Budgets

President Barack Obama (D) sent up his budget proposal Tuesday, carefully timed to be buried under the news coverage of the New Hampshire primaries. $4 trillion worth of proposals. It’s replete with the Left’s dreams of tax increases—including a one-third tax on oil (at current prices: a $10/barrel tax with oil now going for $30) and an acceleration of the Left’s tax war on successful Americans—and associated spending claptrap (gotta spend those taxes, after all) like more spending on college subsidies such as Pell Grants, incentives for States to expand Medicaid programs, increased subsidies for the Left’s goals, expanding budgets for the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and on and on. This Obama Budget expands the current half-trillion dollar deficit, because gotta spend more than tax revenue, too.

Oh, yeah: that oil tax is intended, in part, to subsidize “energy sources of the future.” Read that as increased subsidies for “green” energy sources, subsidies the Left thinks are necessary because “green” energy sources can’t compete in a free market, and that’s just not fair. Along those lines, though, here’s a “subsidy” that would pay off in spades and produce potsful of green energy: drastically reduce regulatory and permitting restrictions, and so the associated costs, on building nuclear power plants. We even have a spent fuel storage facility built and ready to go in Nevada; we just have to get government out of the way of that, too. Fat chance on either one, though, under this administration.

No, what Congress needs to do, what Congress has both the sole authority to do—to pass a budget and then pass the several appropriations bills to give effect to the budget—and the power to do with Republican majorities in both houses, is ignore Obama’s budgeting nonsense. A proper step in that direction is this:

Congressional Republicans last week announced they wouldn’t invite the White House’s budget chief to testify on the administration’s proposals, breaking with longstanding protocol.

Instead, Congress simply should pass a proper budget, and it should take the one passed last fall and pass the appropriations bills that properly reduce tax rates, expand defense spending, and reduce spending everywhere else so as to produce a net surplus within those lowered tax rates. And within those bills, specify that the surplus must go first to paying down the debt.

Keep in mind, too, two things. One is the meaning of the budget passed last fall. Nothing in it prevents Congress from passing the appropriation bills outlined just above. Budget bills set outer bounds of spending; they do not set required minimum levels of spending.

The other is so-called “discretionary spending.” “Discretionary spending” is carefully defined to be spending that Congress is authorized to manage year by year; the definition is designed to exclude spending on things like welfare, Social Security, Medicare; and these exclusions amount to roughly two-thirds of Federal spending. This is a cynically perpetuated fiction. It’s all discretionary spending. It’s all fully within Congress’ spending authority to manage on a year by year basis. Every single dollar of it.

The more dollars left in Americans’ hands through lower tax rates, the less government competes with the private economy for goods and services through spending, the better off Americans will be through the resulting economic activity and rising prosperity. And the faster our nation will be able to pay down—and off—its national debt.

More Spending, More Foolishness

It’s a two-fer that only President Barack Obama could propose with a straight face.

The Obama administration is proposing to extend a financial sweetener the federal government offers states that expand their Medicaid programs, in a bid to persuade more to do so before the president leaves office.
White House officials said President Barack Obama will ask Congress to include three years of full federal funding of expansion for any state that extends eligibility for the program to most low-income residents. Officials said the proposal will be made in Mr Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget, to be released Feb 9.

More Federal spending. Billions of dollars of spending to persuade States to expand their Medicaid programs, an addictive “offer”—addiction to Federal dollars.

And that’s the foolishness. Obama is promising to do this for three more years. Three years in which to get the suckered States hooked on the Federal government’s street corner product.

This move of his hasn’t anything at all to do with low-income citizens. It has everything to do with vote pandering.

In an election year.

Debt Limits

The reason we need to raise the national debt limit is to be able to borrow to pay existing obligations. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s threats that he can’t won’t pay our veterans, soldiers, and retireds is nothing but politically motivated, dishonest foolishness. He can pay these; the tax revenues are plenty for that. What he won’t be able to pay are the payables to Federal contractors and a number of other bills. Those are legitimately owed, though, and they need to be paid.

There’s also plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on our national debt—so there’ll be no default, either. That’s just nonsense.

What’s unacceptable, though, is the Democrats’ refusal to go along with a debt-raise bill that includes spending cuts that will obviate the need to raise the debt ceiling next year and in the out years. President Barack Obama has even said he’ll veto a debt-raise bill that includes such preventive measures. He’s said it’s nonnegotiable.

That’s unconscionable. The Democrats’ addiction to spending—and it is an addiction—has got to be broken. If the only way to cut spending so we don’t need to increase our borrowings next year is to close the Federal government, so be it.

But the Republicans, including the right side, and their “communications” directors had better be able to sell the shutdown to the nation’s public. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) said it:

[T]hey ought to all be fired[.]

Unfortunately, he wasn’t looking in a mirror when he said it.

Turn the rascals out in a year and a month.

Drugs

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has turned to bashing drug companies, and in doing so, she’s exposing her ignorance of economics. Last Tuesday, she proposed in all seriousness

a $250 monthly cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs and other measures to stop what she called “price gouging” by pharmaceutical companies.

Under Clinton’s plan, the monthly cap would limit what insurance companies could ask patients to pay for drugs that treat patients with chronic or serious medical conditions.

Then she added this gem:

“We need to protect hard-working Americans here at home from excessive costs. Too often these drugs cost a fortune,” adding drug companies keep the profits for themselves while “shifting the cost to families.”

Well, yeah, they do keep the profits. Contra her BFF, President Barack Obama, they did build that.

Here’s a thought, Madam, for holding down costs for us “hard-working Americans here at home” about whom you claim to care so much: reduce the costs to the manufacturers by getting your Big Government’s regulations out of their way. Increase the incentives for manufacturers to reduce costs by getting your Big Government out of the way of competition.

And think about this: if your monthly cap, pulled straight out of rectal storage, plays out, what will be the cost of those drugs to us hard-working Americans here at home when the drug companies, unable to recoup their costs, stop manufacturing the drugs altogether?