Skip to main content

It's never popular with many folks when budget cuts hit. Often it could mean less perks, less vacation time, less of the little things that make an office fun.

But folks, the President isn't cutting the budget. He's freezing the budget.

What this means is that each agency won't get its customary 3-5% increase. Even for the agencies that might actually face cuts, this probably means that not one government employee will lose his or her job.

Yes, I know, over time, a freeze is a cut given inflation, but come on. Given that we are currently running a $13 TRILLION dollar debt and 2 TRILLION dollar annual deficit, I think we can learn to live without a 3-5% annual padding.

And not just to get votes. If you really think we can ignore the amount of debt the US is really in, you're dreaming.

Should we cut the defense budget? Heck yes. Is there a lot of fat there? Heck yes. But now is not the time. You don't send the message of cutting the defense budget at a time of war, if you want to live, politically.

But don't tell me that this is the end of the world. This means that most federal agencies won't get their little annual padding.

Before we hyperventilate and die, let's get real about this.

Like it or not, we live in a world where the government spends 3-5% more every year guaranteed. All agencies earned an extra 7% last year, whereas tons of working Americans had unpaid furloughs or were laid off.

The stimulus was large and is still rolling.

Let's keep everything in perspective here.

Originally posted to I said GOOD DAY sir on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:36 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I am on a pay freeze. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      x, Vicky, Prairie D

      It ain't pretty.  And in my case it may not be necessary. But maybe I'm too patient.  Let's see what happens before we start shrieking,

      •  I'm on a pay cut (0+ / 0-)

        state university - 3% cut with mandatory "furlough days"

        "Statistics are people with the tears washed away." Sociologist Ruth Sidel

        by Vicky on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:39:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The university I had been working for (0+ / 0-)

          had no cost of living pay increase (something like 2%) AND 5-7 days of furlough AND what amounted to a 20% cut in matching contributions to TIAA/CREFF.  They still laid off, fired, early retired, attritioned 10% of the staff at the hospital side.

    •  Dear Sir - good diary (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      x, Vicky, aaraujo, kevinpdx, Prairie D

      The domestic discretionary budgets had a big increase for F'10 so they will be frozen at a high level. I believe this is a good idea and will help protect the dollar and make it easier to finance the deficits.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:44:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I said elsewhere (6+ / 0-)

      I sam not going the predicable DKos  outrage route on this until I see the details.

      Jobs bill, does this have any affect on it. HCR, if it moves forward, does it have an affect. I know i doesn't touch the stimulus since those funds are already pledged and the second half is waiting to be spent.

      So no outrage yet.

      In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

      by jsfox on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:45:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        x, Vicky, bigmikek7, jsfox, EdgedInBlue, Prairie D

        I mean, WTF?  We don't know the details, we don't know how much of the plan can be altered under changing circumstances, and we don't know how much of this is political posturing for November.

        I don't exactly avoid criticising the White House, espcially on Wall Street and proscecuting Bush-ear crimes.  But this?  I'm going to wait and see what's there.

    •  Actually, what it is is a PR stunt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to appease the crazies on Fox NEws.

      It is as clear a sign as you could ask for that Obama and his political hacks took the entirely wrong lesson from the Masstastrophy.

      It is as clear a sign as any that Obama has no intent of leading but instead will continue to be yanked around by the Anti-progressives from both parties.

    •  who's the largest employer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      who's the largest employer in the nation? umm yep- govt.YET in one sentence he says jobs jobs jobs, in the next he says hiring freeze.


      He's insulting our intelligence.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:04:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a freeze to all the wrong things (6+ / 0-)

    And that's horrible economics.

    The diary saying it's Hooverism is right.  Hoover didn't cause the crash, he just made it worse by trying to balance the budget instead of stimulating the economy.

    "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by burndtdan on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:41:25 PM PST

  •  Freeze that doesn't pace inflation = cut. (8+ / 0-)

    After the first three years his plan allows for matching inflation.

  •  relax everyone (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, Vicky

    he's got this

  •  Stimulus gave cabinet $299 Billion (4+ / 0-)

    And each budget was increased over previous levels for 2010.  The 2010 levels will be kept, not the lower levels.

  •  Didnt many of these programs/departments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdgedInBlue, Prairie D

    see a 10% increase this year too?

  •  Has he spoken to Krugman? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, I said GOOD DAY sir

    I seriously doubt that Krugman will consider this a good idea.  Krugman has studied the Depression closely.  This is 1937 all over again.

  •  A freeze is always the first step to a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, nandssmith

    Cut. When programs are frozen that ussually means a cut is coming. I can't even believe we're debating what a freeze means with a democratic administration in a time of economic crisis. Are this people in the White-house crazy or just so out of touch that they've lost all basis of reality?

  •  This will destroy medical research (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffejoe, nandssmith

    in the US. The stimulus funds were mostly wasted on short term projects; outstanding research isn't getting funded. And a freeze will mean no change for FOUR YEARS. Our best scientists will seek other countries or other careers.

    McCain would never have tried anything this stupid.

    •  Which will fuck Massachusetts (0+ / 0-)

      Which I suppose is poetic justice.

      There is no planet B

      by Minerva on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:48:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly right. To support this CUT is to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      buy into the assumption that government during the Bush years has been funded adequately and has done a great job doing what it's supposed to do.  Where do I start?

    •  Simply not the case. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      x, Vicky, sharonsz, Prairie D

      What's be proposed isn't going to lock in current spending.  It's capping certain discretionary spending a total of $477 billion (which is already 10% more than the previous year).  It will then seek to REDISTRIBUTE funds within that amount from wasteful, ineffective programs to ones that are more effective.  So good programs will see increases.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:01:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly what are the wasteful, ineffective (0+ / 0-)

        programs??  Just askin'...

      •  Who decides which (0+ / 0-)

        programs are good etc? If it is Congress/Senate they won't cut their own pork. Unless the President has analysis and determines which ones this will be the kettle calling the pot black and more fighting among everyone.....The Republicans will bring up Pelosi's field mouse again.

        Maybe the President can tell us in his SOTU address how this relates to job growth.....otherwise I can't see the average Joe even understanding this...most Americans when it comes to budgets are just repeating words without really understanding what it means or why they are saying it...IMO

    •  WTF are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Most of the stimulus funds for research haven't even been awarded yet.

      "I know this defies the law of gravity, but you see, I never studied law." -Bugs Bunny

      by KroneckerD on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:08:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, Prairie D

    Thanks for having common sense.

  •  With inflation, a freeze amounts to a cut. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, Ezekial 23 20
    •  A very minor cut (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      x, Vicky, Prairie D

      As has been pointed out, the amount being frozen is a drop in the budget bucket.  And it's being frozen after a 10% increase last year.  Not a disaster.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:03:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  when (0+ / 0-)

        when you put a hiring freeze basically on the biggest employer by far in the nation,  yeah it is a disaster.

        (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

        by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:08:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who said a hiring freeze? (5+ / 0-)

          People are acting like the $477 billion is going to vanish.  He's not CUTTING anything, for christ's sake.

          Within that $477 billion they've identified a lot of ineffective programs that can be cut.  They then plan to move that money into other programs.  So some things will see spending increases.

          Why is it a bad idea to cut wasteful, ineffective spending and move it to more effective spending before spending more total?

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:16:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All depends upon what you define as (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dark daze

            wasteful and ineffectual.

          •  please (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ineffective programs that can be cut.

            try working in govt, ineffective programs just means programs that dont have current political juice behind them.

            You cut ineffective programs, what you really are just doing is eliminating jobs.

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:28:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you honestly believe (0+ / 0-)

              that there isn't a great deal of wasteful spending going on right now?  Dare I direct you to any of the many lists of absurd earmarks out there?

              I flat-out reject the notion that we need to keep spending money badly just for the sake of spending money.  That is incredibly irresponsible--it's just a scatter-shot throwing money at things randomly and hoping something will stick, and it's stupid.

              I finally put in a signature!

              by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:06:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

                stop being mindfucked by republicans that earmarks are bad.  Jesus.

                We give bankers trillions of dollars and they then give themselves billions in bonuses, and you think cutting governmental jobs is the answer to our problems.  WTF is wrong with you?

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:36:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What government jobs (0+ / 0-)

                  have been proposed to be cut?  Give me a list.

                  Oh right--there is none yet, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T A FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

                  I should ask WTF is wrong with morons who talk about stuff before they even know what it entails.

                  I finally put in a signature!

                  by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:59:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  my family (0+ / 0-)

                    family has worked in and directly with the govt at all levels for all of my life.

                    A freeze= GOVT job Cuts.
                    get a clue.

                    PS. Do You think earmarks just tosses money to the wind?  umm no, its reps taking money back to their district and creates jobs.

                    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                    by dark daze on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:03:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you honestly think (0+ / 0-)

                      EVERY earmark is effective and worth taxpayer $$?


                      If money being spent on an ineffective/wasteful govt job can be MOVED to create an effective one, it's a net gain, period.

                      Protecting a job just because it's job, without considering the value of it, is stupid.

                      This is not rocket science.

                      I finally put in a signature!

                      by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:11:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  From a PROGRESSIVE source (0+ / 0-)

                      Examples of government waste:


                      The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008.[1]
                      Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security.[2]
                      Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.[3]
                      Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them--costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually--fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.[4]
                      The Congressional Budget Office published a "Budget Options" series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts.[5]
                      Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]
                      Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.[7]
                      A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.[8]
                      Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[9]
                      The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.[10]
                      The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.[11]
                      Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.[12]
                      Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually.[13]
                      A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.[14]
                      The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.[15]
                      Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.[16]
                      Federal investigators have launched more than 20 criminal fraud investigations related to the TARP financial bailout.[17]
                      Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.[18]
                      The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.[19]
                      The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.[20]
                      Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines--plus $24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on personalized calendars.[21]
                      More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.[22]
                      Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls Gone Wild" videos, and at least one sex change operation.[23]
                      Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.[24]
                      Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.[25]
                      The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY)--but only on Monday mornings and Friday evenings, when lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists usually fly. Rogers is a member of the Appropriations Committee, which writes the Transportation Department's budget.[26]
                      Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches--even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.[27]
                      A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion in "stimulus" funding for broadband Internet will be wasted.[28]
                      The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.[29]
                      Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in front of national landmarks.[30]
                      Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling, $69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[31]
                      Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase their franked mailings for the 2010 election year.[32]
                      Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.[33]
                      Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.[34]
                      The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds.[35]
                      Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards--subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want.[36]
                      Congress appropriated $20 million for "commemoration of success" celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.[37]
                      Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.[38]
                      Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act resulted in a $2 billion taxpayer cost.[39]
                      North Ridgeville, Ohio, received $800,000 in "stimulus" funds for a project that its mayor described as "a long way from the top priority."[40]
                      The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.[41]
                      Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.[42]
                      Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers--the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.[43]
                      Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.[44]
                      Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.[45]
                      Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.[46]
                      The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.[47]
                      Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.[48]
                      The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.[49]
                      The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many containing Americans' personal data.[50]

                      I finally put in a signature!

                      by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:21:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

        I'd rather a 10% raise now than a 3% increase each of the next 4 years

  •  Can Obama bend the cost curve on DoD? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Can you imagine the fight for the best offices when 300 Republicans win House seats this fall?

    There is no planet B

    by Minerva on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:47:44 PM PST

  •  Adjusted for inflation, it is a reduction. Plus, (6+ / 0-)

    250 billion dollars over 10 years amount to 25 billion dollars per year. We have a 1 trillion dollars budget. $25 billion is a drop in an ocean.

    This is a pure political move. It has no economic or policy meaning. None whatsoever.

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:49:55 PM PST

  •  "Freeze" is a right-wing talking point. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike in Denmark

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:50:47 PM PST

  •  It is a pure political electoral move. It is not (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    x, mertam, EdgedInBlue, nandssmith

    a policy move because economically it has no meaning whatsoever.

    250/10=25 billion per year. Well, taking into consideration that we have a 1 trillion dollars budget. This freeze per year would a goddamn drop in a freaking ocean.

    It has one meaning only: he is trying to get the independents voters back

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:53:24 PM PST

  •  It's not even a total freeze of discretionary (6+ / 0-)
    spending.  It's a freeze on $477 billion, and that's after a 10% increase in that spending last year.  And the goal is to eliminate a lot of waste within that $477 so the good things get MORE money.

    Anyone getting hysterical over this is being stupid, since we don't have the whole plan yet.  Jeez.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:59:24 PM PST

    •  and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prairie D

      and that 10% increase saved our asses economically. Without it,  double dip and back to free fall.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:09:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good thing he isn't rescinding the 10% then (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Prairie D

        Since the $477 billion number includes that.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:14:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but we need MORE OF IT (0+ / 0-)

          if you havent noticed we still have a 17% unemployment figure.

          If we had employemnt down to save 6.5% I would be all for this, this is not the time for such gimmicks.

          (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

          by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:26:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good programs WILL GET MORE (0+ / 0-)

            The point is to cut the bad ones.

            Do you really not think there is a lot of potential cuts available in wasteful government spending in a lot of areas?

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:02:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you (0+ / 0-)

              you make it apparent you dont work in govt or directly in anyway with any parts of govt.

              Wasteful goverment is bullshit, anything can be labeled wasteful, its all perspective. Republicans think head start is wasteful, etc etc

              stop falling for this crap.

              Good programs, according to who?

              (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

              by dark daze on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 07:38:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I worked in government for some time (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, there is a good deal of wasteful government spending.  Denying that is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.  You're engaging in a classic misdirection by bringing up Head Start.  Just because a lot of programs aren't wasteful doesn't mean that somehow every government program isn't.

                Clinton cut a lot of wasteful spending and it did a great thing for our budget and economy.  And no, I'm not talking about the welfare reforms, either.

                I finally put in a signature!

                by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:03:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  what does (0+ / 0-)

                  what does wasteful even mean? you have no clue, you are just respewing bullshit political talking points.

                  Wasteful?, like the govt goes and burns the money in trash bins outside.

                  Yeah is there govt programs that run better, administered better? sure.  But that money is still going into the hands of workers and recepients who then turn and pour it right back into the economy.

                  This isnt were the problems lie, and this isnt what you take on in times like this.  

                  You sound like a right winger all pissed off about welfare and totally ignore the tax cuts and corp welfare which gives away 100x more money to the rich.

                  (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                  by dark daze on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:09:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And you sound (0+ / 0-)

                    like a knee-jerk economics moron who doesn't have a clue about how things work.  I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who can't do anything except paint his opponent as Republican or right wing instead of actually listen/argue.  You clearly won't believe anything government does is wasteful or inefficient, so since you're a fan of painting broad strokes, I'll dub thee a Stalinist.  Good day.

                    I finally put in a signature!

                    by Boris Godunov on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 08:18:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  He wants to freeze the small things (0+ / 0-)

    he will fail unless this is just a publicity stunt - if he's going to do this it should be everything.  Why not defense?  Yjey are buying things the Military doesn't want or need but because it's in a congresspersons district they want it

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:02:00 PM PST

  •  After 8 years of cutting, NASA's study of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prairie D

    planet Earth was programmed to recover over the next six years.  Now that is not going to happen.  We are going to freeze at a few percent above the bottom.

    Some programs are at historic real-dollar funding lows after Bush got through with them.  Fixing that mess is not likely now.

    "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

    by captainlaser on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:10:42 PM PST

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "What this means is that each agency won't get its customary 3-5% increase. Even for the agencies that might actually face cuts, this probably means that not one government employee will lose his or her job."

    What this means is that there will be no raises for the working stiff.  That's not too big a deal, it means you still have a job.  But, having worked for the State for the last 9.5 years, this will mean an early retirement package to those that meet a specific requirement, a hiring freeze - so if someone quits - their position won't be refilled - which means more work on each remaining staff person, and generally a sucky atmosphere to work in.

    And why can't there be a freeze on 'defense' spending if there's a freeze on 'non-defense' spending.  Don't say because of 2 wars - the top brass doesn't need a pay raise.

  •  There is no perspective (0+ / 0-)

    Wait—let me get my Shep Smith translator...

    Fuck, it's gone.

  •  I'm sure it will be more warmly received (0+ / 0-)

    than when the Republicans asked for the same thing last March.

  •  it is a cut - think about inflation (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

    by efraker on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:10:08 PM PST

  •  What it does (0+ / 0-)

    is it sets every form of domestic discretionary spending directly in competition with every other domestic discretionary expenditure, in a zero-sum game.  Some kinds of domestic discretionary spending have powerful lobbies, highway construction for instance.  Others have little or none at all, the mentally ill for example.  And in the rough and tumble of a "freeze", the powerful lobbies will gather everything they want, and it will all be drawn at the expense of those without powerful lobbies.

     Those who defend and advocate this proposal thereby acquire a deep, total, and lasting personal obligation to fill the void, for the mentally ill and retarded, the disabled on SSI, for school lunches and food stamps.   If you advocate this approach, you either support diverting money from Food Stamps for poor children to well-connected paving contractors, or you plan on and best get started on building a lobby for poor children, for the disabled physical and mentally, that can stave off the greedy hands of well-connected highway contractors.  Understood?

    "99% of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in Afghanistan were won by our side." ~ Marshall Akhromeyev

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:55:42 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site