So, the president plans on using the same hatchet he once faulted John McCain for wanting to use to control federal spending. In the State of the Union address, he’ll be calling “for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit“.
On the surface, this sounds like a good thing, finally holding the line on federal spending. But, alas, it’s not the same “hatchet” that John McCain vowed to use should he win election to the White House. For the president to do that, he’d have to cut spending, freezing it at the levels of George W. Bush’s last budget (which was passed by a Democratic Congress). Karl Rove unpacks this “election year ploy:”
Mr. Obama rigged the game by giving himself plenty of room to look tough on spending. He did that by increasing discretionary domestic spending for the last half of fiscal year 2009 by 8% and then increasing it another 12% for fiscal year 2010.
So discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from President George W. Bush’s last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6 billion. That’s a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr. Obama. The $102 billion spending increase doesn’t even count the $787 billion stimulus package, of which $534 billion remains unspent.
If he were serious about cutting the deficit, he might think about canceling the appropriation of that unspent $534 billion, preventing it from becoming a further drain on the Treasury.
Without such cuts, the president’s freeze is like going on a diet by continuing to eat the same amount of food.
Say a guy who, realized that he was putting on weight, so just over a year ago, resolves to go on a diet. But, first, he adopted a change in his routine, visiting the donut shop every morning (except the first and third Monday and the fourth Tuesday) whereas previously he had gone only on Tuesdays, every other Wednesday, every third Thursday and on weekends.
But, this time, he really means business. He’s going to “freeze” his visits to the donut shop at the current level. He won’t be adding any new visits, but he’ll still be visiting the donut shop more than he did when he first complained about his weight problem.
Here is where I sing the praises of Glenn Beck. He will make this clear and it will energize the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party movement all that much more. Budget hocus pocus and sleight-of-hand is no longer a minor blip on the MSM screen. Beck has changed the dynamics of how the game is played.
Axlegrease and Robert Glib just look like they are short one stooge when they “explain” this stuff now.
This is simply a talking point move by Obama. Liberal pundits can now crow about a spending freeze. The problem is independents will want the numbers and the numbers are not impressive. At that point most independents will see it as a purely political ploy and be even more angry about his spending increases.
It may actually highlight just how bad he has been on spending.
A freeze just memorializes the HUGE increase in deficit-spending under Pres. Obama and locks it into place permanently…rather than actually reducing the deficit.
Mark Steyn just pointed out that Obambi’s 10 year budget savings plan is less than three percent of the additional deficit over the same 10 years. Less than a rounding error.
As the monkey said when he spit in the ocean: “Every drop counts.” Except in this case, it is Obama taking a teaspoon of water from the ocean in order to lower the sea level
“So, the president plans on using the same hatchet he once faulted John McCain for…”
“But, alas, it’s not the same “hatchet” that John McCain vowed to use ”
I know it is hard to keep track of arguments sometimes, but from one paragraph to the next.???
“If he were serious about cutting the deficit, he might think about canceling the appropriation of that unspent $534 billion,”
What would be the effects on the recovery if that were to happen? Do you care?
Obama Phony Freeze – It’s Called Pretense.
Tom Friedman on Imus In The Morning, advises his Golfing Buddy – President Obama, to ignore the Tea Party Movement, and the Populism spreading across the country. Tom Friedman “Confused with a chance of Goulash”
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/01/tom-friedman-just-doing-his-patriotic.html
I don’t see how, realistically, you get a handle on things without both cutting spending and doing some tax raises. Things have gotten really out of hand and there is no way, because history has showed, that you will get enough political will to cut spending to the levels it would end. I mean its time for both sides to just look at the reality, and compromise on things. Republicans should agree to let the Bush tax expire but only if the Democrats will make some real cuts in spending. You have to give to get or otherwise nothing is going to get accomplished. I’m tired of seeing how both sides won’t give anything, and nothings gets solved.
What would be the effects on the recovery if that were to happen? Do you care?
Better question, Tano; if that money is truly going to affect the recovery, why has Barack Obama not spent it already — and thus prevented unemployment shooting to double-digit levels, foreclosures rising, and creating more destruction of the “middle class” over which he continually sniffles?
Or, even better: why has Barack Obama spent that money in imaginary Congressional districts instead of real ones, and to companies with outstanding tax bills because they’re run by Obama Party donors and cronies rather than compliant and law-abiding ones?
Doesn’t Barack Obama care?
“…compromise on things. Republicans should agree to let the Bush tax expire but only if the Democrats will make some real cuts in spending.”
I think it fair to say that the Republicans are totally, absolutely, incapable of ever supporting anything that could be considered a tax increase – no matter what they extract from the other side in a negotiation, no matter what the needs of the country. A generation of absolutist rhetoric has crippled the party’s ability to ever embrace a realistic solution to a fiscal problem.
The stimulus porkulus only paid to keep a few liberal democrat paper pushers working. The rest has been wasted. This week other networks besides independent FOX NEWS are starting to highlite the fraud and abuse in the porkulus. Remember when Obama said VP Joe Biden would watch over the 800Billion so there was no fraud and theft. “and no one messes with OLE JOE”……hahaha, real funny now Mr President.
Unfortunately, Tano, you again failed to answer a question posed to you and instead went off on an irrelevant tangent.
Better question, Tano; if that money is truly going to affect the recovery, why has Barack Obama not spent it already — and thus prevented unemployment shooting to double-digit levels, foreclosures rising, and creating more destruction of the “middle class” over which he continually sniffles?
Or, even better: why has Barack Obama spent that money in imaginary Congressional districts instead of real ones, and to companies with outstanding tax bills because they’re run by Obama Party donors and cronies rather than compliant and law-abiding ones?
Please answer the questions instead of avoiding and attacking Republicans. You are capable of doing that, aren’t you? Or are you not able to set aside your personal biases and bigotry long enough to contribute to a solution? Do you have any intelligent answers other than “Republicans suck”?
In other words, kill any chances of recovery so the liberals have ass cover and can blame Republicans. Brilliant.
Nope. I would fully support a 100% tax on settlements taken by trial lawyers that exceed expenses plus ten per cent of expenses. Of course, the expenses would have to be fully audited by the WDPLS (Watchdogs on Deep Pockets Lawsuit Settlements) and adjusted accordingly.
Easy. You cut spending more.
…under Bush, who was already the biggest-domestic-spending President of modern times even before the Democrats took over the budget in 2006. And then Obama made it several times worse.
First, they did compromise. That’s part of the problem. Both sides wanted spending increases. They compromised (that is, agreed) on years of spending increases. If only we had at least one party with a track record of budget-cutting!
Second – Will “compromise”, i.e. giving up on spending cuts, ever get us to the point where we have the political will to make spending cuts? No. It’s like a dieter saying “There is no way I will have enough will to lose all 20 lbs. It’s time for me to compromise” – i.e., to give up on dieting. That is a recipe for a failed diet.
They already did. It’s a done deal. *Democrats* have recently proposed extending the Bush tax cut. Because, of course, raising taxes in a recession is insane. The only productive, helpful way you can close a massive budget gap in a recession is… to cut spending.
Anyway… While we sit here and bash Obama’s spending “freeze” as a victory for the Left (because it freezes spending at unconscionably high levels that Obama brought about), the Left is wailing and gnashing teeth:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/26/left-in-full-freakout-mode-over-obamas-spending-freeze/
According to Krugman, by agreeing to a spending freeze:
So funny! First, I *wish* Bush had believed in spending freezes! (as mentioned above) Second, Krugman is in essence saying:
– That the government should increase spending even more.
– That fiscal responsibility is now the province of Republicans. (A spending freeze, viewed as a good thing, is according to Krugman, “the Republican world view”.)
I’m stunned. On several levels.
This is proof positive again how liberals mutilate the language.
Most Americans who have to work 50 hours a week and raise a family go…..hmmm spending freeze, sounds good, finally. But it’s only 20% of the budget and the part that just had a 23% increase!!! No wonder people learn to hate polititians and believe they are dregs of the earth.
I know you were going elsewhere, Gene, but I wish to suggest that hard working people raising a family are adopting a spending freeze because sensible people smell inflation and tougher times ahead. This is no time for unnecessary spending. There is an economy crippling lack of confidence in the Obambi administration. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that with a little uptick in the economy the Democrats are going to come back like vultures over road kill and raise our taxes and screw us every way but loose.
Tano…You should study up on how your people conveniently took ago thousands of acres of land from the Native Americans by packaging it as “helping” them out. Less land, less problems for those poor old indians. Obama has packaged a ton of crap so that is looks good, but remains the same old crap. This guy is truly the first “White” Black President. He makes the Presidents that came before him look like Mickey Mouse when it comes to bold faced lies. I remember when he “capped out” the salaries of his administration – after he raised them first. It all sounded so good – but it was a pack of crap. California always whines about services being cut. Unfortunately, your party counts a lack of increase in programs as “a cut.”