Whatever happened to that calm, cool, and collected candidate from the 2008 presidential campaign? This latest move is born out of sheer panic over the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts and, by the way, something for which candidate Obama criticized John McCain for proposing during the campaign:
Pure symbolism over substance, and the White House admitted as much:.
The budget items which will not be frozen--military spending and entitlements--plus interest payments on the debt, which cannot be frozen, amount to approximately 83% of the federal budget. In short, any cuts or freezes which don't touch defense or entitlements are meaningless, and there's not enough will or backbone in D.C. to tackle either one of those, especially in an election year. Much of the remaining 17%, the so-called discretionary spending, contains pet programs for virtually every member of the House and Senate. Good luck passing cuts or freezes on any of those.
But let's just say it could be done. It would be hello 1937. That was the year FDR listened to the fiscal hawks of his day and decided to cut spending and balance the federal budget, assuming (there's that word again) that the worst of the Great Depression was over. The result? Unemployment rose again, the economic growth of the previous 3 years was reversed, and the country slid back into what became known as the "Roosevelt Recession."
The consequences of that recession are something President Obama might want to consider. In the 1938 mid-term elections, Democrats lost 7 seats in the Senate and 72 in the House.
"President Obama will call 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, administration officials said Monday...The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, including air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks...But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget.
The payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit: The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time."
Pure symbolism over substance, and the White House admitted as much:.
"...one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have symbolic value."
The budget items which will not be frozen--military spending and entitlements--plus interest payments on the debt, which cannot be frozen, amount to approximately 83% of the federal budget. In short, any cuts or freezes which don't touch defense or entitlements are meaningless, and there's not enough will or backbone in D.C. to tackle either one of those, especially in an election year. Much of the remaining 17%, the so-called discretionary spending, contains pet programs for virtually every member of the House and Senate. Good luck passing cuts or freezes on any of those.
But let's just say it could be done. It would be hello 1937. That was the year FDR listened to the fiscal hawks of his day and decided to cut spending and balance the federal budget, assuming (there's that word again) that the worst of the Great Depression was over. The result? Unemployment rose again, the economic growth of the previous 3 years was reversed, and the country slid back into what became known as the "Roosevelt Recession."
The consequences of that recession are something President Obama might want to consider. In the 1938 mid-term elections, Democrats lost 7 seats in the Senate and 72 in the House.
machine with a little research you will find that 83% is about right.
What our government doesn't show you is that additional military spending is not included in their budget when reporting. The "official" amount reported is 680 billionish. But, what they don't include are the other military expenditures that don't fall under the umbrella of the DOD.
Try reading this. As a whole it is accurate, however the sums are a bit low. The real sum is closer to 1.2 trillion. That comes close to 50%, coupled with the "entitlement" stuff which is about 35% brings it into that range. Surprised this person even dared to mention the real amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
It amazes me that people still think we can sustain these levels of funding and remain afloat. But I guess if the conservatives can kill off the poor, like they want, that will put about 35 billion back in the mix. In their eyes I guess that will be enough to cover our multi-trillion dollar deficit. Because make no mistakes about it, the amount we give OUTRIGHT to the poor amounts to less than 40 billion.
Well, empty symbolism worked like gangbusters for the far right wingers, re: teabagging, town hall riots, etc. so why not say screw the high road and what works for the whackos might as well work for me.
And as enamored as I am of the Times, Bob Herbert might as well be teabagging from the left with his superficially symbolic and unjustified criticism of Obama. It seems like it's open season on Obama from the right AND left. Can you say dogpiling?
If Frank Herbert, cannot delineate between the two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), i.e. one predicated on lies and one in response to a horrific attack on American soil and finds hypocrisy in executing one while drawing down the other, then he is merely a knee jerk anti-war activist/isolationist who probably would have found fault with participation in WWII even after Pearl Harbor. It would thus render moot the rest of his argument regardless of how thorough the analysis.
Regardless, it seemed like Mr. Herbert WAS teabagging ideologically from the left. Horrors, President Obama didn't stick to his Lib'rul guns and actually tried to meet someone halfway! He really can't win for trying.
This is a symbol of how stupid our government thinks we are.
I wish everyone would realize there is only one way to "fix" our government. These buffoons will continue to do whatever they feel like, constituency be-damned.
Kel wrote: I agree, however, that it's time he grow a pair and start getting business done. He needs to stop being so damn pragmatic and tell folks how it's gonna be done.
------------------
That's right. Most political experts agree that Obama has lost the support he had from "independent vorers. That seriously jeopardizes his re-election.
He MUST say tomorrow, "Here's is what we need to to do and THIS is how we are gonna do it." Then, privately, he needs to make sure that the democratic congress follows him or they get crushed under the weight of the office of POTUS. He MUST do something substantial on bank reform. He MUST do something to PROVE to us that all the money we have spent on the TARP and the STIMULUS has been prudently spent. He MUST convince us the HE CAN get a healthcare bill BACK before the congress by the end of the year and one that has a chance of passing. Something, anything.
And he HAS to convince us that the changes in Washington HE PROMISED will come about in THIS term or there won't be a second.
Obama taking the spending freeze talking point and idea from the Republicans reeks of political strategery. If they vote for it, they have to admit that Obama made a good fiscal call by freezing spending increases on non-essential gov't programs. If they vote against it, they've got a vote against reducing spending on their belts.
I do not believe it's enough spending to really hurt the economy, either.
I agree, however, that it's time he grow a pair and start getting business done. He needs to stop being so damn pragmatic and tell folks how it's gonna be done.
That’s the point, or one of them. It doesn’t amount to much. I’m not good with percentages but $25 billion is a very small percentage of a $3+ trillion budget. But even if it were a larger amount there’s not one economist that I’ve read, outside of maybe Phil Gramm, who says that the way out of a recession is to cut or freeze spending.
Another thing it does is concede the issue to the Republicans. Freezing spending is straight out of the Republican playbook. It was a big part of McCain’s economic plan. It was what the Republicans proposed instead of a stimulus package. Obviously Obama didn’t learn anything from the stimulus and the health care fight. No matter what he gives them they aren’t going to support anything he proposes. If he gives them this, they’ll say it's not enough, they want tax cuts too. Rush and Hannity are already playing tape of Obama during the ’08 campaign saying what a bad idea McCain’s proposal to freeze spending was. He can’t win with these guys, at some point he’s going to have to decide what he REALLY believes in and stand up and fight for it.
And those independents? What if this goes through and we end up with a double dip recession? How many of those independents will support him then?
If the Republicans block a miniscule spending freeze just days after they block a commission on reducing the deficit, then the Democrats will have all the ammunition they need to get all existing Republicans ousted by teabaggers in favor of more conservative candidates that will lose in a general election. :)
My comment was so nice it posted twice..
I can't believe I disagree with you and Paul Krugman.
I don't think the spending increases he is planning to freeze amounts to much.. it's spending we probably don't really need anyway. Stimulus, health care, social security, medicaid, military - all stays fully funded.. we'll still be pumping billions into the economy. It just stops the bleeding an itty bitty bit, which we need to do.
If we're going to be in a perpetual 10% unemployment state like some have suggested, we have to start living within our means a bit.
Let him have his big moment at the State of the Union address, where he's gonna go "Bill Clinton" on us and totally take care o' bidness on spending and the budget and 'get a laser beam focus on the economy' and his approval numbers will come back up long enough for him to get some stuff done.
He's using this to bring back in independents who are worried about the spending label the republicans have put on him and help the Dems not lose big in the mid-terms, as well.
AstrosGirl,
I know at the very core of it, expediency is the American way of politics but I think the 'here we go again' tightwire act involves acting political while still having eyes on the target. He's gonna try and likely the Republicans will go into robotical mode and block everything with nary a second thought...Just say No!!
I can't believe I disagree with you and Paul Krugman.
I don't think the spending increases he is planning to freeze amounts to much.. it's spending we probably don't really need anyway. Stimulus, health care, social security, medicaid, military - all stays fully funded.. we'll still be pumping billions into the economy. It just stops the bleeding an itty bitty bit, which we need to do.
If we're going to be in a perpetual 10% unemployment state like some have suggested, we have to start living within our means a bit.
Let him have his big moment at the State of the Union address, where he's gonna go "Bill Clinton" on us and totally take care o' bidness on spending and the budget and 'get a laser beam focus on the economy' and his approval numbers will come back up long enough for him to get some stuff done.
He's using this to bring back in independents who are worried about the spending label the republicans have put on him and help the Dems not lose big in the mid-terms, as well.
I have to agree with the man.
Paul Krugman’s take:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
In terms of the 'smbolism' of his actions, how many 'symbolic' acts will it take before it is no longer symbolic but, in fact, substantial. His early actions of stopping missile and warplane programs were called 'symbolic' His current initiatives are considered 'symbolic'. How many more will it take?
Des,
you hit it...What's a President to do. I'm thinking it doesn't matter. In the end it all comes out in the wash. Stick to the agenda and let the chips fall where they may. Health care...As Carguy (or is it Scott) would say...go for the Hail Mary. The worst scenario is that it would become clear that the noers have undermined the Democratic process and diabolically so.
Miemaw, thanks for the link.
To answer one the question that columnist posed: What has our President become ?
He has become a puppet of the professional politicians with which he has surrounded himself. Upon taking office he appointed any number of people who have no ties to the constituency other than the fact they work for, and lead the president. These are people who like the Washington status quo and are not, under any circumstance are fans of changes in the system. After all, its this system that allows them to work their "magic".
Our President has become what he railed against during the campaign one of the professional politicians who cares not one whit about the constituency.
I am not a Tea Bagger, I am a coffee cupper, reading the paper and the internet sources every morning while drinking my coffee. Getting more pissed every day at our President.
ok, a freeze on increasing spending is not a spending freeze, am I wrong here? The stimulus will still be spent, the massive war spending will continue, etc... just extra junk that isn't necessary that needs to be cut anyway will still be spent but just not spend more than we're already spending today, right?
How does THAT crash the economy? The liberal talking heads have this wrong, IMO.
Did I listen to a different announcement? I'm really having a hard time with the left on this. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I just see this in a totally different light.
Tomorrow we get to see Geithner explain how he did not know anything about the NYFed "backdoor bailouts" and the "Top Secret" nature of the AIG, Goldman TARP fund disbursements. I think it will be a bad day for Timmy and probably a depressing day for us citizens.
We also will get to hear president Obama tell us how his second year in office will differ from his first. The reactions from the GOP should be interesting, almost as interesting as from the other side.
As usual, I agree with Carol, "symbolic actions" are useless.
I compare our government to General Motors. IF GM had done 15-20 years ago what they are doing NOW, they would never have dug themselves a hole that only OUR $60 billion would bail them out of. How big does our debt have to get before those morons inside the beltway do anythig about it?
Miemaw, excellent link, thanks.
In my opinion, our President is just whistling in the wind - we don't need "symbolic value", we need him to actually do something that will help Americans - not continue the politics as usual that we are seeing.
Des,
Just read Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hp
Like I told my fellow Democrat, friend, and neighbor -- in a phone conversation yesterday,
I no longer believe anything Obama says.