By Casey Zirbel
Opinion Editor
This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on Obama’s budget. To view the opposing side, see here.
As the United States faces a future filled with gargantuan national debt, growing annual deficits and unchecked spending growth, it is imperative that the nation respond to the budget crisis immediately.
President Barack Obama has laid out an effective proposal for tackling the primary problems we face today that doesn’t devastate the nation’s social programs.
The proposal has four main strategies: limit the defense budget, keep annual spending low via cuts, reduce health care spending and reform the tax code to eliminate loopholes and increase the wealthiest Americans’ contributions.
The rival proposal, supported by Rep. Paul Ryan, would make key cuts to programs such as education, transportation and low-income aid programs. The programs that help the poorest and most underrepresented Americans should be protected, not attacked.
The predictions given by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget regarding Obama’s proposal as well as Paul Ryan’s opposing proposal rely upon assumptions such as Ryan’s prediction of three percent unemployment by 2020. These assumptions are unrealistic and cause analyses of the plans to be unreliable.
Because of this, the appropriate way to compare the plans is through their primary goals; upon doing so, Obama’s plan is clearly the superior, relying on cutting waste rather than important programs.
Obama’s decision to cut defense spending will eliminate a huge amount of wasteful spending. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, defense spending in the U.S. in 2010 accounted for 43 percent of the world’s total expenditures. The U.S. does not need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined just to feel safe.
As for reforming the tax code, the United States has long needed to boost tax revenues and eliminate unjust tax burdening. Since the Reagan era, tax revenues have been steadily decreased through out the years. Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax-cuts expire for the rich and to possibly raise taxes further on the wealthiest Americans is a start.
For those earning more than $200,000 individually per year, the income-tax would only increase from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent if the Bush tax-cuts expired. This increase still leaves the rate of the highest tax bracket a full 40% lower than its historical high, and therefore, is not out of line.
Obama’s plan would aim to reduce subsidies to industries such as agriculture, limit tax loopholes such as specialized deductions which are primarily utilized by the wealthiest Americans as well as corporations, and raise taxes only on the richest citizens. These types of measures target true waste rather than critical programs.
Obama has made it a priority to protect Social Security completely as well as make Medicaid and Medicare more efficient through investigative commissions composed of various medical groups. Most importantly, his plan avoids the gouging cuts supported by Republicans. The aim in this case is to protect those who need help, and that goal is admirable.
Obama’s critics have claimed that his plan ignores Social Security in his proposals, an argument which has some merit to it. However, slashing Social Security benefits is not the appropriate alternative. Conserving these benefits and finding cuts elsewhere is a much better solution.
Although imperfect, the president’s budget proposal is the best plan yet for solving our nation’s long term issues. Not only does Obama place the burden of cuts on those who can bear it the most, but he protects vital programs which would otherwise be slashed.
Leave a Reply