So, the latest collective freak-out is over the proposed discretionary spending freeze that Obama will explain in the State of the Union address and that his administration is rolling out tonight. This is supposed to a be either a reprise of Herbert Hoover’s response to the Great Depression or of Franklin Roosevelt’s disastrous 1937 budget cuts. Pour yourself a daiquiri, light a cigar…relax. You want to know how significant this is?
The administration officials did not identify which programs Mr. Obama would cut or eliminate, but said that information would be in the budget he submits next week. For the coming fiscal year, the reductions would be $10 billion to $15 billion, they said. Last year Mr. Obama proposed to cut a similar amount — $11.5 billion — and Congress approved about three-fifths of that, the officials said.
So, this year, Obama managed to cut about $7 billion in this type of funding and he is proposing to do better. If he gets 60% of what he asks again, he’ll save between $6 and $9 billion in discretionary spending next year.
This plan doesn’t apply to this year’s budget, so it doesn’t have any immediate impact on efforts to stimulate job growth.
Administration officials also are working with Congress on roughly $150 billion in additional stimulus spending and tax cuts to spur job creation. But much of that spending would be authorized in the current fiscal year, the officials said, so it would not be affected by the proposed freeze that would take effect in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
What progressives should be concerned about isn’t a spending freeze that is more symbolic than meaningful. It’s the fact that Washington wants to balance the budget on the backs Medicare and Social Security recipients rather than on the backs of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and United Technologies. Our debt obligations are staggering, and we have to make tough choices. This stupid spending freeze is peanuts that won’t mean anything in the larger picture. Congress probably won’t go along with it anyway.
Someone needs to have the courage to take the first pound of flesh out of the Pentagon’s budget. Since no one seems to have the back of anyone who might consider such a move, we get silly symbolism about being fiscally responsible. I don’t care about a couple of billion dollars here or there on important programs, but fixing our fiscal problems will involve a hell of lot more pain that anything being announced by the Obama administration. It’s theater, and it won’t mean anything one way or the other for our short-term employment prospects. We still need the government to spend money to make up for flagging private-sector economic activity, and this decision won’t have much impact on whether there is enough government spending or not.
The best I can say for this bit of triangulation is that it polls well and it doesn’t mean anything. The fiscal problems in Washington are endemic and unsolvable in our present system, and pretending the amount of money we’re talking about here is even a drop in the bucket is just silly.
The best I can say for this bit of triangulation is that it polls well and it doesn’t mean anything.
It only polls well because the fucktards in the TradMed beat that drum repeatedly. Notice how it was never beat during the Dubya years? Second, progressives are hyper ventilating because we are sick of Obama kissing up to Versailles(and scum like Pete Peterson). Give an inch and they’ll take a mile as the old saying goes.
So, Pete Peterson is evil therefore a plan to strip $10-$15 billion from next year’s budget is going to lead to Hoovervilles. Do people care at all about their credibility?
And then so many on the left get angry at why the MSM doesn’t take blogs seriously yet. There are many on our side that deserve much more respect than any DC press corp reporter…but there are many that don’t.
I was a bit shocked at DK though, what with a pair of hyperventilating front page posts in a matter of minutes. I know the place is frustrated, and understandably so, but it was f*ckin’ amateur hour over there last night.
you should read the blogosphere email lists.
I don’t think it will lead to Hoovervilles.
I do however think it’s horrendous policy from a political/news cycle perspective, and that the average voter will not understand the nuances of what this “spending freeze” is, and that every program Obama now puts forward will be attacked because of the “spending freeze.”
It also moves the Overton Window on making those entitlement cuts that far over to the right where now Republicans will say “If you were serious about a spending freeze, you’d make entitlement cuts. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite.”
And then Obama’s in real trouble.
Hyperventilate, sneer, freak out, scoff, lather, rinse, repeat..
Daily contract awards over $5m announced for Jan 22 (one day) by the Pentagon:
Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., was awarded a $323,945,933 contract which will provide the French airborne warning and control system mid-life upgrade.
Vinnell Brown and Root, LLC, Herndon, Va., was awarded a $37,535,776 contract which will provide consolidated base operations and maintenance contract for base facilities located in Turkey and Spain.
Raytheon Co., McKinney, Texas, was awarded a $27,537,127 contract which will provide 17 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems Model B production units.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., was awarded a $16,712,105 contract which will provide full complete funding of the non-recurring effort for delivery of an engineering change proposal for the replacement of the C-130J Star VII mission computer.
Wright’s Engineering and Design, Portsmouth, Va.* (N50054-10-D-1007); LPI Technical Services, Chesapeake, Va.* (N50054-10-D-1008); and Virtual Technology Services, LLC, Midwest City, Okla.* (N50054-10-D-1009), are each being awarded a combined maximum value $24,330,000 time-and-material, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract to furnish the necessary firewatch in support of work performed by Norfolk Naval Shipyard on-board various Navy vessels.
Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Owego, N.Y., is being awarded a maximum $15,899,702 firm-fixed-price, sole-source, undefinitized contract for audio management computer and inertial navigation units.
Agland, Inc., Lucerne, Colo.*, is being awarded a minimum $14,726,369 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for fuels.
Grove U.S., LLC, Shady Grove, Pa., is being awarded a maximum $6,355,346 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for material handling cranes.
—-
Just another day at work.
Where would the economy be without it?
If you want more support for all you’ve been saying of late re our party vs. our party, check this out.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/012310.html
Thanks so much for that link. On the rare times when you see something with anything more than an 18 month perspective (or more often less) I find it very instructive.
The entire first year of Obama’s administration I have metaphorically thought of the situation as akin to trying to turn around a massive oil tanker, hundreds of yards long, in a small crowded port, while everyone thinks of you as a nimble speedboat that can turn on a dime. The ship of state was moving full speed, with unbelievable force, in the wrong direction, and just slowing it down to make it even possible to turn around is a daunting proposition.
But the events since August, culminating in Brown’s election and the Supreme Court decision, have shown things to be worse–more like turning the ship around while being bombarded from land and sea as you did it. It makes sense in retrospect that Obama was so eager to set an early deadline in August to get Health Care Reform passed quickly and with a certain amount of compromise and stealth, then move on, whether or not it was obviously imperfect. HE knew the level of dysfunction among Democrats in the Senate, and that given additional time, they’d find ingenious ways to screw it up further as time passed. In the Consortium News piece you cite, Perry talks about Republicans’ success in faux populism that gets people to vote against their own interests, and likewise Senate Dems (and Nadarites, circa 2000) also have shown an uncanny knack for shooting themselves in the foot.
So many times over the past year I’ve come to Booman Tribune just before another Obama speech that is roundly panned from the right but especially from the left BEFORE it is given. I don’t disagree necessarily with, for example, a good deal of the stinging critique of Obama by Bob Herbert this morning in the NY Times; but I do know that Obama has a proven (if battered) record as a strategist. I believe (and hope) that what he has been doing over the past year is laying the groundwork for this year: not CALLING the Republicans obstructionists, but demonstrating it until it can’t be denied by the vast majority of the voting populace. By having been consistently and unnecessarily “reasonable” towards the other side, the intention was to neuter them in the 2010 political season. The Brown voters are there for him to co-opt for us at least as much as they’re there for the Republicans. But his cross-over dribble and pivot towards populism better be swift, committed and real or he will be shown to have waited too long. The kerfuffle over the FREEZE is yet another example of Democrats worrying about the wrong thing–cutting waste is something he’s talked about forever, and as Booman points out, it’s symbolic more than anything else.
I believe (and hope) that what he has been doing over the past year is laying the groundwork for this year: not CALLING the Republicans obstructionists, but demonstrating it until it can’t be denied by the vast majority of the voting populace. By having been consistently and unnecessarily “reasonable” towards the other side, the intention was to neuter them in the 2010 political season.
As Kos said, people want to see results. They don’t care how about the process. And look at the polling right now. If the elections were held today, we might lose the Senate. What are the Democrats plans for the time between now and November?
The elections are not being held today, and 6 months from now they will be 3 months off still. In political time, that’s an eternity. Kos says people want to see results, but even in a 24/7 instant culture, New Great Depression avoidance time is slow, especially given the unmitigated mess full of time bombs that Bush handed Obama. Remember, too, that by design there is a ton of stimulus money that kicks in right about now and I suspect it will be used wisely.
I got nothing on this save that it looks and feels conservative, and that’s nothing but trouble in my book.
Well, you said it. It’s just theater, just like all the campaign talk about fixing health care. This turn just shows what Obama is made of; Theater.
Still a horrible political strategy:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/white-houses-brain-freeze.html
I’m in total agreement that the only way we’ll see any major budget balancing is if we take a good hard look at military spending. Yes, that will take courage. I think it’s clear, at this point, that if you make any major cuts to military spending, that’s going to be your last term in office. The “weak on terror” arguement is too easy a card to play, and too effective. One can only hope that Pres. Obama might be willing to look at it sometime during a second term.
I think we should keep in mind that he did get a big win on ending the money-pit known as the F-22. I don’t like that military spending went up total, but pulling the plug on programs like that is a start.
One thing I wonder about: who the heck do the democrats think are going to vote for them in 2010? They are backing away from HCR like a bunch of cowards, even though, as Steve Benen writes, “This is why the party exists.” A budget freeze (which, btw, will not affect social security or medicare) is sure not likely to excite liberal voters. So, who exactly do they think is going to turn out next year to press the lever?
Call the “leak” what it is: pandering.
It is a commitment to a budget philosophy of freezing “discretionary” (not national security or entitlement) expenditures. Its first consequence would be a way of saying no to Congressional earmarks outside of DoD.
It is Hooverish in that even $11 billion means $11 billion less in demand for goods and services in an economy in which investment is awaiting demand. That represents probably a $66 billion loss (after multiplier effects) in economic growth.
The good news about not freezing national security expenditures is that they can go up or down as dictated by national security threats and management efficiencies in national security departments and agencies. A slim reed to be sure.
The freakout is less over the fact of the freeze than the way it was pushed as a big deal, the fact that it flies in the face of sound economic principles (even Calculated Risk is critical), the fact that on the heels of the Massachusetts election it indicates that the White House is drawing the wrong conclusions from that fiasco, the stubbornness with which the White House refuses to listen to critics from the left, and the contempt that this action seems to show for enough folks who volunteered and made small donations to make them less likely to do so again — ever — for any Democratic candidate. And most troubling of all the statement that he would rather be a good one-term president than an mediocre two-term president. That is is an “I want outta here.” kind of statement that could lead him to be a one-term mediocre president.
Does triangulation really poll well now, or is that just the conventional wisdom? There is a lot of evidence that the universe of voters has become bimodally distributed instead of normally distributed, with only a minimal amount of overlap (less than 10% swing). And that the large number of independents are in the tails, not the middle of the distribution.
Agree completely. I’m sick and tired of this triangulation BS, and I’m not convinced it polls will. This only feeds the “punch the hippie” line, makes Obama look weak, and will continue to feed Republican BS talking points. Their talking points are on life support, and he continues to give them a jolt.
polls well*
And Mark Thoma makes the same critique:
The long-term budget problem is due to primarily one thing, rising health care costs. Everything else is dwarfed by that problem. If we solve the health care cost problem, the rest is easy. If we don’t solve it the rest won’t matter.
This was an opportunity for Obama to explain the importance of health care reform and how it relates to the long-term debt problem. Why not emphasize this?
Instead we get cheap political tricks that are likely to backfire. How will this look, for example, if there’s a double dip recession, or if unemployment follows the dismal path that the administration itself has forecast?
This seems to be a case of the former Clinton people in the administration (or wannabees) trying to relive their glory days instead of realizing that those days are gone, the world is different now and it calls for different solutions.
I wasn’t in favor of having so many Clinton administration people in this administration, and nothing so far has caused me to change that assessment. They’re nothing but trouble.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/01/obama-wants-to-limit-government-spending-de
spite-high-unemployment-and-a-fragile-economy.html
For small programs (relatively speaking) like the national parks, any cut to an already overly lean budget is a disaster. Read TPM today about another trial of Blackwater criminals. Get rid of the outsourcing to mercenaries and save some real money. Don’t gut the small programs that actually do something for our quality of life.
When the pollsters ask their questions do they ask people if they want to cut research on health care? National park funding? And all the other “drops in the bucket?” I seriously doubt it.
It’s the pointless expenditure of political resources to promote and defend a transparently worthless homage to bad policy. I don’t see even the potential for an upside.
I agree.
Add to that the Administration’s poor job of framing the message right out of the gate.
Defense spending is the holy of holies and so I don’t expect Obama to so much as look in that direction any time soon. Plus he’s gotta get his (ruinous) war on in central asia, and it’s damn pricey to fund 100K+ “contractors” in the graveyard of empires.
Ending our pointless and disastrous foreign occupations is the necessary first step to cutting defense spending. Unfortunately that probably requires a revolution in public discourse that overturns the demented logic of the GWOT. Similarly, our public discourse needs to be liberated from the crushing ideology of the “free market,” but both ideologies are alive and kicking despite public, irrefutable, and catastrophic failures.
I haven’t always been happy with Obama. I thought it was a mistake to escalate our mission in Afghanistan. I’ve been frustrated he hasn’t taken more of a public hand with the details of health care reform. I’ve been troubled that we’re still keeping people we’ve tortured in prison without trial.
But one thing I’ve appreciated is through it all, when I’ve agreed with him, when I’ve disagreed with him, he has always acted like an adult, and he as always treated us like adults. When he escalated the war, he at least didn’t try to pretend it was a noble enterprise, but talked entirely in terms of our goals. He’s been up front that the budget crises we face has no quick fixes.
So I’m deeply disappointed. Making meaningless cuts to show he’s serious about the budget is the sort of nonsense I’ve grown accustomed to hearing from Republicans and blue dogs. The only defense I’ve heard is that these cuts are meaningless and will have no effect, which is not a defense at all. Plus I don’t buy they’re meaningless. Even if they have no effect, this will shift the conversation as to what we can do and what we can’t do; it sounds like a second fiscal stimulus is completely off the table, regardless of what actually happens in the economy.
So I’m waiting to hear what he says. His speeches are always excellent, and I’m sure he’ll say something that makes me feel a little better. Something that convinces me he understands the bigger picture, and at the same time makes me wonder if he does understand it, why is he doing this. But actions speak louder than words. Maybe somehow this will be done in the context of something larger that makes sense. But so far I’m not hopeful.
Just to add, as people have pointed, we haven’t heard the details yet. I don’t see how this becomes anything other than meaningless gestures to try to appear serious about the budget, but I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong and to eat crow.
Gee, I like some credit, but at least he can read and he’s right.
Calling it “defense spending” and “security spending” is a bogus perversion of language, like “terrorists”, “insurgents”, “detainees” and “collateral damage.”
Please call it what it is — massive corporate welfare and Empire maintenance.