.
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.
The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt…
we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.
The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.
Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.
Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.
But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.
That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.
My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive
And a 180 degree turn from his WTF (Winning The Future) SOTU address.
<
p>However, “well done” is infinitely more important than “well said”, and given this President’s track record of anticorrelation between “done” and “said”…
<
p>http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa…
We’ve heard promising speeches and pronouncements from Barack Obama before – example: a public option as a component in health care reform – followed by a failure to fight for the item. Watch his follow-up actions.
And as the Center on Budget Priorities and Policies notes making cuts in a recession is not the right way to go, but it’s a realistic attempt to put forward a Democratic budget agenda. There are certainly caveats, but on the other hand, we live in a country where a significant percentage of the population believe our President was born in Kenya and a celebrity whore like Donald Trump sees his political stock rise as he takes a birther line.
<
p>Here’s the conclusion to the CBPP piece:
Glenn Greenwald doesn’t worry about them at all:
For most of the previous decade, the Democratic party and its advisors were incapable of marshalling the tactics necessary to beat Bush.
<
p>And unless bringing down his poll numbers during the summer of the ACA was some sort of 3-dimensional chess move, I’d say his army of veteran Washington advisors were not very good.
<
p>My hypothesis is that these advisors, many of whom were from the Clinton Administration, thought they were facing the same battles and responded wrongly.
<
p>To give Greenwald his due, Obama is not a progressive. His education policy is conservative; that’s not unique to him though as plenty of other Democrats have followed essentially the same policy. His economic views are neo-liberal, again not surprising given his hometown and choice of Austan Goolsbee as an advisor in the campaign and afterwards.
<
p>I’m not even sure I agree with Greenwald on Guantanamo, Bradley Manning, and other Constitutional violations. I think Obama is wrong, but I also know that the world looks a lot different when you’re governing. That doesn’t make him right–it didn’t make LBJ right–but neither does it mean Obama & Co. are fulfilling their ideological dreams.
I want a president (and all my elected representatives) who zeroes in on doing the right thing, fighting for it, telling the people why he is fighting for it, compromising when he has to and last but not least, someone who governs without worrying about re-election. My theory is that if you follow the guiding star of shooting for policy that’s informed by your values every time, not what’s expedient, chances are that you can be proud of your record at election time.
but in my very limited, very small-stakes experience, it’s not that easy.
<
p>I’ve not been a big fan of Obama, and I’m still not. I am happy with this speech inasmuch as it represents his actually declaring some progressive principles, standing for something.
<
p>I hope its a start.
I am pretty sure there was a considerable fight for the public option, blame the Senate Dems on the Finance committee and insurance industry whores like Baucus and Lieberman for making it a non-starter. At that point what was the President to do leave 41 million people uninsured and walk away with nothing? Sorry but the Lombardi rule applies to politics as equally as it does to sports. The problem with the progressive movement is that they are not good at picking and choosing what to be angry about which makes the whole movement seemed devoted to 100% liberal policy solutions that are just not going anywhere. If the same caucus would have fought on DADT, DOMA, Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Patriot Act it would have had the wind of public opinion at its back. Instead when the people overwhelmingly voted for tax and spending cuts last November, the progressives are proposing a budget I doubt the majority of the people would support. This is not going to pass Congress this session, er go, its a nonstarter and a useless bit of symbolism. It does insulate the President’s plan from criticism and makes his look more ridiculous. By the way I completely agree that its sad that Milibank and the MSM can attack this budget seemingly designed by the Cambridge City Council while taking Ayn Ryan’s budget a lot more seriously-they are both fatty pieces of meat to throw to the respective bases while serious proposals like Simpson-Bowles get scant a mention.
“makes his plan look more serious as opposed to ridiculous