Main menu:

Site search

Recent Posts

Topics

2011 anthropogenic global warming bailout banks borrowing budget Bush climate change ClimateGate created or saved debt deficit deficits economics education expenditure Financial institutions fiscal policy Florida healthcare high-speed rail investments Jeb Bush lending lies Martha Coakley massachusetts senate special election midterm elections 2010 Obama ObamaCare Orlando output Phil Jones revenue Rick Perry Scott Brown spending spending freeze State of the Union stimulus Tampa TARP tax taxes tax policy

Subscribe to our award winning magazine, The Counterweight.

Support our efforts by making a tax-deductible contribution.



Want to know what's going on in the club? Email the webmaster to be added to our official listserv.

Obama’s 2011 “Budget” – Is That Sarcasm?

Today, the Obama Administration released its $3.76 trillion budget for 2011.  The budget’s ugliest features are a $2 trillion tax increase on upper-income taxpayers and businesses, and a $1.56 trillion deficit. This new abomination of tax-spend-borrow waste is less of an actual budget than it is the Christmas list of a spoiled brat.

Naturally, Obama blames the need for such deficits on the Bush Administration. Obama did indeed inherit a deficit, though as a senator in a Democratic-controlled Congress, he voted with a majority of other Democrats for legislation that created the deficit, such as TARP. As President, however, Obama has only worsened the deficit situation, presiding over a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010, now proposing a $1.56 trillion deficit for 2011, and projecting future deficits for the rest of his term.

There is also a great deal of grandstanding about the budget’s “freeze” on some discretionary programs. This proposal, which applies to only 17% of the budget for three years, conveniently occurs after large increases in appropriations to discretionary programs. Despite the fact that it will have a negligible effect on the projected deficits of the United States, Obama is peddling the gesture as evidence of his commitment to fiscal responsibility.

This budget is based on the mistaken economic theory that government expenditures – in this case, deficit-financed expenditures – have a beneficial macroeconomic effect by increasing “aggregate demand,” and thus output. Government spending, however, must be financed by taxes and borrowing, which undermines the net effect of any expenditure. For every dollar of spending, the government confiscates one dollar from the private sector, canceling out any supposed benefits.

Taxes and borrowing also distort the economic activity upon which they are levied, leading to microeconomic inefficiencies in the markets. This “efficiency cost” reduces economic activity, ultimately decreasing the economy’s output and the government’s tax revenues. To increase output and tax revenue simultaneously, the government should implement policies that promote economic activity, particularly supply-side incentives.

Obama’s 2011 budget is oblivious to the abject failure of the government’s stimulus efforts, and is a grave threat to future generations of Americans. Fortunately, for all their power, politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics.

Line Break

Author: James Roesch (15 Articles)

James Rutledge Roesch is the former Vice President of Finance for the BUCC and Editor-in-Chief of The Counterweight. He is an alumnus from the sunny state of Florida, currently pursuing a MBA at Claremont University.

Comments

Comment from Stacey Derbinshire
Time February 1, 2010 at 3:31 pm

I discovered your homepage by coincidence.
Very interesting posts and well written.
I will put your site on my blogroll.
:-)

Write a comment





For spam filtering purposes, please copy the number 9917 to the field below: