Can someone explain the "Freeze"?

[graywarrior]

I have no clue WTF is going on.

[Cha]

1. Jared Berstein can..

<snip>

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.

How can we expand these programs in the context of a freeze? By making sure that the freeze either holds steady or increases those parts of the discretionary budget that support jobs and income security for folks who need them, while whacking the wasteful subsidies that support lobbyists and special interests.

President Obama deeply understands the various imperatives of this moment in time, even if they don’t always point in the same direction.

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

[Born_A_Truman]

7. Rachel Maddow played that clip of the debate

She's in her "talk me down" mode on this.

I prefer to wait and see what he says tomorrow night in the SOTU.

I believe he'll use a scalpel instead of hatchet. Hope he watches the movie "Dave" when he has his cabinet meeting!

[graywarrior]

8. Thank you, that is extremely helpful.

[goclark]

11. I have a question about health care in home for Seniors or others

"in a program that provides services for seniors, like respite care and in-home services;"

What are they calling IN HOME SERVICES I wonder?????

My Mom is 91 with Alzheimer's. I live with her and when I go out I will either take her with me (she is the sweetest) or I must pay someone to watch her.

There must be a way to help Seniors stay in their homes instead of paying huge amounts to place them in a facility.

We have dear friends that volunteer to watch her for me sometimes and now I am paying my cousin who is out of work to be here with her when I have to go out of town for a few days or am going to the movies etc.

I pay another cousin to drive us to the doctors etc. He is out of a job and it helps him too -

I can not leave her alone for 1 second.

There needs to be a way to give more people jobs to help Seniors in their own homes instead of having them in Assisted Living.

There must be at least 10 of my Mom's friends that need help and can't get it.

The going rate in CA is about $10 an hour to sit with the person and perhaps feed them a meal that is already prepared.

Any other services are more per hour of course.

I am retired and sometimes people say, "just hire someone full time to take care of her, it's too much for you to do, you have the money."

I want to scream when someone tells me that because, she is my Mother and I love her so much, I want the privilege of taking care of her for as long as I can -- :cry:

[RoyGBiv]

2. We lack details ...

The only thing that's really been said is that after increasing spending in the 2010 budget, Obama is going to ask for a flexible freeze on non-security spending. That is, basically, he's going to ask to spend more money this year, then not ask to spend any additional the next three. By being "flexible" that means if he can decrease spending in one area, he can increase it in another.

The two, broad economic criticisms that have merit are that:

a) you don't do this in the middle of a recession for any reason whatsoever. This is similar to what Hoover tried to do and, sorta, what FDR did in '37. It was *bad*.

b) discretionary spending is traditionally, even among deficit hawks, expected to rise 5% per year, which in effect puts a $75 billion drag on the economy over three years.

As details leak -- again, we have no firm details yet -- the word "freeze" seems misused. This is more like the "scalpel" approach to deficit reduction Obama championed during the campaign. The problem is that the trouble for us is *long term* deficit reduction, and this doesn't address that at all. Short-term deficits are actually needed right now (Keynesian economics), and this most likely works in opposition to that. So, what's the point of it, really?

That's the worst criticism at the moment. As Brad DeLong put it, this is Message FAIL more than policy fail.

I still think, given the sources of the initial stories, that this was leaked somehow, and the message was packaged badly. Republicans jumped on it and set the terms, using the word "freeze" precisely because they could use it as one more wedge with the left. "Freeze" will be the word, no matter the reality, at this point.

[Cha]

3. Jared did say on Rachel's that

there wasn't "going to be any stupid Hooverism going on here".

And, the so called left fell for it hook line and sinker..why wouldn't they? It's negative.

[RoyGBiv]

4. Yup ...

... but of course he must be lying. :sarcasm:

I don't fully understand why people don't see this. On a site where the vast majority complain about the mainstream media all day long, every day no matter what the issue is, most of those same people believe at face value everything reported by that same media *if* it meets their preconceived notions. Beyond a little well-coordinated obstructionism, the Republicans don't have to do anything but push the message that Obama is failing ... well, everything ... and downplay all the positives. Highlight the obscure, and shroud the obvious. Wrap it all up in a nice little package and feed it to a media source that loves playing on high drama and fear, and there you go ...

Nuts, I tell you.

[Cha]

5. It's very frustrating

as you know to finally get reality in the White House and have it twisted from all sides.

We've been in tough spots before with the enemy looming large and came out the victor and we can do it again.

Just might not be tomorrow or the next day...

[TicketyBoo]

6. Really?

Just might not be tomorrow or the next day...

Well, crap on that! We want CHANGE and we want it NOW, doncha know?:sarcasm:

[graywarrior]

9. Oh wow, that explains a lot. Thanks.

[mr1956]

10. I try to understand it in the context of my household budget

I see a freeze as a way of not increasing my debt while making sure I can afford something I think is important. I've got a set income and certain bills that have to be paid each month, some of which will increase as prices go up. After paying the bills I have money left over to either save or spend. This year I want to take a trip to see relatives. I could take out a loan but that would put me further in debt, so I figure out a way to save more of my discretionary income. I forgo eating out since it's not absolutely necessary to survive. I also cut back on my vices, exercise at home rather than the gym, send cards instead of gifts, etc.

To me it makes sense to try to live within my means on my level. I think the government should do the same.

My idea of a freeze may be simplistic but it helps me to understand this economic concept.