Obama makes a joke: proposes useless cuts

May 7th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , , ,

obama and bushOh wow. This is insane:

President Obama has said for weeks that his staff is scouring the federal budget, “line by line,” for savings. Today, they will release the results: a plan to trim 121 programs by $17 billion, a tiny fraction of next year’s $3.4 trillion budget…

“Even if you got all of those things, it would be saving pennies, not dollars. And you’re not going to begin to get all of them,” said Isabel Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who waged her own battles with Congress as a senior official in the Clinton White House budget office. “This is a good government exercise without much prospect of putting a significant dent in spending.”

$17 billion… on a $3.4 trillion budget. It’s not even almost significant. What’s worse, it is “less ambitious than the list former president George W. Bush produced last year.” Bush, a big government ‘conservative if ever there was one, wanted to cut twice as much spending as Obama.

What does that tell us about the 44th president, especially considering the fact that he criticized Bush constantly for ‘irresponsible spending.’

We have now discovered that it was not about ‘irresponsible’ but about ‘unliberal’ spending. Bush was not progressive enough.

Interestingly enough, even though Obama’s cuts are way too small, especially consider the gigantic budget he pursues, he may have a hard time getting Congress to pass it nonetheless.

By the way, guess what programs and departments Obama believes should do with a little bit less?

…buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.

So wait, we’ll have ‘free choice act’ meaning that union members will have to vote for the Democratic Party or risk losing their job, and Obama makes sure that there is no way the federal government can check said unions do not step out of line. Wonderful combination.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. c3
    May 7th, 2009 at 20:36
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Death by a thousand little cuts

  2. Lyn
    May 7th, 2009 at 20:56
    Reply | Quote | #2

    It’s ridiculous. I’m just surprised that Obama decided to cut anything. He has his majority in both houses why bother with budget cuts. 2013 can’t get here soon enough. I just hope we’ll have some semblance of the economy we used to have so one day we can fix Obama’s mess. Lyn fromwembleypark.com

  3. Interested
    May 8th, 2009 at 02:10
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Our spender-in-chief, using next decades money, today. now THATS Progressive

  4. Interested
    May 8th, 2009 at 10:55
    Reply | Quote | #4

    “You’re taking a little teaspoonful of water out of the ocean while you’re dumping a whole river in,” Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said.

    Pretty clear, accurate description

    The budget seeks $533.8 billion for the Defense Department, excluding war costs, reflecting a 2 percent real increase when adjusted for inflation. That compares with an average 4 percent annual real increase under Bush.

    Wonder who’s gonna get hurt from that. Probably the Soldiers – typical under Dem leadership

  5. Doomed
    May 8th, 2009 at 15:29
    Reply | Quote | #5

    The budget seeks $533.8 billion for the Defense Department, excluding war costs,

    The key here is that the Democrats just gave Obama 90 Billion for the war with the ultimatium that “ONE YEAR” Mr. President. Doing two things….lying to their far left antiwar base and giving Obama one more year to get his far left agenda in place while convincing the nation that we will be out of the wars in one year.

    Hogwash. I said during the primaries to any who would listen that come 2012 no matter who is elected we will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Why? Because in the end Politicians lie about everything. If their lips are moving. They are lying. No way democrats could stand up and say….okay well now that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan we have to make it work out.

    Afghanistan was controlled by Pakistan and Iraq was a secular nation that opposed Iran and gave her a mortal enemy. Iran could not afford a nuclear program and still keep up an army that opposed Iraq. Now that we have taken her only enemy away Iran is able to spend billions on Nuclear.

    So leaving Iraq will destablilze the middle east. Not fighting the taliban with a fervor will most likely put Nukes in the Taliban’s hands. Thats a good plan. They will just ship them over to Americas ports in ships and detonate them in Houston, San Fransciso, New York, Washington…etc…etc. and America will be bankrupt.

    Good plan Democrats. Lets be sure to play to your base on Afghanistan and cross our fingers that Obama can work out a deal with the nuclear armed Taliban. Perhaps he could offer then Sharia law in all those red states that didnt vote for him.

  6. Jay_C
    May 9th, 2009 at 05:30
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Interesting how Obama laughed off McCain’s Idea on the campaign trail to cut 18 billion in earmarks saying it was only 1/2 of 1% of the budget.

    And what exactly are these cuts? Probably like cutting the budget of police force, and benifts paid to slain police officers? or sending our soldiers to fight their war without the proper equiptment? He pulled the old “See we made cuts” move and as a result, it sill hurt people, then when we complain about what was cut, he will say, see we made cuts like you wanted, now will you believe we can’t make cuts? (Rather than cutting money for business and personal welfare, for those that don’t need it, or should fail)

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.