesla  @FreedomRocks Ya funny how I can remember phone numbers from girls I dated 30 years ago in high school but can't remember how to spell words I use half a dozen times a day or more.
Â
I guess that is why I went into engineering instead of business or becoming a lawyer.
Â
Math, problem solving, and numbers come easy writing and spelling not so much. Although to be fair to myself I am just not as interested in that aspect for most things except for my resume and presentations at work.
@FreedomRocks I think, in terms of the economy, that the only difference between you and I is that you think it is negligent while I think it is naivety. However, we're still left with the same conclusion. My post was just a refusal to adhere to the 47% rallying cry.
@FreedomRocks You don't need to apologize to me, heck my poor spelling is only matched by my poor proof-reading skills.
 @JTesla  @TimBurr Sorry voice-recognition a little off today. Works very well if you speak slowly enough and can live with all the comments from the grammar police for similar sounding words being used inappropriately.
All hail the king.....
obama doesnt even know we are in debt. Â There isnt any money.....for some reason he doesnt know that.
"""""""Obama stands his ground on fiscal debates""""""
Â
So Bronco Bamma refuses to get off the expressway to bankrupcty...... Not that it really matters, BarryCare would have had there soon enough anyway.
Â
Â
Â
Â
My QR says it all.
 @RalphCramden What would CramRalphden's QR say?
 @randolaÂ
I misread your post at first. I wonder what his would say.
A president who won't adapt and becomes intractable because of pride and ideology is dangerous !
Lowering the cost of living increase for Social Security recipients. Sounds like they think of them as privileged and honored to be receiving money from the Government. That is money we are entitled to that we pay into the system all of our hard working lives. That money belongs to us and is not a bargaining chip!!!
@Pointblank  """""""Lowering the cost of living increase for Social Security recipients. Sounds like they think of them as privileged and honored to be receiving money from the Government. That is money we are entitled to that we pay into the system all of our hard working lives. That money belongs to us and is not a bargaining chip!!!"""""""
Â
Welcome to the worlds largest ponzi scheme........ a ponzi scheme that is to the point that it can't afford to pay out what it owes since the MONEY IS ALREADY BEEN SPENT over the last forty years+/- by the greedy and irresponsible politicians.
 @kramr Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.  From the start workers were paying benefits for retirees.  That continues to be the case.  Right now, minor fixes will keep paying the current benefit rates.  For example, making all earned income subject to FICA  rather than the firs $113k.  Other adjustments could include changing the cost of living formula or increasing FICA contribution. Even if nothing is done, Social Security wouldn't "go broke," but it would be forced to reduce benefit amounts by about 30% at some time down the road.
Â
Whatever is done, Social Security has been one of the government's most successful and popular programs, even though hard-core conservatives continue to hate it. Â Right now, 45% of all seniors would fall below the poverty line without social security. Â For disabled people, the number is certainly greater.
Â
The median savings for people from age 45-54 is $100K, and 60% of workers over 60 have less than $100k in savings. Â That won't keep them out of poverty long, but social security will. Â Conservatives think everyone should save for retirement and have insurance for disability, but that isn't the case in the real world. Â I guess we could have old people begging on street corners???
@blotto it sure is a ponzi scheme in that people who pay in today are paying todays beneficiary's.....
Now if we could have trusted our political leaders in not touching (i.e. spending) the SS surpluses.... the income off the surpluses would have helped pay the benefits. But now EVERY SINGLE CENT that comes in is turning right around and being sent off as bene's means its the worlds largest ponzi scheme.
Let me ask you this...... could a private company come up with such a plan? The answer of course is a resounding NO because of the unfunded liabilities.
Â
"""""Â Even if nothing is done, Social Security wouldn't "go broke," but it would be forced to reduce benefit amounts by about 30% at some time down the road."""""
Thanks, thats the definition of a ponzi scheme....... take money in and don't have the money to pay it back....
Â
@Pointblank More is coming out than is going in and soon it will run out of IOU's. Something must be done because the money you paid in was designed to go to others, and there won't be enough others paying in to cover you. Nothing points to a "nation of takers" more than our view of the Social Security system.