Obama: Budget cuts add up to 'real money'
The relatively paltry size and breadth of his budget cuts are getting widely panned so far, but an undaunted President Obama declared this morning that he is streamlining government to get rid of wasteful or ineffective spending.
He formally unveiled a list of 121 proposed budget cuts totaling nearly $17 billion -- barely a dent in the $3.4 trillion federal spending plan that Congress has approved for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
Obama acknowledged some of the cuts he wants are less than $1 million. That might be considered a pittance in Washington, he said, but most Americans still see the dollar amounts as significant -- and the savings "add up."
"Even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money," he said.
"We have to admit that there is a lot of money that's being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and, in some cases, in ways that are actually pretty stunning," he said.
"Some programs may have made sense in the past -- but are no longer needed in the present. Other programs never made any sense; the end result of a special interest's successful lobbying campaign. Still other programs perform functions that can be conducted more efficiently, or are already carried out more effectively elsewhere in the government.
As an example of obsolete programs, he cited a long-range radio navigation system that costs $35 million a year. "Now there's GPS," he said.
About half the trims would come from defense programs and the other half from domestic programs, but at the same time Obama is proposing significant increases in some domestic priorities. About 80 of the targeted programs are new to the cut list, and some of the cuts, Obama conceded, will be painful.
That list is only a start, he and his top budget aides argue, but they also acknowledge that much bigger savings are more likely through the healthcare overhaul that the president wants.
"We recognize that there remain looming challenges to our fiscal health beyond that -- challenges that will require us to make healthcare more affordable and to work on a bipartisan basis to address programs like Social Security," Obama said. "So what we're proposing today does not replace the need for large changes in non-discretionary spending."
But Republicans are deriding the cuts as insignificant.
On the Senate floor, Senator Judd Gregg said the savings would have no impact on the federal deficit, projected at $1.5 trillion this year, especially when Obama is adding back "massive spending."
He likened what Obama proposes to taking a "few pieces of sand off the desert."
Obama's full prepared remarks are below, followed by a White House fact sheet on the cuts:
OBAMA'S REMARKS
Good morning, everybody. All across this country, Americans are responding to difficult economic times by tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend and where they need to save. The question the American people are asking is whether Washington is prepared to act with the same sense of responsibility.
I believe we can and must do exactly that. Over the course of our first hundred days in office, my administration has taken aggressive action to confront a historic economic crisis. We're doing everything that we can to create jobs and to get our economy moving while building a new foundation for lasting prosperity -- a foundation that invests in quality education, lowers health care costs, and develops new sources of energy powered by new jobs and industries.
But one of the pillars of this foundation is fiscal responsibility. We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem. We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation.
That's why I've charged the Office of Management and Budget, led by Peter Orszag and Rob Nabors who are standing behind me today, with going through the budget -- program by program, item by item, line by line -- looking for areas where we can save taxpayer dollars.
Today, the budget office is releasing the first report in this process: a list of more than 100 programs slated to be reduced or eliminated altogether. And the process is ongoing.
I want to be clear: There are many, many people doing valuable work for our government across the country and around the world. And it's important that we support these folks -- people who don't draw a big paycheck or earn a lot of praise but who do tough, thankless jobs on our behalf in our government. So this is not a criticism of them.
At the same time, we have to admit that there is a lot of money that's being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and, in some cases, in ways that are actually pretty stunning.
Some programs may have made sense in the past -- but are no longer needed in the present. Other programs never made any sense; the end result of a special interest's successful lobbying campaign. Still other programs perform functions that can be conducted more efficiently, or are already carried out more effectively elsewhere in the government.
One example of a program we will cut is a long-range radio navigation system which costs taxpayers $35 million a year. This system once made a lot of sense, before there were satellites to help us navigate. Now there's GPS. And yet, year after year, this obsolete technology has continued to be funded even though it serves no government function and very few people are left who still actually use it.
Another example is the National Institute for Literacy. Now, I strongly support initiatives that promote literacy -- it's critical -- but I oppose programs that do it badly. Last year, nearly half of the funding in this program was spent on overhead. So we've proposed cutting the $6 million for this program in favor of supporting literacy efforts within the Department of Education which use tax dollars more effectively and wisely.
We're also closing an office maintained by the Department of Education in Paris. This is an office that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to employ one person as a representative to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. Now, participation in UNESCO is very important, but we can save this money and still participate using e-mail and teleconferencing and a small travel budget.
In addition, we're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One example is a $465 million program to build an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use the alternative version. That's why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding two years ago. Yet it's still being funded.
These are just a few examples. But the point to remember is that there are consequences for this kind of spending. It makes the development of new tools for our military, like the Joint Strike Fighter, more expensive -- even prohibitively so -- and crowds out money that we could be using, for example, to improve our troops' quality of life and their safety and security. It makes government less effective. It makes our nation less resilient and less able to address immediate concerns and long-term challenges. And it leaves behind a massive burden for our children and grandchildren.
Some of the cuts we're putting forward today are more painful than others. Some are larger than others. In fact, a few of the programs we eliminate will produce less than a million dollars in savings. And in Washington, I guess that's considered trivial. Outside of Washington, that's still considered a lot of money.
But these savings, large and small, add up. The 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money. To put this in perspective, the $17 billion is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to pay for -- to protect the national parks.
And this is just one aspect of the budget reforms and savings we're seeking.
I've signed a presidential memorandum to end unnecessary no-bid contracts and dramatically reform the way government contracts are awarded -- reform that will save the American people up to $40 billion each year.
Secretary Gates has proposed the elimination of expensive weapons systems ill-suited for the threats of the 21st century -- and a sweeping overhaul of a defense contracting system which has been riddled with hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and cost overruns. A proposal to accomplish these kinds of reforms, sponsored by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin in the Senate, and Representatives Ike Skelton and John McHugh in the House, is advancing through Congress as we speak.
We're also going to eliminate the subsidies we provide to the health insurance companies through Medicare, saving roughly $22 billion each year starting in 2012 as part of a broader effort to reduce health care costs -- essential to putting our nation on a more secure fiscal footing.
All told, by the end of my first term we will cut the deficit in half. Over the next decade we'll bring non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of Gross Domestic Product since 1962. We will also continue to look for ways we can save taxpayer money. And I know there are many in both parties in Congress committed to cutting spending and eager to work with us.
One important step is restoring the "pay as you go" rule -- and I've called on Congress to do exactly that. This rule says, very simply, that Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. This is the principle that guides responsible families managing a budget. This is the principle that helped transform large deficits into surpluses in the 1990s.
I've also asked my Cabinet to continue to scour their budgets looking for savings and to report their findings back to me. And I've proposed other creative ways to control spending. For example, we don't want agencies to protect bloated budgets -- we want them to promote effective programs. So we'll allow agencies that identify savings to keep a portion of those savings to invest in programs that work within their agencies.
We're also making it possible for government employees to submit their ideas for how their agency can save money and perform better. And we're going to reach beyond the halls of government. Many businesses have innovative ways of using technology to save money; many experts have new ideas to make government work more efficiently. Government can -- and must -- learn from them.
Finally, while these steps will help us cut our deficit in half over the next four years, we recognize that there remain looming challenges to our fiscal health beyond that -- challenges that will require us to make health care more affordable and to work on a bipartisan basis to address programs like Social Security. So what we're proposing today does not replace the need for large changes in non-discretionary spending.
It is important, though, for all of you as you're writing up these stories to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant -- they mean something. Now, none of this will be easy. For every dollar we seek to save there will be those who have an interest in seeing it spent. That's how unnecessary programs survive year after year. That's how budgets swell. That's how the people's interest is slowly overtaken by the special interests. But at this moment, at this difficult time for our nation, we can't accept business as usual. We can't accept anything less than a government ready to meet the challenges of our time.
We must build a government of the 21st century: a government that is more efficient and more effective; a government that does what we need to do it -- and nothing that we don't; a government that invests in our future without leaving behind enormous financial burdens that put our future in jeopardy. And today we've taken an important step, albeit just a first step, towards building this kind of government -- not just for this generation of Americans, but for the sake of generations to come.
Thank you, everybody.
WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET
The President’s 2010 Budget seeks to usher in a new era of responsibility – an era in which we not only do what we must to save and create new jobs and lift our economy out of recession, but in which we also lay a new foundation for long-term growth and prosperity.
Making long overdue investments and reforms in education so that every child can compete in the global economy, undertaking health care reform so that we can control costs while boosting coverage and quality, and investing in renewable sources of energy so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil – these all are key pillars of this new foundation. Another is fiscal discipline. We cannot put our nation on a course for long-term growth with uncontrollable deficits and debt, and we no longer can afford to tolerate investments in programs that are outdated, duplicative, ineffective, or wasteful.
That’s why the Budget includes a separate volume, Terminations, Reductions, and Savings. In this volume, the Administration identifies 121 terminations, reductions, or other areas of savings which will save nearly $17 billion next year alone. About half of the savings for next fiscal year are from defense programs, and half are from non-defense programs. This volume is a progress report on the President’s effort to have his Administration go through the budget line by line to identify which programs work and which do not.
Below is a blog post by OMB Director Peter Orszag which also includes a full link to the budget document and the terminations, reductions and savings volume.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Determining-What-Works-Line-by-Line/
The programs in Terminations, Reductions, and Savings are ones that do not accomplish the goals set for them, do not do so efficiently, or do a job already done by another initiative. They include these ten:
· LORAN-C, $35 million. This long-range, radio-navigation system has been made obsolete by GPS.
· Abandoned Mine Lands Payments, $142 million. This program is now used to clean up mines that are already cleaned up.
· Educational attaché, Paris, France, $632,000. The Department of Education can use e-mail, video conferencing, and modest travel to replace a full-time representative to UNESCO in Paris, France.
· Los Alamos Neutron Science Center refurbishment, $19 million. The linear accelerator housed here was built 30 years ago and no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.
· Even Start, $66 million. The most recent evaluation found no difference on 38 out of 41 outcomes between families in the program and those not in it. Strengthening early childhood education is accomplished through significant investments in proven, more effective programs such as Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Early Learning Challenge Fund.
· Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation, $1 million. The Foundation would spend only 20 percent of its 2010 appropriation on the fellowships it awards.
· Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit, $125 million. This program benefits very few taxpayers, and has an extremely high error rate: GAO found that 80 percent of recipients did not meet at least one requirement.
· Javits Gifted and Talented Education Program, $7 million. Grants from this program go to only 15 school districts nationwide, and there are no empirical measures to judge efficacy.
· Public Broadcasting Grants, $5 million. USDA made these grants to support rural public broadcasting stations’ conversion to digital broadcasting. That transition is now almost complete.
· Rail Line Relocation Grants, $25 million. This program, duplicative of a merit-based program, is loaded with earmarks.
The efforts detailed in Terminations, Reductions, and Savings are part of a larger and longer effort needed to change how Washington does business and put our fiscal house in order. Already, the President has done the following to cut waste, save taxpayer dollars, and make government more effective:
· His Budget includes an historic down payment on health care reform, the key to our long-term fiscal future, and was constructed without commonly used budget gimmicks that, for instance, hide the true costs of war and natural disasters.
· The Budget will cut the deficit in half by the end of the President’s first term, and will bring non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of GDP since 1962.
· Since the budget overview was unveiled 10 weeks ago, the President has announced a contracting reform effort that will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40 billion.
· At the Cabinet’s first meeting, the President directed agency heads to identify at least $100 million in administrative savings.
· The President personally called on the congressional leadership to pass PAYGO laws so that Congress is required to say how it will pay for the spending decisions it makes.
· And Secretary of Defense Gates, in consultation with our nation’s military leadership, unveiled an unprecedented effort to reform defense contracting, saving billions.
Every one of the programs listed in Terminations, Reductions, and Savings has a supporter, and there will be various interests – vocal and powerful – who will oppose different aspects of this Budget. Change is never easy, but after an era of profound irresponsibility, Americans are ready to embrace the shared responsibilities we have to each other and to generations to come. They want to put problem-solving ahead of point-scoring, and to reconstruct an economy on a solid foundation.
The President will work with Congress to reform and transform Washington, to make these needed cuts so that we use taxpayer dollars to invest in what works to grow our economy and put our nation back on the path toward prosperity for all Americans.
##
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
Survey raises new doubts on military’s ‘don’t ask’ policy
Lieberman’s threat of filibuster looms large
Health care headache for House Democrats
Health care opponents intensify late attack
Patrick wraps up two-day visit to Washington
Public’s opinions of health care overhaul efforts have familiar ring
Moderate Democrats fear shift to GOP
Frank reconsiders legislation after worry raised on loopholes
BU professor turned Pakistan envoy draws flak
In battle over credit abuses, Warren wields a plan
INside Boston.com
- Party photos
See who was out on the town in Bill Brett's latest photos - Close call on Orange Line
Woman saved by strangers who alerted the operator - Celebs who had swine flu
Boston Bruins' David Krejci, yes; rocker Marilyn Manson, maybe - Aerosmith through the years
Is Tyler taking a permanent vacation from Aerosmith? -
Plus...
- Home
- |
- Today's Globe
- |
- News
- |
- Business
- |
- Sports
- |
- Lifestyle
- |
- A&E
- |
- Things to Do
- |
- Travel
- |
- Cars
- |
- Jobs
- |
- Homes
- |
- Local Search
Obamas $17 billion budget cut may as well be $17 million. It is not "real money" - it is chump change.
Starting in January 2010 for the first time in 30 years the Seniors who he must consider in that top 5 percent, will not receive a cost of living raise, and also in 2011 no cost of living raise. Maybe then Michelle can buy another $500 pair of sneakers.
I feel like he is a simpleton. Only with him can he get away with making a cut of .5% and the press makes it sound like he parted the Red Sea or as the article states:
"but an undaunted President Obama declared this morning that he is streamlining government to get rid of wasteful or ineffective spending."
It is becoming laughable how in the tank the media are for this guy.
I guess next week he will get credit for the sun rising.
Worst administration I have witnessed in my lifetime! Utterly clueless is the best way to describe them...I regret voting for that idiot! He will take all of us down with him!
I'm gonna go out today, spend $200, a significant chunk of which on things I don't need, and then, when explaining to my wife why I spent so much, I'm going to focus on the fact I was going to spend an extra dollar on a pack of gum, but I decided not to. But oh ya, I then used that extra dollar to buy something else I didn't need.
Do people really buy this stuff? Instead of saying what is really happening, i.e., a national deficit that is double four years from now (even with the White House's very optomistic projections), this snake-oil salesman instead ignores the fact he is quadrupling the deficit over the next couple years, and using this as his baseline to "argue" with a straight face that he is going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.
Coming from an independent who never voted for Bush and voted for Clinton: this guy is a fiscal time bomb. Of course, the bomb won't truly erupt for several years, until China stops buying our debt. At that point, though, these unsustainable spending ideas that may be admirable in theory (national health care, to go along with medicare as it is, social security, etc) will be sacred cow entitlements. I shudder to imagine what the economy is going to look like in 2020 when my kids are graduating college and taxes have to be raised to unseen levels to sustain the sacred cows. I am certainly not "anti-tax", but the taxes that are coming will just devestate our economic growth.
Wow, half a percent. I'd hardly call that a trim. I'd call that noise. It's super to see even the governmetn has "tightened" it's belt somewhat...
Really? No comments yet? Huh.
I think this is great. Judd Gregg's likening it to "a few pieces of sand" just show how out of touch he is with Americans. I don't know many people that think billions of dollars are equal to a few pieces of sand. The fact that they are looking at these things that no longer make sense and cutting them should be applauded. How many more years would we have gone on paying for useless technology or contracts? I hope there is more to come of this. I only wish Governor Patrick would follow his friend's example rather than just raising taxes or cutting out things for education or public safety.
Well done, Mr. President.
Well, it's better than his joke of a cut of $100 million recently. A $17 billion cut would be great, if he hadn't already pledged a multi-trillion dollar deficit.
This is a joke, right?
The American people are not laughing.
If Obama were proposing $17 billion in increased spending, would the opposition call that insignificant?
I wonder where Judd Gregg was when Bush increased spending year after year to pad Haliburton's bottom line.
so pathetic. the country is bankrupt and doomed
Why does the globe say "opponents call insignificant". Anybody with any common sense or better basic math skills can see that is IS insignificant.
The fleecing of America continues...
Since when is $17 billion insignificant. Not to me. Did the republicans call the $15 billion "bailout" loan to GM insignificant? Not on your life. They speak out ouf both sides of their mouths.
I agree with David Wayne - $17B is only 0.5% of the budget.
you repubs sound like a bunch of children. you lost to a great man. now get over it and do something constructive.
what i dont understand is that this jerk is giving SIXTY THREE BILLION dollars to fight global disease but then discusses painful cutbacks? WHY NOT CUT BACK ON THE SIXTY THREE BILLION IN GLOBAL ASSISTANCE??? Why cut OUR programs and give money to foreign nations?????????
"I think this is great. Judd Gregg's likening it to "a few pieces of sand" just show how out of touch he is with Americans. I don't know many people that think billions of dollars are equal to a few pieces of sand."
Yes, Senator Gregg is out of touch with most Americans, as he can see through this politically calculated discussion of the $17b in "cuts." I salute the $17b in cuts, as no doubt Gregg does. However, these cuts were done simply to draw attention away from the quadrupling of the deficit and the unprecedented growth of government that President Obama is pushing.
And the Globe, and other news outlets, take the carefully calculated Obama Political Team talking points and run with them. Instead of leading with the record setting deficit, they run with the Obama approved discussion of the $17b in cuts, rather than the 1 trillion dollar deficit we are running this year, or the 10 trillion in deficits Obama will run up in the coming decade.
Go to Google News now. Many headlines for "Obama cuts $17b from budget" Unreal, its as if these people are on the campaign payroll.
So yes, Carla, you are right. Gregg is out of touch with Americans, because it seems he is capable of seeing past politically motivated talking points and engaging in critical thought.
The joke is that our government has been spending money like drunken sailors for years and now all of a suddend because it's a Democrat doing it, it's a big deal. You're all ridiculous. This deficit is not his doing people!!!! He's only been in office for 4 months. Point your outrage at those responsible!
And what do you all expect? We had a republican administration that cut taxes and raised spending, what do you expect the results of that to be???? I didn't hear any outrage then? Talk about simpletons.... I think most of you fall into that category. Obama's inherited one heck of a situation and non of you so called conservatives are willing to give him any credit. He's trying to juggle 2 wars, an economic crisis, a massive debt/deficit and shatttered reputation around the world.
Ignorance is bliss!!!
What? How can be believe this guy when he talks about 'real money'? He is printing so much play money, we're all going to be collateral in China's Communist takeover of the Western Hemisphere. What a dud.
I agree with poster #3, liljackie. This obama economy is a sick joke.
To add insult to injury, don't forget that a few days ago, Obama insulted China with his comments regarding how they handle their media... p*ssing them off like that is a sure way to quickly end any hope that they'll continue to buy our debt... I think we'll be in the sh** house quicker than Obama's thinking. He's been trying to span out his unheard of spending over a wide range of years, hoping that he'll be out of office before the reality of the spending will set in.. and he'll hope to get off scotch free, leaving the devestation and blame of it all to rest solely on the president who's in office at the time (because by 2020, people will forget that it was Obama's spending that caused this, and will instead falsly accuse the residing president at the time).
Oops, it should be #4 Craig.
It's like a 300lb dieter losing 17 oz., hey, it's a good start!
I like the fact that 79% of this comes out of the defense spending.
I applaud his efforts, but enough of the grandstanding that only serves to further prove that this (and every one before him) administration truly believes that the populus is as dumb as a bag of rocks. To call this savings is an outright lie. The only thing that qualifies as savings is the amounts less spent by his administration as compared to the previous.
This is just a movement of my money (which I'll be paying as taxes double in the future). Bush's regime spent it on defense, Obama's regime will spend it on National Parks. Either way, it's spent. If Bush spent $100 last year and Obama spends $150, he's not SAVING us a penny.
It is funny to me just how stupid Obama expects the American public to be. It's not funny to me that so many people rush to defend just how right he is.
Wow you people are a complete fools. 17 billion is not much.... really, Ok then lets just keep it in the budget and give it all to me instead. I will be glad to take the "chump change".
Lets see Bushes budget for 2009 was 3.4 trillion dollars (when you figure in the true cost of the wars we are in.) Obama budget.... imagine that 3.4 trillion dollars for 2010, seems we spent the same amount....go figure.
BOSTON GLOBE WROTE: "Obama trims $17 billion from $3.4 trillion budget"
Obama sounds like a shady used car dealer who marks up the product only to discount it later for personal gain.
To Bones - Since you engaged all of us "simpletons" I will do my best to help you understand just a few things. I'd like to state that I've read and analyzed Obama's proposed budget. Have you?
First off, the current deficit is hardly the fault of the Bush administration (who, for the record, I have been saying for 7 years will go down as the worst American President in history). Our nation has been spending for decades and the amount of deficit has risen accordingly. Go to the CBO.gov website and you'll see that even with his outlandish spending and tax cutting, Bush's single largest annual deficit was just over $400B at the end of 2004. Bush's total deficit spending for his 8 years in office was about $1.975T. Obama's very first annual budget called for $1.75T in deficit spending, roughly equal to just $175B less than Bush's ENTIRE 8 YEARS IN OFFICE! Take into consideration that Obama's plan also forecasts a recovery in the second half, and we're essentially *hoping* that the best case scenario is that he spends in just one year what the bumbling Bush spent in 8 years.
Not including the interest related to the two programs, in FYE 2009 Medicare and Medicaid spending amounted to 21% of the Federal Budget. Todays version of these programs were instituted in 1965 as part of the Social Security Act, when both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, as well as the White House. Many Republicans cried foul, stating that these programs would eventually bankrupt the nation. When you add in the cost of the ultimate Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security (I'm sure you read your statement this year where it told you when to start expecting diminimus returns) at 18% of the Federal Budget, that equates to $1,427T of spending on socialist programs, in 2009 alone. Take that spending away for the 8 years of Bush and you'll easily see (even when excluding the revenues from the SS tax) that the current deficit was not caused by Bush (or Clinton, or Bush 1, or Reagan, et al). It was caused by socialist programs which, on their face, seem like the right thing to do, but over time, ultimately bankrupt the country.
The problem that those who oppose Obama is, he is merely instituting more of these programs. The Great Depression proved that Gov't spending is not the answer for recovery, but Obama knows that. He's using the current "crisis" to pass every little *wish* he had and he's using PR like this to veil it from his devoted followers. He knows that the blinders are on, and he understands that they won't be forever.
I give Obama all the credit in the world for being a great Politician, but I give him no credit for being a leader, because frankly, he's never been one. I disagree with just about everything (financially) he's done to date, and believe me, I do so with the highest level of education on these matters. You, on the other hand, choose to throw stones because people like me just don't back your boy blindly. To that I'll only ask you this.
If you hired a GC to replace your front door and came home to see him rigging it with dynamite to remove the existing door, would you say "excuse me, but I think this screwdriver might work better", or would you blindly follow him and let him blow the door off, because after all, you already made the decision to hire him?
The fact that this is even news is a testament to the brainwashing. I can see all the libbies dancing in the street now as if this was some act of god....it shouldnt have been in there to trim in the first place.
Bow to the messiah.....
Your right Bones, in your case,Ignorance is bliss!!!
Gotta love the HATERS!!!!
While 17B isn't tiny, it represents a fraction of a huge budget, larger still then last years even after this tiny concession.
Obama promised to balance the budget in 5 years, and does so by foisting the largest tax increase and spending increase in the history of the country.
Someone what to explain how spending more then ever somehow is a reduction?
Wow! Compared to his $130b request for Afghanistan, and his $60b request for a "global health initiative", his $17b cut request sure looks like...what's the word? Oh yeah, change. The kind that jingles.
Cutting $17b out of a $1.3t budget is essentially akin to a person spending $50K per year cutting $250 of his spending. Why, that's a year's worth of arugula! Or one of Michelle's shoes!
Is there any doubt that even with these cuts the budget will INCREASE. We'll all be broke and destitute and the budget will still INCREASE every year. Same in Mass. and everywhere else Democrats have one-party rule.
You Bush haters love to hate Bush because of the deficits he created but when Obama runs up massive deficits it OK. You are all so hypnotized by him that you have lost the ability to think independently or critically. We may never recover from the damage he's done in just 100 days and all you can do is repeat your hatred for Bush. The evidence is right in front of your eyes that the likes of Barney Frank blocked any and all attempts to reform Fanny and Freddie before they collapsed (which triggered this nightmareand yet like a bunch of automatons you keep repeating the Liberal lie that this was all Bush's fault.
Even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money (Obumma).
The fact that he had to qualify this gesture speaks volumes. Hey, if I raise the price of a $10 item to $20, then offer a 25% discount, I still raised the price $5.
Liars and cheats are always uninspiring.
17B/3.4T = .005 = 1/2 percent
3.4 T (2010 budget)/ 3.1T (2009 Budget) = 13 Percent increase
And this is front page news? Am I supposed to be excited that federal spending is only jumping 12.5 instead of 13%?
It's interesting how the number of people holding a Phd in economics has increased exponentially since Obama took office. I assume many of the comments on here are from doctorates, no? Or at least CPAs... beware of CFA's and businesses (banks & Insurance compananies, etc) that have little concern about properly managing business risks. (Make sure to read those 10K's yourself before you invest!) I guess the layperson is in the best position to disect the global financial system, and come up with a balanced budget that keeps jobs, stabilizes the banks and other lending institutions, as well as the stock market. And I thought ham and eggers didn't know what they were talking about!!
"This deficit is not his doing people!!!!"
Yes, it is. It's his budget and his Congress which passed it.
Jan - Magnificent!
Hey Non_Sequitut - do you actually work in the White House? This line of thinking aligns perfectly with the current admin's attitude of "Trust us implicitly...we know what's best for you".
All of the talk of websites and transparency is garbage - the admin is forecasting that the earliest that such tools will be available for stimulus tracking is OCT '10. Something tells me they probably won't be able to get it done until after the midterm elections are over...
Change you can believe in...if you're willing to believe what you're told and not think.
It doesn't take a PhD in economics to do the math I posted previously - simple arithmetic says that this will have a net effect of a 12.5% vs. 13% boost in govt spending for 2010 (when compared to 2009). WHOOHOO!
I guess these numbers add up to a cut for a guy that thinks there are 57 states and celebrates cinco de mayo on the fourth.
He spends a trillion in his first 100 days, then says it is a cut of 17 billion. Even my 8 year old niece knows thats not a cut.
You dont need a PhD in economics to do simple math. Liberals always try to make the simple things esoteric so they can pretend they are smarter than the rest of us.
Posted by x23120 .... This says it well..
17B/3.4T = .005 = 1/2 percent
3.4 T (2010 budget)/ 3.1T (2009 Budget) = 13 Percent increase
And this is front page news? Am I supposed to be excited that federal spending is only jumping 12.5 instead of 13%?
You know what this leaves out
1) many of these cuts George Bush tried to cut. But Congress said no
2) Many Democrats have said they are against these cuts.
But I suppose little things like facts don't really matter
Go read the actual AP article
How pathetic are you clowns who keep pointing back to Bush . If Bush had not done such a poor job on the budget this idiot in the white house would not have had a prayer.
No cost of living for seniors in 2010 and no cost of living for seniors in 2011. Will there also be no cost of living for Government? I doubt it. Now it will be dog food for spper every other day instead of every day. The seniors will die quicker and really save some money for obama. How was this clown ever elected, give money for acorn, but not for the elderly. He stinks and I will work on every senior to vote against him and any that supported his budget to do this to the people that made America. He must really hate America.
Today's best coments are #3 (Craig) and 5 (reality). But I disagree that Obama is the simpleton. He is counting on voters and media to act like simpletons, but he mapped and plotted this all out long ago. The operative word with Obama is deceit. He lacks the guts (unlike Clinton) to impose a middle class tax hike, so he will impose the classic hidden tax to finance all these defcits that threaten our national security: namely, inflation. He will appoint Summers as Fed Chair in 2010 who be less aggressive on containng inflation, and the result will enable US govt to repay the national debt in cheaper dollars. The bond market will try to discipline him, and Obama's response to that will reveal to what degree he really is in sync with our way of life.
A couple of things. First, the Obama is being hypocrititcal. Remember when the Appropriations bill was being pass and Obama refused to veto it because of the earmarks? Remember he said the billions of dollars of earmarks were an insignificant amount when compared to the overall value of the bill? Now the tune is the exact opposite. Both parties play this game. They assume the electorate has short memories and that the partisans will back them up no matter the level of hypocrisy. We have to stop this.
Secondly, do you realize that included in these cuts is millions of $$ of highway funding for the state of WV? Obama is cutting funding for a project that is not only shovel ready, but is actually in the process of being built. He is trying to cut off funding for Corridor H, about which 55 miles have already been built and they continue to lay road for. Why is Obama cutting road funds to a state that is badly in need of them and risking not only a ton of layoffs because also wrecking the economic future of several counties in one of the poorest states in the country? I guess WV should have voted for Obama.