Obama eyes domestic spending freeze
 

Obama eyes domestic spending freeze
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has alerted domestic agencies to plan for a freeze or even a 5 percent cut in their budgets, part of an election-year push to rein in record deficits that threaten the economy and Democrats' political prospects next fall.

China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities, has expressed concern about the size of U.S. deficits. U.S. policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury debt. President Barack Obama will visit China as part of his current tour of Asia.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said Friday that it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink in coming years so as not to erode the fledgling economic recovery and raise interest rates. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut the recovery.

Orszag wouldn't comment on the specifics of the upcoming budget, which will be unveiled in February, right after Obama's State on the Union address in which the initiative is sure to be a major focus.

Democratic officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill say options for locking in budget savings include caps on the amount of money Congress gets to distribute each year for agency operating budgets. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss internal deliberations.

"As part of that fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that will put us back on a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview. "I'm not going to get into the mix between spending and revenues. Obviously deficit reduction requires some combination of those two."

On Thursday, the government reported that the federal deficit hit a record for October as the new budget year began. The Treasury Department said the deficit for October totaled $176.4 billion, even higher than the $150 billion imbalance that economists expected. The deficit for the 2009 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, set an all-time record in dollar terms of $1.42 trillion. That was $958 billion above the 2008 deficit, the previous record holder.

The budget freeze was planned before Democratic setbacks in last week's elections. But the bad results for Democrats — independent voters that were central to Obama's winning coalition last year voted roughly 3 to 1 for GOP gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey — appear to have added urgency to the deficit-cutting drive.

Independents, pollsters say, tend to be more concerned about the deficit than other voters and getting them back in the Democratic column is crucial to the party' chances in midterm congressional elections.

The mandate to domestic agencies to limit their budget requests for the 2011 budget year comes as an economic advisory board chaired by Paul Volcker is debating ways to reform the tax code. Virtually all budget experts say there will have to be revenue increases to make any significant dent in the deficit.

The White House edict to agencies to submit spending plans at least freezing their budgets is but one round in internal administration deliberations on the budget. Cabinet heads are sure to seek exemptions, and Orszag warned that firm budget decisions haven't been made.

Given Democrat's poor poll number on the deficit, cutting it may be a case in which the adage that good policy is good politics holds true.

Still, politicians have typically avoided politically painful deficit-cutting steps in election years and recent history has not been kind to politician who have tackled the issue.

Tax-raising deficit deals in 1990 and 1993 had big political consequences for President George H.W. Bush, who lost his re-election bid, and for President Bill Clinton, whose party lost control of Congress the following year.

Convenient timing.

Run up a trillion dollar deficit, then cut spending by 100 million in the name of "deficit reduction". Sadly, people buy this crap and vote the idiots into office and give them Nobel Prizes.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I said to myself, "they can't spend money like they have since Obama took office, then throw in a 'spending freeze' for a few months and think people will be dumb enough to believe they are fiscally responsible and vote for them". :lol

Then I remembered that we're talking about American voters here, and I realized that we're all doomed.

Has everyone conveniently forgotten that the bulk of this "spending" was in fact the stimulus, that was actually initiated by GWB?

...and that when Clinton left office we had a SURPLUS?

I just love how the Republicans run up the tab, and then call Democrats "tax and spend" when they take office and try to finally balance the books that the previous 'tard cooked.

Fuck that shit. I've seen it happen enough times in my lifetime already, and it's bullshit.

Conservative my ass. Republicans are only conservative when they wanna talk about YOUR morals. Bush spent money like a fucking drunken sailor.

Far as I'm concerned, cut off all that foreign aid shit, third world countries dont need outside help, they're clearly failed groups, much like propping up a dead company with bailouts.

Granted obama has been spending a LOT of money, its not entirely his doing either, congress is partly to blame, since they're really interested in ensuring that the rich get richer(namely themselves) and fuck the rest of us.

frankly, I say we simply stop spending money on shit to help other nations when our own is the one needing that help more, stop wasting tax dollars on useless "stimulus" packages and bailouts that dont really help much of anything, and simply try to streamline and maximize efficiency in the government.

The bulk of the spending was from the corporate bailouts--which may well be returned with interest (IIRC they're running a 11% ROI on them, which is pretty damn good). These were initiated under GWB and continued and increased under BHO. Both sides are guilty, and when one party holds both houses and the executive branch, they're basically given free will to implement every program they've fantasized about.

The vast bulk of the deficits for the last 7 years are due to Medicare prescription benefit, the 2003 tax cuts and iraq/afghan war spending. Obama has nothing to do with any of them.

Yeah LOL.

Fail. Obama didn't run up this tab, holmes. He's just the one left holding the bag.

Fail. They both did. Deficit spending increased faster under Obama than Bush.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...amabudget1.jpg

How do you define "needing more"

As far as I know, our citizens still have it better off than 95% of other nations.

Even Bush seems to have agreed, since back in 2003 he dedicated billions to the AIDS problem in Africa and the Carribean

Duh. You're a smart one.

No shit, Sherlock...Obama got stuck holding the purse after GWB went on a binge with our country's money. No the poor guy no only has to fix it, he has to hear shit from brilliant economists like yourself.

^ From a deficit of $420 billion to $1.85 trillion is a pretty big fucking jump in only one year. Obama was not FORCED to do that, he CHOSE to.

The alternative? Worst depression in world history?

Yeah, what a dick, Obama, huh?

Trying to save the world's economy is fucking thankless job, apparently. It's so much easier to just fuck everything up and leave a steaming pile for the next guy, like Bush did.

The budget for 2009 is set in 2008. That spike is the bailout, which is all Bush and the Republicans.

Bam.

And who sets the budget? And who was in control of Congress in 2008?

Oh yeah, Avatard. Who was in control of Congress during the "Clinton Surplus"???

Right, Bush was holding a gun to Obama's head and forcing him to sign budgets. Either come up with something substantive or fuck off.

Slam. :lol:

So when Bush creates TARP, he's evil, but when Obama's administration spends those very same allocated funds, he's "saving the world's economy"?

LOL..we are hoping the latter. lmao

We can fuck off, but it won't magically make this Obama's fault. It's not, and you know it.

You can pretend it isn't, but that doesn't change anything.

But he wanted that bag. He wanted that bag SO BAD. And now he gets to make MLK-esque speeches and raise taxes exponentially on service industry workers (who form the part of base of our economy and are some of the lowest paid) and we gave him a Nobel Peace Prize! He's right where he wants to be, and unfortunately that means some people will love him, some people will hae him, and some of us won't give a fuck. You can't please everyone all the time bu if you're the POTUS, you apparently can't please anyone ever.

Wow. Such a great effort from President Obama (but a brilliant move). It's for the 2011 fiscal year which means the freeze would take affect in 2012. But during the 2010 mid-term elections the Democrats can throw that shit in Republican faces since they'll be pushing for the freeze then. Fucking brilliant.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w070705S16.DTL

No. When Bush breaks the planet, it's his fault, and when Obama has to take drastic measures to save our asses...it's still only because of Bush.

Your conservative hatred and obfuscation won't change that.

You didn't get it. You're simultaneously criticizing Bush and praising Obama for the very same thing.

The fact that you think I'm a conservative is just further indication of how far up your ass you head is. Most people peg me as a raging liberal.

As said before, either come up with something substantive or fuck off. I've yet to see you make a single actual argument based on facts. All you do is spew off insults to people and call them idiots for not seeing things your way.

No, you don't get it
 

No, I'm not. Bush ran up the tab, and now Obama is having to make US pay the bill (because, sadly, WE CAN'T MAKE BUSH DO IT).

This is not Obama's doing, or his fault for trying to fix it. Most economists agree the stimulus was the only way. Of course, it wouldn't have been necessary had it not been for Bush breaking the world.

I don't care what your fucking political affiliation is. If you're talking shit, I'm gonna call you on it. How's that for substantive?

Your posts are so way out there and so completely lacking in any coherent thought patterns they are just impossible to respond to. But hey, at least you're an asshole about it.

Yeah, and you're real fucking charming too.

Perhaps you'd like to invite me to fuck off again.