Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Spending Freeze to be based on the 2010 Obama budget...and so,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:17 PM
Original message
Spending Freeze to be based on the 2010 Obama budget...and so,
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 10:18 PM by FrenchieCat
I'm trying to figure out if that's a truly bad thing, as some have intonated,
without really telling us anything more than that isn't what we want.

What we know and what we don't know.

My understanding is that this spending freeze will deal with budgetary areas
that are neither mandatory spending nor defense related.

In addition, it is supposed to be flexible within each departments,
and maybe even broader than that (we don't totally know), like flexible overall.

In either case, back in February of 2009, what we do know is that
the 2010 budget was heralded as clearly showing exactly the right progressive priorities,
by just about every progressive economist out there.
They loved it.

and even we loved it.....that I clearly remember (it was only a year ago after all)




February 27, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

Climate of Change
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Elections have consequences. President Obamas new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.htm...




Paul Krugman praises President Obama's new budget proposal
By John Amato Saturday Feb 28, 2009 7:00pm

Paul Krugman's latest column praises President Obama's new budget big-time. I haven't seen Paul that excited in a long while.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/paul-krugman-prais...


and Krugman wasn't the only excited one.

I even recall clearly that the budget was the saving grace
of the stimulus package, which many criticized as too small.

In contrast the 2010 budget increased spending by 8% for Bush's prior 2009 budget,
and made the increases in all of the right places.


So I'm trying to figure out, is it automatically bad news to freeze
to 2010 levels?

And if so, why do you think this?


See for yourself,

The + or - sign next to each department is how much
the Budget for that department grew or shrank
going from Bush to Obama in terms of priority.....

Now, do you notice anything?


$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
$105 billion - Other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal...


So please before we pass judgment, let's think about this,
wait for some details, and make sure we know what we are talking about.
let's be intelligent about our discussion on this ....
because it may not be what you think it is.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Could just be part of paygo.
Probably has nothing to do with future stimulus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Jarred Bernstein said as much on Rachel tonight....
... "this will not apply to the stimulus."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. We're DEMOCRATS!!! WE SPEND MONEY!!!!
.... that's what we do!!!! lol

The Republicans make wars! We spend money! It's a tried and true formula, why he gotta mess it up!!!

This was NOT the change I was expecting when I read in "Audacity" about how Clinton created a budget surplus by doing THIS VERY THING!!!!

AHHHHH!!!!!!!!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It would be one thing if the budget freeze was based on a Bush budget,
but it won't be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Oh! Quit applying complex thought....
.... you're just making things more difficult. :)

Instead do this --> FREEZE BAD!!!!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wouldn't that just make us look stupid,
just to be against something
without really knowing what we are against?

Isn't that what Teabaggers do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ha! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Folks unrecc'ing this don't want folks to know
based on actual information whether to be for or against this, I guess.

Anytime a fact based OP is unre'ced on a progressive site,
it makes things quite frightening as to the type of folks
one is really dealing with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. Why won't he even consider cutting defense?
there's a lot of waste there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. We have two wars going on,
and a dissimated army.

I think that is why.



did you see the increase in Veteran affairs
in the 2010 Budget that will be the basis for the freeze?

$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. let me repeat: there's a lot of waste and redundancy in defense
things like headstart will be cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why will things like Headstart be cut?
Where did you hear that?

How does a flexible freeze of spending
CUT headstart?

Please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
52. If there's a spending freeze with an increase in enrollment, it becomes a cut.
Either less money is spent per child or a cap is put on the number of children accepted into the program. Assuming Head Start would be one of the programs affected, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
50. It may be.
This is political speak. Just because he says X doesn't mean that Y isn't also on the table.

In this case, saying certain non-military discretionary spending will be capped says nothing about other categories of spending.

It's like my asking, "Cali, I need $5. Do you have $5?" If you have $6 and said, "I have $3," you'd be substituting incomplete true information as the answer for my question and leaving out relevant information. That's typically considered deceitful; perhaps you don't know about that $5 bill in the bottom of your purse, in which case it's not deceitful. (If I asked, "Who has $3?" and you said, "I have $3" yet had $6, that's not deceitful--the answer satisfies relevance requirements. That you have more is irrelevant.)

In legal speech, all that matters is that the sentence have some sense in which it is true. If you have $6 you certainly have $3. Obama didn't mention other programs; he's said nothing other programs and no conversational implicature regarding those programs is to be drawn.

Moreover, there's also no commitment to actually veto any bill failing to cap those categories of spending. He's called for a cap. He hasn't required it, except possibly of himself. If he's ignored, well, he issued the call, his butt's been armored. Even if he issues a budget that's obviously incomplete and he knows that Congress will increase things willy-nilly, he's in the clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The BIG BUCKS isn't being spent on the troops but for the pretty armaments and weapons.
Weapons of Death and Destruction ... on our Taxpayer dime+

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
45. It doesn't say that he won't consider cutting defense....
Just the Defense is exempted from the freeze. If Obama and Congress can cut some weapons systems that even the military agrees that it doesn't need, the Defense budget might be cut as well.

I think this is largely a symbolic move. In the current climate, can you imagine the Republicans' reaction if Obama froze military spending. He's a Foreigner! He hates our troops! I think we can pretty much imagine it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. I'm sorry but, these aren't Progressive or Democratic Policies
Huge increases in Defense budgets. And Cutting of Domestic Programs Budgets?

These are Republican ideas and tactics. Anyway people try to cut it. This is Reaganomics.

Word of advice to Democrats and Pres. Obama. No matter how much you try to govern like you care about the deficit. Republicans are still going to call you big spenders, so stop trying to cater to them.

I'm so finished with politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. What did you think when he proposed doing this in "Audacity"?
And I dont mean to pick on you .... that question is open to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Name the cuts!
A freeze is not a cut....especially after an 8% increase over the prior budget.

I'm starting to believe that folks are talking out of their asses.
I really I'm.

and that's quite disappointing.
I thought DU was full of knowledgeable folks
who could actually provide some facts, some evidence
with their whine...but apparently that's not required.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. It's all still too vague to.
The assumption seems to be that by freezing the budget inflation will effectively reduce the scope of programs.

There are lots of assumptions there. That the budget has each line item frozen, for instance, so funding within a category or within the overall "non-military discretionary budget" can't be shifted. That Congress won't ignore the call and Obama sign the budget the Congress approves.

Then again, I don't know how many times we've been told that decreases to planned increases in a budget are actual cuts, that when taxes revert to former levels automatically that can't count as a tax increase whatever actually happens to the tax rate, and so many other things that implicitly and outrageously confuse words for things and framing for reality that it's not surprising that unfounded assumptions about how a vague call will be executed are taken as required cuts that will certainly be implemented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Tell me, does your
head feel wet? Is it cool or warm? I can tell the difference between rain and piss "trickling" down. Deja vu?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I don't even understand why being mad is so paramount around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Then don't be mad if it
bothers you so much. It's a total waste of time to get mad about politics as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. How is this politics as usual?
I am missing something?

Why is a freeze a bad thing,
and if it isn't why is any of it bad?

I don't get this sense of doom about everything,
without folks explaining themselves better.

Reactions around here by some make no sense to me.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
24.  Maybe you are missing something,
it makes sense to me. People are hurting,and they are going to freeze spending on whatever they can EXCEPT for defense spending. I'm not here to explain anything to you, I am voicing my opinion. We have been here before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Sorry, I'm simply amazed......
how the lack of any political awareness around here.

I truly am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Well I actually agree with
you on that. I truly do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
47. +1. They've squeezed themselves into a tiny little box that does
not allow for any movement whatsoever.

They can't even tell you what programs will be impacted, yet they're pissed. Talk about being blindly ideological and myopic! Or maybe ignorant is a better description.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. Economically, the jury's still out with me. Politically, it's utter shit.
I've heard arguments on both sides, be they the "It's Roosevelt in '37 all over again!" to "It looks bad, but actually isn't - it's actually smart financing." The problem is that it looks bad, whether it is or isn't actually bad. Just about everyone's heard the Keynesian adage that you don't cut .gov spending in the middle of a recession. In that context, this makes Obama look completely clueless, and will cause even more defections and loss of enthusiasm from his base. At the minimum, he could have come up with better framing, or just buried these cuts in the fine print of next year's budget to hope that nobody'd notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It looks bad because we are not smart enough to realize what it even is......
Hence, the SOTU will provide more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. Does this mean I don't get a pony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. No, you don't get
a pony,they cost a lot to feed. Hay gets expensive not to mention grain and supplements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. You weren't ever promised one.....
so looks like it means what he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top