The hot story tonight has been President Obama's decision to institute a "freeze" on discretionary spending. Of course this has caused a firestorm of criticism. Well, of rage really. The President is a liar, an idiot, Herbert Hoover, FDR circa 1937, Jimmy Carter, merely a place holder until Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich takes their rightful place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January of 2013. I don't want to get in the way of anyone's rant, but I feel there's just one pesky thing that needs to be dealt with: the facts.
- Is this an across the board freeze? No:
The administration officials said the cap won’t be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.
Don't trust the AP? I don't blame you. What about TPM:
The cuts would target "duplicative," "ineffective" and "inefficient" spending within government, the official said on a conference call with reporters.
"This is not a blunt, across-the-board freeze," the official said, adding that some agencies will see spending increases while some will see spending cuts as the total remains constant.
Still not good enough? Uh, how about Matt Yglesias:
So is this an across-the-board freeze like we’ve heard Republicans call for? No, it’s "not a blunt across the board freeze." Rather, some agencies will see their budgets go up and others will go down, producing an overall freeze effect. The senior official sought to portray this as not just a question of spending less money, but of getting our money’s worth—cutting (unspecified) ineffective programs and spending more on programs that work.
- So we've established this is not an across the board cut. But certainly this ends any hope of a jobs bill, right? Well:
A second stimulus package wouldn't be included either.
Said one official: "Not surprisingly, given that this is the president's budget, you're going to see additional investments in areas that he believes are crucial to our medium- and long-term economic growth and to job creation over the medium term and to continued economic -- continued path of return to economic prosperity, especially for the middle class."
Not good enough? Let's go to the AP again:
The administration officials said the cap won’t be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.
Okay, so a jobs bill is still likely.
- The poor will be screwed. Of course they will. I mean, cut spending, and you screw over the poor, right? Again, from Ambinder:
The administration insist that important programs will be kept alive and functioning, and that funding for, say, education initiatives will rise, while funding for other programs will decline -- and that the president's priorities will be well-funded. The freeze is irrelevant to health care because Medicare, Medicaid and taxes are all mandatory. So too are many of the programs for the neediest, such as unemployment insurance and Pell Grants. And many of the other programs were plussed up recently so the White House is freezing them at a very high level.
Okay, the poor will still get aid from the government. So what are we cutting?
Well, let's take a moment to understand the term "cut". Here's another interesting quote from Yglesias:
Described as an effort to balance concern with a "massive GDP gap" in the short run and "very substantial budget deficits out over time," the plan calls for the FY 2011 budget to be higher than the FY 2010 budget, but then for non-security discretionary spending to be held constant in FY 2012 and FY 2013.
So the next budget will include an increase in spending, then spending will be frozen at that higher number. So this really isn't a cut at all, and it sure isn't immediate. And let's not forget that whatever cuts may be instituted could be accounted for by the stimulus. For example, if the Department of Energy loses $15 billion, that money could be made up with the $24.01 billion the department received in the stimulus package. Or it could be made up with a future jobs bill or clean energy bill.
There is another issue at play here, a fear of future cuts to entitlement programs. I think much of this fear comes from the WH's backing of the Conrad/Gregg debt commission. The very mention of such a commission strikes fear into the heart of any liberal. But it is my belief that the commission is nothing more than a cheap political stunt to appeal to moderate voters. Why?
Take a look at the details:
The bill establishes an 18-member task force comprised of ten Democrats and eight Republicans. The panel would have bipartisan co-chairs. It would consist entirely of currently serving members of Congress selected by Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders, as well as the Treasury Secretary and one other administration official selected by the President. This means all of the task force members would be directly accountable to the American people, and bipartisan leadership at the highest levels of the government would be responsible for the panel’s outcome.
The task force would review all aspects of the current and long-term financial condition of the federal government. The task force recommendations, which would be submitted to the Congress after the 2010 elections, would be considered by Congress under expedited procedures with a vote required.
Importantly, the task force would ensure a bipartisan outcome. Broad bipartisan agreement would be required to move anything forward. Fourteen of the 18 Task Force members would have to agree to report the recommendations. And final passage would require supermajorities in both the Senate and House.
"Our Bipartisan Fiscal Task Force is designed to get results."
Results? Who knew Kent Conrad was such a comedian? You need 14 votes from the panel to advance a proposal, then a supermajority in both houses to pass it? Tomorrow Nancy Pelosi could propose a bill that states America is awesome, and the GOP would vote against it because the bill didn't declare America totally awesome. How the hell are they going to get a supermajority to agree on something so controversial as cutting Social Security or Medicare?
I would suggest we all do one very important thing before we jump to conclusions: wait and listen to what the President says. Then we can proceed with the articles of impeachment.
