75 Percent of Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

Friday December 14, 2012 12:40 PM - 3 Comments

obama2Seventy-five percent of the new revenue pulled in by President Barack Obama’s “fiscal cliff” plan would go toward new spending, not toward deficit reduction, the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee contends. Here’s a chart, detailing how money from the new tax hikes would be distributed:

According to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, $1.2 trillion of the proposed $1.6 trillion in tax hikes would go toward new spending, while only $400 billion would go toward deficit reduction.

“The [president's] plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the president asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, last week on the floor.

“Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President’s plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending,” Sessions added.

“Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President’s proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for.”


{Matzav.com Newscenter}

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Top Of Page

3 Responses to “75 Percent of Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending”

1. Comment from joe shmoe
Time December 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM

our president is following his brother’s countries’ dictators, pulling the country towards poverty, while living very wealthy

2. Comment from Anonymous
Time December 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Spending is the difference between being in the future and being in the past. But we need to work on the debt.

3. Comment from Paul Revere II
Time December 15, 2012 at 11:14 PM

It seems impossible to find any people in the House of Representatives with guts to simply vote no more funding of anything with Obama’s hands on it, past or present (pun intended).

If the House would simply cut off the money, each and every insane Obamascare (spelling intended) regulation would die of starvation.
What’s keeping Congress from simply saying NO?

Leave a Comment