By Jason Hughey
President Obama claims that his new budget is a compromise. In reality, his budget is as bloated and wasteful as the budget proposed by Chairman Murray. Americans for Prosperity opposed Sen. Murray’s budget on the grounds that it was a tax-and-spend boost for big government. It did nothing to address our critical fiscal situation and neither does the President’s new budget.
To see why this budget is not a compromise, look at the three graphs below comparing the President’s budget to the four other budgets that were proposed over the course of the past month.
President Obama’s budget initially spends more than Chairman Murray’s budget. Over ten years, it spends $147 billion more than her budget. In comparison, the budgets proposed by Chairman Ryan, Senator Paul, and the Republican Study Committee slow the increase in government spending over the next ten years. According to Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center, “The Democratic plans grow spending by 54% while the Ryan plan grows it by 34% and the Paul plan by 22% over this period.”
Of all of the budget proposals, President Obama’s budget collects the most in taxes. This means that his budget taxes and spends more money than any of the other budgets presented this year. In no way can this be considered a compromise
In this graph, President Obama’s and Chairman Murray’s budget drastically grow the “debt held by the public” figure over the next ten years. Again, the President’s budget slightly edges Chairman Murray’s budget, increasing the amount of public debt by almost $7 trillion. In contrast, Chairman Ryan’s budget grows this figure by roughly $2 trillion over ten years, Sen. Paul’s budget grows it by roughly $500 billion, and the RSC budget would have cut it by roughly $40 billion.
In other words, the budget offered us by the President has the highest taxes, highest spending, and the largest increase to the national debt out of all the budget proposals. In no way is it a compromise.