Obama’s New Budget Proposal: Same Spending, Same Middle Class Tax Hikes, Different Day

From The Hill.

Obama’s budget to be released on Wednesday would leave the nation with a $744 billion budget deficit in 2014 despite new entitlement cuts and tax hikes.

The $1.058 trillion budget for fiscal year 2014 — which will arrive on Capitol Hill about two months late — would turn off the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester and raise $580 billion in new tax revenue over ten years by limiting tax deductions for upper-income households.

The budget increases spending in 2014 when compared to spending under the sequester. Leaving the sequester in place would lead to $966 billion in discretionary spending in 2014.

Total spending in fiscal year 2014 including on entitlements would be $3.77 trillion.

It also includes the “Buffett Rule”; which would squeeze even more taxes out of wealthy people–many of whom are job creators.

The Middle Class, which Obama purports to defend, will be strangled as well:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney conceded as much during an April 5 briefing, when CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett asked if it would ‘raise taxes on middle-income Americans.’

‘I’m not disputing that,’ Carney said, adding that ‘it is not the president’s ideal policy.’

It will, however, be part of his budget.

So much for the poor:

Obama’s long-awaited budget proposal, to be released today, does not come right out and say that intends to reduce contributions to charity—but that is almost certainly what would happen were it to become law. Here’s why. The White House has effectively doubled down on a tax change it has been pushing for four years that would limit the value of the charitable tax deduction. The Administration has, since 2009, pushed unsuccessfully to allow only 28 cents on a dollar donated to charity to be deducted—even though the top tax rate for the wealthy donors who make most use of the deduction has been 35 percent. In the budget released today, the President again proposes to cap the charitable deduction at 28 percent—despite the fact that the top rate on the highest earners has increased to 39.6 percent. Think of it this way: the White House proposal would raise the cost of giving to charity from 60 cents per dollar to 72 cents per dollar. That’s a 20 percent increase in what can be called the “charity tax.” When one taxes something more, of course, one gets less of it—and it’s likely that the current $168 billion in itemized charitable giving would decline.

‘Fair share’.

And just wait until ObamaCare kicks in.

The lefwtingnuts are none too pleased with Obama’s offer to cut social security and Medicare in exchange for tax increases:

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, red in the face, took off his jacket and rolled up a shirt sleeve — but there was no relief from the discomfort of his affliction.

The poor guy is suffering from triangulation.

The man triangulating him, President Obama, has proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of an attempt to find a middle ground in the budget debate. For Sanders (I), a liberal member of the Senate Democratic caucus, the betrayal stung so badly that he literally took to the streets, joining left-wing activists for a protest Tuesday afternoon outside the White House.

……Sanders’s ire was real, as was that of his fellow demonstrators: a pair of congressmen plus representatives of the AFL-CIO, the National Organization for Women, MoveOn.org, Campaign for America’s Future and the rest of the liberal establishment. “Inhumane,” they said of Obama’s proposal. “Dickensian … reprehensible.”

……At a Republican presidential debate in 2011, all eight candidates on the stage said they would reject a budget deal that raised taxes even if it had $10 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. At Tuesday’s protest, I put the reverse question to participants: Could they accept a dollar of cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits for every $10 of increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy? All those I asked said they would decline.

“Not for me, no,” said Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.).

“I’m not taking your offer,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

“No, it’s not negotiable,” said Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO’s policy director.

“Uh, no,” said Jim Dean, the chairman of Democracy for America.

Similar answers came from Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America’s Future, Manny Herrmann from MoveOn — and, of course, Sanders.

The trouble is, regardless of how many taxes are levied against Americans, the government won’t cut any out of control, wasteful pork barrel spending.

Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on obscene things you wouldn’t believe.

This latest farce won’t pass Congress and won’t do anything to create jobs.

That’s not Obama’s goal anyway. Along with his union pals, he wants to continue to exploit the easily manipulated Dem voting bloc-–mostly poor, illegal aliens, and minorities.