ABC’s weird take on perfectly rational taxation policies

Or “Today’s adventure in sensationalist google bait.”

ABC News: President Obama has plenty of big taxes in his budget proposal.

To achieve $1.8 trillion in new revenue, the president suggested a few of the policies he’s raised while battling Republicans over the past four years: taxing higher incomes by capping itemized tax deductions, rolling back domestic-production credits for oil companies, instituting the “Buffett Rule” of a 30 percent minimum tax rate for people making over $1 million in a year, and taxing investment managers’ “carried interest” profits as regular income top the list.

But the tax code is a jungle of odd rules, and the penny-pinching side of Obama’s budget raises some new taxes (or closes some “loopholes”) that might not readily occur to most taxpayers filling out run-of-the-mill 1040s this weekend.

What follows is the dreaded “listicle”; i.e., something that in it’s best form is an article in the form of a list and at its worst is a list pretending to be an article. To his credit, author Chris Good manages the former. But that’s where any credit stops. Here’s Ed Kilgore’s breakdown of the “weird” taxes Pres. Obama proposes:

Good identifies five revenue raisers as self-evidently risible: (1) eliminating an exemption from distilled spirits taxes for flavored vodkas (“Obama wants to tax your Stoli Razberi”); (2) eliminating the practice of claiming land conservation tax credits for golf courses; (3) boosting federal cigarette taxes to pay for a national pre-K program (“Obama smokes from time to time”); (4) getting rid of the corporate jet tax write off (“Perhaps a dead horse by now, but Obama is still beating it”); and (5) stopping businesses from writing off punitive damages they are assessed, typically for egregiously harmful behavior.

Yeah, it’s pretty dishonest and awful. “The whole thing seems to add up to one of those ‘if it moves, liberals will tax it’ kind of ‘stories’ that conservatives trot out before April 15 every year,” Kilgore explains. “It’s less news coverage than agitprop disguised as stand-up, but I’m sure it will get good circulation at golf resort clubhouses where tobacco executives smarting from punitive damages meet to sip Stoli Razberi and complain about Obama before boarding their corporate jets to go home.”

In short, how out of touch would you have to be to find any of this beyond the pale? I mean, why do flavored vodkas get a tax exemption anyway? If anything, Obama’s eliminating a weirdness with that one. And you have to pay taxes on your corporate Gulfstream? Cry me a river, Richie Rich.

Weird is finding any of this weird.

Republican hypocrisy on parade

David Corn:

When Mitt Romney assailed Americans who he claimed don’t pay federal income taxes during his infamous 47 percent rant in May, one of the guests in the room for this intimate Boca Raton fundraiser was a convicted tax cheat who had gone to jail for failing to pay a quarter of a million dollars owed to Uncle Sam.

James Batmasian, an influential Florida developer and philanthropist, was among the well-heeled crowd at this $50,000-a-plate dinner, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Marc Leder. According to his wife, Marta Batmasian, a member of Romney’s Florida finance committee, her husband had attended as her guest after she was “invited for being a donor at the required level.” Weeks before the event, she had contributed $50,000 to the Romney presidential effort.

In 2008, James Batmasian pled guilty to a felony tax evasion charge for failing to pay more than $250,000 in federal taxes for employees at his company, Investments Limited. He was sentenced to eight months at a South Carolina federal prison and a subsequent two years of supervised release. Along with serving prison time, he had to pay the outstanding taxes and was also fined an additional $30,000. At the time, he was the largest property owner in downtown Boca Raton. Following his conviction, Batmasian, an attorney, was suspended from practicing law by the Florida Supreme Court.

When Leona Helmsley said, “Only the little people pay taxes,” she became the most hated woman in America. Today, that same statement is practically the Republican Party motto.

Tax cuts for the rich don’t help the economy

Or, as economists put it, “no shit, Sherlock.”

Talking Points Memo:

There is no clear correlation between tax cuts for high earners and economic growth, according to a new study by Congress’ nonpartisan policy analyst.

“There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth,” concluded a report by the Congressional Research Service released Friday. “Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.”

The findings are pertinent to a central debate in the presidential election, wherein President Obama is pushing to end the Bush-era tax cuts on high incomes, while his Republican challenger Mitt Romney insists on cutting rates across the board 20 percent below current policy. Democrats contrast the tax hikes of the 1990s and ensuing economic growth with the tax cuts of the 2000s and relatively meager gains that followed. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that the recovery is weak because the economy remains shackled by regulatory and tax burdens.

The study delves into the last 65 years of U.S. tax policy pertaining to high earning Americans — including top marginal rates on income and capital gains taxes — and how it impacts their decision-making. The conclusion: cutting effective taxes on the rich doesn’t boost economic growth, but it does correlate with rising income inequality.

This is all very simple to explain: the conservative argument that employers hire as many people as they can afford is bullshit — just like you’ve always suspected. The fact is that the rich love money too much, so any extra money they get is saved, not spent. Meanwhile, consumers are the “job creators,” not employers. Employers hire as many people as they need — no more and no less. And the reason they need those employees is to meet consumer demand.

Republican economic arguments are nonsense. They’ve always been nonsense. The only reason they even exist is to counter liberal arguments — which in turn are the reality-based arguments. That conservative economic plans do nothing should surprise no one in the world.

Bernie Sanders and the Redistribution of Wealth

The always awesome Sen. Bernie Sanders on redistribution of wealth.

The wealthy, with the help of Republicans and "centrist" Democrats, have taken your wealth. Now, when we ask for a little bit of that back, they fucking whine about it. There's been a redistribution of wealth from you, to them.

And, at every turn, you've been told that this is going to help you. How's that been working out for you? I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you aren't rich and you voted Republican, you're a fool. Next time, don't even bother to vote. Just find some Mercedes or Ferrari on the street and put your wallet under one of the wiper blades. Why waste time with a middleman?

Griper Blade: The Party of Recycled Ideas

Remember John McCain? He was that one guy who ran against Barack Obama. You know, the one who thought the moose lady would be a good pick for running mate. The one who admitted he couldn't remember how many homes he owns. The one whose big idea on dealing with the economy was to put together a 9/11 commission-style blue ribbon panel to study the problem. That panel idea struck a lot of people as an insanely and needlessly slow response to an economic crisis, so then McCain decided what the economy needed was a government spending freeze. The inevitable comparisons to Herbert Hoover followed.

You might remember that these great ideas were rejected by the voters and John McCain lost. But, as they say, if at first you don't succeed, try again -- fail better. The rudderless Republican party needs a captain -- there's noise that Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele may face a no confidence vote -- and Baghdad Johnny seems to believe that he's the man for the job. Not the official leader, mind you -- that job comes with some accountability. No, John's eyes are on Rush Limbaugh's position as the perceived leader of the GOP.

Huffington Post:

Sen. John McCain is putting together a major economic plan that will be structured, in some ways, off of Newt Gingrich's famous Contract With America.

In an email obtained by the Huffington Post, the Arizona Republican's chief of staff, Marc Buse, asked an outside adviser for help with a "ten principles" program that the senator could use as a "definitive" platform.

"We are looking for some guidance on a definitive plan (aka contract with america style) on the economy...principles," writes Buse. "Ten principles that JSM [John Sydney McCain] could point to on what MUST BE DONE to address the problems our nation faces."

Unfortunately, McCain seems to be stuck at the first bullet point. The email doesn't list any of this principles, according to the report, "save 'NO TAX INCREASES.'"

What a fresh and compelling message. You wonder why Republicans didn't think of that one decades ago... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]


Get updates via Twitter

Griper Blade: Obama Shines, Jindal Flames Out

There wasn't much mystery preceding President Obama's address to a joint session of congress last night. Everyone knew it would be about economic stimulus, everyone knew it would involve cheerleading America, everyone knew it would be pretty damned good. Obama used the constitutional requirement that the president address congress on the state of the union "from time to time" to get both houses together in one place. Not specifically a state of the union address, it still filled the bill. The state of the union is not strong and Barack Obama -- as we've come to expect -- asked us all to roll up our sleeves and strengthen it.

Republicans -- still patting each other on the back for their near-universal opposition to Obama's stimulus -- were forced to face the undeniable fact that there was no victory here for them. The bill passed and the obstructionism of they were so proud of had cost them dearly. Polling shows that voters see the party as out of touch and just "not getting it." But, as I've pointed out before, in the House of Representatives at least, only the farthest right wing reps from the very reddest districts remain after two consecutive Democratic election cycles. They are the crazies, those for whom ideology borders on religious belief, those who are lost causes. Reality doesn't bother them, since it's not where they live. Being forced to face it the way they were must've been painful.

In this party made up of the surviving nuts, leadership has been hard to come by. They've elected party leadership, but no one pays any attention to them. "I don't even know the congressional leadership," says Utah's Republican Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. "I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential -- completely."

Given this lack of leadership, the big celebrities in the GOP have been Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, and Rush Limbaugh. Seriously. They desperately needed someone serious to become the face of the party. Someone who wasn't a national joke or a divisive figure. Since only the crazies are left in Washington, they needed to go outside DC. They found Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Republicans, Iraq, and Santa Claus

A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., on the $888 billion economic stimulus package.

Wicker's statement represents the Republican view of the stimulus package. Sadly for him, he's typical of a GOP senator; how he feels about spending depends entirely on which party is doing it. Like most of the remaining Republicans in the Senate, Wicker voted with Bush every time a bill dealing with the occupation of Iraq came up.

$1,000,000,000,000 may be a terrible thing to waste, but $3,000,000,000,000 is just fine. That three trillion dollar price tag is what the invasion and occupation of Iraq will have cost us before we're done -- and that's the conservative figure. Talk about your shovel-ready projects -- we've been shoveling money down a hole in Iraq, while Republicans in Washington shoveled BS on the American people. The difference here is that all that money does nothing for the US, let alone Iraq. It's just a big money-pile we've lit on fire. If it's changed American and Iraqi lives at all, it's changed them for the worse.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Jim DeMint debated the merits of the stimulus, with DeMint arguing in favor of tax cuts. Because eight years of tax cuts have been so good for the economy. To listen to DeMint, the stimulus is spending money to spend money... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Slowing the Stimulus

There seems to be a little bump in the road to Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. Republicans, for reasons we'll get to shortly, are putting the brakes on the idea, under the flag of caution. It's a whole lot of money, they argue, and you can't just rush willy-nilly into this kind of thing. After having rushed willy-nilly into the invasion of Iraq and the massive bank bailout, it's tempting to give them the benefit of the doubt -- maybe they've learned their lesson. All this willy-nilly rushing often turns out bad.

"As of right now, Americans are left with more questions than answers about this unprecedented government spending, and I believe the taxpayers deserve to know a lot more about where it will be spent before we consider passing it," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

But these are Republicans and assuming cynicism in their motives isn't never a bad bet. Many see the concerns over the stimulus as being more about the future of the Republican party than about the future of the nation. Dean Baker -- who I'm really starting to like -- points out that the GOP is starting another round of historical revisionism. In what they claim is "a careful rereading of the history of the New Deal," Republicans say that "President Roosevelt's policies actually lengthened the Great Depression." But it's not a rerun of a history they've completely made up that worries them, it's the history that actually happened. Specifically, after the depression.

[F]rom the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, 20 years after President Roosevelt was first elected.

Imagine how terrifying the prospect of 20 years of Democratic presidencies must be for the current generation of Republican leaders. This would mean that they would not retake the White House until 2028, just 20 years before the Social Security trust fund is first projected to face a shortfall.

As Baker sees it, Republicans believe they have to burn the village to save it. Maybe this stimulus would save the economy, but Republican ideas are -- in their own minds -- the only moral way to think. Two decades of Democratic rule would be sacrificing American society to save the American economy. It's not about Republican economic ideas, but Republican societal ideas. They see twenty years of abortion and gay rights and evolution education and that crazy, hippy environmentalism stuff. The GOP, with an already shrinking demographic base, sees American society creating even fewer of those base dwellers... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Redefining Socialism

"____ is socialism."

Ever since Roosevelt's New Deal, it's been common for Republicans to attack economic ideas they don't like as "socialist." In fact, this line of BS has become so deeply ingrained in the Republican mindset that many of them believe it themselves. The problem, of course, is that when you start operating as if your propaganda is true, you wind up operating in a different reality. In the end, you ignore the present reality and all of your reasoning is based on "facts" which aren't facts at all. You wind up doing stuff like invading Iraq for no real reason. It doesn't really work out all that well.

To give you an idea of just how deeply this redefinition of socialism is set in the Republican psyche, I give you the man who -- with any luck -- will probably become the archetypical Republican dope for years to come.

Salon:

[George W.] Bush once sneered at [his college professor Yoshi] Tsurumi for showing the film "The Grapes of Wrath," based on John Steinbeck's novel of the Depression. "We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically."

That's from Mary Jacoby's great 2004 piece "The dunce," about just what an idiot Dubya was in school. She interviewed Yoshi Tsurumi, who taught a macroeconomic policies and international business class at Harvard, on his former student and found young GWB to be a simpleminded moron who recited right wing talking points and seemed not only unwilling, but unable to learn anything that disagreed with those talking points. When asked what sort of students he tended to remember, Tsurumi was less than complimentary. "...I always remember two types of students," he told her. "One is the very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite."

All of which brings us to another Republican brain, imprinted with this misdefinition of the word "socialism" -- John McCain...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: The Media Finds a Shiny New Bauble

It's a case study in missing the damned point. During the final presidential debate, Barack Obama and John McCain spent a fairly good amount of time talking about -- and to -- "Joe the Plumber." Yes, Joe Wurzelbacher's a real guy. He came up because he got a very detailed answer to a tax question at an Obama event. So John McCain brought him up. At this point, Joe the Plumber's importance to America probably should've ended. He was an example and could just as well have been hypothetical. But Joe's real, so the press needed to make a minor celebrity of him. I imagine some stereotypical newspaper editor with a cigar, waving his hands at reporters and talking about "big, big news."

"Go out and find out everything you can about this guy!" Editor Stereotype says, "I want to know how much he makes [about $40k last year], how he votes [Republican], what he pays in taxes [he owes $1,183], is he registered to vote [yes, but his registration is misspelled], how's he feel about the occupation of Iraq [he thinks it's the greatest thing ever]... Go, go, go! America wants to know!"

Like I say, totally missing the point. I got most of that info from the Toledo Blade, but it's all over the media. In fact, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher already has his own Wikipedia page.

None of which has a damned thing to do with the context. He was brought in the debate in relation to taxation. Almost none of the "Joe the Plumber" stories have anything to do with that. Wurzelbacher's a freakin' Jeopardy question waiting to happen -- a trivial little sidetrip the media took once. What's important is the context in which he was brought to our attention.

Like I say, he might as well be hypothetical. In fact, given what he told Obama and what the truth is, Wurzelbacher is hypothetical. His situation does not exist...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Obama: McCain's Health Plan 'Radical'

clipped from afp.google.com Exactly one month before the presidential vote, Democrat Barack Obama Saturday accused Republican rival John McCain of scheming to deprive millions more Americans of life-saving health insurance. "So here's John McCain's radical plan in a nutshell," he said. "He taxes health care benefits for the first time in history; millions lose the health care they have; millions pay more for the health care they get; drug and insurance companies continue to make exorbitant profits; and middle-class families watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes."

Annenberg FactCheck had this to say about McCain's healthcare proposal:

• Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, partially offsetting the $5,000 credit for those now covered by such plans.
  
  
• Experts say a tax credit plan like this would likely cause companies to reduce or eliminate health benefits for their employees.

Sounds great, John. Got any more crap you want to sell us?

Griper Blade: An Adjustment in Strong Fundamentals

Yesterday was not a good day for the economy, the markets, the United States or, for that matter, the rest of the world. As the Dow dropped more than 500 points, we said goodbye to Lehman Brothers. In related news, Merrill Lynch was traded to the Bank of America for a bologna and cheese sandwich, a can of orange Faygo, and a fun-size Snickers bar. The state of the market was not good.

For his part, President Bush handled the crisis as well as he's handled other crises -- poorly, by trying to BS his way through it. Americans, Bush said, "are concerned about the adjustments that are taking place in our financial markets." See, it's an adjustment, a tiny bump in the road, a little minus-500-point tweak.

Associated Press:

...He said that his administration is focusing on the problem and "working to reduce disruptions and minimize the impact of these developments on the broader economy."

Bush also said he was pleased with work done so far by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and major financial institutions to "promote stability" in financial markets shaken by the bankruptcy declaration by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America.

He acknowledged that such convulsive developments can be "painful for people" directly involved. But Bush also said, "In the long run, I am confident that our capital markets are flexible and resilient and can adjust to these developments."

Of course, as economist John Maynard Keynes so famously pointed out, "In the long run, we're all dead." While it's nice to keep an eye on the future, we live in the present and the present presently sucks. The concerns are immediate, not forecasted...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

For McCain, Not All Multimillionaires are 'Rich'

From last night's "almost a debate, but not really" at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California; McCain blows a question very badly, handing ammo to critics (like me) who say he's out of touch and an economic lightweight:

clipped from dyn.politico.com Asked his definition of "rich," McCain tossed off “$5 million,” then seemed to recognize this could join the list of comments he has tossed off in the past that have come back to him in attack ads. ”I'm sure that comment will be distorted," McCain said. "The point is we want to keep people's taxes low. ... I don't want to raise anybody's taxes."

GAO to Report Most US Corporations Pay No Taxes

clipped from www.newsnet5.com The Government Accountability Office is set to release a report that says most U.S. corporations pay no federal income taxes. And most foreign companies that do business in the United States aren't paying corporate taxes. The study says about two-thirds of American corporations paid zero income taxes to Uncle Sam between 1998 and 2005. An even higher percentage of foreign corporations avoided federal corporate taxes. At the same time, said the GAO, the firms had trillions of dollars in sales. The study was requested by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. "It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," Dorgan said.

Meanwhile, John McCain argues we should cut the corporate tax rate by 10%. Since the current corporate tax is pretty much theoretical, that'd be a decrease for most from 0% to what, John?

McCain Tax Plan favors Wealthy, Offers Little For Middle Class

clipped from www.salon.com The economy has vaulted past Iraq and terrorism as the most pressing concern on voters' minds this election season, and both McCain and Barack Obama are trying to show they feel voters' pain. McCain has called for help for those facing mortgage foreclosures and has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2013. But the centerpiece of his economic plan is a tax-cut proposal more sweeping than anything envisioned by George W. Bush. But according to a respected, independent group of tax-policy experts, McCain’s plan would balloon the deficit and provide a windfall to the wealthy while affording only nominal relief to middle-class taxpayers. McCain has moved toward the Republican base on a handful of issues this campaign season, but his tax plan might actually shift the erstwhile deficit hawk to the right of the current president.

Right wing tax cut zealot/activist Grover Norquist agrees that McCain's tax policies are farther right than even Bush's. "The McCain tax policy is to continue the Bush tax cuts and add three more, so I prefer McCain," he told Salon. "McCain's is bigger, better."

When Grover Norquist is excited about a tax policy, it means that people who aren't rich would be screwed. It's practically a law of physics.

Griper Blade: Bush was Wrong -- Again

One of the few joys of living through the presidency of George W. Bush is celebrating the moment when he's inevitably proven wrong. As a prognosticator, Bush is somewhat less accurate than a Magic 8-Ball. Not only did Bush get everything about Iraq wrong, but he even declared the war over years prematurely. This is the man who though he could read Vladimir Putin's mind. "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue," Bush said. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Apparently, Bush's soul-sensing superpowers weren't strong enough to foresee that parking a missile defense system on Putin's borders wouldn't fly. "If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," Bush's soulmate said at the time. "It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

So, it comes as no surprise that Bush was wrong about the effects of his top heavy tax cuts. See, Bush bought into this whole "supply-side" economic scheme, where you give more money to people who have plenty of money and it all "trickles down" to everyone else. Not surprisingly, this doesn't work.

In theory, the idea is that if you're an employer and can afford to expand or give everyone raises, then that's what you'll do. If you can afford to lower prices, you will. Except this isn't exactly logical. Say you run a company that's making money -- are you going to hire people you just because you can afford to? Are you going to give everyone a raise because you can? Only if you hate money. If there's nothing wrong with your business, why on earth would you "fix" it? Everything's going great, why screw with success?...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Bush on Compassion

Reading the news paper can often be a jarring experience. You can read one story, then move on and find other stories that completely contradict it. At least, this has been my experience for the last six or seven years. The Bush administration has a very bad habit of saying one thing, while doing the exact opposite. Orwell's Newspeak slogans "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" would seem right at home in the White House press room, where contradiction is embraced with a big bear hug.

So, it wasn't really surprising to see Bush practicing his own brand of cognitive dissonance on the occasion of the King Holiday.

Associated Press:

President Bush today hailed Martin Luther King Jr. as a towering figure and called on the country to honor his legacy by showing compassion to those in need.

"It's fitting that we honor his service and his courage and his vision," Bush said during a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library with first lady Laura Bush.

His comments came on the federal holiday honoring the birthday of King, who would have been 79 on Jan. 15. An advocate of peaceful resistance and equality for people of all races, King was assassinated in April 1968.

The entire speech is here.

Yeah, I know -- you're thinking Iraq. So was I. Not a lot of compassion is wasted on those people over there. But all I had to do was turn the page and a couple of stories undercut Bush's message of "compassion" a lot closer to home...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: No Money for Bridges, but Millions for Ballparks

It was typical of George W. Bush -- opportunistic, thoughtless, divisive, and highly politicized. In comments about the bridge collapse in Minnesota, Bush was quick to blame Democrats for the tragedy and use the opportunity to call for tax cuts. Seriously.

If you don't know that this happened, you can thank the media, who have covered only half the story. Here's how the New York Times reported it:

President Bush, in a news conference today, expressed condolences for the victims and said "the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible." The White House later announced that Mr. Bush would travel to Minneapolis on Saturday.

If you're guessing that he said a lot more than that, you're right. But you have to go to the White House website to find it. We get all the stuff you'd expect; the assurances that the federal government will 'respond robustly' and the calls for prayer that cover the White House website like wallpaper. Then comes this:

This doesn't have to be this way. The Democrats won last year's election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.

The budget I've sent to Congress fully funds America's priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.

Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase -- and I quote -- "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.

In fact, in a press release of ten paragraphs (including the closing, "Thank you for your time"), only three are about the damned bridge -- the rest is Bush scolding dems for wanting to 'raise taxes.' If you were relying solely on the mainstream media, you'd never know this...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]