WHITE HOUSE

Four Must-Knows From the President’s Deficit Proposal

Updated: September 19, 2011 | 9:10 p.m.
September 19, 2011 | 2:24 p.m.

Before sending his deficit-cutting proposal to Congress, President Obama attached a note in a speech in the Rose Garden: “This is not class warfare, this is math.” Below, National Journal does the math—and previews the political warfare that may ensue.

Already Paid For: Of the $4.4 trillion Obama’s plan shaves from the national debt, $1.2 trillion was already accounted for in the Budget Control Act the president signed in August to prevent a default, according to the White House. The remaining amount includes a $1.1 trillion decrease in defense spending—also previously expected in the execution of the plan to draw down troops in Afghanistan and transition control in Iraq.

The Buffett Rule: Warren Buffett has often criticized the nation’s tax system for letting him to pay a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary (and others in his office). How could this happen? According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, individuals who earn most of their income off dividends often pay lower rates than their middle-class peers. Under the so-called Buffett rule, which seeks to put an end to that, no American making over $1 million annually would pay less than the average middle-class family.

Veto Threat: Throwing a punch back at House Speaker John Boehner’s threat to block any bill proposing a tax increase, the president said he would not sign a bill “if it cuts benefits that people are relying on for Medicare and it doesn’t balance in revenue.” 

The (Very Slight) Cut in Medicare: While the president criticized those who support cutting payments to beneficiaries, he did not leave Medicare completely off the table. Obama’s proposal includes a $248 billion cut in Medicare, but the White House says that most of it—$224 billion—will come from reducing overpayments. Off the table, for now anyway, is raising Medicare’s eligibility age. 

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

9:13 a.m.

Latest Response by Marty Durbin: Pick Up the Pace On Export Approvals

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

7:32 a.m.

Latest Response by Margo Thorning: Capitalize on Robust U.S. Natural Gas Sources

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

7:29 a.m.

Latest Response by Marty: Pick Up the Pace on Export Approvals

More Expert Opinions »

Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »