When President Barack Obama ordered his Cabinet to find ways to cut spending by $100 million (as point of reference*, that’s about .01% of his “stimulus”), he told reporters, “We also have a deficit â€” a confidence gap â€” when it comes to the American people. . . . And we’ve got to earn their trust.”
Mr. President, if you’d just compare your campaign rhetoric to your budgets, you might better understand why that gap exists.Â Let me remind you of your words during the campaign when you made your case to the American people why you were the one to lead us:
But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.
Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.
Now, let’s look at how, with your budgets, we’ll live ever further beyond our means than we ever did in the Bush era:
Mr. President, if you want to close that “confidence gap,” cut those deficits back.Â And you can do that be delivering on your campaign promise of a “net spending cut.”
UPDATE: Others provide additional points of reference: “Obama’s latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime’s worth of difference.” In a post which blogger Teh Resistance calls, a “brilliant way to put it,” economist Greg Mankiw puts that $100 million into perspective:
. . . imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks.