facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Obama’s spending blueprint should trigger public reaction



Published: Sat, March 8, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

It didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to hold up the “Dead on Arrival” sign as the nation got its first glimpse of President Obama’s 2015 budget.

“It’s a campaign brochure,” quipped Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee. Ryan dismissed the spending plan as not a “serious document.”

Another Republican, Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, contended that Obama’s proposed budget “ignores reality.”

And Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., blasted the president’s proposal to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, saying, “We should be reforming this flawed approach to helping low-income workers, not expanding it.”

It is noteworthy that the tax-credit provision was adopted when Republican Gerald Ford was president and had the support of the GOP.

But that was then. Today, with Obama struggling to find any backing from Republicans for his major initiatives, the budget in its current form will never see the light of day in the GOP-controlled House. It may receive a better reception in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Indeed, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Howland, D-13th, a member of the House Budget Committee, was quick to praise the president for delivering a “forward-thinking road map for innovation and economic growth.”

“I applaud the president for building upon the success of Youngstown’s America Makes and including in his budget the creation of 45 manufacturing innovation institutes over the next 10 years,” Ryan said.

The congressman pointed out that the budget prioritizes the rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges.

Therein lies the basis for a national discussion about spending priorities. It’s one thing for members of Congress to look at Obama’s proposals through partisan-colored glasses; it’s another for the American people whose lives are directly affected by federal spending to follow their elected representatives blindly.

Roadways and bridges

Let’s consider the condition of the nation’s roadways and bridges. It was widely reported that a shockingly high number are in deplorable shape — and that was before the long, harsh winter that brought record snowfall and sustained freezing temperatures.

States and local communities that have spent most of their highway and street department budgets on snow removal will be hard-pressed to come up with the money to perform even the most basic of services, such as filling potholes.

In his budget, the president has proposed spending $150 billion on infrastructure improvement projects. Is there any doubt that there are Republican congressional districts in this country that would make a grab for the money if it were available?

And yet, the immediate reaction from the Republicans on Capitol Hill to Obama’s spending blueprint was a thumbs down.

Given that the president also is proposing investments in education, scientific research, American energy, senior services and national security, can Republicans in Congress and around the country not see any benefit in providing the growing elderly population with services?

That’s the debate that must occur across the land.


Comments

1Photoman(1005 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, Tim, why don't you stand up for the nation instead of kissing up to the party?

Suggest removal:

2repeaters(207 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

In the end, we'll have 16 years of 2 lousy presidents. Jimmy Carter goes to bed every night thanking Ted Kennedy for supporting Obama. And the American people have been silent for those 16 years on the national debt (including both parties.) So in 2016, who will get the vote, the candidate who puts spending 'on the tab', or one who wants to address the mounting debt. We had a prevue in 14, bet it happens again? There will never be enough money to pave the roads, fix the bridges, pay the pensions and health benefits, etc. The national debt will suck it all up. But, I'm very confident that we will ALL see and feel the effects of 'business as usual'; none of us will be able to escape the carnage to come.

Suggest removal:

3redeye1(4563 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

If just once little Timmy Ryan would get his head out of OBAMMY'S butt.. This bill should not go anywhere until something is done about our other reckless spending. All this bill really does is give OBAMMY friends (the unions) more money to waste. Just look at the half arse job that the last stimulis plan got us on I 680. There is now more patches on it then grandma's quilt.

Suggest removal:

4eevo(51 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Bennnnnghaaaaaazi!

Suggest removal:

5dontbeafool(954 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You think the GOP hates Obama's budget now, wait until they read it! Maybe they can ask Putin for his imput since they are making him out to be the greatest leader of all mankind.

Suggest removal:

6lajoci(267 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Notice, everyone, that the latest tactic of the faithful followers of the United Church of Anti-Obama is to bash Jimmy Carter, and then proceed to enumerate how much worse President Obama is, as if the only cure for what ails the USA is a Republican in the White House.

Of course, they ignore the accomplishments of Jimmy Carter (including, but not limited to, the Camp David Accords, which survive to this day.

They ignore, further, the fact that Carter supplanted Ford, whose infamous pardon of the demonstrably criminal Richard Nixon provoked disgust across the entire American political spectrum.

And they ignore George W. "Herbert Hoover II" Bush, who scraped out the till on the way out of office to the tune of $800 BILLION in TARP funds to bail out the banks, which then proceeded to thumb their noses at the American people who had saved them from the abyss, and go right back into the business of pillaging the public.

Has Obama been perfect? No. For one thing he should have, by executive order, simply expanded Medicare to cover everyone, instead of trying to use the rightwing Heritage Foundation's own model as a basis for the ACA. But hey! You try to be nice to the private, for-profit insurance industry and what do they do? They bite your hand off.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still believe that criticism of an elected official should have some basis in fact; my criticism of the President sure does. And that is why I expect my comments to be taken seriously, unlike the rightwing-nuts, who are as transparent in their hatred of the President as they are predictable in the contrarian responses to whatever he does.

(Oh. By the way: BENGHAZZZZZZZI!)

Suggest removal:

7Jerryl(105 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Would your hero Reagan be the same one that was selling arms to Iran to fund a revolution in Central America?

Suggest removal:

8dontbeafool(954 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Ron had a good personality with some one liners. Bad actor, and average president. Politics, every since the end of Clinton's term, has changed for the worse. Now it isn't working together, it is who points the finger at who and can smear the other party the worst. Politicians today remind me of the old WWF. They play out their parts, enemies in the ring, most of it scripted, then after their match they all get paid and sit in the locker room drinking and playing poker together. Everyone of them (politicians) as corrupt as the other, every one reaping in the cash, just some are better at acting than others.

Suggest removal:

976Ytown(1254 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Blame Bush but lest you forget, Obama criticized Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt as unpatriotic and irresponsible. Our national debt has now ballooned from $9 trillion to approaching $19 trillion, and we still have 3 more years of spending like a drunken soldier while borrowing our way into O-blivion.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Our national debt per every citizen is $54,979 and that doesn't even include our personal debt, SS, Medicare and rx liability.

Suggest removal:

10SeriouslyNow(192 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

@76Ytown,

According to your link, the US total debt per citizen is 193,037 (at the time I'm jotting this) and the personal debt (which I imagine is included in the above figure) is 51,630 per person.

Where does your 54,979 come from?

Suggest removal:

1176Ytown(1254 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

SeriouslyNow: That would be US National Debt per citizen (top of page) now at $55,092 of the approaching $18 trillion debt.
Your figure is total debt which includes: household, business, state and local government, financial institutions and the federal government. (click to see description)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/video/...

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport