home

Obama to Propose Budget Freeze and Earmark Ban

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:03:10 PM EST
Tags: State of the Union (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

ABC reports that President Obama will propose a budget freeze and ban on earmarks in his State of the Union Address tonight. The theme of the speech ,“How We Win the Future”, stresses innovation, education and infrastructure. (Note: link is safe to click on, there's no automatic video that plays, hopefully ABC is learning.)

Is Obama going to discuss anything besides the economy tonight? I hope so. BTD - Conceptually, the President's proposal has a lot in common with the Tea Party Caucus's ideas. What seems clear is that no one seems willing to step on the Third Rail of touching Social Security and Medicare and thus "austerity" will fall on the rest of the budget for the time being.

< Donald Rumsfeld Makes Media Rounds for New Book | DOJ Issues Rules on Prison Sexual Abuse >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama to Propose Budget Freeze and Earmark Ban | 39 comments (39 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I wish Obama would propose... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    ...that we stop proposing things that are really not worth the time it takes to propose them.

    Can you imagine a President of the U.S. talking directly to the wealthy of this country, those of you making half a million or more, whatever, and saying "Please, stop your whining, stop your complaining, no amount of slightly increased taxes is going to keep you from being wealthy, but you cannot horde and horde and horde while the rest of the nation is begging for crumbs.  I don't want to stop people from being able to work hard, and innovate, and invent, and do whatever else they do to earn a reward for themselves, I simply want the rules of the economic game to be fair and equitable and not the entirely rigged casino game they have been.  The American people should not have to play that game with a deflated ball, while those on the inside, who have rigged the game, have all the best equipment and get to win almost every game as a result. Fair and equitable rules that are enforced for everyone. The average American gets nickel and dimed by the government because those with more nickels and dimes can bribe the referees.  No more."

    I can imagine it I suppose, I just can't envision it as reality. And in supposedly free and great American, that's saying something.

    With this president? It will never happen (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    He gave the rich their indefensible tax cut. He is who he is.


    Parent
    Nah, the Speech is Irrelvent (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    The Speech is written by Obama's Speech writers, not his policy advisors.  The Speech Writers are writing the Speech based on the Post Partisan Unity narrative - probably this was what they were told to do.  But after the Speech, Obama's gonna ignore it and do what he wants.

    As for all these budget freeze proposals - it's not gonna happen.  I expect the budget deficit will rise due to tax cuts for the rich and increased spending for popular programs.

    also (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    part of the plan -

    "Obama will also call for lawmakers to back a five-year plan put forth by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to save $78 billion in defense spending."

    Link

    Waiting to hear cries from the right about that.  One reason I'm glad Sec. Gates is still there, I think it will be a little harder for them to take him on than if it were someone else.

    The "freeze" as a strategic move (none / 0) (#9)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    As a federal retiree, my first thought--I confess--was how any "freeze" affected me. The old pocketbook theory of political economics. Then, I started thinking about "freeze" versus "cuts" (in the Republican talking-points set of cuts that would amount from 20 to 30 percent this year), and I recalled the technique of "stealing the center." That is, if you know going in that the other guy (read: Repubs) has the ability to coin the terms today that would define economic "responsibility" as unbelievable domestic cuts, strike first with the definition of shared sacrifice and economic responsibility as amounting to staying in overall $$$ place the next few years.

    IMO, the key to some sense of across-the-board $$$ management is the Defense Dept. It helps balance things, as it were, without the harsh domestic consequences of a budget balanced solely on the backs of the domestic agencies.

    Parent

    How ironic. Remember that (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:13:58 PM EST
    commie-fighting President who instituted a wage and price freeze about 40 years ago?
    Now we have a supposedly "red" President who could pass for a Bircher in his proposals.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    I know there is money sitting around that could be used more effectively for economic stimulus and for help with predatory lending/foreclosures.  I guess I'll wait for the speech...singling out earmarks is dumb though IMO.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    Earmarks are how members of Congress get re-elected.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    Parent

    Told ya so (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    Reid rejects Obama's purported anti-earmark SOTU

    Parent
    earmarks do not always (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:09:11 AM EST
    equal waste.  They bring jobs.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:08:21 AM EST


    Parent
    BTD - not the same (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    The biggest difference is where the "freeze" takes place.  The Tea Party plan is 2006 federal spending level, before the economy tanked, pre-stimulus, etc...

    The president's proposal, as I understand it, is a freeze at 2010 levels, which should include Stimulus funding, I think.  Honestly, if that's the case, it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

    That being said, this is the starting point... And we all have seen how this bargaining game works by now.

    "Conceptually" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    they are the same.

    Parent
    honestly (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    it's not bad "framing".

    Practically, you are continuing the Stimulus spending into the next five years.  That's more than I thought we would get before the deficit hawks won the last election.

    I expect the GOP to flip out accordingly though.  Esp. combined with defense spending cuts.

    Parent

    Many Tea Partiers (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 01:46:20 PM EST
    Like defense cuts:

    WASHINGTON - Back home, tea partiers clamoring for the debt-ridden government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they're not exempting the military's multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war.

    Tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military budget needs to be part of the mix.

    That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the nation wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit.

    Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high. Proponents of the cuts also could face criticism that they're trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world.

    House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans' programs from spending cuts in their party's "Pledge to America" campaign manifesto last fall. But the House's new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.

    The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and finish the operation in Iraq.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account.

    That's why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military's budget needs to be part of the mix.

    "The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."



    Parent
    I'd like to see the figures (none / 0) (#24)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    for how much the armed forces -- those on Fed payroll actually costs vs. how much has been spent on outsourcing armed forces roles to expensive contractors with no bid contracts.  We probably could give across the board $10,000/year pay raises to armed services, hire more, and still come out ahead of what we have been spending.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    %%norm