Obama Administration To Propose Freezing Non-Military Discretionary Spending

[Zguy28]

So, if this happens, what effect will this have on unemployment rates over the next 3 years?

[Burgold]

It might worsen it at least short term. Lots of government jobs won't be growing. Lots of grants won't be granted. Freezing is likely to cause constriction.

On the other hand, if the freeze leads to lower taxes for corporations and small businesses it might grow some jobs too.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Me too.

Bringing our troops home would also save us a lot of money. Around $1 trillion a year, if I'm not mistaken.

That price tag is is a little twisted. I'm not saying it doesn't cost us anything by being over there but a large portion of that price tag would be paid if we weren't at war.

Those estimates use things like the paycheck of the soldiers. But those soldiers would be getting paid if they were there fighting or here training. Fuel, weapons and ammunition expended, etc. are things that roughly the same amount would be used here training if not there fighting.

Again, not saying it doesn't cost us more being at war, just saying that figure is inflated.

[Wrong Direction]

Agreed. And good schools are a small part of the equation. A good education requires so much more, from internal motivation, to decent research materials, to basic needs fulfillment, to a feeling of safety, to parent/guardian/someone's support.

A child can do it on their own and in spite of circumstances, but it takes a rare child. Most of us need a hand, support, and encouragement. At minimum, parents need to be a part of the process.

(but I think we're derailing this conversation which should be around the pros and cons of freezing a budget. It's hard for me to believe that so many conservatives are dismissive of freezes and cuts esp. when for the last ten years we haven't really seen any.)

Ehhh, I've seen some mainstream conservative support for what he's doing. I just see a lot more people sort of laughing at the idea that this populist agenda will actually improve the economy in the short run. I actually like the ideas in general, just not as stimulus.

It's sort of like the EHR spending in the stimulus bill. Nice program, but when spending on it doesn't start for 3 years, it's hard to imagine a benefit for Joe the Plummer in 2009. Oh, and those "shovel ready" jobs that weren't actually shovel ready for very knowable reasons (contracting process, environmental reviews, appropriations), well they weren't stimulus either.

Obama's not alone in his stimulus stupidity though. Republicans just can't turn down any tax cut, so they support those stupid rebate checks in every stimulus bill. Again, in theory I love the idea of giving people their money back. However, if we want more than a 1-3 month stimulus, those checks simply are not the right way to spend the money.

Stimulate business and entreprenurialism and the economy will improve.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Ehhh, I've seen some mainstream conservative support for what he's doing. I just see a lot more people sort of laughing at the idea that this populist agenda will actually improve the economy in the short run. I actually like the ideas in general, just not as stimulus.

It's sort of like the EHR spending in the stimulus bill. Nice program, but when spending on it doesn't start for 3 years, it's hard to imagine a benefit for Joe the Plummer in 2009. Oh, and those "shovel ready" jobs that weren't actually shovel ready for very knowable reasons (contracting process, environmental reviews, appropriations), well they weren't stimulus either.

Obama's not alone in his stimulus stupidity though. Republicans just can't turn down any tax cut, so they support those stupid rebate checks in every stimulus bill. Again, in theory I love the idea of giving people their money back. However, if we want more than a 1-3 month stimulus, those checks simply are not the right way to spend the money.

Stimulate business and entreprenurialism and the economy will improve.

Isn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do?

[Wrong Direction]

Isn't that what the stimulus was supposed to do?

Only political economists would ever claim that it did, either before or after the bill actually passed.

Old liberals like to rely on the old Keynseian "multiplier effect." In a nutshell, they want to believe that every dollar spent will generate a few dollars in economic activity.

However, a lot of empirical work has been done since Keynes was a prominent figure. It matters how you spend, and it matters where you take money. Obama's spending is slow and - most damingly - largely unproductive, though you could make a case that some of infrastructure projects will eventually be worth the investment.

[twa]

On the other hand, if the freeze leads to lower taxes for corporations and small businesses it might grow some jobs too.

:hysterical:

The best they can hope for is the coming tax increases might be lessened.

Somebody has to pay for this fiasco...Lower taxes :rotflmao:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

:hysterical:

The best they can hope for is the coming tax increases might be lessened.

Somebody has to pay for this fiasco...Lower taxes :rotflmao:

Is lowering taxes really an option though? Seriously?

[Burgold]

:hysterical:

The best they can hope for is the coming tax increases might be lessened.

Somebody has to pay for this fiasco...Lower taxes :rotflmao:

You try to throw the conservatives a bone and all you get is derision. harrumph

[Koolblue13]

Bring our troops home, from all over the globe. Lease away all of our over sea bases or just give them away. Use our troops to figure out who is here and secure our borders.

Drill and refine domestic oil and use a percentage of the profits, to invest in renewable energies over the next ten year, so we can end it.

Create a stronger military style run job corp to employee the poor and the entitled, with free day care for mothers, so they can work. Rebuild our bridges and levees before more die and it becomes even more expensive.

Invest strongly into our public schools, especially the unsafe ones, where smart kids are afraid to go, so the next generation is more educated than the present one and we stop getting ourselves in a revolving door of the hole we are in.

Do something worth while, instead of just not throwing a couple of pennies into the overflowing wishing well we call a budget.

[twa]

Is lowering taxes really an option though? Seriously?

Not imo...never suggested it

You will either increase tax rates ,cut spending drastically or find a way to increase the tax base.

Someone has to pay for the excess spending and growing entitlements eventually.

[Veretax]

Someone asked what is going on with the liberals... I saw this over on Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot Blog

Somebody Tell Sam Tanenhaus To Get Started on 'The Death of Liberalism'

By Jim Geraghty (Campaign Spot blog on NationalReview.com)

I realize liberal bloggers are always furious and overwrought and beside themselves with anger and fuming over the latest betrayal. But let's take a look at how they're reacting to the spending freeze proposal:

The Reality-Based Community: "Perhaps the worst thing about this is how it cedes the ideological ground to the Republicans. At some point someone must make an argument for government... Why exactly did I give money and make calls for this guy in 2008?"

Nate Silver: "There's more bark here than bite, in other words: "freeze on discretionary spending" means something different on K Street than it does on Main Street. But that's precisely what will make the White House (or at least the Democrats collectively) look flip-floppy. Every time the Democrats propose a jobs bill, or a big investment in alternative energy, you're going to have Krauthammer and Kristol chomping at the bit to go on Fox News and proclaim Obama to be a hypocrite. Pity Robert Gibbs trying to parse his way out of that. This is not how one wins news cycles — or elections."

Steve Benen: "If the proposal isn't really going to change much, why is this disappointing? Because it fully embraces the conservative narrative, instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to explain why conservatives have it wrong. It may be even worse as a policy matter — we just don't have enough details to say — but that's distressing enough."

Joe Sudbay: "The Obama administration is sacrificing sound fiscal policy for a short-term political gain. But, the question is whether there will be any short-term political gain. I don't see it. This feels like the White House brain trust is grasping and it's just not authentic. People figure that out pretty quickly — and that's not good for a President."

Over at FireDogLake: "instead of showing some courage, and proposing what needs to be done, and explaining it to the American people, this pathetic, cowardly Administration sends an embarrassed Jared Bernstein onto our screens to talk nonsense about a freeze that isn’t a freeze and a modest middle class agenda that will do nothing to prevent America’s middle class from shrinking and falling further into the ditch. Shameless. Stupid. Unforgiveable."

If Obama can be forced into becoming a rhetorical deficit hawk, and if the fundamental message of his second year in office is "less spending good, more spending bad," we may see the spirit of modern liberalism broken. They've already seen that even with 60 votes in the Senate and about 257 in the House, the public option isn't going to happen and now it's not clear that health reform will happen at all. Now Barack Obama - their messiah, their ideal, their embodiment of hope and change - is sending more troops to Afghanistan and calling for a spending freeze.

Liberals will never get a better opportunity to enact their agenda than they are getting in 2009 and 2010, and so far they've gotten the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and a reduction to a mere 107,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

[ThinSkin]

Someone asked what is going on with the liberals... I saw this over on Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot Blog

Somebody Tell Sam Tanenhaus To Get Started on 'The Death of Liberalism'

By Jim Geraghty (Campaign Spot blog on NationalReview.com)

I realize liberal bloggers are always furious and overwrought and beside themselves with anger and fuming over the latest betrayal. But let's take a look at how they're reacting to the spending freeze proposal:

The Reality-Based Community: "Perhaps the worst thing about this is how it cedes the ideological ground to the Republicans. At some point someone must make an argument for government... Why exactly did I give money and make calls for this guy in 2008?"

Nate Silver: "There's more bark here than bite, in other words: "freeze on discretionary spending" means something different on K Street than it does on Main Street. But that's precisely what will make the White House (or at least the Democrats collectively) look flip-floppy. Every time the Democrats propose a jobs bill, or a big investment in alternative energy, you're going to have Krauthammer and Kristol chomping at the bit to go on Fox News and proclaim Obama to be a hypocrite. Pity Robert Gibbs trying to parse his way out of that. This is not how one wins news cycles — or elections."

Steve Benen: "If the proposal isn't really going to change much, why is this disappointing? Because it fully embraces the conservative narrative, instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to explain why conservatives have it wrong. It may be even worse as a policy matter — we just don't have enough details to say — but that's distressing enough."

Joe Sudbay: "The Obama administration is sacrificing sound fiscal policy for a short-term political gain. But, the question is whether there will be any short-term political gain. I don't see it. This feels like the White House brain trust is grasping and it's just not authentic. People figure that out pretty quickly — and that's not good for a President."

Over at FireDogLake: "instead of showing some courage, and proposing what needs to be done, and explaining it to the American people, this pathetic, cowardly Administration sends an embarrassed Jared Bernstein onto our screens to talk nonsense about a freeze that isn’t a freeze and a modest middle class agenda that will do nothing to prevent America’s middle class from shrinking and falling further into the ditch. Shameless. Stupid. Unforgiveable."

If Obama can be forced into becoming a rhetorical deficit hawk, and if the fundamental message of his second year in office is "less spending good, more spending bad," we may see the spirit of modern liberalism broken. They've already seen that even with 60 votes in the Senate and about 257 in the House, the public option isn't going to happen and now it's not clear that health reform will happen at all. Now Barack Obama - their messiah, their ideal, their embodiment of hope and change - is sending more troops to Afghanistan and calling for a spending freeze.

Liberals will never get a better opportunity to enact their agenda than they are getting in 2009 and 2010, and so far they've gotten the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and a reduction to a mere 107,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Obama and the Dems are in total disarray.

[twa]

Nice find veretax

[Wrong Direction]

Obama and the Dems are in total disarray.

One might imagine a similar compilation of liberal complaints when Bill Clinton finally decided to endorse welfare reform.

Clinton became an incredibly popular pragmatist. We can only hope that Obama will do the same.

[GhostofSparta]

One might imagine a similar compilation of liberal complaints when Bill Clinton finally decided to endorse welfare reform.

Clinton became an incredibly popular pragmatist. We can only hope that Obama will do the same.

Well I won't lie, as a conservative I would breathe a huge sigh of relief if Obama became the same sort of centrist-pragmatist that Clinton became. Sure, it would be harder to unseat him in 2+ years, but it would also be much less necessary if 1 of the houses of Congress were a majority R and a check against him.

[Wrong Direction]

Well I won't lie, as a conservative I would breathe a huge sigh of relief if Obama became the same sort of centrist-pragmatist that Clinton became. Sure, it would be harder to unseat him in 2+ years, but it would also be much less necessary if 1 of the houses of Congress were a majority R and a check against him.

He's not as likely to benefit from a strong economy as Clinton.

Still, I think a lot of the country would be happy if our politicians decided to eat the elephant one bite at at time, instead of focusing on massive takeovers/re-routing of major industry.

[Larry]

So, if this happens, what effect will this have on unemployment rates over the next 3 years?

My own, very un-expert opinion, here, is that you'd have better luck trying to predict what the weather will be like 3 years from now.

[Larry]

I think I agree with most of the posters in this thread. (Well, the ones that aren't rabidly partisan.)

Yes, it ignores the two big gorillas.

Yes, it's a good fiscal start, anyway.

Yes, it might, long term, reduce the deficit.

No, it won't help a bit, short term.

Yes, I approve of it.

[JMS]

Help me out here libs. You've been telling us all along we have to SPEND our way out of a recession, and now Obama goes and does this. What the hell's going on?

Bush last budget had a deficite of about 1.5 trillion dollar if you added in all the off budget spending. Obama's 2010 deficite was $1.75 trillion out of 3.75 trillion budget.

If he's freazing us at 2010 levels or 3.7 trillion that's pretty much a non story isn't it. It's freazing us as basically balls to the walls unmaintainable spending very comparable to the level GWB was spending at.

The idea was we would get a little economic growth, and gradually cut spending back to maintainable levels.

The story hear isn't the freaze... The story is the lack of cut!... This isn't good news, it's bad news in a pretty package.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123564748462081261.html

[DRSmith]

Bring our troops home, from all over the globe. Lease away all of our over sea bases or just give them away. Use our troops to figure out who is here and secure our borders.

Drill and refine domestic oil and use a percentage of the profits, to invest in renewable energies over the next ten year, so we can end it.

Create a stronger military style run job corp to employee the poor and the entitled, with free day care for mothers, so they can work. Rebuild our bridges and levees before more die and it becomes even more expensive.

Invest strongly into our public schools, especially the unsafe ones, where smart kids are afraid to go, so the next generation is more educated than the present one and we stop getting ourselves in a revolving door of the hole we are in.

Do something worth while, instead of just not throwing a couple of pennies into the overflowing wishing well we call a budget.

Why put the kids in daycare why not have the mothers care for them?

[Midnight Judges]

Obama and the Dems are in total disarray.

LOL I guess they will just have to make do with their 18 Senator advantage, their huge majority in the House, and the Whitehouse.

[Koolblue13]

Why put the kids in daycare why not have the mothers care for them?

So they can work and learn a trade as well, to be able to get off welfare and help themselves down the line.

[DRSmith]

So they can work and learn a trade as well, to be able to get off welfare and help themselves down the line.

Why not have the men who have fathered the children pay for their up keep?

[nonniey]

yeah, but let's be honest. Having no money has never stopped a government from increasing spending whether it's republican or democratic or even communist or monarchial.

Name the last year you can remember where there wasn't an increase in government spending or a year where spending went down?

It wasn't bush.

It wasn't clinton.

It wasn't reagan.

It wasn't george washington.

1946?