Obama's Pathetic Budget

12:30 AM, FEB 14, 2011 • BY FRED BARNES

Let’s be candid about President Obama’s budget. It’s pathetic. The country faces a worsening debt crisis and Obama has not come to play. He kissed off the crisis in his State of the Union address last month. And now his plan for spending over the next 10 years doesn’t come close to dealing with the debt problem.

So he's 0-for-2 in coming to grips with the fiscal mess that threatens America’s economic position at home and abroad. Obama didn’t create the crisis, but in two years his spending has added $3 trillion to the national debt. In 2011, the deficit figures to be nearly 10 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2012, the deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the third consecutive year.

Obama would cut spending by $1.1 trillion over the coming decade. That figure is smaller than the projected deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2011. Think about that: Obama’s total reductions are less than a single year’s deficit. That’s what I mean by pathetic.

A highly publicized item in the 2012 budget is a 5-year (partial) freeze on discretionary spending, a saving of $400 billion. That was swallowed up this year when Congressional Budget Office re-calculated the deficit for 2011 deficit and boosted it from $1.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the biggest 1-year deficit ever.

Obama’s plan includes spending hikes in some areas. The most egregious may be $53 billion for construction of high-speed rail in Florida, California and several other states. This is one of the least cost-effective projects in the history of wasteful government spending. Yet it’s one of the president’s pet projects, and he appears more wedded to it than to taming the rise in the national debt.

The Obama budget is so unresponsive to the fiscal situation that it prompts this question: it’s merely a tactical budget. He’s now waiting to see what Republicans will propose in their 2012 budget, the outlines of which are to be hammered out by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan in April. Following that, Obama and congressional Republicans will negotiate, ultimately agreeing on a budget.

That’s the most benign interpretation I can think of. A more likely explanation: Obama has set the stage to attack Republicans for proposing spending cuts certain to be deeper than those Obama is advocating.

Democrats tend to believe that while Americans want spending to be reduced dramatically, they’ll feel differently when faced with cuts in specific programs such as education, transportation, research, and assistance to the poor. In other words, the public is philosophically conservative, but operationally liberal, or so many Democrats think.

In recent weeks, Democrats have talked up the possibility of a budget impasse that causes a government shutdown. When this happened in 1995, President Clinton and Democrats blamed congressional Republicans. So did the media. A repeat in 2011 would delight Democrats, assuming that once again Republicans get the blame. Pretty cynical, but Democrats are desperate after the clobbering they took in the election this past November.

By the way, the president’s own debt commission delivered its recommendation in December. It favored $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years. That includes cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, mandatory spending programs that Obama doesn’t touch.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012

Office of Management and Budget

Winning the Future

Having emerged from the worst recession in generations, the President has put forward a plan to rebuild our economy and win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building our global competitors and creating the jobs and industries of tomorrow. But we cannot rebuild our economy and win the future if we pass on a mountain of debt to our children and grandchildren. We must restore fiscal responsibility, and reform our government to make it more effective, efficient, and open to the American people.

The President’s 2012 Budget is a responsible approach that puts the nation on a path to live within our means so we can invest in our future – by cutting wasteful spending and making tough choices on some things we cannot afford, while keeping the investments we need to grow the economy and create jobs. It targets scarce federal resources to the areas critical to winning the future: education, innovation, clean energy, and infrastructure. And it proposes to reform how Washington does business, putting more federal funding up for competition, cutting waste, and reorganizing government so that it better serves the American people.

Explore the Budget 

Glenn Beck: Is he truly anti-everything. Does he really believe what he says?

The scary part of Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh is that the people who watch them actually believe what they say. That is really, really a nightmare gone wrong.........

Glenn Beck's State of the Union

Jan 27, 2011

- 3:03 - 

Politics won't solve our problems

Beck: Words Matter

Jan 25, 2011

- 4:50 - 

Why Obama wants to 'invest' in America

Beck: Sometimes You Need a Chainsaw...

Jan 25, 2011

- 1:59 - 

To get at hidden meanings

Glenn Beck Scare Tactics : We necessarily do not understand about the Middle East

Of Course this is Fox News Fair and Balanced, and they got the Map of Egypt so wrong.  Glenn Beck is a joke, he is a racial, hate mongering, anti-commie-ism. My thinking he is anti-American, right wing propaganda machine.

Beck: Egypt Is Free...

Feb 14, 2011

- 4:58 - 

Now what?

Beck: A New Caliphate?

Feb 4, 2011

- 4:52 - 

Joel Rosenberg on 'Glenn Beck'

Beck: Who's Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Feb 1, 2011

- 4:53 - 

Not the mainstream media

Beck: Why Egypt Matters

Jan 31, 2011

- 3:22 - 

It's critical you understand the crisis

Greenroom: Obama and Egypt

02/13/2011

George Will, Arianna Huffington, Robert Kagan and Mona Eltahawy.

ABC News Sunday February 13, 2011

This Week 2/13: Revolution in Egypt with Christiane Amanpour

Christiane Amanpour and Terry Moran report on the historic week in Egypt.

02/13/2011

Comparing Obama's plan with his commission's

Bowles and Simpson want bigger cuts, more tax increases

  

By Tom CurryNational affairs writer

msnbc.com

President Obama signed the executive order creating his fiscal commission on Feb. 18, 2010. Alongside Obama were Vice President Biden and commission co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.




updated 1 minute ago

President Barack Obama says his budget blueprint unveiled Monday would result in $2 trillion of reduced deficits over the next 10 years.

Obama's budget plan expects savings of about $1 trillion to come from domestic spending reductions and ending certain tax breaks. But in addition, his budget anticipates another $1 trillion in savings in the projected cost of overseas military operations over the next 10 years.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform he created last year came up with a plan that it said would achieve almost twice the amount of deficit reduction in Obama's 10-year proposal.

Why would Obama’s proposal, if enacted, fall short of the one offered in December by the commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson? What could they do that Obama and his budget planners couldn’t?

First, a word of caution: both Obama’s plan and the one produced by the Bowles-Simpson commission are proposals, not laws — and both made certain assumptions about the future performance of the American economy. Both of them incorporate a lot of guesswork about the future.

And it would take an enormous effort by Congress to transform either plan into enforceable law.

But that said, there are some crucial differences between the Obama plan and the fiscal commission plan.

Bigger cuts from fiscal commission 
The commission plan calls for significantly bigger cuts in future spending than Obama does.

By 2020, the commission would bring spending down to 21.8 percent of gross domestic product while Obama would reduce it to 23 percent of the gross domestic product.

Back in the 1950s, spending averaged only 18 percent of GDP. Currently spending is nearly 25 percent of GDP, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

 Video: Sen. on debt: “We've never been at this level before” (on this page)

Each percentage-point difference of spending as a share of GDP amounts to about $150 billion, given the current size of the American economy.

The commission plan would entail much bigger spending cuts each year — more than $150 billion bigger — than Obama is proposing.

Focus on discretionary spending 
Much of the focus in the administration’s rollout of Obama’s 10-year blueprint has been on discretionary spending, the items Congress decides on every year: how much money agencies such as the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency get to spend in the next year.

Under Obama’s plan, discretionary spending over the 10-year budget forecasting period would be 24 percent higher than under the fiscal commission plan.

Under Obama’s 10-year plan, defense and security spending, which is a subset of discretionary spending, would be nearly 30 percent higher than under the commission plan. Neither the Obama plan nor the commission plan details exactly which weapons systems would be cancelled. But the commission plan would require that overseas military operations be budgeted for. Under the commission plan, the Senate would need a three-fifths vote to exceed the budgeted level for overseas operations.

Discretionary spending excludes Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which together account for more than 40 percent of all federal outlays.

Even if Congress sat on its hands and nothing in current law were changed, discretionary spending would keep falling as percentage of the total budget and as a percentage of GDP.

That’s because entitlement spending —  Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid — is growing inexorably due to demographics, the increasing cost of medical care, and built-in increases in the benefits Social Security formula.

As entitlement spending increases as a share of total outlays, discretionary spending must, by definition, decrease as a share of the total. So to some ex10t the focus on discretionary side is a choice to not examine the bigger problem.

Bigger tax increases from fiscal commission 
The commission plan would raise more revenue over the next 10 years than Obama’s plan would.

The commission proposes to eliminate many of the tax credits, deductions, and other preferences that benefit particular groups of taxpayers or special interests.

It would keep mostly intact the two biggest preferences: the mortgage interest deduction and the tax-free status of most employer-provided health insurance. The commission would pare back the mortgage interest deduction by allow it only for mortgages of less than $500,000.

The commission claims that a cleaner, simpler tax code, with fewer tax breaks and lower rates, should result in $785 billion in new revenues from 2012 to 2020.

Although the commission’s proposals on Social Security would have most of their impact after the end of the 10-year forecasting window, it did call for one tax increase that Obama hasn’t included in his plan: increasing Social Security taxes on high-earning workers.

By 2020, the commission’s recommendation would result in earned income of up to about $190,000 to be subject to Social Security taxes, compared to $168,000 under current law. That tax increase would raise $138 billion in new revenue from 2012 to 2020.

The commission also wants to raise the gasoline tax $114 billion over 10 years.

Unlike Obama, the commission also called for requiring people on Medicare to pay more for the medical care they get.

People on Medicare are consuming too much health care, the commission said. “Because cost-sharing for most medical services is low, the benefit structure encourages over-utilization of health care,” the commission report said.

The commission proposed to increase cost sharing by establishing an annual Medicare deductible of $550, along with 20 percent uniform coinsurance on health spending above the deductible. If enacted, this proposal would raise $110 billion from 2012 to 2020.

So what did the Bowles-Simpson commission do in their proposal that Obama didn’t?

They proposed fiscal medicine that is very bitter and perhaps politically toxic: spending cuts, tax hikes, and cost shifting to Medicare beneficiaries. All of the ideas were serious — and all would cause most taxpayers acute pain they could not shrug off.

© 2011 msnbc.com Reprints 

Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012

President's plan would trim deficits by $1.1 trillion over next 10 years

msnbc.com news services

updated 2/14/2011 3:01:44 PM ET

Copies of President Obama's 2012 budget are delivered to the Senate Budget Committee by staff member Dylan Morris on Capitol Hill in Washington on Monday.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.73 trillion budget Monday that holds out the prospect of eventually bringing deficits under control through spending cuts and tax increases. But the fiscal blueprint largely ignores his own deficit commission's view that the nation is imperiled unless huge entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are slashed.

Obama called his new budget one of "tough choices and sacrifices," but most of those cuts would be held off until after the end of his first term.

Read the full budget (.pdf)

Overall, Obama proposed trimming the deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade. The administration is projecting that the deficit will hit an all-time high of $1.65 trillion this year and then drop sharply to $1.1 trillion in 2012, with an expected improvement in the economy and as reductions in Social Security withholding and business taxes expire.

1.  First Thoughts: Obama's opening bid

Presidential budgets are more political documents than anything else, and this budget is by someone who wants to win re-election in 2012. Now we wait for the GOP's counter-offer.

Obama's 2012 budget would actually add $8 billion to the projected deficit for that year because the bulk of the savings he would achieve through a freeze in many domestic programs would be devoted to increased spending in areas Obama considers priorities, such as education, clean energy and high-speed rail.

"We have more work to do to live up to our promise by repairing the damage this brutal recession has inflicted on our people," Obama said.

The president went to a middle school outside of Baltimoreto highlight the education initiatives in his budget and told the crowd, "We can't sacrifice our future."

GOP, some Dems call Obama's plan too timid 
Republicans, who took control of the House in the November elections and picked up seats in the Senate in part because of voter anger over the soaring deficits, called Obama's efforts too timid. Lawmakers are set to begin debating on Tuesday $61 billion in cuts for the remaining seven months of fiscal 2011.

"Presidents are elected to lead and address big challenges," said Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. "The big challenge facing our economy today and our country tomorrow is the debt crisis. He's making it worse, not better."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the president's investment plans missed the simple point that "we don't have the money" to finance Obama's vision of "trains and windmills" in the future.

"After two years of failed stimulus programs and Democrats in Washington competing to outspend each other, we just can't afford to do all the things the administration wants," McConnell said.

Even some Democrats complained that Obama needed a more vigorous attack on future budget deficits.

"We need a much more robust package of deficit and debt reduction over the medium- and long-term. It is not enough to focus primarily on cutting the non-security discretionary part of the budget," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who called for a budget presentation matching the ambition of Obama's deficit commission.

Jacob Lew, the president's budget director, told reporters that the president's budget was a "meaningful down payment" in attacking the deficits that would get the country's finances headed in the right direction.

The $14 trillion national debt — the cumulative total of deficits since the beginning of the Republic — would grow to $16.7 trillion by Sept. 30, 2012, Obama's budget projects. Much of that debt is owed to China.

Obama's deficit commission made a host of painful recommendations including raising the Social Security retirement age and curbing benefit increases, eliminating or sharply scaling back popular tax breaks, reforming a financially unsound Medicare program and almost doubling the federal tax on gasoline. Obama included none of these proposals in his new budget. The deficit panel called for savings by making these politically tough choices of $4 trillion over a decade, four-times the savings that Obama is projecting.

Domestic cuts, tax increases 
The Obama budget plan, which is certain to be changed by Congress, would spend $3.73 trillion in the 2012 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, a reduction of 2.4 percent from what Obama projects will be spent in the current budget year.

Of the $1.1 trillion in deficit savings that Obama is projecting over the next 10 years, two-thirds would come from spending cuts including $400 billion in savings from a five-year freeze on domestic programs that account for one-tenth of the budget. The other one-third of deficit savings would come from tax increases such as limiting the tax deductions taken by high income taxpayers, a proposal that Obama put forward last year only to have it rejected by Congress. Obama also proposes raising taxes on energy companies.

The president's projected $1.65 trillion deficit for the current year would be the highest dollar amount ever, surpassing the $1.41 trillion deficit hit in 2009. It would also represent 10.8 percent of the total economy, the highest level since the deficit stood at 21.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1945, reflecting heavy borrowing to fight World War II.

Story: Obama’s budget seeks deep cuts in domestic spending

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling below $607 billion. Even then that would exceed the deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Administration officials project that the deficits will be trimmed to 3.2 percent of GDP by 2015 — one-third of the projected 2011 imbalance and a level they said would not harm the economy.

However, to achieve the lower deficits required the administration to assume the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would plummet to $50 billion annually after 2012. The budget also fails to pay for the cost of keeping Medicare payments for doctors from being cut after 2013. Obama's budget also makes assumptions about economic growth that are more optimistic that those offered by many private economists.

Focus on education, clean energy, high-speed rail 
While cutting many programs, the new budget does propose spending increases in selected areas of education, biomedical research, energy efficiency, high-speed rail and other areas that Obama judged to be important to the country's future competitiveness in a global economy.

In the energy area, the budget would support Obama's goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and doubling the nation's share of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

The budget proposes program terminations or spending reductions for more than 200 programs at an estimated savings of $33 billion in 2012. Programs targeted for large cuts included Community Development Block Grants, trimmed by $300 million. A program that helps pay heating bills for low-income families would be cut in half for a savings of $2.5 billion. Another program supporting environmental restoration of the Great Lakes would be reduced by one-fourth for $125 million in savings.

The biggest tax hike would come from a proposal to trim the deductions the wealthiest Americans can claim for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local tax payments. The administration proposed this tax hike last year but it was a nonstarter in Congress.

Obama's budget would also raise $46 billion over 10 years by eliminating various tax breaks to oil, gas and coal companies.

While Obama's budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over five years. That would be achieved by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle.

Administration officials said that the savings from limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers would be used to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting more middle-class families over the next two years.

The budget proposes $1 billion in cuts in grants for large airports, almost $1 billion in reduced support to states for water treatment plants and other infrastructure programs and savings from consolidating public health programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and various U.S. Forest Service programs.

The administration also proposed saving $100 billion from Pell Grants and other higher education programs over a decade through belt-tightening with the savings used to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550.

The surge in deficits reflect the deep 2007-2009 recession, the worst since the Great Depression, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of work and prompted massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and stabilize the banking system.

Republicans point to still-elevated unemployment levels and charge the stimulus programs were a failure. The administration contends the spending was needed to keep the country from falling into an even deeper slump.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

The White House unveils a $3.7 trillion 2012 budget today in which the president aims to eliminate spending on government programs to shrink the deficit by $1 trillion.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If it is Sunday, It's Meet the Press Sunday February 13, 2011

 Sunday: House Speaker Boehner

Alex Wong / Getty Images

The revolution in Egypt comes to a climax as President Mubarak bows to protesters’ demands. What’s next for U.S. foreign policy in the region? Then, as Congress prepares to take on major legislation, can Republicans find common ground with President Obama or will they clash over issues like spending and health care? How will the GOP deal with the Tea Party and the battle brewing within its ranks? Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) join us for an exclusive interview.

Last Sunday: Indyk, Wright

The world watched as the sands of change sparked a revolution that changed a nation forever. What does freedom look like for Egypt? What will the revolution there mean for the U.S. and the Middle East? Will the revolution spread? Former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and former Middle East Correspondent Robin Wright join us.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 Sunday: Roundtable with Reed, Schilling, Myers, Brooks, Halperin

What will the battle over the budget bring? How will the new members of Congress that rode the wave of Tea Party anger to Washington navigate tough votes ahead like raising the country’s debt ceiling? And what do the tough budget choices in Washington mean for the nation’s big cities?  Also, insights and analysis on all the Republican positioning in the 2012 race for the White House as conservatives gather for the annual CPAC conference in Washington. Plus the very latest developments in Egypt and what it all means for U.S. policy in the region. Our roundtable: The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed (D); freshman member of congress supported by the Tea Party, Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL); former Clinton White House press secretary, Dee Dee Myers; columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks; and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.

Responses to Obama's budget

From NBC's Shawna Thomas, Luke Russert, and Kelly O'Donnell
Here's a wrap up of responses to President Obama's budget proposal out today. (For some details on the budget, see First Thoughts.)

REPUBLICANS

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):

"The president's budget will destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. By continuing the spending binge and imposing massive tax hikes on families and small businesses, it will fuel more economic uncertainty and make it harder to create new jobs.

"The president's budget isn't winning the future, it's spending the future. A group of 150 American economists signed a statement sent to the White House yesterday that says we need to cut spending to help create a better environment for job creation in our country. Our goal is to listen to the American people and liberate our economy from the shackles of debt, over-taxation, and big government. That's why the new House majority will vote this week to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending over the next seven months - with more cuts to come - in contrast to the Obama administration, which has proposed no cuts to the current fiscal year's budget while simultaneously asking for an increase in the national debt limit. And in the coming weeks, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will offer a comprehensive budget for the next fiscal year that will contrast sharply with the president's job-crushing FY12 budget."

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):

"President Obama says he wants to win the future, but the future will not be won by repeating the mistakes of the past and failing to live up to our responsibilities in the present. The future will be won by bold and honest leadership that addresses our challenges head on.

"Today, the President missed a unique opportunity to provide real leadership by offering a budget that fails to address the grave fiscal situation facing our country. At a time when unemployment is too high and economic growth is elusive in part because of the uncertainty created by our skyrocketing debt, we need serious reforms that will help restore confidence so that people can get back to work. We need a government that finally does what every other American has to do in their households and their businesses, and that's to live within our means. Instead, President Obama's budget doubles down on the bad habits of the past four years by calling for more taxes, spending and borrowing of money that we simply do not have.

"President Obama has used tough rhetoric about the need to get our fiscal house in order, even assembling a bipartisan commission to address entitlement spending which accounts for more than half of our federal budget including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, the President again failed to put action behind his words by neglecting to even acknowledge these tough issues that everyone knows drive up our debt and must be reformed if they are to meet their obligations for younger Americans.

"As our government continues to borrow forty cents of every dollar that it spends, our Democrat colleagues have offered no credible plan to get Americans back to work or seriously address our debt. In contrast, House Republicans are fully committed to using every tool at our disposal so that we can boost long-term economic confidence and help businesses to grow. And this week we will cut at least $100 billion of wasteful spending, a first step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

"For years, Democrats have proposed more government spending to create jobs, resulting in the largest debt and deficits in history while unemployment remains too high. Republicans believe in free markets and the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs to keep more of their own money so they can invest, grow their companies and hire employees. This is the difference, and it will be clearly evident in the coming weeks as Chairman Paul Ryan and House Republicans introduce our own budget, one that addresses the challenges we face so that our children have the same hope, opportunity, and ability to achieve that our parents gave to us and their parents to them."

House Budget Chair Paul Ryan:

"The President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much - stifling job growth today and leaving our children with a diminished future. In this critical test of leadership, the President has failed to tackle the urgent fiscal and economic threats before us."

"Failing to heed the warnings of economists and the demands of the American people, the President's budget accelerates our country down the path to bankruptcy. Far from 'living within its means,' the President's budget puts the government on track to nearly double in size since the day he took office - a direct result of his party's reckless spending spree. His budget destroys jobs by imposing a $1.6 trillion tax hike, adding $13 trillion to the national debt and fueling uncertainty in the private sector.

"We cannot tax, spend and borrow our way to prosperity. Where the President has fallen short, Republicans will work to chart a new course - advancing a path to prosperity by cutting spending, keeping taxes low, reforming government, and rising to meet the challenges of our time."

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH):

"Thanks to House conservatives, the spending culture in Congress is beginning to change. The White House still hasn't gotten the message, however.  Even as Americans are looking for Washington to cut back, President Obama wants to burden families and employers with higher taxes, more spending, and more debt.

"The President failed a crucial test of leadership by ignoring the need for reforms that will preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations.  These safety-net programs are in serious trouble without significant reforms, yet this budget has nothing to say about the problem.

"House Republicans are working to reduce spending and put the country's budget back on the path to balance.  Americans know that prosperity does not spring from government's power to tax, borrow, and spend.  We need to rein in Washington's massive spending deficits and give American job-creators the freedom to grow once again."

Sen. Bob Corker:

"The president has missed an opportunity to show real leadership on the number one issue threatening our country's future. Getting spending under control and reducing our deficit will be difficult without presidential leadership. I hope in the coming weeks he will come to the table in a meaningful way to address these issues," said Corker. "As we approach our debt limit of $14.29 trillion, I see no better time to impose a fiscal straitjacket on Washington. We need to vote on and pass spending cuts this year, and we need to pass the CAP Act Senator McCaskill and I have offered to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years. By capping spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of GDP, we would put our country on a path to fiscal sanity, while incentivizing Congress to pass policies that promote economic growth."

The Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the "CAP Act," would:
(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending - discretionary and mandatory - to a declining percentage of the country's gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and
(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and
(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive "off-budget" distinction for Social Security - providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.
The Corker-McCaskill CAP Act is currently cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):

"President Obama's timid budget proposal represents a missed opportunity to lead. It increases the national debt by nearly $11 trillion, raises taxes, and ignores the recommendations of the President's own bipartisan debt commission. Republicans are ready to show we are serious about making these tough choices and getting the boot off the neck of American entrepreneurs and small businesses."

NBC's Shawna Thomas reports that Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), vice chair of Budget committee,this morning made brief remarks that set up the GOP's prepared response to the budget with the line that it's "a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again." House Budget Chairman Ryan and Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) will hold a presser this afternoon on the budget.

"In the preview of what we've seen so far it is a continuation of a, as our chairman has said, a budget that unfortunately spends a little bit too much, taxes too much and borrows too much again," Garrett said. "The President has indicated to us that it's imperative that we sign the raising of the debt limit but at the same time we look at this budget and we see that the debt of the federal government continues to grow at outstanding rates and he's going... to ask us to do so again."

When asked if he sensed there would be any common ground between the GOP and the president on this budget, Garrett couldn't seem to find any this morning.

"Well he, he says that he wants to work with us to begin reigning in spending," Garrett said. "Most of what we have seen as far as preliminary numbers go in exactly the opposite direction. Most of what we've seen is that the actual amount of borrowing will be going, as I said before,  in an increased direction and that's why you're actually seeing a doubling of the debt since the time this administration came into office. On the tax side of the equation, the president said he wanted to work with us, basically to place less of a burden on the American taxpayers. But we see here again that it goes in the opposite direction about $1.5 trillion increase in the opposite direction, in that direction, as well. And he also said he wanted to care, as you said, for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren,  but this is just going to place even our heaviest burden on them as well. So we're more than happy, I think all of us on our side of the aisle to reach a hand out to the administration to work where we can but there is very little that we see in this so far that there's commonality on spending."

DEMOCRATS

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD):

"Today, President Obama released his proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The president's budget makes the tough choices we need to reduce spending and put our nation's fiscal house in order; in fact, it would reduce our deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, however, the budget identifies those investments we need to grow our economy and create jobs-investments in out-building, out-innovating, and out-educating competitors around the world. President Obama's priorities-protecting our fiscal future while investing in growth-stand in strong contrast to the priorities of Republicans. Their spending bill for the rest of this fiscal year would make indiscriminate and short-sighted cuts to the investments our economy needs to stay competitive. I hope that Republicans will, instead, work with President Obama to reduce our deficit without sacrificing America's competitive edge."

Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD):

"The President has put forth a budget that reduces our deficit, while also investing in our future. Two years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and a structural deficit that came from years of fiscal irresponsibility, we have made progress. But we must do more to invest in job creation and economic growth in the short-term, as well as get our nation on a long-term, responsible path to fiscal sustainability. This budget makes an important step towards both those goals.

"There is no question President Obama has made some tough decisions. But this budget also keeps in mind that we need to make smart choices that will create more jobs, lift up middle-class families, and keep our economy growing. While I don't agree with everything in this budget, it is a responsible place to start. It prioritizes national investments that will help our economy continue to recover and keep America competitive, focusing on important investments in things like infrastructure, education, and research. It also extends tax cuts for the middle class, while rejecting tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. And it represents an important down payment on getting our fiscal house in order.

"The President's budget stands in sharp contrast to the House Republicans' proposed funding bill for the remainder of the year. We need to get serious about debts and deficits in this country - but while Democrats propose smart, precise cuts, the GOP wants to blindly slash in the short-term and has no plan for long-term fiscal sustainability. The President's budget is a responsible proposal that will help America move forward, while the reckless Republican bill will cost jobs and hurt the economy."