President Barack Obama has unveiled his budget plan, and if you think you're going to be better off because of it, then you must be on welfare.
First, the spending:
Obama can complain all he wants about "inheriting" a deficit, but what President Bush gave him was chump change compared to what he's spending.
Second, if you think that he's going to get all the money he needs to pay for all his plans from "the rich" who make more than $250,000, you're naive.
A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
And if you think anyone's going to work an extra minute if the government is taking 100 percent of what they earn, you're an idiot.
Where's the necessary money going to come from? Well, let's just say that $250,000 floor on people getting tax increases is going to start shedding zeros pretty quick.
If you take a look at some of the tax breaks that are going away and new taxes being created, along with a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, you won't be the least bit surprised if your energy bills start rising much faster than any other tax breaks from the government appear to cover them.
And, just to show you that nothing has changed since Democrats took over Congress and vowed to drain the swamp of corruption, we have these inconvenient truths: There's tons of earmarks in this budget -- including many first proposed by then Sen. Barack Obama, who as a candidate for president said he was opposed to earmarks. Democrats in the House also quashed a move to force the "ethics committee" to investigate lobbyist-lawmaker ties of the type that have made Rep. John Murtha famous.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., sponsored the proposal that would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.
While open-ended, Flake's resolution was a direct response to the ongoing federal investigation into the PMA Group, a lobbying company accused of making fraudulent donations to lawmakers using names of people who did not exist.
The firm, which has contributed millions to politicians in the last decade, has close ties to senior Democratic appropriators including Reps. John Murtha D-Pa., and Pete Visclosky,D-Ind.
The swamp hasn't been drained; its denizens have changed.