Risking further breakdown to the left of his own party, Barack Obama has joined those who believe it necessary to cut public spending with a plan that provides for reducing the budget deficit in four billion dollars over the next 12 years. Proposes to do so "balanced", with the elimination of important benefits, but without privatizing the main social programs, how they want the Republicans, and tax increases to higher incomes.
"We have to live up to our capabilities, reduce our deficit and return to a path that enables us to pay our debts, and we must do so as to protect the economic recovery and the investments we need to grow, create jobs and earn future, "said Wednesday the U.S. president in a speech in which he offered an alternative program to which they intend to adopt the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Already, then, in game two opposing views on the future of this country. The Republicans, Obama said, "not intended to address both the deficit and change the basic social fabric of the United States." The Obama tries to be realistic, requires sacrifice and retains the pillars of social welfare, but may not go so far as is necessary in the removal of the slab of the debt.
Now opens a major political battle of uncertain winner, but the mere fact that Obama give this speech represents a certain victory of the Republican Party. It is confirmation that the opposition is setting the agenda and that their insistence on reducing the size of government has become a national priority and probably in the shaft of the impending presidential campaign for 2012.
Obama could, as requested by the left, have opposed any spending cuts, arguing that the priority remains the creation of employment and that the Government should invest in that direction. That would set up a clash with the Republican Party and a political stalemate until November 2012.
Instead, Obama has chosen to submit their own path to deficit reduction, which may not avoid the conflict with the opposition, but allows you to connect with a good portion of citizens who agree on the danger of overspending and debt and seeking prudent solutions. In political terms, with this move, the president is trying to dominate the center.
Two models of country Americans have before them two country models. The Republican brand more ambitious goals of cutting-about six billion, "affects different areas and do not include tax increases. Probably none of these proposals will have enough votes to become law, but the discussion will present the positions of each side to the elections.
This debate includes many controversial issues, from abortion to military spending, but two that are particularly difficult: social spending and taxes. Beginning with the latter, Obama seeks to end tax cuts that George Bush applied to incomes over $ 250,000 annually. Ie, try to tax the same force under President Bill Clinton, which ended with a surplus.
The Republicans want instead to make this permanent discount. "Taxes are not on the table because we have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem," said Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. Even more controversial is the social spending cuts. The three main programs in this chapter, Medicare (health care aid for over 65 years), Medicaid (medical aid to the poor) and Social Security (pensions) - representing nearly two-thirds of the federal budget and grow exponentially .
It is difficult to address the deficit without addressing this chapter. Obama proposed spending reductions without changing the model, making it "more flexible" to increase efficiency and prevent abuse. That way, you can crop, according to him, 340,000 million for 2021. The Republicans want to privatize or avoid more costly mandatory program, Medicare, although the plan now submitted merely announcing savings of about three billion dollars through the repeal of health law passed last year and the elimination of health programs not believed necessary.
These two views are going to see their faces very soon. In the coming weeks, Congress must authorize the Government to extend the debt limit to apply for new credit. Without that, the U.S. could technically go into receivership. To support this approval, the Republicans who control the House of Representatives, require agreement on the expenditure side. .jpg)
"We have to live up to our capabilities, reduce our deficit and return to a path that enables us to pay our debts, and we must do so as to protect the economic recovery and the investments we need to grow, create jobs and earn future, "said Wednesday the U.S. president in a speech in which he offered an alternative program to which they intend to adopt the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Already, then, in game two opposing views on the future of this country. The Republicans, Obama said, "not intended to address both the deficit and change the basic social fabric of the United States." The Obama tries to be realistic, requires sacrifice and retains the pillars of social welfare, but may not go so far as is necessary in the removal of the slab of the debt.
Now opens a major political battle of uncertain winner, but the mere fact that Obama give this speech represents a certain victory of the Republican Party. It is confirmation that the opposition is setting the agenda and that their insistence on reducing the size of government has become a national priority and probably in the shaft of the impending presidential campaign for 2012.
Obama could, as requested by the left, have opposed any spending cuts, arguing that the priority remains the creation of employment and that the Government should invest in that direction. That would set up a clash with the Republican Party and a political stalemate until November 2012.
Instead, Obama has chosen to submit their own path to deficit reduction, which may not avoid the conflict with the opposition, but allows you to connect with a good portion of citizens who agree on the danger of overspending and debt and seeking prudent solutions. In political terms, with this move, the president is trying to dominate the center.
Two models of country Americans have before them two country models. The Republican brand more ambitious goals of cutting-about six billion, "affects different areas and do not include tax increases. Probably none of these proposals will have enough votes to become law, but the discussion will present the positions of each side to the elections.
This debate includes many controversial issues, from abortion to military spending, but two that are particularly difficult: social spending and taxes. Beginning with the latter, Obama seeks to end tax cuts that George Bush applied to incomes over $ 250,000 annually. Ie, try to tax the same force under President Bill Clinton, which ended with a surplus.
The Republicans want instead to make this permanent discount. "Taxes are not on the table because we have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem," said Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. Even more controversial is the social spending cuts. The three main programs in this chapter, Medicare (health care aid for over 65 years), Medicaid (medical aid to the poor) and Social Security (pensions) - representing nearly two-thirds of the federal budget and grow exponentially .
It is difficult to address the deficit without addressing this chapter. Obama proposed spending reductions without changing the model, making it "more flexible" to increase efficiency and prevent abuse. That way, you can crop, according to him, 340,000 million for 2021. The Republicans want to privatize or avoid more costly mandatory program, Medicare, although the plan now submitted merely announcing savings of about three billion dollars through the repeal of health law passed last year and the elimination of health programs not believed necessary.
These two views are going to see their faces very soon. In the coming weeks, Congress must authorize the Government to extend the debt limit to apply for new credit. Without that, the U.S. could technically go into receivership. To support this approval, the Republicans who control the House of Representatives, require agreement on the expenditure side.
No comments:
Post a Comment