by Mark Silva and updated
In an attempt to confront growing public frustration with out-of-control federal spending in the wake of a recession that has cost millions of American jobs and a special election that has cost the White House political power, President Barack Obama will propose during his State of the Union address this week a three-year "hard-freeze'' on discretionary federal spending.
Hold the presses, though:
The operative word is, discretionary.
Congress, which authorizes the spending of a federal budget that exceeds $3 trillion a year, has no real discretion over the annual spending on massive entitlements within it -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. Congress also has to repay the accrued national debt of some $12 trillion and growing, with the annual debt service exceeding $250 billion.
In addition, the president has signaled that the three-year freeze he proposes will not apply to national security -- the Defense Department and other agencies charged with protecting Americans.
This will leave about one-sixth of the 2011 federal budget that Obama proposes next week which is actually affected by the White House's "hard freeze.''
In addition, the administration has signaled that the freeze will not be across the board, but rather an aggregate: Some of the agencies involved in discretionary spending, Transportation, Education and the like, will see their budgets grow, while others' will shrink. Overall, the budgetary blueprint that the White House delivers to Congress on Monday will include a freeze on a total of discretionary spending that involves that roughly one-sixth of the budget.
"It's not a freeze on every program. It's a freeze on the overall level of spending,'' White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said today on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown. " But we can still make choices.... If anything is going up, something else has got to go down.''
Still, this is no small change -- it could save some $250 billion over the course of a decade, with the three-year freeze that the White House proposes. Goolsbee notes that last year some $17 billion in annuual savings were proposed in 121 programs.
The other truth here is that former President George W. Bush also proposed budgets that held discretionary spending increases within 1 percent. He also proposed programs that could be cut each year. And the federal budget, and the deficits that accompany it, reached new records on his watch.
Another operative word here is, propose.
The president proposes a budget. The Congress disposes -- or make that disburses -- the money. It's parceled out not in one big budget, but in separate spending authorization bills -- for Defense, general government and the rest. The president does hold veto power over aggregate spending in these bills, but no line-item veto. The "hard'' part of the freeze will be getting Congress to abide by it.
The final operative word here is, message.
The president will attempt to send one in his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night and with the 2011 budget that he proposes on Monday: He understands the public frustration that led to his party losing the Senate seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and with it the party's super-majority in the Senate.
That loss has placed a hard brake on the White House's ability to advance much that is controversial during the coming year -- and most likely the next two years as well, with apotential for further losses in the midterm elections this fall that could cost the president's party much more than a filibuster-proof Senate.
In other words, in the political environment that Obama now faces, for all the ambitious programs that he still hopes to pursue in office, the product of the bulk of the president's term could be measured by the success of everyone's discretion.
Comments
Why don't they just clawback fraudelent gains?
Only now are we beginning to see the true details of what happened in those days and who played pivotal roles in the act that put American taxpayers on the hook to save AIG.
The New York Fed's Real Crimes
Email disclosures by AIG, responding to subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee, have revealed that the New York Federal Reserve requested that information about the AIG bailout be kept secret as if it were connected to national security.U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve’s bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.
The request to keep the details secret were made by the New York Federal Reserve — a regulator that helped orchestrate the bailout — and by the giant insurer itself, according to the emails.
http://tinyurl.com/y8l7fzr
Posted by: dan | January 26, 2010 7:58 AM
This is a major symbolic coup for the White House. It';s beating the GOP at their own game. It';s tapping into Americans' worries and anger over spending and the deficit. No matter how trivial the cuts actually are in reality, voters will see action. It;s good.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | January 26, 2010 8:23 AM
Wonder what other McCain platform ideas will be implemented next????
Posted by: carl frobee | January 26, 2010 8:26 AM
What a joke
Posted by: Bot City | January 26, 2010 8:37 AM
Why wouldn’t Obama start by asking the “moderate” democrats to volunteer cuts in their pet projects
(farm subsidies, etc.). Let’s them walk the walk first and the rest will follow…
Posted by: Yoni | January 26, 2010 8:53 AM
UNLESS YOU ARE A BIG DEM DONOR FROM THE MILITARY:
=
Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
=
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | January 26, 2010 9:02 AM
CNN Poll: For First Time, More Say Dem Control Is Bad For Country
The headline on the new CNN poll is this: “Most Americans applaud Democrats’ loss of supermajority.”
And that’s bad for Dems. But what’s worse for Dems is that the poll’s internals also show that for the first time since the Dem takeover of Congress, more say Dem control of Congress is bad for the country.
The poll finds that 48% of American adults say it’s “bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress,” versus only 45% who say it’s good. That’s within the poll’s margin of error, but it still isn’t good for Dems.
CNN asked that question nine other times since Dems took control of Congress. In every other instance, voters said Dem control was good for the country by a wide margin, almost always by double digits.
The poll also finds that for the first time since the 2006 takeover, the number who have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party equals the number who view the Democratic Party favorably. That’s at 46% apiece.
The question is whether Dem leaders will decide they’re tanking because voters don’t like the health reform bill they’ve been trying to pass, making them decide to shelve it — or whether they’ll conclude that voters don’t like failure, making them redouble their efforts to pass something they can call a historic accomplishment. Anyone taking bets?
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | January 26, 2010 9:03 AM
WOW, BIG "SAVINGS"!!!
LOOK MOM, A COUPON FOR KOOL-AID, MIND IF I TAKE THE HIGHLY LEVERAGED GM CAR TO THE STORE?
=
The freeze would only shave about $15 billion off of the next budget, the Post reports, and save about $250 billion over ten years, according to the New York Times. The deficit is expected to remain between $9 and $10 trillion over that time.
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | January 26, 2010 9:09 AM
During the 2008 campaign one candidate spoke out against such phony spending freezes.
A fellow named Obama.
This one belongs with every other pledge Obama made--and broke (closing Gitmo in a year, Transparency, No Lobbyists, etc.).
Posted by: Change in 2012 | January 26, 2010 9:28 AM
Were going to freeze spending "wink-wink".......Now that he has his 08' campaign team working overtime in the White House, i'm sure there will be more campaign promises coming from this empty suits mouth in the next few months.
After witnessing the democrats arrogance, backroom deals, payoffs and outright bribery, we will not be fooled by his empty rhetoric.
"Fool me once shame on me- Fool me twice shame on you"
Looks like it might be time for another letter writing campaign by your administra....i mean "Ellie Light", eh Ozero?
Posted by: Dave | January 26, 2010 9:31 AM
The Republicans can sell a war- sending our precious to their deaths. But the Democrats can't sell Healthcare which keeps people from dying. Do you know why? The Democrats always choose cheesy punch lines "spending freeze" that the average Joe doesn't understand. Why not call it the "streamlining of the Federal Govt." Purpose is to save money and improve quality of service to the people of the United States by Achieving to phase out programs that have no return; and increasing or improving existing programs that works. Example, subsidizing oil companies at $1 billion a year- no return. Zero. Example, tax credit for companies that hire worker in US. Example: tax credit for companies who keep jobs in America! Let's get the Marketing guy going! That Harward Degree isn't doing the average Joe any good. . .speak average Joe language that they can understand!
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | January 26, 2010 9:37 AM
To all lefty lib American apologists (that includes you, Nobama):
-
GIVERS AND MISERS
Last week, Tom Miller, president and CEO of the United Nations Association of the United States, told the Westport Rotary Club that "as the richest nation in the world, the United States could do more for Haitian earthquake victims." Considering Miller's position, perhaps it would be instructive to contrast the U.S. contribution and support for Haiti to that of the other members of the United Nations, asks the Heritage Foundation.
-
Claudia Rosett does just that in her Forbes column where she observes: The United Nations' ReliefWeb database showed contributions from the U.S. government (a.k.a. U.S. taxpayers) worth $90 million, or 44 percent of the grand total pledged.
That's just a fraction of the real U.S. contributions, which include millions in private donations plus a huge relief operation by the U.S. military.
America has been sending ships, air-dropping rations and pouring in thousands of troops to open relief corridors and provide security; all this is politely styled as backup to a U.N. effort, which is in reality propped up by the United States.
-
Also: The United States is either the top donor or among the largest to most of the multilateral operations now focused on Haiti; these include not only the United Nations, with its array of agencies, but also the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Just behind the United States in contributions to the U.N.'s Haiti appeal is a roster of Western democracies, starting with France (12.7 percent of the total pledged to date), Sweden (7.4 percent), Spain (3.5 percent), Germany (2.8 percent), Brazil (2.6 percent), Australia, Finland, Canada, Italy, Denmark.
Rosett goes on to note the paltry donations of the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, but the main point that Miller should glean is that the United Nations and the world are lucky that America is ready and willing to act and financially support efforts to address crises like that in Haiti. There doesn't seem to be a long queue of countries ready to take our place as the world's most generous and effective humanitarian.
Posted by: Thank GOD I'm a Conservative | January 26, 2010 9:53 AM
Wow....Boobie Moobie can hardly contain his chubbiness. Red meat has created a feeding frenzy for the great white. A forum for the rabid to make shotgun complaints for everything off topic. Fresh off his McCain win prediction, he remains with his finger on the pulse of America. It's simple mathmatics to him...if America is upset with X, it means they must approve of Y.
Posted by: bill r. | January 26, 2010 10:09 AM
Here the video of Obama, during the 2008 presidential debate, denouncing the idea of a discretionary spending "freeze" as a PR gimmick. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/26/obama_campaigned_against_spending_freeze.html
The transcript of Obama's remarks is at politico.com.
Obama promises last about as long as snow in the Sahara Desert.
Posted by: Change in 2012 | January 26, 2010 10:16 AM
LOL @ Terry. One of the most pathetic partisan robots to wallow in the Swamp muck. He/she thinks that Democrats caused the Global Economic Meltdown. Even the most rabid fringe partisan knows that one party does not have a monopoly on determining whether the economy will be successful or a failure. Otherwise there would be no point in having elections or a 2 party system of government.
Posted by: janet | January 26, 2010 10:50 AM
Our president seems to be way in over his head. President Obama should fire his entire Cabinet. I do not believe they have been giving him good economic advice. Tell me, what the difference between raising the budget deficit limit and asking for an additional $20K on your credit card when you are all ready maxed out? With Obama’s background, I did not expect him to have the knowledge and business sense to pull this country out of these economic crises. However, I did expect his Cabinet to give him good advice and clear guidance. It’s like a baseball team and Obama is the manager. If your line-up is not hitting, you need to replace them. We the people deserve better. Finally, I’m tired of pointing fingers in this country. Lets start moving forward.
Posted by: Richard Owens | January 26, 2010 12:09 PM
This is bad for the economy.
Posted by: Richard Owens | January 26, 2010 1:48 PM
Matt,
Good point - when it comes to scaling back gov't spending, you know the dems won't do it (unless there is political gain).
Rodney King,
What part of the phrase "spending freez" don't you think the "Average Joe" understands. Heck, even the Below Average joe - that would be Biden - understands this,
As for you subsidy of oil companies (I'm not a fan of it either), but it does have a payback. It increases the supply of oil, which keeps the prices low.
Janet - I haven't even posted yet and you are ripping me on an unrelated topic. Are you upset that JohnD isn't here for you to stalk? It was the policies that the democrats supported that caused the hosuing bubble.
Posted by: Terry | January 26, 2010 7:20 PM
"What part of the phrase "spending freez" don't you think the "Average Joe" understands. Heck, even the Below Average joe - that would be Biden - understands this,
"
I, Average Joe, do not understand if there will be food on the table. . .if spending is cut. How does it work? Will there be less jobs because of the cut? Or jwill jobs become more plentiful because of the cut? But, I already know your answer. . .why bother answering? hahaha
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | January 26, 2010 9:47 PM
Sniff, sniff. I thought Dumb Dumb Janet loved me the most:
Terry. One of the most pathetic partisan robots to wallow in the Swamp muck. He/she thinks that Democrats caused the Global Economic Meltdown. Even the most rabid fringe partisan knows that one party does not have a monopoly on determining whether the economy will be successful or a failure. Otherwise there would be no point in having elections or a 2 party system of government.
Posted by: janet | January 26, 2010 10:50 AM
Awww, Janet, dear, when it comes to pathetic partisan robots, I think the mirror will come in handy, eh????
Posted by: John D | January 26, 2010 10:05 PM
Rodney King,
If their is a spending or cut in federal spending, you are worried about food not being on your table? I know in the Terry household, food on the table is not dependent on federal spending.
Will there be less or more jobs if federal spending is cut? In the long run, jobs will grow.
Posted by: Terry | January 26, 2010 10:47 PM
There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by: henrylow | January 27, 2010 11:58 PM
Many companies all over the world need your opinions on their products. They will send you a simple online survey forms, where you need to fill it out and they pay you money. The most remarkable thing about this paid survey program is that anyone can make money with it. It doesn't require any special skills, training, education or previous business experience. You only need access to the Internet and basic typing skills. It is the perfect home business for stay at home moms, students, home makers, retirees or anyone that is in need of some extra cash.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by: ridwanzero | February 5, 2010 5:31 AM
Welcome to the safest, easiest way to get a real work at home job. Work at home jobs can be hard to trust. That's why we research and publish only the best of the best... carefully pre-screened, 100% scam-free work at home jobs you can depend on. No get rich quick schemes. No scams. Just 100% real work at home jobs.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Posted by: ridwanzero | February 6, 2010 1:44 AM
EARN GLOBAL MONEY is committed to exceeding Peoples expectations day in and day out.
click here.
Posted by: bloomsoft2 | May 24, 2010 6:14 AM