Budgeting and funding are two different processes. My best guess, the Repubs won't give Obama any of the tax increases he asked for, and they will pump up defense spending. Then we get to see if Obama will veto the GOP budget. But it will all come down to the appropriations bills for spending. And if recent past history is a guide, the two sides will stay far apart and we will eventually get some sort of massive continuing resolution to fund the government.Obama's budget just went up in flames. What will the GOP propose and can they find common ground? Or will they fund things seperatly?
The 318-109 vote, part of a sweeping budget deal expected to clear Congress by week's end, was supported by business and antipoverty advocates as a down payment on a broader tax overhaul and a way to make permanent dozens of specialty tax breaks that have been renewed year to year. But passage served as a reminder of the dominance in the GOP of so-called supply-siders over deficit hawks. Most Republicans, including Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) believe tax cuts will more than pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth. Only a handful of Republicans joined most Democrats in opposing the measure. "Where did all the deficit hawks go?" asked Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who opposed the bill. "Probably part of the endangered species, I don't know."
The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to be combined with a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending measure to avert a federal shutdown and keep the government funded through Sept. 30. Final votes are set for Friday, and President Obama is expected to sign the combined package into law. As a whole the package represents one of the biggest domestic policy initiatives in years, and exposes the trade-offs that are commonly made in Congress to reach consensus.
The tax breaks were needed to make the broader package more palatable. Many conservative Republicans oppose the spending bill because it reverses some of the sequester cuts Congress put in place just a few years ago, but they embraced the tax breaks. "This is a good bill, this is an amazing bill," said Rep. Pat Tiberi (R., Ohio) during the floor debate. "Go talk to your small businesses. ... This is going to provide amazing certainty." But, noting that the measure's overall price tag soars to $800 billion after including interest payments over the next decade, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, countered: "The certainty of this bill is that we will explode deficits."
See also:That equaled approximately $7,169 for every person in the country who had either a full or a part-time job in January. It is also an increase of about $33,000,000,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $1,046,224,000,000 in revenue (in constant 2015 dollars) that the Treasury took in during the first four months of fiscal 2015.
As it was hauling in these record tax revenues, the Treasury was spending approximately $1,239,615,000,000, and ended up the first four months of the fiscal year with a deficit of approximately $160,391,000,000, according to the monthly statement.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in January (including both full and part-time workers) was 150,544,000. That means that the record federal tax revenue of $1,079,224,000,000 that the Treasury has taken in so far this fiscal year already equals approximately $7,169 per worker.
In January 2015, there were 148,104,000 people employed in the United States. So, the then-record of $1,046,224,000,000 in revenues the Treasury pulled in during the first four months of fiscal 2015 (Oct.-Dec. 2014) equaled approximately $7,064 per worker. The largest single source of federal tax revenue so far this fiscal year—as listed in Table 3 of the Monthly Treasury Statements summary of receipts and outlays--has been the individual income tax, which has brought the federal government approximately $532,792,000,000.
$1,079,224,000,000: FY2016 Taxes Set Record Through January; $7,169 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $160.39B Deficit
In the budget message he sent Congress this week, Obama portrays himself as a president who led America back to economic good times. "When I took office, our nation was in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression," Obama wrote. "The economy was shedding 800,000 jobs a month. The auto industry was on the brink of collapse and our manufacturing sector was in decline. Many families were struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet. Millions more saw their savings evaporate, even as retirement neared. "But thanks to the grit and determination of the American people," Obama said, "we rescued our economy from the depths of recession, revitalized our auto industry, and laid down new rules to safeguard our economy from the recklessness of Wall Street."
So is Obama the architect of an economic renaissance? A champion of the working man? Is this what reasonable people a century from now will look back and see in the era of his presidency? No. Nor should people see that now. The truth is: Obama took office at a time when big-government liberalism had already put America on a downward trajectory. He not only kept this nation on that trajectory, he accelerated it. It is now almost seven years since the last recession ended in June 2009. Is America seeing significant economic growth today? No. Has it seen significant economic growth in any year since the recession ended? No.
In 2009, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real Gross Domestic Product declined by 2.8 percent. In 2010, it grew by 2.5 percent. But that is the most robust economic year of the Obama presidency so far. In 2011, real GDP grew by only 1.6 percent; in 2012 by 2.2 percent; in 2013 by 1.5 percent; in 2014 by 2.4 percent; and in 2015 by 2.4 percent. The BEA has calculated the annual percent change in inflation-adjusted GDP going back to 1930. Unless real GDP grows by 3 percent or more this year, Obama will be the first president elected since then not to see a single year of real 3 percent GDP growth during his time in office.
In 10 of the 12 years from 1933 through 1944, when FDR was president, real GDP grew by 5 percent or more, according to the BEA's numbers. In 2004 and 2005, when George W. Bush was president, real GDP grew by 3.8 percent and 3.3 percent. But that was the last time real GDP grew by at least 3 percent in a year. For 10 straight years now, the U.S. economy has grown at less than 3 percent a year. While America has seen no great economic growth over the past decade, it has seen great growth in the federal debt.