Obama Boldly Moves To Cut .003% From Deficit
In a not-stunning-at-all move, President Barack Obama has tasked his Cabinet with cutting $100 million from their budgets, a total of somewhat less than .003% of the current $1 trillion-plus federal budget deficit.
Some who originally promised an equally critical line towards the Obama administration as they took towards his predecessor are spinning this instead, demanding that critics stop “scoffing” at this infinitesimal and politically painless gesture (more than half the claimed savings come from Homeland Security promising to buy office supplies in bulk — hardly an act of political bravery unless Staples has suddenly formed a PAC) and instead “celebrate” the President’s epic achievement in budgetary discipline. Others extend a “something is better than nothing” charitable reading that they never extended on behalf of the previous administration.
Poppycock. Had a Republican president offered a .003% dent in the budget as evidence of fiscal discipline, I am absolutely confident we would not be asked to “celebrate” it by anyone on the left or the right and especially not by a center supposedly concerned with deficits. The cartoon shows the left’s reaction to a much, much smaller deficit under the prior President, yet now even the center-left claims we are supposed to “celebrate” a clearly meaningless and trite good-government chestnut centered around reform in office-supplies acquisition? C’mon — stop insulting our intelligence and our memories, guys. The list of shameless reversals of previously-strict standards of evaluation from the left side of the blogosphere is growing to galling proportions.
The time has come to stop with the no-exceptions defense of the Obama administration and to begin applying the same standards of accountability and criticism that were extended towards the previous administration. Whether commentators are willing to do this is the real shibboleth of their claims to post-partisan independence. If they can’t summon the independence to call BS even on such a transparently trivial stunt as a >.003% cut, then their independence is frankly nothing but a sham and it is insulting when they ask us all to not remember.
(Post updated to note better calculation of the tiny size of these budget cuts. Thanks to MvdG and Hot Air.)
It’s even worse: 0,003%.
I find it especially galling for Obama to claim this as a meaningful step when he just failed to take the other small step that he had promised- earmark reform, which is at least not laughably small and is problematic for other reasons besides the dollar amounts (namely, because of the lack of transparency and the advantages that the process gives to incumbents.)
It’s symbolical, but it’s still tone-deaf. What he should have done is to empower inspectors across the board.
Does it seem a little odd to anyone else that the Department of Homeland Security isn’t already buying it’s office supplies in bulk? Do they have a guy who’s job it is to run to the store every time someone needs a pen?
Maybe Obama could cut those 140 million spent on volcano monitoring. I recall the GOP making an ad blitz (gotta dominate the news cycle!) after Obama’s sorta-SOTU address portraying those 140 million as if it was a huge amount. Now, all of a sudden, nine-digit figures aren’t that big, it seems.
Not saying the budget cuts aren’t embarrassing or that your average Joe shouldn’t feel upset, conservative or not. Just saying the GOP is being a tad schizo.
Since I am neither a spokesman for nor a representative of the GOP, I don’t see how that is relevant, Garland.
But I have found that trying to change the subject to talk about the GOP is pretty much a routine response whenever Democrats get criticized for anything at all. Shame on you for predictability and non-responsiveness.
“But I have found that trying to change the subject to talk about the GOP is pretty much a routine response whenever Democrats get criticized for anything at all.”
No, just making sure no one thinks the GOP or its more ingrained allies has any credibility by the time they try to make something out of Obama’s “insult to the tax payers”. They don’t get to pick up the megaphone about this issue. I don’t want them to achieve any political clout they do not deserve. I want to criticize the democrat president without giving opponents of his any window of opportunity or perceived credibility they do not deserve (in this case, those on the right wing who used these 140 million as a symbol or approved of the stupid ad). These 100 million are going to be spun into a meme.
Make no mistake, there are some who actually can retain their credibility when attacking Obama on this. They don’t have to feel attacked.
And since NO ONE gets to “pick up the megaphone”, that means Obama and any other Democrat gets an all-purpose, no-exceptions, absolute PASS.
That’s the problem I have with this constant “but the Republicans are worse” meme. Even though you claim it is merely a by-the-way, in reality it has the effect of shutting down ALL POSSIBLE criticism by claiming that anyone who does criticize is a hypocrite and therefore disallowed.
Apparently not, since the very instant anyone tries, you immediately change the subject to talk about the Republicans again AS IF anyone who does try is a Republican who isn’t allowed to say anything.
Partisan hackery at its finest, Garland. You claim the abstract possibility of legitimate criticism, but any ACTUAL instance you shut down by changing the subject to talk about Republican evils ONLY.
“And since NO ONE gets to “pick up the megaphone”, that means Obama and any other Democrat gets an all-purpose, no-exceptions, absolute PASS.”
No. People who haven’t previously *exaggerated* nine-digit figures get to pick up the megaphone in order to diminish a nine-digit figure now. Read my post – that’s what I explicitly state.
“That’s the problem I have with this constant “but the Republicans are worse” meme.”
That wasn’t my argument. The GOP sleuths who complained about the 140 mill for volcano monitoring are politicians foremost and conservatives second. I consider the conservative/fiscally worried voices’ anger over the very small budget cut very reasonable. I’m just making sure less principled right-wingers don’t get to stand on the podium and play their little games.
“in reality it has the effect of shutting down ALL POSSIBLE criticism by claiming that anyone who does criticize is a hypocrite and therefore disallowed.”
Nope. The criticism is legitimate – that doesn’t mean I think all people who voice the point of criticism should get to wear the garb of the principled and reasonable critic. It’s like the tea parties – some are definitely sane, principled and patriotic, and some care more about posturing against Obama than about principles about fiscal discipline.
“you immediately change the subject to talk about the Republicans again AS IF anyone who does try is a Republican who isn’t allowed to say anything.”
That “as if” is a conjuncture I didn’t want to be perceived. Not everyone who bring up the smallness and insignificance of these 100 million are of the obsessively anti-Obama DC-based GOP stock – I just didn’t want said types to weasel themselves onto the soapbox now that the point was raised. The point is legitimate, but not every voice who decides to bring it up gets to feel legitimate transitively.
@Garland
I think you make a good point, and I don’t take your comment personally since I’m on the record as criticizing the GOP for making a big deal about small potatoes during the stimulus debate. But I agree with you that those in the GOP who did make a big deal about volcanoes and such are being hypocritical to get upset about this. They could make the argument that they were just giving examples of a larger problem, but the problem with that that argument is 1) they used the same examples over and over, giving the impression that there wasn’t really a larger problem and 2) Obama says these cuts are also only a part of a larger fiscally responsible policy.
On the other hand, I also sympathize with Jason’s argument. The argument that the “Republicans do it to” used so often by Democrats these days implies that the Republicans were right to do it. If it was wrong for Republicans, then it is wrong Democrats. I don’t care who has “credibility”. We should be talking about whats right, not which party is more wrong. What’s disturbing to me is that this talking point is being picked up in the media. During the tea parties, I heard a *news reporter* (no, not that one) comment that he did not understand the protest since the Republicans had spent a lot too. So, apparently, all protests must be purely partisan to be comprehensible.
As a somewhat side note, anytime someone says that “Bush did it to”, or something like that, you might remind them that only 60% of Republicans supported Bush toward the end of his presidency (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/107128/Bush-Approval-Rating-Down-60-Among-Republicans.aspx). So any argument that all Republicans should sit down and be quite (not saying the Garland is making that argument) is absurd. There are plenty of Republicans that didn’t like Bush either, and I think his spending ways had a lot to do with that (along with his position on illegal immigration).
I agree with Jason above.
The democrats spent 6-8 years telling us that dissent was patriotism. Now that they are in charge. Dissent is unpatriotic, vile spewing vulgarity directed at the first BLACK president. I emphasized the Black because over the weekend one of the hollywood types went on record as saying that all dissent directed at the president is nothing but racism.
It doesnt matter if the GOP did it or not. It does not matter. We elected Obama with his promise to clean up this mess, be a moderate and centrist president and that he would actually be the president for all the people.
Now the other day I was in a rather heated debate with a very far lefty and HE was mad at Obama for not going far enough left and that his side is mad at Obama for being Moderate.
Go figure. I guess its what chair your setting in as to who Obama is. The man still is the worlds greatest Pacifier. Anyone who comes near him automatically wants to believe he is something he is not. He is a politician. First and formost. He is not the saviour, the ONE, the Chosen or a rock star. He is a politician. He is very capable of spinning 100 million as big when the budget is 3,200,000,000,000.
I give kudos for cutting this itty bit. How about cutting another trillion there buddy????
Garland: you seem to be suggesting that only those who have a morally pure record on a given issue have legitimacy to criticize policies pertaining to that issue. Thus, for this example, large segments of American society (not just politicians) would be thereotically delegitimized from speaking out against run away spending.
Understand: it is the voting public, at large, that ultimately directs policy, no matter how apathetic voters might seem most of the time (here’s hoping that the “silent majority” wakes up and smells the coffee). Given the impending emmergency, it is far more important that we engage in rigorous analysis & criticism while galvanizing as much support for fiscal responsibility and American “first principles” as possible, than it is to keep a purity scorecard.
By your logic, ex-socialists like Whitaker Chambers, David Horowitz, etc. did not have legitimacy to criticize the left. Oh, wait, the left did try to maliciously destroy those two and other apostates. Hmm . . .
“The argument that the “Republicans do it to” used so often by Democrats these days implies that the Republicans were right to do it.”
But that isn’t the basis for my argument – I totally reject the viewpoint that Obama cannot be criticized by republicans in general or that criticism can be invalidated by the similar misdeeds done by political opponents or current critics. Obama deserves all the fair criticism he has inspired (I think that’s good for him) but not all critics get to make the message their own or act as if Obama can personify the misdeed. That’s what harmed the tea parties the most – people who not only had dirty hands but also tried to squeeze too much out of the movement for their own, often unrelated and hypocritical designs.
Those who made a big deal about volcanoes are allowed to criticize Obama even without mentioning their past inconsistencies in my book. They don’t have to be perfect – they should just keep their rhetoric down and not act as if they deserve the chance to squeeze political clout of it. Libertarians who criticized Bush can promote their own politics and build a narrative while criticizing Obama. Not all fiscal conservatives and right-wingers can, however. Nor are all left-wingers the proper defenders of him.
I just want to make sure that people are ready for the media drive some of these people while try to engineer.
“you seem to be suggesting that only those who have a morally pure record on a given issue have legitimacy to criticize policies pertaining to that issue.”
Let me specify and hopefully clarify (any misunderstandings are definitely my fault)- their criticism is equally valid, but they don’t get to do anymore than criticize. If they forget to mention their own failings in the same regard, then all you can accuse them for is poor memory and maybe cognitive dissonance. If someone reminds them of said failings, that someone can’t claim their point is invalid. I just wanted to pre-empt the narrative that some people who suddenly remembered that they are fiscal conservatives will try to build to promote their own agendas – they are grasping for something they haven’t earned before improving their record. This completely reasonable issue with Obama’s policies cannot be co-opted by just anyone.
“By your logic, ex-socialists like Whitaker Chambers, David Horowitz, etc. did not have legitimacy to criticize the left.”
‘Course they do. Sure, their narratives are often as inflated and sweeping as the tirades launched against them, but their criticism cannot be invalidated as long as it’s based on declared and reasonable principles.
Another 1,480 instances of those hundred million cuts and he’d be making his promise to cut the defecit in half. Time to get moving, ony 4 years to go
. That averages out to roughly: 370 of these a year, or 30 of these a month.
I get the sense however, that the more Republicans, BlueDogs, and Libertarians push this issue, the more Obamas group will make cuts the things that most reasonable voters would find essential / important things like funding for state(like Police / Fire) and then the government throws up their hands and says “see, we cut things and the people complain, we can’t win”
Rather than going with the spirit of what cuts really mean, (which is waht these Tea Parties are really about) and cutting the unnecessary “nanny state” / welfare programs (for corporations, lazy folks that can work and illegal-aliens) and funding for unnecessary wars as well as sweetheart government positions for friends of politicians. Look, The laws on the books state that most voters agree that helping out folks that are out of work, the same goes for thouse with legitimate special needs, and most likely some other things that I can’t think of right now…But there is a line between assistance, and welfare. That line may be hard to see near the line. so we shouldn’t start looking / debating there. We should start cutting on the extreme end where it is obvious that most reasonable voters have agreed that cuts should occur (meaning where the Constitution and Laws make it clear) and whittle down towards the line from there. For instance, if you are an illegal alien, you get no money from the Government, that much is clear, and no it is not “more complicated” than that.
Well said Mike…
@Mike
Actually, my Math was off (I was only calculated for the 296 Billion in the cartoon), but you get my point…
“but not all critics get to make the message their own or act as if Obama can personify the misdeed.”
So, is that saying he can take credit when it is good, but should not take it when it is bad? I thought “on his watch” meant “on his watch”, just like Bush?
@Garland
I do have to say though, that any cut is a cut. By sybolic cuts, and cuts that have some heft, are the difference between “cuts” and “REAL CUTS”. Also, I may be wrong, but for future reference, adding new social “feel-good”, “happy-happy-joy-joy” programs will not bring about cuts, unless they are replacing older programs that and cust less from day 1.
Jason, you speak the truth. As a moderate-conservative, I’ve also wondered where the so-called centrists are in criticizing this sham of fiscal discipline. That’s because most of them are not actually moderate, moderate-liberal or moderate-conservative (Justin Gardner of Donklephant particularly comes to mind), but liberals posing as moderates.
By the way, these are not actual budget cuts but merely reductions in the usual government spending increases against an ever-increasing budget baseline. I.e., these departments may trim their expected spending increase to 3% instead of 4%.
But I agree with you that those in the GOP who did make a big deal about volcanoes and such are being hypocritical to get upset about this.
I don’t agree with that, and in fact the hypocrisy is in the other direction. Those who said that the GOP was ridiculous for making a big deal over earmarks are complete hypocrites for not telling Obama that THIS level of cuts is insulting to our intelligence.
First of all, no one suggested that the volcano monitoring was a meaningful cut in and of itself- it was pointed out as one example of the total amount of earmarks, not an item that would make a significant cut in and of itself. So the proper amount to discuss in that context of earmarks was the total in the stimulus bill (which I think was over 6 billion) plus the total attached to the budget bill (which I believe was over 7 billion.) SO just by banning earmarks (which we’re told by our Dem compadres was such small potatoes that it was silly to worry about it, and any complaints were just demagoguery) we’d cut 13 billion (with a b).
Meanwhile, instead of banning or even ‘reforming’ the earmark process as promised, Obama offers us a 100 million dollar round of cuts. Since this represents less than one percent of the amount that would have been cut had Obama simply kept his word on earmarks, the real hypocrisy here is coming from anyone who is defending him on this issue if they were critical of those of us who want earmarks eliminated.
“We should start cutting on the extreme end where it is obvious that most reasonable voters have agreed that cuts should occur (meaning where the Constitution and Laws make it clear) and whittle down towards the line from there.”
Hear hear.
“So, is that saying he can take credit when it is good, but should not take it when it is bad?”
Uh yeah no. I said he deserves all the fair criticism he inspires no matter the critic, but not all critics get to *then* use their criticism as a springboard for something else unless they are ready to admit all their failings/inconsistencies in the same regard, and come wholly clean. Have I not said this explicitly? If I’m still not clear, sorry.
“Those who said that the GOP was ridiculous for making a big deal over earmarks are complete hypocrites for not telling Obama that THIS level of cuts is insulting to our intelligence.”
Yup, there always is another level, but every level has its own relevant point, so to speak. It’s like a raw uncooked union (made out of hypocrisy) only less palatable.
Garland: thanks for your clarification. I can now better appreciate (I think) your point about certain self-described (but pseudo) “fiscal conservatives” who are apt to grandstand and opportunistically use movements like the Tea Parties for their own contrived ends, but did not walk the walk in the last 8 – 10 years.
The things is, I tend not to be one of those people who is always blaming the seller while letting the consumer completely off the hook. Part of the reason that so-called “fiscal conservatives” have been so wishy washy going on 75+ years now is there hasn’t been much of a market for true fiscal restraint (or “classical liberalism”). Sure, a lot of people have talked a good game, but their money and votes have said otherwise. Heck, many of them didn’t really know what fiscal restraint meant; others thought that the government should cut spending for stuff that they did not see as a priority, while increasing spending for all the other stuff. That goes for society on the whole, not just politicians.
The only way this changes if large segments of the population experience a major shift in attitudes about the roles and imits of government, etc. At this point, I would welcome anyone who has the knowledge and communication skills to explain to the voting public the folly of our ways. And I don’t even care if some of the more refined speakers have a history of being snake oil salesmen. We need all the voices we can muster. If there really is a sea change in attitudes, the opportunistic politicians will eventually line up in the new queue – that’s what they do.
The problem I have with you and many other liberals, Garland, is that we can never seem to get past the “yeah, but the Republicans are hypocrites” level of instant response to any criticism of Democrats. It seems to be the first AND last reaction from your side to ANY criticism. Thus, the net effect (whether intended or not) is to give Democrats a permanent pass on everything, as any criticism of Democrats is instantly diverted BACK to talking about those awful, horrible, evil, nasty, hypocritical, vile, hateful Republicans. Given the obvious rhetorical advantage for Democrat-leaning partisan hacks from such a process (especially given its dominance in the blogosphere), do you really wonder why some of us might not be suspicious that it is a willful and intentional changing of the subject?
So how about you consider the point about some hypocritical pseudo-conservatives noted and move on in the present and future to discussing more the substance of what the authors here are actually writing as criticism (or even occasional praise) towards the Obama administration and/or the Democrat-controlled Congress?