New Study: The American Public Prefers LIBERAL Policies Which Would Cut Budget By $437 Billion
A recent study entitled “Competing Budget Priorities: The Public, The House, The White House” by the University of Maryland’s Program For Public Consultation reveals that on nearly every single budgetary issue a majority of Americans were polled as preferring policies which would be classified as ‘liberal’.
The study compares the different budgetary priorities of: 1. the American public, 2. the Obama administration and 3. the Republican-led House of Representatives.
Here’s a few of their key findings, outlining their budgetary preferences:
American public would cut by 18% (or $109.4 billion)
President Obama would increase by 4% (or $23 billion)
Republican-led House would increase by 2% (or $9 billion)
Energy Conservation & Renewable Energy Spending:
American public would increase by 110%
President Obama would increase by 44%
Republican-led House would cut by 36%
Pollution Control Spending:
American public would increase by 17%
President Obama would cut by 13%
Republican-led House would cut by 39%
Job Training Spending:
American public would increase by 130%
President Obama would cut by 3%
Republican-led House would cut by 47%
Higher Education Spending:
American public would increase by 92%
President Obama would increase by 9%
Republican-led House would cut by 26%
Science Research Spending:
American public would increase by 5%
President Obama would increase by 11%
Republican-led House would cut by 12%
Economic Support Fund Spending (Foreign military aid to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt & Israel for ‘strategic purposes’):
American public would cut by 23%
President Obama would cut by 9%
Republican-led House would cut by 6%
Humanitarian Assistance (to Foreign Countries):
American public would increase by 18%
President Obama would cut by 8%
Republican-led House would cut by 17%
– American public would increase taxes to provide an additional $292 billion in revenues annually (w/ $155 billion of that amount coming from raising income taxes on those making above $100k per year).
– President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes in 2012 would generate an additional $62.5 billion in revenues annually.
– President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes in 2015 would generate an additional $97.2 billion in revenues annually. (NOTE: the increase in revenues between 2015 and 2012 is due to the fact he again promises to end Bush tax cuts on those making above $250k/year in 2015).
– Republican-led House proposes NO tax increases on anyone (including wealthiest 2%) thereby generating $0 in additional revenues.
So how would each of the three groups fare (in terms of the annual budget) if their preferred policies were implemented?
The overwhelmingly LIBERAL policy preferences of the American public cuts the budget by a whopping $437 billion for 2015.
If Obama hadn’t broken his campaign promise, and allowed Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% to elapse, he would have cut the budget by $28 billion. Since he pressured his party to extend Bush’s tax cuts, he for now at least will actually increase spending by $37 billion.
The Republican-led House called for an additional $61 billion in spending cuts, with no increases in revenue (tax increases) which would cut the budget by $61 billion.
What this study shows is that if our democracy actually worked, and our public representatives actually legislated the will of the AMERICAN PEOPLE rather than those of the moneyed special interest groups who line their pockets, our country wouldn’t be in the dire financial straits it now finds itself. It also shows that progressive policies are far more fiscally sound than those proposed by conservatives.
Here’s a fabulous debate between MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur and conservative UMD Economist Peter Morici on the study’s results (broken down above). Watch Morici get flustered as he continues to try to push the tired old MSM ‘mythical middle’ narrative, despite the proof staring him right in the face.
Ralph Nader: President Obama Will Be Primaried
Though he hasn’t ruled out a 2012 run himself, Ralph Nader reveals to The Hill that he’d prefer to have a fresh new face to challenge the Democratic President from the Left:
“… it’s time for someone else to continue. I’ve done it so many times. When I go around the country, I’m telling people they need to find somebody.”
He cites Obama’s recent deal with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans — which would add $700 billion to the national debt — to be the “last straw”.
Nader’s anger seems to reflect that of many from Obama’s own progressive base. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reports that the House Democratic Caucus passed a motion this morning to reject Obama’s deal with the Republicans. Though the vote is nonbinding, it stands as a clear repudiation of Obama’s broken campaign promise to end Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, as well as his backroom deal making, which always seems to preclude progressives.
“There will be a primary. Just a question of how prominent a person [will run against Obama]. This deal is the last straw.”
“Obama’s position has been that the liberal, progressive wing has nowhere to go, therefore they can’t turn their back on the administration. But a challenge will hold his feet to the fire and signal that we do have somewhere to go.”
Nader goes on to question Obama’s character — now a familiar conversation piece within Progressive circles:
“[Obama] has no fixed principles. He’s opportunistic — he goes for expedience, like Clinton. Some call him temperamentally conflict-averse. If you want to be harsher, you say he has no principles and he’s opportunistic. [..]
“He’s a con man. I have no use for him,” Nader said. […]
“These are majoritarian positions. The polling shows that. Living wage, single payer, cracking down on corporate crime. … It’s time for someone to continue this.”
It will be interesting to see whether a champion of progressive ideals decides — like Nader — “enough is enough,” to then boldly throw his hat into the ring for 2012. But to do so will mean to taking on the deep-pocketed, establishment wing of the Democratic Party. And this means taking on the entrenched interests Obama has been cutting deals with since his inauguration.
Even with a disapproval rate now at 53%, defeating an incumbent Obama will be no cakewalk.
Meet The Press: Sen. John Cornyn Can’t Distinguish Today’s GOP Policies From Those Under Bush
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee) cannot name a single issue on how the Republican Party today differs from the Republican Party during the Bush administration:
Gregory: What does distinguish the Republican Party of today from the Republican Party under President Bush’s rule with regards to spending — which is where it got out of control under Republican rule, that now Conservatives are so upset about?
Cornyn: Well let’s look at a few facts — and I thank you for the opportunity — because I want to respond to what Chris said, the last year that President Bush was in office, 2008, the deficit was 3.2% of the gross domestic product. Today it’s 10%. We just hit the 13 trillion debt on national debt.
Gregory: Well, let me just stop you Senator. Where did some of that debt come from? The President of the United States was George Bush when they passed a huge TARP just to bail out the banks. I mean that’s what ran up a lot of debt as well. Are you saying a Republican was somehow different?
Cornyn: Well, you’re ignoring the stimulus that was, ah, failed according to the President’s own standards. He said he was supposed to keep unemployment to 8%. A 2.6 trillion dollar health care bill that — I agree with Pete — will bankrupt not only the private sector, but the states and the federal government creating a new entitlement program. My point is that unemployment was roughly 6.9% when President Obama was elected, now it’s 9.5%. The deficit was 3.2% the last year President Bush was in office, now it’s 10%. The debt was 2.3 trillion dollars lower in 2008 than it is now, because of runaway spending and debt so …
Gregory: So my question is still: What is the distinction of the Republican Party of today versus the Bush record that you’re defending.
Cornyn: Well, I think what people are looking for, David, are checks and balances. They’ve had single party government, and it’s scaring the living daylights out of them, and it’s keeping ‘job creators’ on the sidelines rather than investing and creating jobs. That’s why the private sector isn’t creating jobs.
Gregory: Well, are you concerned people will see that as a strategy of saying ‘no’ rather than saying ‘yes’ to something?
Cornyn: Well, my constituents in Texas — I have to tell ya — to all the bad ideas they hear coming out of Washington these days, ah — ‘no’ is a good start, and then they want us to replace it with common sense policies that actually make sense. But the problem is our friends on the Democratic side, including the President have passed one unpopular policy measure after another and told the American people “we don’t care what you think. We know what’s better than you do what’s good for you,” and I think the birds are coming home to roost.
In other words, they intend to resume Bush’s policies of increasing the national debt to pay for deeper tax cuts for the rich, to bail out Wall Street fat cats, and to wage more endless and unnecessary wars. Sounds like a winning strategy, John … 😯