Obamanomics

In a speech from the pulpit at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. on April 13th, President Obama outlines his "balanced approach" budget.
President Obama’s "Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility" is as follows:
One quarter of the deficit is to be reduced through tax increases, while the rest is said to come primarily from spending cuts, which splits what those of the president's liberal base may see as still too heavily skewed toward spending cuts.
Tax reform designed to close loopholes that favor the wealthy, which is scheduled to lower overall rates.
Originally recommended by the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission, Obama plans to officially end the Bush-era tax cuts for the 2 percent of Americans making $250,000 or more.
Non-security discretionary spending cuts of $770 billion by 2023 which Bowles-Simpson also recommendation.
Deep cuts of $400 billion to "security spending” (defense) by 2023.
Wisconsin Republican representative Paul Ryan’s budget approach to Medicare and Medicaid was approved in the House
Ryan’s budget was rejected by Obama because he felt that it would unfairly transfer costs to seniors and other susceptible consumers while undermining both programs long term.
Obama, instead, planned reforms to reduce the growth of health care spending that could save $480 billion by 2023, and possibly an additional trillion in the following ten years.
President Obama wants a strong general effort to "strengthen Social Security for the long haul," without hacking benefits for the nation’s children and future.
The White House also proposed cuts to other mandatory programs such as agriculture subsidies, the federal pension insurance system, and anti-fraud measures totaling approximately $360 billion by 2023.
A proposed creation of a committee chaired by Vice President Joe Biden and including members of both major parties and houses of Congress, is desired to begin meeting in May to attempt to "agree on a legislative framework for comprehensive deficit reduction."
A controversial "debt failsafe," is intended to start by 2014. If long-term deficit projections aren't dwindling by that time, the failsafe would trigger an across-the-nation spending reduction.
The only exceptions to the failsafe would be for Social Security, low-income programs, and Medicare benefits.
While these cuts may seem impressive many politicians and voters alike question what the ramifications are to cuts to defense, the end to Bush-era tax cuts and how a failsafe would be implemented.
Defense spending is the United States’ failsafe for national security.
A cut of nearly half a billion dollars to defense alone is staggering and will raise eyebrows.
A tax increase to the wealthy may seem like a good idea at first.
These individuals and companies make more and can afford more right?
These are also those that create the jobs and offer the services that consumers use.
Should these tax rates increase the “rich” and “wealthy” will filter that cost into products for consumers, raising prices on goods and services.
This is the nature of consumerism and a free-market economy.
Less taxes equal lower prices on consumables and services.
A failsafe would be implemented in what way?
What are the criteria for initializing a failsafe?
President Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling, inherently creating a much larger spending crisis.
What the White House can’t seem to grasp is that the government, not the citizens have a spending problem.
The government cannot and should not get out of debt by raising taxes and cutting social programs while it maintains a spending frenzy by not correcting its own dysfunction.
A huge start to cutting the deficit is cutting the salaries and benefits of those government officials since they work for the citizens.
A fuel subsidy of $300 was granted to some government employees to offset rising fuel cost if they would use their own cars.
Keep in mind, those are tax dollars; the hard-earned money that most Americans submitted to the IRS by the 18th.
How many average citizens have a boss that would give an employee a subsidy from money collected directly from someone else?