Milliarden, Billionen, Trillionen - bei diesen Summen wird der US-Haushalt vor allem als gigantisches Zahlenmonster wahrgenommen. Doch hinter den historischen Rekorddaten verbirgt sich ein radikaler Kurswechsel der amerikanischen Politik. Ein Kommentar, Obamas Rede im Original, interaktive Grafiken.
Wie angekündigt reißt Präsident Barack Obama mit dem ersten Etat, den sein Team allein verantwortet, das Ruder weit herum: mit Angebotspolitik und abgehobenen Mondprojekten ist Schluss. Bushs Steuervorteile für Besserverdienende werden gestrichen, Subventionen für Energie-Dinosaurier gekappt, die Banken abkassiert. Und die bemannte Raumfahrt? So tot wie Mondgestein.
Stattdessen richtet Obamas Regierung alle Mittel auf Bildung, Forschung und Beschäftigung, mehr denn je. Denn nach den letzten Wahlschlappen hat Obama kapiert: "It's the economy, stupid." Also wird der Bildungsbereich vom Ausgabenstopp ausgenommen, der Forschungsetat um sechs Prozent erhöht. Auch das Klima wird ganz der Beschäftigungspolitik unterstellt. Die Subventionen für die fossilen Energieträger fallen, die grüne Energie wird umso mehr gefördert.
Doch der geplante Emissionshandel, eigentlich eine potente Einnahmequelle für den Staat, fällt stillschweigend aus dem Etat. Ein Beleg, wie pragmatisch Obama vorgeht. Jobs, Jobs und Jobs sind wichtiger als die Minderung des CO2-Ausstoßes.
Immerhin um zwei Prozentpunkte soll die Defizitquote im Haushaltsjahr, das im Herbst beginnt, gegenüber dem laufenden Jahr gedrückt werden: von 1 556 Mrd. auf 1 267 Mrd. Dollar. Nicht schlecht. Doch ob das reicht, ein Waterloo der Demokraten bei der Kongresswahl im Herbst zu verhindern, das Staatsdefizit von derzeit über zehn Prozent bis 2012 zu halbieren und die Arbeitslosigkeit zurückzudrängen?
Das hängt zunächst einmal von den Republikanern ab, die Obama im Senat nun wieder blockieren können. Mittelfristig muss jedoch vor allem die Konjunktur anziehen, die Wirtschaft weiterhin so dynamisch wachsen wie im letzten Quartal 2009. Damit das gelingt, stützt Obama die Kleinunternehmer mit Steuererleichterungen im Wert von 30 Mrd. Dollar pro Jahr.
Verglichen damit sehen die neun Mrd. Dollar, die die Banken im Rahmen der heiß debattierten Sondersteuer zahlen sollen, tatsächlich wie Peanuts aus.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. This morning, I sent a
budget to Congress for the coming year. It's a budget that reflects
the serious challenges facing the country. We're at war. Our economy
has lost 7 million jobs over the last two years. And our government is
deeply in debt after what can only be described as a decade of
profligacy.
The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200
billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon.
Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration
and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed
massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying
for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising
health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door,
the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8
trillion over the next decade.
If we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started
bringing down these deficits immediately. But one year ago, our
country was in crisis: We were losing nearly 700,000 jobs each month,
the economy was in a free fall, and the financial system was near
collapse. Many feared another Great Depression. So we initiated a
rescue, and that rescue was not without significant cost; it added to
the deficit as well.
One year later, because of the steps we've taken, we're in a very
different place. But we can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have
to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the
failure to rein in spending, as well a reliance on borrowing –- from
Wall Street to Washington to Main Street –- to fuel our growth. That's
what we have to change. We have to do what families across America are
doing: Save where we can so that we can afford what we need.
Now, I think it's very important to understand: We won't be able to
bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still
taking hold and families across the country still need help. We will
continue, for example, to do what it takes to create jobs. That's
reflected in my budget; it's essential. The budget includes new tax
cuts for people who invest in small businesses, tax credits for small
businesses that hire new workers, investments that will create jobs
repairing roads and bridges, and tax breaks for retrofitting homes to
save energy.
We also continue to lay a new foundation for lasting growth, which
is essential as well. Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow
against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally
wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will
determine our economic success in this new century.
That's why we build on the largest investment in clean energy in
history, as well as increase investment in scientific research, so that
we are fostering the industries and jobs of the future right here in
America.
That's why I've proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding
for the Education Department. And this funding is tied to reforms that
raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and
science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young
people to a lesser future -- because in the 21st century there is no
better anti-poverty program than a world-class education.
And that's why we eliminate a wasteful subsidy to banks that lend to
college students, and use that money to revitalize community colleges
and make college more affordable. This will help us reach the goal
I've set for America: By 2020 we will once again have the highest
proportion of college graduates in the world.
These are the investments we must make to create jobs and
opportunity now and in the future. And in a departure from the way
business had been done in Washington, we actually show how we pay for
these investments while putting our country on a more fiscally
sustainable path.
I've proposed a freeze in government spending for three years. This
won't apply to the benefits folks get through Social Security,
Medicaid, or Medicare. And it won't apply to our national security –-
including benefits for veterans. But it will apply to all other
discretionary government programs. And we're not simply photocopying
last year's budget; freezing spending does not mean we won't cut what
doesn't work to pay for what does.
We have gone through every department's spending line by line, item
by item, looking for inefficiency, duplication, and programs that have
outlived their usefulness. That's how we freeze discretionary
spending. Last year, we found $17 billion in cuts. This year, we've
already found $20 billion.
Now, some of these cuts are just common sense. For example, we cut
$115 million from a program that pays states to clean up mines that
have already been cleaned up. We're also cutting a Forest Service
economic development program that strayed so far from any mission that
it funded a music festival. And we're saving $20 million by stopping
the refurbishment of a Department of Energy science center that the
Department of Energy does not want to refurbish.
Other cuts, though, are more painful, because the goals of the
underlying programs are worthy. We eliminate one program that provides
grants to do environmental clean up of abandoned buildings. That's a
mission I support, but there are other sources of private and public
funds to achieve it. We also eliminated a $120 million program that
allows folks to get their Earned Income Tax Credit in advance. I am a
big supporter of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The problem is 80
percent of people who got this advance didn't comply with one or more
of the program's requirements.
So I'm willing to reduce waste in programs I care about, and I'm
asking members of Congress to do the same. I'm asking Republicans and
Democrats alike to take a fresh look at programs they've supported in
the past to see what's working and what's not, and trim back
accordingly.
Like any business, we're also looking for ways to get more bang for our
buck, by promoting innovation and cutting red tape. For example, we
consolidate 38 separate education programs into 11. And last fall, we
launched the "SAVE Awards" to solicit ideas from federal employees
about how make government more efficient and more effective. I'm proud
to say that a number of these ideas -- like allowing Social Security
appointments to be made online -- made it into our budget.
I also want to note even though the Department of Defense is exempt
from the budget freeze, it's not exempt from budget common sense. It's
not exempt from looking for savings. We save money by eliminating
unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One
example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport
aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease
production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet
every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more
C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and
simple.
And there are other steps we're taking to rein in deficits. I've
proposed a fee on big banks to pay back taxpayers for the bailout.
We're reforming the way contracts are awarded, to save taxpayers
billions of dollars. And while we extend middle-class tax cuts in this
budget, we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies,
investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We
just can't afford it.
Finally, changing spending-as-usual depends on changing
politics-as-usual. And that's why I've proposed a bipartisan fiscal
commission: a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would hammer out
concrete deficit reduction proposals over the medium and long term, but
would come up with those answers by a certain deadline. I should point
out, by the way, that is an idea that had strong bipartisan support,
was originally introduced by Senators Gregg on the Republican side and
Conrad on the Democratic side; had a lot of Republican cosponsors to
the idea. I hope that, despite the fact that it got voted down in the
Senate, that both the Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and the
Republican Leader in the House John Boehner go ahead and fully embrace
what has been a bipartisan idea to get our arms around this budget.
That's also why we're restoring pay-as-you-go: a simple rule that
says Congress can't spend a dime without cutting a dime elsewhere.
This rule helped lead to the budget surpluses of the 1990s, and it's
one of the most important steps we can take to restore fiscal
discipline in Washington.
You can read more about the budget at budget.gov -- very easy to
remember -- budget.gov. But the bottom line is this: We simply cannot
continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences; as if waste
doesn't matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American
people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this
challenge for another generation. We can't.
In order to meet this challenge, I welcome any idea, from Democrats
and Republicans. What I will not welcome -– what I reject -– is the
same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same
irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off. It's time to
hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold
themselves. It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and
live within our means once again.
Kommentare