[CNN] Obama to Push 3-Year Freeze on Discretionary Spending

[Dominus Atheos]

CNN

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will announce in Wednesday's State of the Union address that he's proposing to save $250 billion by freezing all nonsecurity federal discretionary spending for three years, according to two senior administration officials.

The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are funded adequately," one of the senior officials said.

The officials would not reveal the details of which domestic programs would be cut, as they prepare to face major pushback from liberals in the president's own party because popular education and health spending could be on the chopping block. The details will be officially unveiled February 1, when the president publicly releases his next budget blueprint for fiscal year 2011 -- which starts October 1 -- and beyond.

"We've got to make some tough decisions," the second senior official said. "Everybody is not going to get what they want."

Under the proposal, which would need to be approved by both houses of Congress, all federal discretionary spending would be frozen at its current level of $447 billion per year. Within that parameter, however, individual federal agencies would have the power to give some programs increases, while cutting money elsewhere.

Besides burnishing his fiscal discipline credentials, the move could also help the president force Republicans' hand on whether they're serious about meeting Obama halfway on some of his policy proposals.

Immediate Republican reaction was split, with some senior GOP aides saying the freeze is something they could support, while others said it did not go nearly far enough.

"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."

The senior administration officials acknowledged that discretionary spending is only about one-sixth of the entire federal budget, and that much larger savings would come from cutting entitlement programs like Medicare, but the White House believes that cuts need to start somewhere.

"We're not here to tell you we've solved the deficit," said one of the senior officials, adding that the federal government has to go through the "very same process that families" across America have had to go through in their personal budgets.

The move will also spark a major debate within the president's own party, with senior Democrats already saying the cuts would be tough to swallow. A senior Senate Democratic aide said it will prompt a major fight after the Bush administration "underfunded domestic programs for so long."

"Why would we want to play into the Republicans' hands like this?" the senior Senate Democratic aide asked.

But it could also help Obama break ranks with an unpopular Democratic Congress. "Do I expect this to win us a lot of kudos on Capitol Hill? No," one of the senior administration officials said.

Holy shit this is such a fantastically bad idea I can't help but laugh. A discretionary spending freeze was one of John McCain's key financial positions. I'm going to get eviscerated for saying this, but I know think Barrack Obama is as bad a president as McCain would have been. Between Iraq and Afganistan; the bank bailout; the barely-stimulating half-tax-cut stimulus; health care (if it does end up failing) and now this, I really don't think we could be more screwed with him. It's absolutely hilarious.

Can anyone help me with emigrating to Canada?

[Dominus Atheos]

And just before I go to bed, let me post this:

[xammer99]

When I heard that I laughed long and hard. Then I immediately thought of this scene from O Brother Where Art Thou, and with a similar conversation involving Obama, Emanuel, and Axelrod as Pappy, Junior, and the two advisors.

[Akhlut]

Why doesn't Obama get it that the Republicans LOST and that he doesn't need to try to be a Republican? Doesn't he realize the Republicans will always be better Republicans then he'll be, and that he's never going to win them over and he's just actively alienating his own base?

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

And the Retardlicans still call this guy a tax-and-spend socialist...

CNN

The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are funded adequately," one of the senior officials said.

I swear, some in this country are more comfortable with spending money on killing people than on helping people.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Why doesn't Obama get it that the Republicans LOST and that he doesn't need to try to be a Republican? Doesn't he realize the Republicans will always be better Republicans then he'll be, and that he's never going to win them over and he's just actively alienating his own base?

Because both parties are competing for the mindless middle. And years of conditioning have given the mindless middle a pronounced list to starboard. The bulk of the Democrat base isn't all that socially liberal or progressive either. Who votes Democrat? Socially conservative minorities, blue-collar union workers, people who are mostly apathetic to the GOP, and lastly, a bunch of people who are Democrats principally because the GOP goes out of its way to piss on them.

It hasn't been politically acceptable for a Democrat to be a true progressive liberal in practically a generation. Why? The myth of Ronald Reagan; which helped to perpetrate the myth that Republicans stand for warm, fuzzy things like putting more money in your pocket, protecting you from bad guys, and protecting the values of your family. What the Democrats need is national leaders who don't want to be low-calorie Republicans. Who are willing to attack the Reagan myth and not knuckle under at the first politically expedient moment.

[Tanasinn]

I swear, some in this country are more comfortable with spending money on killing people than on helping people.

The entire Republican Party, you mean?

[Darth Wong]

And the Retardlicans still call this guy a tax-and-spend socialist...

CNN

The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs.

"We are at war, and we're going to make sure our troops are funded adequately," one of the senior officials said.

I swear, some in this country are more comfortable with spending money on killing people than on helping people.

You're wrong. It's not just "some". MOST in your country are more comfortable spending money to kill people than to help people. The real world isn't like Internet message boards; any politician who tried to cut funds to the military would instantly destroy any chance of ever attaining high office. Hell, Obama got slagged for cutting the skyrocketing increase in funding to the military, even though they're still getting giganticulous amounts of money with plenty of increases on the way. But it could have been even more, so he's considered "weak on defense".

Meanwhile, try convincing ordinary people that we should spend more on welfare.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

You're wrong. It's not just "some". MOST in your country are more comfortable spending money to kill people than to help people. The real world isn't like Internet message boards; any politician who tried to cut funds to the military would instantly destroy any chance of ever attaining high office. Hell, Obama got slagged for cutting the skyrocketing increase in funding to the military, even though they're still getting giganticulous amounts of money with plenty of increases on the way. But it could have been even more, so he's considered "weak on defense".

Meanwhile, try convincing ordinary people that we should spend more on welfare.

Sorry for my underestimation. It is indeed true and a tragic cultural problem of ours that we would rather see foreigners die for our own benefit than take money out of our own wallets to help our needier compatriots.

The entire Republican Party, you mean?

That and the "moderate" Democrats.

I don't think there really is a politically significant movement in America to reduce government spending. What the "less government" people really want is not less government, but the diversion of government spending away from programs designed to create a more equitable society towards empowering the rich and conquering and exploiting foreigners. "Less government" is dishonest rhetoric used by authoritarian imperialists who want to hog all the wealth and power for themselves.

[Darth Wong]

"Less government" is dishonest rhetoric used by authoritarian imperialists who want to hog all the wealth and power for themselves.

Indeed. As recently as September of 2008, Republicans were bragging about how much money they'd spent. George W. Bush's monstrous unfunded prescription drug benefit was even touted as one of the "accomplishments" of his term in office! It's amazing how they suddenly turned around completely once they left office. And of course, the idiot media and the mindless middle totally go along with this narrative even though the numbers completely refute it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Holy shit this is such a fantastically bad idea I can't help but laugh. A discretionary spending freeze was one of John McCain's key financial positions. I'm going to get eviscerated for saying this, but I know think Barrack Obama is as bad a president as McCain would have been. Between Iraq and Afganistan; the bank bailout; the barely-stimulating half-tax-cut stimulus; health care (if it does end up failing) and now this, I really don't think we could be more screwed with him. It's absolutely hilarious.

That presumes that McCain wouldn't have done something retarded like going to war with Iran. And if nothing else Obama's death, incapacitation, or impeachment won't result in President Palin. That alone is a huge plus for Obama. And I'll give him points for trying to shut down Guantanamo (even if Congress obstructed it) and stop torture. Their are probably some other things worth mentioning, too.

I'd also disagree that his Afghanistan is all that bad. I'd say its justified war.

On the topic of the article, while a spending freeze might seem like a bad idea, I'm not sure what the fuck he's supposed to do. The national debt isn't getting any smaller. Pity military spending is exempted, but that's sadly going to be a given with the current state of the world and the state of American politics.

[Bakustra]

Holy shit this is such a fantastically bad idea I can't help but laugh. A discretionary spending freeze was one of John McCain's key financial positions. I'm going to get eviscerated for saying this, but I know think Barrack Obama is as bad a president as McCain would have been. Between Iraq and Afganistan; the bank bailout; the barely-stimulating half-tax-cut stimulus; health care (if it does end up failing) and now this, I really don't think we could be more screwed with him. It's absolutely hilarious.

That presumes that McCain wouldn't have done something retarded like going to war with Iran. And if nothing else Obama's death, incapacitation, or impeachment won't result in President Palin. That alone is a huge plus for Obama. And I'll give him points for trying to shut down Guantanamo (even if Congress obstructed it) and stop torture. Their are probably some other things worth mentioning, too.

I'd also disagree that his Afghanistan is all that bad. I'd say its justified war.

On the topic of the article, while a spending freeze might seem like a bad idea, I'm not sure what the fuck he's supposed to do. The national debt isn't getting any smaller. Pity military spending is exempted, but that's sadly going to be a given with the current state of the world and the state of American politics.

He can't really do much without losing any support he has. He can't slash the military budget while the US is at war, even assuming it were practical to do so without public opinion mattering. He can't raise taxes without guaranteeing a loss for his party in the next election. All he can do is try to cut the social programs (this is an effective cut, as inflation means that they will have less money each year) and domestic budget, which just happen to be the critical areas of the budget for alleviating recessions. He's fucked no matter what, thanks to the American system and people. Alternately, he could continue to run on a massive deficit, but then he's just set his party up for a potential loss and massively screwed up the country down the road.

[J]

On the topic of the article, while a spending freeze might seem like a bad idea, I'm not sure what the fuck he's supposed to do. The national debt isn't getting any smaller. Pity military spending is exempted, but that's sadly going to be a given with the current state of the world and the state of American politics.

How about STOP HANDING OUT TRILLIONS A YEAR TO THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY. The government spends $40 billion a month just to keep Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae afloat instead of winding them down for liquidation, over the course of a single year that's nearly half a trillion dollars, or twice as much as his proposed discretionary spending freeze will save over 3 years.

[MKSheppard]

It's retarded beyond belief. He's trying to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative, after having blown a gargantuganly huge hole in the budget for the next couple of years -- and then saying "Look! We'll save $250 billion!" which is a drop in the ocean.

[MKSheppard]

The government spends $40 billion a month just to keep Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae afloat instead of winding them down for liquidation, over the course of a single year that's nearly half a trillion dollars, or twice as much as his proposed discretionary spending freeze will save over 3 years.

Amusingly enough; VIETRAQ cost about $12 billion a month in 2008; and $7.9 billion a month in 2009. So clearly bankers are more expensive than WAR.

[Edi]

Glenn Greenwald on the sanctity of military spending. The entire column is excellent reading, but he also has a pretty picture there that pretty much says it all.

Unfortunately the image link doesn't seem to work. when I try it.

[Dominus Atheos]

This picture?

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

America doesn't need that strong a military to begin with for the moment. Unlike, for example, Israel, America is not bordered by hostile nations. It's not like the Canadians or Mexicans have plans to invade us anytime soon. In fact, most nations throughout the world have no real intention to attack Americans. The only significant force of people who really hate us are some religious fanatics in relatively powerless countries---and I would argue that we are partially to blame for their rancor.

Notice that the Muslim fanatics aren't that angry against really unIslamic countries such as, say, secular left-wing republics like Sweden, Canada, or Norway. No, of all the Western nations, it's the ones with the most people with similar minds to the Islamists themselves, namely the US and Israel. Both America and Israel are populated to a greater degree than Canada or most European countries by religious, xenophobic right-wingers, the same type of people the Muslim terrorists are. Nothing riles up xenophobes like the xenophobes of the Other, because xenophobes have superiority complexes and therefore don't like to be seen as inferior by people they themselves view as inferior.

What we are seeing today, and have seen throughout history, is a great big pissing contest between different teams of right-wing xenophobes. If America and Israel are to peacefully coexist with the Islamic world, everyone needs to examine their own culture and ostracize their resident xenophobes. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Instead, people would rather waste billions of their fellow citizens' money blowing each other up.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Just one more reason why I have wrote of both Obama and the Modern Democratic party. As far as I am concerned all of the people currently in office are either too spineless or two caught up in special interest to ever make a difference. I plant to continue voting for them and hoping to get others to vote Democratic.. .not for any sense of change, but because while they may end up either doing nothing, or passing watered down miliqtoast bills... It is still less harmful then having republicans in power.

I know there shall be a bunch of people coming in saying "give him a chance" its only been one year, his term is just starting...

Wel I don';t know about you, but the current trend speaks for itself. At the absolute most powerful, super majority in both houses, the Democrats where too afraid of being seen as "mean" and "unpartisan" to push through bills. And Obama's lack of getting tough on them speaks volumes.

[MKSheppard]

Of course, you can be cheap AND strong on defense!

Just build up a force of over a thousand jet bombers, and load them up with nukes.

*puts finger in crook of mouth*

I call it.....Strategic Air Command.

The Pulsing Heart of SAC

[Simon_Jester]

Well, we know your "strong on defense" credentials are unimpeachable. It's hard to call the resident Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger weak on the military. Sort of like calling Attila the Hun a wimp.

You're wrong. It's not just "some". MOST in your country are more comfortable spending money to kill people than to help people. The real world isn't like Internet message boards; any politician who tried to cut funds to the military would instantly destroy any chance of ever attaining high office.

Bush Sr. and Clinton managed it quite well, but that was in a saner era. The political climate took a big shift towards jingoism after September 11, and we haven't recovered from the shock yet because we haven't figured out a way to win the war we've decided that we must logically be in.

EDIT: Interestingly, the Greenwald article cites a Gallup poll that says that 55% of Americans would be willing to freeze or cut military spending, as opposed to only 40% who want to increase it further. Of course, about 2/3 of the "freeze or cut" crowd just want to freeze it, but that's still... if not progress, at least not regress.

And yes, military spending is killing us; I wonder how the pie chart Greenwald showed compares to that of some of the countries we think of as potential enemies (like Iran). What fraction of their budget goes to their military?

[Garibaldi]

Part of the problem is that American military expenditures are tailored around a ridiculous and totally unrealistic set of strategic assumptions. The sooner we a) realize counterinsurgency is a useless, counterproductive sinkhole that we shouldn't bother with and b) accept that in any future conventional conflicts will be limited wars with limited aims, the sooner we can develop a military establishment that's actually in line with our resources and interests. Of course, you'd still have the kneejerk rah-rah-rah red state bullshit to plow through but that could be overcome if the military establishment itself had a sane idea of what its capabilities ought to be.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

There's another problem with the extent we spend on the military: we are fighting an enemy that wants to be killed. The Muslim fanatics have this infamous belief that if they're killed in battle, they'll go to some kind of Valhalla with lots of beautiful virgin women. They want to be martyrs, and attacking them will only give them what they want and motivate more of them to come.

[Master of Ossus]

Part of the problem is that American military expenditures are tailored around a ridiculous and totally unrealistic set of strategic assumptions. The sooner we a) realize counterinsurgency is a useless, counterproductive sinkhole that we shouldn't bother with and b) accept that in any future conventional conflicts will be limited wars with limited aims, the sooner we can develop a military establishment that's actually in line with our resources and interests.

I'm sorry, but how are future conventional conflicts likely to be "limited wars with limited aims?" In many ways, I'd argue that modern conflicts are more difficult to fight than things like WWII because our aims are much broader. In WWII, our goals were to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan, and to win concessions that would alter both of those countries' foreign policies. Current conflicts are sort of social-engineering experiments that are taking place while bombs are going off. I don't think it's fair to characterize that as "limited."

Of course, you'd still have the kneejerk rah-rah-rah red state bullshit to plow through but that could be overcome if the military establishment itself had a sane idea of what its capabilities ought to be.

I'd point out that the military serves many useful functions that aren't strictly combat-related, that would probably not exist in a "sane" military. For instance, after the Indonesian tsunami American nuclear aircraft carriers were by far the best aid-delivery mechanisms that exisetd in the world. Do we need as many of them as we have? Maybe not, but if we didn't have that many then we would've had to significantly alter our military operations elsewhere if we simultaneously wanted to respond to the tsunami.

[Vympel]

Krugman - Obama's a schmuck:-

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)

It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.

And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

Now, I still cling to a fantasy: maybe, just possibly, Obama is going to tie his spending freeze to something that would actually help the economy, like an employment tax credit. (No, trivial tax breaks don’t count). There has, however, been no hint of anything like that in the reports so far. Right now, this looks like pure disaster.