Good luck with that Obama, you're gonna need it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
QuoteBudget Freeze Is Proposed
White House Plan Applies to Only 17% of Spending; Small Impact on Deficit
By LAURA MECKLER And JONATHAN WEISMAN
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze in spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget—a move meant to quell rising concern over the deficit but whose practical impact will be muted.
To attack the $1.4 trillion deficit, the White House will propose limits on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs, according to senior administration officials. Also untouched are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared with what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.
The administration officials said the cap won't be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.
Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.
"We're not here to tell you we've solved the deficit, but you have to take steps to put spending under control," a senior administration official said.
The spending freeze, which is expected to be included in Wednesday's State of the Union address and the president's Feb. 1 budget proposal, is one of a series of small-scale initiatives the White House is unrolling as the president adjusts to a more hostile political terrain in his second year. On Monday, the president unveiled a set of proposals aimed at making child care, college and elder care more affordable.
"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio). "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."
Responding to criticism, administration officials acknowledged the freeze is directed at only a small part of overall spending, but that fiscal discipline has to start somewhere. President Obama had requested a 7.3% increase last year in the areas he now seeks to freeze. White House officials said they had achieved 60% of the $11.5 billion in cuts outlined in the budget for the current fiscal year.
Mr. Obama will also propose the creation of a deficit commission to look for potential solutions for the medium- and long-term deficit—a move to garner bipartisan support for what may be unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. A bipartisan group of senators has been trying to get such a commission passed into law in a way that would give teeth to its recommendations. The recommendations of any presidential panel would require congressional approval.
The budget proposal will be welcomed in some quarters. On Monday, four members of the Democratic Party's Blue Dog caucus, which favors fiscal discipline, wrote to Mr. Obama suggesting he implement a freeze much like the one he plans. "More will need to be done to get our fiscal house in order, but we believe this freeze in non-defense related discretionary spending is a good place to begin," they wrote.
John Makin, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called the effort "certainly a step in the right direction." He said the amount saved isn't large, but noted that he preferred this approach over raising taxes. "I'm not going to belittle it because it's not a big cut in spending."
A year after the White House rolled out ambitious initiatives on health care and energy, in addition to a giant economic stimulus plan, the president is in some respects taking smaller steps. That's partly because much of the 2009 agenda remains undone. Also, in an election year, members of Congress are typically reluctant to take on controversial proposals.
But the president said Monday that he remains committed to tackling health care and other big problems. "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he told ABC News.
He faces tough dynamics. Mr. Obama and his party are bracing for losses in this fall's election amid lower approval ratings and after a damaging loss in a Massachusetts special Senate election. The president has already shifted to a more populist tone aimed at convincing independent voters in particular that he is on their side.
"We're going to keep fighting to rebuild our economy so that hard work is once again rewarded, wages and incomes are once again rising, and the middle class is once again growing," Mr. Obama said in unveiling his new proposals Monday.
That message will likely be broadcast on Wednesday, when Mr. Obama delivers his State of the Union address to Congress. Aides say he'll use the domestic-policy section to focus on jobs, the budget deficit and ways to reform the way Washington works.
The big-ticket legislative items from last year may wind up on the back burner. The president has suggested Congress might significantly scale back its health-care legislation after the party lost its 60-vote Senate super-majority.
And on energy, following last year's proposal to fight global warming by requiring companies pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases, Democrats concede it is more likely that Congress will approve a scaled-back bill with subsidies and more modest rules.
White House officials say they will continue to push their 2009 goals. "We are not trimming the sails on the major policy initiatives, but we are at a different stage where the focus is on moving forward [on existing initiatives] not announcing a new policy," said one White House adviser.
Many Republicans argue Mr. Obama tried to do too much. "In my view, the president struggled in his first year not only because his agenda veered too far left, but because he took too many big bites out of too many apples and tried to swallow them all at once," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Monday.
On Monday, the president and Vice President Joe Biden announced a handful of modest proposals aimed at supporting middle-class families, the result, they said, of a task force led by Mr. Biden. They said the budget will include an additional $1.6 billion for low-income child-care subsidies, and that they would ask Congress to sweeten a child-care tax credit with more generous help for families earning up to $115,000.
Administration officials wouldn't say how much the extra tax breaks would cost, or how they would pay for them. The plan also includes new limits for people repaying student loans, capping repayments at 10% of discretionary income, at a cost of $7.5 billion over 10 years, and $102.5 million for help with elder care.
Write to Laura Meckler at [email protected] and Jonathan Weisman at [email protected]
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 25, 2010, 10:59:08 PM
Good luck with that Obama, you're gonna need it.
Interesting to see how the suddenly budget concious congress responds to this. Color me cynical.
He's joining minority leader blowhard on a Republican weekend retreat.
Impeach the son of a bitch! :hmm:
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
IIRC, pay cuts are tricky. I dunno about the federal government, but I know NJ institutes hiring freezes from time to time, though.
We use the legislative process to effect the pay cuts. This has stopped law suits.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Peanuts compared to the real big ticket items.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 26, 2010, 01:06:11 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Peanuts compared to the real big ticket items.
I find it hard to believe that personnel costs are insignificant in the US federal government. In the HK government, they account for 70% of recurrent expenditure.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
The civil service pay is already low compared to the private sector. Which is why our best and brightest go into business, and our half-sentient neanderthals work for TSA.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 26, 2010, 01:14:00 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
The civil service pay is already low compared to the private sector. Which is why our best and brightest go into business, and our half-sentient neanderthals work for TSA.
But job security is far higher in the civil service. You can retain people even with a lower salary.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 26, 2010, 01:06:11 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Peanuts compared to the real big ticket items.
Yeah, that's health care. Congratulations on making it another Waterloo!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 26, 2010, 01:14:00 AM
The civil service pay is already low compared to the private sector. Which is why our best and brightest go into business, and our half-sentient neanderthals work for TSA.
Those TSA dudes might be on to something though. They get government benefits and paychecks to just fuck with random people all day, and no one expects anything above utter stupidity out of them.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 26, 2010, 02:20:27 AM
Those TSA dudes might be on to something though. They get government benefits and paychecks to just fuck with random people all day, and no one expects anything above utter stupidity out of them.
Feel good TSA story of the day:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/hilarious_bag-screener_plants_white_powder_bag_joke (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/hilarious_bag-screener_plants_white_powder_bag_joke)
Quote from: citizen k on January 26, 2010, 02:22:59 AM
Feel good TSA story of the day:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/hilarious_bag-screener_plants_white_powder_bag_joke (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/01/hilarious_bag-screener_plants_white_powder_bag_joke)
:XD: Yeah, I saw that one the other day, and figured if things ever got really bad for me, at least I can always fall back on a TSA job because holy shit they'll obviously take
anyone.
Since Obama has previously increased non-defense discretionary spending by 24 percent since he took office (not counting the "stimulus" bill) this is hardly a return to fiscal sanity. Even if he were to keep his pledge (and let's face it, when has he ever kept a pledge?), he would still have presided over a record increase in discretionary spending.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 26, 2010, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 26, 2010, 01:06:11 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Peanuts compared to the real big ticket items.
I find it hard to believe that personnel costs are insignificant in the US federal government. In the HK government, they account for 70% of recurrent expenditure.
Hong Kong doesn't provide services or entitlements either. They don't have to pay for military hardware to defend the world from Chinese encroachment.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:26:24 AM
Since Obama has previously increased non-defense discretionary spending by 24 percent since he took office (not counting the "stimulus" bill) this is hardly a return to fiscal sanity. Even if he were to keep his pledge (and let's face it, when has he ever kept a pledge?), he would still have presided over a record increase in discretionary spending.
Better than announcing more spending increases no? Or maybe not, that is clearly what you want since the Republicans in power is all you care about so when they jack up spending you can spin it and tell me why it is good when they do it.
As for keeping his pledges...well were any of the pledges he didn't keep things you actually wanted him to do? If not why whine about it? Oh nos I didn't get my public option health care!
Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 09:09:37 AM
As for keeping his pledges...well were any of the pledges he didn't keep things you actually wanted him to do? If not why whine about it? Oh nos I didn't get my public option health care!
Because at some point his credibility suffers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 09:19:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 09:09:37 AM
As for keeping his pledges...well were any of the pledges he didn't keep things you actually wanted him to do? If not why whine about it? Oh nos I didn't get my public option health care!
Because at some point his credibility suffers.
The president is not supreme dictator. Everybody with a brain knows a pledge from the President means he will try to do something..and may even try hard to get it (or symbolicly 'try' to do it)...but it depends on Congress most of the time (and of course the changing political winds and public opinion and blah blah). Nobody since LBJ has managed to move Congress to carry out campaign pledges and we got the 'Great Society' out of that. I presume you want more of that sort of thing?
Reagan pledged smaller government...OMG he had no credibility!!!!1111 Please. Of course at least he had the excuse of the other party controlling Congress...
Anyway this is classic political bullshit. Obama proposes something that may not be as far as I would like him to go...but it is better than most of the things he has proposed before...
and of course the people who are supposedly in favor of smaller government come in and tell me why it is bad because...um...well a reason that has nothing to do with the actual proposal. Let's change the subject and attack him over his inability to pass health care...which I didn't even want anyway...that is the ticket.
Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2010, 09:23:09 AM
The president is not supreme dictator. Everybody with a brain knows a pledge from the President means he will try to do something..and may even try hard to get it (or symbolicly 'try' to do it)...but it depends on Congress most of the time (and of course the changing political winds and public opinion and blah blah). Nobody since LBJ has managed to move Congress to carry out campaign pledges and we got the 'Great Society' out of that. I presume you want more of that sort of thing?
Reagan pledged smaller government...OMG he had no credibility!!!!1111 Please. Of course at least he had the excuse of the other party controlling Congress...
You are quite the morning person Valmy.
I don't hold presidents accountable for failure to pass legislation. I hold them accountable for acts of foreign policy they said they would not do and for including items in legislation they said they opposed.
How about you Valmy? Does an affirmative statement mean anything at all to you? Bush Sr. lost credibility after he said "read my lips." Do you think he should not have?
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 08:26:24 AM
Since Obama has previously increased non-defense discretionary spending by 24 percent since he took office (not counting the "stimulus" bill) this is hardly a return to fiscal sanity.
What do you mean by non-defence discretionary?
Of course this is a political gimmick. Fiscal sanity isn't possible until defence and non-discretionary spending are up for debate. It's like trying to stop a river by building 20% of a dam.
QuoteAs for keeping his pledges...well were any of the pledges he didn't keep things you actually wanted him to do? If not why whine about it? Oh nos I didn't get my public option health care!
His campaign had very little about a public option, I believe the people it would be available for was terribly limited. What's more it wasn't a campaign issue. During the primaries it was all about the mandates and in the general it was about funding. The Senate bill looks remarkably like what Obama campaigned on. The only major differences between his campaign health policy and the Senate bill is the individual mandate and the tax on terribly expensive (often union) healthcare plans) - which I think is a change for the better.
QuoteI hold them accountable for acts of foreign policy they said they would not do and for including items in legislation they said they opposed.
Do you have any examples?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 04:57:51 PM
Do you have any examples?
I think he poo-poohed Hillary on individual mandates and I know he poo-poohed McCain on taxing employer provided insurance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
I think he poo-poohed Hillary on individual mandates and I know he poo-poohed McCain on taxing employer provided insurance.
Ah, both true. I agree they're substantive but I don't think they're 'read my lips' level, or indeed observed by most people or even most journos.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 26, 2010, 01:13:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 26, 2010, 01:06:11 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 25, 2010, 11:41:14 PM
Best way to cut the decifit is to cut civil service pay across the board, and to stop hiring them no matter what :ph34r:
Peanuts compared to the real big ticket items.
I find it hard to believe that personnel costs are insignificant in the US federal government. In the HK government, they account for 70% of recurrent expenditure.
Believe it. A huge chunk of federal government expenditures is in grants - mostly to state and local governments. You don't have that problem in HK because it's a unitary government.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for making that suggestion. :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
I think he poo-poohed Hillary on individual mandates and I know he poo-poohed McCain on taxing employer provided insurance.
Ah, both true. I agree they're substantive but I don't think they're 'read my lips' level, or indeed observed by most people or even most journos.
On the Hillary case, it deserves an asterisk because his plan made no sense without an individual mandate. That was a fairly transparent ploy to get more votes (that is a big reason I wanted Hillary to win). As for the McCain case, I think he will support whatever can pass. He is covered here under the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" statement.
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcCxDwI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>
Obama repeatedly denouncing spending freezes during the campaign.
Remember, all of Obama's statements come with an expiration date. All of them.
Is there a single issue on which Obama has been consistent? Where he hasn't engaged in either bald-faced lying or flip-flopped? Please somebody give me an example, I can't think of a single one.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 06:04:23 PM
Obama repeatedly denouncing spending freezes during the campaign.
And he makes a very good point about the nature of spending freezes. These sorts of things are, almost always, political in nature.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 06:11:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 06:04:23 PM
Obama repeatedly denouncing spending freezes during the campaign.
And he makes a very good point about the nature of spending freezes. These sorts of things are, almost always, political in nature.
I wish a reporter would play that back to Obama during an interview, but reporters are generally too busy sucking his cock during interviews to ask him real questions instead of laughable softballs.
That's it, I'm building a bunker fortress. I'll call it the Felsennest.