WH Budget Director Testifies on Pres. Biden's 2024 Budget Proposal

Post Reply
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

WH Budget Director Testifies on Pres. Biden's 2024 Budget Proposal

Post by vnatale » Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:47 pm

https://www.c-span.org/video/?526666-1/ ... t-proposal

MARCH 15, 2023
WH Budget Director Testifies on Pres. Biden's 2024 Budget Proposal
Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young said President Biden’s 2024 budget request “details a blueprint” that builds on the progress of his economic agenda. Appearing before the Senate Budget Committee, the White House budget director told lawmakers the budget proposal would reduce the deficit “by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade by asking the wealthy and large corporations to begin to pay their fair share.” Several topics were addressed, including childcare investment, tax reform, climate change impacts, infrastructure, and protecting Medicare and Social Security.


I watched / listened to this live this morning. Believe it was the first time I'd ever listened to someone testifying on the budget.

I was exercising / doing some things on this computer the whole time it was on so no opportunity to take any notes therefore going from memory.

Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island was the chair so he made the opening statement.

Just yesterday I was thinking how I react negatively to politicians (mainly) talking about making "investments", which I generally take as a euphemism for plain spending money.

In politics / government spending a true investment would be using money in such a way that the money expended is paid back plus extra. If it only is a benefit for that year then it is just spending money. Examples. Providing money so someone can get better educated / skilled in some way so that person earns more money and pays more taxes would be an investment. Getting more money to people so that they have a nicer life that year but with no residual carryover is spending money.

Whitehouse specialized in telling us all the investments that this budget was making. I rejected just about all of them, viewing them as not investments but spending money.

Chuck Grassley went next. Since I'm a big-time fiscal conservative I'm going to be disagreeing with most of what the Democrats have to say and agreeing with most of what the Republicans had to say.

I was agreeing with just about all Grassley had to say. The only part I did not totally agree with was when he said that all the spending was the cause of inflation. I know that a lot of people do believe that but I've also heard others state that that is only responsible for a relatively small part of inflation. So I'm up in the air on that one. The budget director did point out that the whole world is suffering from inflation and that one piece of legislation by our country does the affect the entire world.

I think it was Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin?) who point blank asked her what percentage of taxes the rich should be paying. He had pointed out that though the rich earn a certain percentage of all money earned (24%?) they pay twice that percentage of all taxes (48%?). Seemed to me like the rich have been paying their fair share and I don't like people getting benefits while expecting to pay nothing for them and expecting others to pay for all of them.

When confronted with that and other valid points ... she (budget director) kept falling back on the somewhat bromide that the top 400 people in income in the country only pay 8% taxes. I like percentages but even better I like percentages AND absolute amounts to give a better picture.

I think it was Senator Rick Scott of Florida who pointed out that even though our population has only increased by 2% since 2019 this budget represents a 55% increase since then. Seemed to be a completely valid point. Again, because I was not taking any notes and relying only upon memory I don't remember how she responded but it could have been those 400 only paying 8%.

I was surprised when the hearing ended at noon, making it only a 2 hour hearing. I had thought given the subject matter that it would have been much longer.

Some of the Republican Senators alluded to the following but .... it's always striking how concerned the Republicans are about deficits when it is a Democratic president and are silent on these matters when it is a Republican president.

They will say our party has also been guilty of this but where were they on these matters when there was a Republican president?

There is no magic tax rate. No magic budget.

My overall bottom line is that if you are going to spend the money then you need to tax to equal that amount of spending. Therefore I reject BOTH the Democrat and Republican ways. The Democrats want to tax more but spend more than they tax. The Republicans want to tax less but also spend more than they tax.

Of course, who knows how much waste is going on. No politician ever got elected by cutting out programs / spending. They get elected by providing program, which of course involves spending.

Just as on a local and state level I saw with the organization I was with the politicians touting how much money they'd given to us and how it was spent. Yet they never asked me / the organization how that spending turned out, which oftentimes was big-time ongoing losers.

The money given to us would make the local newspaper. The poor final results never would.

It's scary how these 1+ trillion dollar annual budget deficits are now seemingly being accepted as a valid, structural component of the budgeting process.

One (Republican) senator pointed out that that these burgeoning deficits ARE represent the biggest threat to our country. Don't know if I completely agree with that statement but I do share the concern.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply