WH: An Across the Board Freeze is NOT What We are Proposing.

[Clio the Leo]

Budget Freeze-eology 101: Hatchets vs. Scalpels
Posted by Jared Bernstein on January 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM EST

<snip>

First, an important note on timing. No one is arguing that we should take our foot off the accelerator today, when the economic recovery remains fragile and job growth has yet to return. In fact, you’ll hear from the President tomorrow night about measures we should undertake right away jumpstart job creation. In his words and deeds, the President has made clear that recovery comes first. But that doesn’t mean we should wait to start changing the same bad habits in Washington that left a $1.3 Trillion deficit on our doorstep when we entered office in January 2009, especially when we can do so without cutting back on our jobs agenda.

Second, a little background on freeze-eology: there are two ways to do a freeze like this: (1) an across-the-board freeze on every program outside of national security; and (2) a surgical approach where overall totals are frozen but some individual programs go up and others go down. In short, a hatchet versus a scalpel.

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.

We must do all we can to help those who are still reeling from the impact of the great recession; we must create the economic conditions for robust, private-sector job growth, and we must make the investments in clean energy, health care, and education that will ensure that the next economic expansion is characterized by broadly shared prosperity, not narrow gains to financial speculators.

At the same time, we must take steps to move toward a sustainable fiscal position, and that’s where the discretionary freeze comes in.

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

[Cha]

1. Facts from the White House..

instead of rumormongering on the internet and the corporatemedia.. What a fresh feeling.

[high density]

3. Why can't the WH ever get the facts out in front of the rumor mill?

This seems to happen on any major initiative: Minor details or rough ideas are leaked the night before and assumptions from these frame the issue for the next day.

[TheWraith]

8. Very few people CARE when they DO get the facts out.

Uninformed internet speculation much prefers the rumor mill.

[high density]

11. It's not limited to the internet discussion forums though

I mean this crap rockets through places like the AP newswire at amazing speed. That puts it in the morning paper and here we are. It's a constant issue.

[zulchzulu]

16. People like Thom Hartmann have jumped the shark on this...

He was calling Obama "Hoover" today... get a better pot dealer, Thom.

[Clio the Leo]

19. Oh, Ed's gonna be fun tonight...

.... hope he doesn't pop a vein.

[azmouse]

20. Hartmann is not a Democrat.

He is very pro third party candidates AND he likes the teaparty movement.
I find him almost impossible to listen to any more.

[zulchzulu]

53. Agreed

Hartmann is a smart guy on a lot of things, but political reality is certainly one of his weaknesses.

I can usually handle him for his first block...maybe the second block... but no coffee is strong enough to listen to him jog through the rest of his show running backwards into trees...

[Spazito]

59. I agree, he is either very naive when it comes to the teabaggers...

or is deliberately trying to splinter the 'left', I think it is the former rather than the latter. I listened to him yesterday and he came across as very learned but also naive. He seems to think if the 'left' joined with certain segments of the teabaggers it would be the 'left' agenda that would come out on top, it was strange, imo.

How does he/those who support joining segments of the teabaggers ensure the teabaggers they join are not the same homophobic, racist, anti-choice teabaggers we know are part of the overall group?

How do he/those who support joining with the teabaggers figure the 'left' agenda would come out on top when the teabaggers are antithetical to any of the beliefs of the left ie social programs, anti-Iraq war, taxing the wealthy, helping the middle class, etc.?

I have yet to hear them addressing the points I have made above, instead, they just 'believe' it will happen, it is very odd, imo.

[Jennicut]

9. The bloggers and reporters actually were wrong when they first reported the news.

It was an "oopsie"...or maybe not. Yglesias admitted as much in his article today.

[tridim]

10. Ironically the rumor mill was right.

It was the reactionary response on the Internets that was wrong. As usual.

[Cha]

15. Fuck the rumor mill.

Fucking regressives.

[Clio the Leo]

17. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall....

.... during that briefing last night to hear who dropped the ball. The press corp or the WH.

[Jennicut]

21. It was the press.

On an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior administration official outlined the Obama administration’s plan to call for a freeze in non-security discretionary spending spending starting with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. Described as an effort to balance concern with a “massive GDP gap” in the short run and “very substantial budget deficits out over time,” the plan calls for the FY 2011 budget to be higher than the FY 2010 budget, but then for non-security discretionary spending to be held constant in FY 2012 and FY 2013. (Let me note right here that all of the reporters on the call, myself included, screwed up and forgot to seek clarification as to whether this is a nominal freeze or a real dollar freeze).
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php

[gkhouston]

27. And the WH just announced this over the phone without providing any sort of press release.

Not a quality strategy.

[high density]

34. "some agencies will see their budgets go up and others will go down"

This important point was not communicated at all by the MSM.

[JoePhilly]

5. DU has been knee-jerking on this since the first rumor.

Even before there was a single fact of any kind.

[louis-t]

6. Right, the rumormongering comes AFTER the speech.

[Jennicut]

2. Watch people still freak out though.

[azmouse]

26. Like this:

or this:

[Cha]

30. Yeah, like that..I've seen it all over

here and on other sites on the internet.

Kneejerkoff! When will they learn to gather a few facts before opening their mouth and inserting foot..so to speak?

[mzmolly]

4. This may be, but I prefer to panic over semantics vs.

understand the nature of politics. :sarcasm:

;) K and R.

[jaxx]

7. Anyone should be able to understand that.

And it makes sense.

[unblock]

12. well that's nice, except what we do NOT need is a surgical approach.

it's not as if our economy is on the whole just dandy, but with a few small dark spots. THAT would suggest a surgical approach.

we need BROAD spending increases, not up here and down there. the difference in stimulatory efficacy from one form of spending vs. another is not enough to be meaningful on the whole compared to the size of the problem. increasing OVERALL spending is what is needed.

call it a sledgehammer or hatchet or bulldozer or whatever, it's something big and broad, not small and fine like a scalpel.



he should have called for a spending freeze TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER THE BAD TIMES ARE CLEARLY BEHIND US, e.g., after unemployment comes back down to something like, say, 6%.

[mzmolly]

13. We will have broad increases.

And some cuts for show, to quell concerns.

[unblock]

36. if it's meant to balance out, there's NO WAY the increases could possibly be large enough

there's just not that much give in the discretionary budget.

in fact, it's the INCREASES that will be just for show.

[Jim Lane]

38. Exactly right! The current deficit is too small.

In fact, if we ended the imperialist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought the troops home, and cut military spending significantly -- all of which we should do -- we'd then have to compensate for that by further increases in domestic spending, because otherwise the demilitarization would have a depressive effect on the economy.

[unblock]

40. indeed, the military is, beyond compare, the biggest stimlus/jobs program we have

and have had for such a long time that we're clearly addicted to it.

[mzmolly]

41. We still have lots of stim money to spend.

:shrug:

[Beetwasher]

14. NOOOO!! FREAKOUT!!!!

GAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! :rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

25. GAHHHHHHHHHHH!!11

[mkultra]

43. WTF!?!?@!112?2/1?/

[zulchzulu]

18. Ooow! Facts. Hurt. Head.

k/r

[freddie mertz]

22. So they are saying it is a freeze, but not a "freeze."

Nothing confusing here.

Nope.

:spray:

[JoePhilly]

28. The difference is between global warming and weather.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. It certainly isn't "confusing" to those who WANT to understand.

Which may explain your apparent "confusion."

Yep.

:rofl:

But go ahead, you've gotta be on auto-pilot by now.

[jefferson_dem]

23. Nice. Bernstein is sharp.

I trust him.

[inthebrain]

24. You know who used to play this confusion game? THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!!

They'd say something, everyone would call them on it, then they would go "Well we never really meant that" and then go and do what everyone called them out on in the first place.

[phleshdef]

31. The freeze idea made news last night, less than 24 hours later, we get details on it. Thats NOT...

...playing a confusion game, its giving details on a news item that just got released the evening before. Just because you joined the chorus of those more than happy to roast the Obama administration even more without knowing jack shit about the issue at hand doesn't give you a license to blame that on the Obama administration. No one is playing confusion games with you. You are just playing knee jerk reaction games with yourself.

[Clio the Leo]

32. And Bernstein said it LAST NIGHT.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x153425

... but it's hard to hear someone speaking when you're running around screaming that the sky is falling, isn't it?

[Jennicut]

33. Yes. And Rachel, as much as I love her, would barely let him speak.

[tishaLA]

35. that was a terrible performance by her

she had someone there telling her the "reports coming out of Washington" she was citing were wrong, but she didn't let that get in the way of her narrative. She knew the answers, dammit, facts be damned.

[Clio the Leo]

39. Well, I think she let him speak...

... but she clearly heard NONE of what he said.

[freddie mertz]

47. Ms. Maddow, meet bus. As in under.

How predictable.

[Clio the Leo]

48. I'm sorry....

.... I forgot the only person we're allowed to throw under the bus is the President.

I adore Rachel, but when she starts to do the very thing that I despise some of her cohorts doing I'm gonna ...... "hold her feet to the fire." :)

[freddie mertz]

57. Last night, she presented a long montage of "accomplishments" by Obama BEFORE

Launching into her very pointed critique of the "freeze" proposal.

You could not ask for a more respectful critic than Rachel.

To my mind, she was TOO respectful.

But she always presents her take with fairness and common sense.

[Babel_17]

29. "willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs"

<snip> But one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have symbolic value. That spending includes lawmakers' earmarks for parochial projects, and only when the public believes such perceived waste is being wrung out will they be willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs, the official said.

"By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget," the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity. <end snip>

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10026/1031141-84.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz0dkYTabT6

Regarding the original post: Well, it's good to see the administration issue reassurances.

Because what we have heard in the past had many of us uneasy, even before all this, in regards how the administration will treat programs like social security.

Imo no wiggle room should be allowed. We need to hear that this is no camel's nose under the tent when it comes to Social Security and Medicare.

I think this proposal has decent elements. It's timing is suspect though.

It's redolent of being a reaction to the election in Massachusetts.

And it hints that the wrong lessons have been learned.

Right now we need a lot of focus on jobs and stimulating the economy in a progressive manner.

Wishy-washy, and mixed message, appeals to fiscal conservatism won't help that process.

Rather, they'll inject confusion.

Maybe this is just a fig leaf donned as armor before the commencement of a new and very large progressive agenda.

I hope so and I hope the administration realizes it is being watched intently for signs of that.

[Phx_Dem]

37. We know. Only the knee-jerks think it is.

[Better Believe It]

42. They'll use a scalpel on us only removing vital parts. Whoopee!

[Jennicut]

44. Farm subsidies are vital?

If Obama wanted to find some actual leverage over the heads of Senate Conservadems he would threaten them with slashing the subsidies. Of course, that would depend on if Congress would actually go through with it but we have fake deficit cutters in Congress in both parties.

[Better Believe It]

45. To poor working farmers, yes. Do you have a list of the cuts? If you don't think some cuts vital to

working people, working farmers (not big Agribusiness) and poor people won't be included you're living in fantasyland.

[Jennicut]

46. We have to wait and see I guess.

[Peacetrain]

50. Bachmann got 250,000 in farm subsidies./.

I live in a farm state.. and corporates have been taking advantage of subsidies at the expense of the small farmer to the point that he or she has been driven off the land

[MadHound]

49. Hey Obama, how about a freeze in defense spending?

That is, after all, the single biggest item in the budget. Get us out of these illegal, immoral wars, cut defense spending in half and we can still be the biggest badass on the block while helping out our own population immensely.

[Carolina]

54. Exactly! K&R

[ibegurpard]

51. The fact that they have to scramble to explain this

means that it has already failed as a political tactic.

[geek tragedy]

52. Except the 'cuts' they need will NEVER pass Congress, so this

will be an across the board freeze.

[Jennicut]

55. No one wants to touch their sacred cow.

And that includes defense spending, which I wish Obama would include. Clinton got knives in the 90's for trying to even close unneeded military bases.

[Orsino]

58. But guess how badly Congress can fuck this up. n/t