I've noticed a lack of reactions to the spending freeze proposal

[FrenchieCat]

and I'm a bit surprised.....
although I would suspect that many are waiting for
the economist to weight in, and that may be a wise approach,
because it is obvious that most of the folks here that
discuss economics don't necessarily know exactly what they are
talking about.

There are a few things to remember about what we know about this thus far;
it is a flexible spending freeze (unlike the McCain proposal, which was a freeze
across the board), so the larger number stays fixed, but within,
looking at the various programs, there are choices there to be made.

What I want to know is could this "Freeze" work similar to a line item veto,
in that there will now be more give and take on where spending is done in various programs?

Here's info on the Line item veto and what the point of it was.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/041096.htm

I can see this as being a way of making hard choices
as to what our priorities are.

In addition, I won't assume that defense spending not being included
has to means that it will automatically grow,
because that is not neccessarily the case,
although one could assume that based on our historical trends to date.

However, Iraq is winding down, it is very possible that the budget
for national defense could see some reduction or at least some leveling off,
even if not done via design, within a couple of years or so.
Of course, it could just keep going up; that I don't know.

I'm just trying to figure out why is spending more and more massive amounts of money
on everything supposed to be the progressive solution to our problem? Isn't part of the problem;
the fact that out of our budget, we continue to have to pay a larger amount of interest
by the day?

And how much more debt we are we supposed to accumulate before we actually start looking closely
on how the government spends the funds it has.

I'm not an economist, I am an accountant, and the two are not the same,
But when I do financial analysis, in an attempt to make recommendation in how to
better a client's bottomline, I always look at what and how funds are being spent,
and if there are possible ways of making the spending more efficient.

We never advise a client to just spend and spend and that
somehow this will result in a positive result.

Does being a progressive really mean that we only consider spending
as much as possible in any area possible except for defense, and nothing else will do?

Most say we are in a recession and spending is the only thing we can do....
but are we really talking about stopping spending, or are we just talking about
leaving it at the level that it is at already?

Considering that tax revenues will not increase based on the economic situation,
isn't true that we can't just continue in just doing what we have been doing?

Also, I think that opening up and looking at that entitlement program,
Medicare part D, is a good thing.


Just wondering if folks have any opinions on this. :shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

1. He talked at great lengths about this in "Audacity"....

..... I dont know where the shock is coming from.

I think the President and I may be both under the mistaken assumption that all the people who brought him books to autograph while he was on the campaign trail actually READ them.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Here is the 2010 budget.......by department (the total would be frozen for 3 years)

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

Now, tell me, 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_budget

[Clio the Leo]

5. exactly NT

[Cha]

40. Now we have some facts from ..ta da..The White House~

"Budget Freeze-eology 101: Hatchets vs. Scalpels"

"During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 – the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze.

The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It’s not what we’re proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down. That’s a big difference from a hatchet.

Take, for example, the policies we announced yesterday — a significant expansion (a 20% increase) in a program that provides services for seniors, like respite care and in-home services; a program to limit student loan repayments to 10 percent of income (after living expenses); an expansion of two tax credits, one for child care and another for retirement savings."

<more>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/26/putting-hatchets-vs-scapels-debate-about-budget-freeze-ice

[HughMoran]

3. What is clear is that nobody on the left or right can think in complex terms, so he ought to just do

what he wants and tell his critics to shut the fuck up.

[FrenchieCat]

4. some are criticizing just a basic notion of a freeze,

without understanding the particulars,
that is not wise.

If one look at how Obama increased the budget for 2010,
it is clear that he has his priorities in order,
and therefore, we don't have anything to lose in this proposal.....
and if we do, I want someone to be specific....

It ain't about how much you spend, but on what and how.
Pres. Obama has not ended the flexibility on those two most important issues.

[HughMoran]

6. I saw the fellow on Rachel so I understand that it's complex. Even Rachel was too stupid or stubborn

to listen to what he was saying. At that point I decided that most Americans are morons who can't understand anything more complex than basic integer math. I assumed and it was confirmed that 'others' here would be reactionary tools who refuse to use their brains to process what they heard of Rachel and would take the one-brain cell "cut spending bad - Hoover" zombie approach. Are we that unsophisticated in this country?

[Clio the Leo]

7. Very disappointed in Rachel tonight....

..... when you catch yourself saying, "You are the one voice in the WH that progressives are happy to see there" and then effectively cover your ears to what he's saying, you have problems.

She was jumping Big Ed's shark tonight.

[HughMoran]

9. Rachel Maddow acted the idiot tonight

Fortunately, she's rarely this knuckle-headed. I'm not sure why she decided that she would simulate the average Republican voter today - it certainly wasn't her finest moment.

[Clio the Leo]

10. I give her 24 hours to make sense of what's going on....

..... she usually comes around.

[Cha]

11. I think it comes under the heading

of.."nobody's perfect". I don't care how damn good they are.

[HughMoran]

14. As mentioned above (24 hours comment), I think because this was 'breaking news'

...that her reaction was likely just that - an initial reaction. I hope she puts on her thinking cap over night - I know she's one of the smartest commentators on TV.

[sandnsea]

17. FDL is running with it

Calling it a fake spending freeze and the same kind of money games every administration plays.

So, in their mind, it isn't a spending freeze, but they're still not happy.

If it were a complete spending freeze, they wouldn't be happy.

And we've already seen how unhappy they are with $787 billion emergency spending.

[HughMoran]

19. They've put themselves into the spotlight and want to stay there

I've lost interest in their opinions as I think they're too interested in protecting their new 'edgy opposition' voice. I'm at the point of shrugging them off - there's still plenty of commentary out there without them.

[RoyGBiv]

29. I noticed something ...

... just before I took my week "break," which I'd actually intended to be longer, but one of the things I was doing elsewhere coincidentally dovetailed with FDL "news," and I ended up back here.

FDL has been linked here as long as I can remember. Sometimes what was written went over well. Sometimes, it didn't. When it was about Bush, one either liked it or ignored it. I mostly ignored it. The reason is that not long after I heard of the site, someone on DU started up this grand conspiracy theory in which FDL was the target of something dastardly by Bush and company, starting with blocking access to the site. My obsessive/compulsive gene kicked in, and I decided to try to figure out what access to the site had been spotty for a few days preceding the theory. It didn't take more than half an hour to figure out their server was on a line that was having all kinds of technical problems, and every site served by that line was having a similar issue.

The conspiracy theory remained and was a running concern for awhile. Of course. It fit with the theme.

But that's not what I noticed. What I realized recently was that threads that use FDL as a source are now very often including that information in the subject line, as though it's the NYT or something. It's not just once or twice or one or two posters. One thing this is doing is creating highly visible advertisement for the site on Google whenever certain keywords are searched that end up pointing to a DU thread ... and DU is indexed as close to real time as you can get right now.

I mention that because I think you're on to something, and your comment is the first time I ran across another DU-er mentioning it.

[Cha]

24. Of course they are..they're so predictalbe..anything

they think they can sniff out to be the next "huge scandal brewing" is all they're looking for to fatten their coffers.

I had to laugh at one poster apologizing to the regressives bc now he thinks they're right about President Obama..what a farce.

Liar dog lake is the fake.

[elleng]

13. "There is going to be no stupid Hooverism around here,"

Jared Bernstein said.

I truly enjoyed this segment, and was glad to hear this guy.

[HughMoran]

16. I didn't feel like he should have had to say that to a knowledgeable commentator like Rachel

OTOH, perhaps she did him a favor by forcing him to flush out why this ISN'T similar to what Hoover did.

[elleng]

18. I think it was a good give and take,

Disagreeing with NO ONE being disagreeable.

[HughMoran]

20. Wasn't bad, but the right-wing eye-rolling that she did was unnecessary

You have to admit, she was just a tad excessive on the 'snark factor'.

[Arkana]

35. Can you blame them?

A domestic spending freeze, on the surface, sounds like a terrible idea. With a bloated defense budget, we ought to think about trimming the fat elsewhere.

At the very least, he should have called it something else.

[sandnsea]

8. I like that flexible part

Is there an article that addresses that specifically? Between that and the huge increases so many departments already got, this is a great way to force the Departments to justify their programs rather than risk keeping junk because it's easier than taking the heat for cutting something.

I am concerned about them messing around in social security and medicare, although I'd rather these guys do it than McCain. I suspect we will end up losing though, because that's the way it always happens with these programs.

[Fire1]

12. Well, without hearing or reading commentary from the

"experts," I can say with relative certainty that Republicans will be pleased with this recommendation. They've always said that the Democrats claim to fame is, "tax and spend."

[elleng]

15. I doubt that Repugs will say they are 'pleased,' they never do,

and call WHATEVER Dems do as tax and spend any way.

[RoyGBiv]

21. I'm waiting for him to spell it out ...

There's all kinds of speculation, and in case I missed something, the White House is still refusing to comment. This probably means the speculation is correct in the overall, but there's a lot of missing detail. The story is mostly notable for what it doesn't tell us.

I'm not too pleased with the idea of a spending freeze overall at this moment, but my view of it could change given specifics.

Deficit spending is the only way to go in the short term, but if (a big "if") some decent HCR package gets passed, and if the next year, prior to a spending freeze taking effect, a sizable jobs bill/stimulus II gets passed, if various indicators are actually improving significantly, and if the "freeze" is targeted in specific ways, it might make some degree of sense.

OnEdit: And we need a tax increase on upper income taxpayers. I don't care what form it takes. I don't care what they call it. But, we need it. Levels are way too low.

[sandnsea]

22. We need a massive green/clean energy bill in there

We've already got quite a bit, but I think putting money in creating a future dependent on renewable energies is the best thing we can do.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Yup ...

I've learned not to expect anything specific about what Obama is doing from the "leaks" that come out prior to him doing it, and I learned a long time ago that no matter what he's doing, there's another angle to it that's not so obvious.

This isn't "chess," per se, but it's what's going on when a lot of people use the term.

Certain spending programs now, i.e. HCR and a massive energy bill of the type you describe, saves a helluva lot of money over the period we're talking about, and more in the even longer-term.

So, we'll see what we see.

There's starting to be noise among economists now expressing shock and horror at this, referring to it as a move worthy of Hoover. They're also noting this is being played very poorly politically. On the surface, and based on this lack of specifics, I see their point. But I suspect what's happening here, at least to some extent, is that Republicans and their allies got wind of what is taking place, saw it as bad for them, and fired the first volley through Politico in order to define the terms and take control of the playing field.

[SeattleGirl]

25. I totally agree on the tax increase on upper income taxpayers.

The middle and lower classes have carried that burden for far too long. I don't dislike people who are rich, but I'm none too happy with all the breaks they get in their taxes.

[SeattleGirl]

23. Being one for whom anything math related has always been

a struggle, I am going to have to wait for more information on this. And to rely on others who can explain it in ways I can hopefully understand.

I did see that segment on Rachel tonight, and she was acting as if she'd already made up her mind about it, regardless of what the guest had to say. But I do think she's a very smart cookie, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see her back off a bit once she finds out more information.

[nevergiveup]

27. I have another theory

I think that most folks, including many liberals, sometime get concerned about spending ourselves into oblivion. I am politically very liberal but all the massive spending still concerns me. Maybe it is from my personal experience of trying to save a small business in this screwed up economy or hell, I probably don't know what I am talking about but just maybe the average American is so struggling to keep their head above water that any fiscally responsible talk, every once in a while, just sounds good.
(edit for grammar)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. I'm not happy about it. It really seems to be FDR in '37-38.

[FrenchieCat]

30. How?

The 2010 budget went up 8% from 2009.

That was a huge increase.
If it stayed there,
considering the deficit growth and the
smaller revenue base,
I think we are doing ok.

I don't really see what there is not to like,
other than the notion that we should be spending more and more and more.

[Cha]

31. Here's a thought from a Kos diarist..

<snip>

"The Budget of the United States is about $3,500,000,000,000. If they cut about $25 billion from it, that leaves $3,475,000,000,000.

Oh Dear G-d... shut the shops, get the kids home, call in the dog and get all the canned goods you can, the world is about to end.

The President wants to freeze spending that amounts to less than 1% of the entire budget. You don't think that there isn't $25 billion of duplication, waste, unnecessary costs somewhere in that three and half trillion dollars?

Stop the insanity!

Stop attacking the President like a bunch of Red Staters.

You wonder why we always seem to lose the media game- go look in the fucking mirror.

In 2008, we helped to elect a President because we stuck together and stuck by the message of the campaign. That message has not changed. We have. We've become like a twitching finger on a hair trigger. We don't get everything we want, we're ready to toss every Democrat over the side, impeach the President, and other stupidity.

Heaven forbid we wait 48 hours to hear what the President actually wants to do. No, can't do that. We have to go off half-cocked, based on tweets and other rumor, and decide that the President has switched parties, found his inner Cheney and plans on invading 27 more countries by tomorrow all while cutting taxes on millionaires".

Enough of the insanity.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/25/830272/-This-place-has-lost-its-mind

[anigbrowl]

32. I think that's because a lot of people don't understand it

You make excellent points with which I agree. I also think it sounds like a flexible spending freeze, with any new spending in one area financed by cuts elsewhere (maybe to corporate welfare, for example).

I entirely agree that one can't just spend endlessly. I consider myself a Keynesian (though not a professional economist) and fully support the use of spending for economic stimulus, but on a temporary basis. Although I have sympathy with those who wish we'd spend less on defense (and we can), axing the defense budget doesn't magically solve all our economic problems...and like it or not, it's a fact that much of our economic strength comes from the fact that the US guarantees security for large parts of Europe and Asia.

However, I don't expect any of this will go down well with the left, as in those people who reject our general security model and have a very loose grasp of economics. I've given up trying to discuss economics with the local Marxists because they simply don't want to have a 2-way discussion.

[still_one]

33. There are not enough details. Bloomberg reported that it would affect the EPA, but not

defense and homeland security

We really need to see the specifics before an assessment can be made, however, I see that in the GD forum they are starting to come out and criticize it without knowing exactly what it entails

[RoyGBiv]

38. But of course ...

The usual suspects had to wait until their favorite hysterical bloggers had chimed in. They didn't know what to say prior to being told what to say.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Check the two latest entries in my Journal, Frenchie.

GD is definitely reacting in their paranoia/fear mongering way.

I'm throwing the facts in their faces.

[Cha]

41. Sorry, your OP got

locked bernie..evidently the title wasn't clear enough to not warrant a flame fest.

Wow, now if that would only work for those threads spouting shit against the Presdient.

[grantcart]

36. I disagree with those criticizing Rachel on the thread

She was acting sensible questions and Biden's economist couldn't answer what was going to be frozen and what isn't.


The President's main job at this point is job creation and nothing should deter from that but I understand that it will not start 2011.


But here's my question. The freeze is obviously aimed at moderates and conservatives. So what is going to be in the SOTU that needs to have political cover? DADT?

[RoyGBiv]

37. An astute observation ...

This is cover for something ... we'll have to wait to see for what.

Overall, I think we've gotten really wild with our speculation. The story broke without a story. We've got an enormous amount of hand wringing over very little detail. I mean, look at the words "flexible freeze on non-security spending." What does that even mean? At this point, it means whatever one wants or fears it to mean.

As for Rachel, she was asking reasonable questions, but none of us should have expected reasonable answers. The economist wasn't there to answer such questions. It wasn't that he couldn't, rather than he wouldn't.

[tekisui]

39. DADT will be mentioned. The WH asked Senator Levin(?)

to wait on his proposal to repeal DADT until after the SOTU, so that Obama can announce it. It may not have been Levin, I can't remember right now. There is a thread in GD or GDP, I'll see if I can spot it.

ETA: It was Levin, here is the thread about DADT being in the SOTU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x153189