Some perspective ...

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
on Obama's spending increases vs his spending cuts.

SOURCE

Obama’s Spending vs Obama’s Spending Cuts — in Pictures

Posted April 20th, 2009 at 10.34am in Ongoing Priorities.

According to reports, President Barack Obama plans to convene his Cabinet for the first time today, where he will order members to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days. Just how laughable is Obama’s latest stunt to try to maintain his “fiscal responsibility” credentials? This graphic from Heritage’s John Fleming might help:

obamacuts.jpg


Harvard University economics professor Greg Mankiw’s comments:

"To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.”
 
Thanks for the blog link Jim.

Here's another blog.

After all, President Bush famously made - and obviously failed to keep - a bogus 2004 promise to cut the deficit by 50% by 2009.

Whether Obama can deliver on his plan through the expiration of tax cuts for Americans earning over $250,000 a year, the maintenance of the estate tax, reduced spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reforms in Medicare and other initiatives remains to be seen. The severity and duration of the economic downturn, not to mention the pace of the U.S. drawdown in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan make fiscal crystal ball gazing problematic, to say the least.

But as I noted yesterday, the Obama administration for openers is committed to ending George W. Bush's fuzzy math when it comes to fudging the deficit. As the New York Times noted:

A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

As Americans should recall, President Bush, too, pledged to halve the budget deficit. And thanks to those gimmicks and a host of others, that 2004 election year promise not only wasn't met, it was comically fraudulent at the time it was made.

As he faced reelection five year ago, George W. Bush famously committed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. But that promise, as the Washington Post, CNN and others noted at the time, was premised upon two parallel frauds.

First, Bush's pompous prediction used as its baseline a wildly inflated White House deficit forecast of $521 billion, well above the CBO's estimate and the actual figure of $413 billion. More importantly, President Bush conveniently chose 2009 as his finish line, the year before his tax cuts were set to expire. Making them permanent (which he and all of the GOP presidential candidates later endorsed) would have blown another $2.2 trillion hole in the federal budget by 2014. In addition, other required costs (such as the Medicare prescription drug plan) and likely federal tax code adjustments (most notably fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax) would add hundreds of billions more in red ink to the national ledger. And all of that is before the deluge of Social Security and Medicare expenditures looming with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

Nonetheless, when the budget deficit dipped in 2007 to $163 billion, the Bush administration proclaimed victory and vindication. On its web page titled, "Fiscal Discipline: Managing for Results," the White House crowed:

"The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the President's 2009 goal. Historic revenue growth and a continued commitment to spending restraint contributed to this reduction."

As it turns, not so much.

The Bush administration finally fell victim to its own rosy scenario, even before the collapse of the housing market and the Wall Street meltdown last fall. By February 2008, Peter Orzag, then head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and now Barack Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), testified to Congress that the deficit would approach $400 billion. That projected shortfall already reflected reduced tax revenue from the economic slowdown, $70 billion in new funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $150 billion for the stimulus package just brokered by the President and Congress. As conditions worsened, by July 2008, Bush's own OMB was forecasting a $482 billion hemorrhage of red ink. And by January 2009, it became a torrent of $1.2 trillion.

So much for George W. Bush, promise keeper. Mission not accomplished.

The coming conservative attack on the Obama budget will be just the latest chapter in the history stunning hypocrisy from a GOP which laughably calls itself the party of fiscal discipline. The conservative amen corner will ignore the inconvenient truth that the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush after the surpluses of the Clinton years. And while it was Reagan's OMB alchemist David Stockman who in the 1980's first resorted to the "magic asterisk" and the "rosy scenario," it was the Bush White House whose budgetary sleight of hand led to Dubya's broken 2004 promise to halve the budget deficit by 2009.

Hopefully, President Obama will fare better as he begins his quest to undo the tragic legacy of Republican fiscal recklessness. Regardless, telling the truth is a good place to start.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001401.htm

It's even called Perspectives ;)
 
Thanks for the blog link Jim.

Here's another blog.



http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001401.htm

It's even called Perspectives ;)

So the illustration is not correct because it appeared on a blog?

The proportions in the illustration are not correct because it appeared on a blog?

The numbers are not actual public record because they appeared on a blog?

The quote at the bottom of the page is not accurate because it appears in a blog?

The quote was never articulated because it appears in a blog?

The figures stated in the quote are mathematically incorrect because they appeared in a blog?

The man who made the quote does not actually exist because his name appears in a blog?

The author of the blog does not actually exist because he writes a blog?

The Heritage Foundation is not a real entity because it operated the non-existent blog?

Nothing in a blog can be believed; and nothing in the blog actually exists so vis-a-vis the blog and the entity which publishes it does not exist.
 
I said thanks for the blog link and posted another for you.

You know the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased conservative think tank already I'm sure.
 
I said thanks for the blog link and posted another for you.

You know the Heritage Foundation is a heavily biased conservative think tank already I'm sure.

Yes, and Media Matters, Huffington Post, Daily KOS, et al are heavily biased liberal websites. What's your point?
 
My point? You posted a blog and I posted another blog that portrays budget issues differently.

Did someone post something from Media Matters, Huffington Post, or Daily Kos?
 
Perspective is everything, ain't it?
*Please note that it is physically impossible to put Bush's budget cuts on this image - Negatives don't show well.
 
I just love how most conservatives (at least that I've heard) agree that Bush spent too much, yet any time time they say that Obama spends too much, the liberal response is always that Bush spent too much.
 
The all spend too much. When was the last time you guys actually had a balanced budget..or a surplus?
 
I just love how most conservatives (at least that I've heard) agree that Bush spent too much, yet any time time they say that Obama spends too much, the liberal response is always that Bush spent too much.

i think most people - outside of the various cartoons marauding around here - would happily agree that they both spent/spend too much, regardless of which was first so accused.

i disagree with a lot of what obama stands for. i agreed with some of what bush stood for, and some of what he did.

(but, because i'm not a drooling fascist, around here, i'm an elitist liberal! weeee!)
 
I just love how most conservatives (at least that I've heard) agree that Bush spent too much

Never really hear much outrage about that from conservatives. It's only really become a big deal since a Democrat started spending. Weird huh?
 
i think most people - outside of the various cartoons marauding around here - would happily agree that they both spent/spend too much, regardless of which was first so accused.

i disagree with a lot of what obama stands for. i agreed with some of what bush stood for, and some of what he did.

(but, because i'm not a drooling fascist, around here, i'm an elitist liberal! weeee!)
Chris Rock said in a bit regarding the whole liberal/conservative bullshit once, "I'm conservative on crime but I'm liberal on prostitution."
 
I just love how most conservatives (at least that I've heard) agree that Bush spent too much, yet any time time they say that Obama spends too much, the liberal response is always that Bush spent too much.

Ya mean the "Neener, neener, your guy did it too!" response?
 
SOURCE

SPIN METER: Saving federal money the easy way
SPIN METER: Obama's latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime's worth of difference


Andrew Taylor and Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writers
Monday April 20, 2009, 6:30 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

--Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.

--4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.

--Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.

--7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.

--1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

Obama only asked his Cabinet secretaries to identify waste in their annual operating budgets, which total a little over $1 trillion. He's leaving out war costs, the economic stimulus measure, the Wall Street bailout and benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

THE SPIN:

"He will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days," said a White House news release. "Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days."

"I'm asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets," Obama told reporters afterward. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."

THE FULLER STORY:

Obama's marching orders to the Cabinet on Monday were less than meets the eye. Many of the savings he asked them to achieve are already under way and are included in the calculation.

To be sure, this is an extra effort, on top of an agency-by-agency review of programs and proposed multibillion-dollar cuts in weapons programs. But it is decidedly marginal.

"It's always a good sign when the president is talking about savings," said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal discipline.

"It's valuable as a symbol," he said, "but $100 million is just not going to cut it."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the $100 million target, saying it's not the full extent of Obama's cost-cutting efforts. He called it "a short-term goal ... to identify further administrative savings" and added: "$100 million may not be a lot to people in this town, but I think it's a lot to people who live in this country."

Republicans were quick to point out that borrowing costs for February's stimulus package will on average cost almost $100 million a day over the next decade.

In large measure, the examples of economizing given by the White House were of the painless, seemingly commonsensical variety. They were not the program cuts that people feel and that budget-watchers say are essential to make a meaningful difference in the exploding deficit.

Some of them will take many years to play out.

The Agriculture Department, for one, will move 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into one place in early 2011, saving $62 million over 15 years.

Some are hard to quantify.

Will buying multipurpose office equipment, such as a combined copier, printer, fax and scanner all in a single unit instead of separate units, really save the Homeland Security Department $2 million a year over five years?

Some are microscopic. The White House estimates savings of tens of thousands of dollars from freeing up warehouse space stashed with obsolete equipment that had been used by a federal entity few people have heard of, the Bureau of Information Resource Management.

And some raise eyebrows at wasteful practices of the former administration.

The White House says Homeland Security, the third largest federal department, has not been buying most of its $100 million a year in office supplies in bulk.

The administration thinks it can save $52 million over five years with bulk-buying bargains at the department.
 
Here's the part that gets ignored.
"I'm asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets," Obama told reporters afterward. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."

In English...that's $100M PER DEPARTMENT...not $100M total for the whole GVT.
but the fuzzy mathologists use $100m vs. full budget. No kidding it looks small.
 
Glad to see that my absense hasn't meant a return to dignified debating.

All of us here said, in one way or another, that GW had an abyssmal domestic policy.

Only half of us are saying that about Obama. Too bad. He's got worse CPAs than GM.
 
Back
Top