Obama Adds a Trillion to the Deficit, Cuts $17 Billion

The Obama administration released it’s whopping $3.4 trillion budget proposal today ushering in a new level of government growth and taxpayer obligations down the road. Of the $3.4 trillion, the plan also includes $17 billion in cuts to some 121 programs or eliminates them altogether. The $17 billion equates to about one-half of 1 percent of the total budget. So instead of 100% of trillions in new spending, we’ll be getting 99.5% of trillions in new spending.

WaPo reports:

The Obama administration today unveiled details of a $3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October, a proposal that includes substantial increases for a number of domestic priorities as well as a plan to trim or eliminate 121 programs at a savings of $17 billion.

In a statement delivered at the White House after the budget details were released, President Obama defended the cuts from critics on both sides — those he said would fight to preserve the targeted programs and others who consider the reductions insignificant.

“We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter and waste is not our problem,” he said. “We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation.”

While many government employees do valuable, thankless work, Obama said, “at the same time, we have to admit that there is a lot of money that’s being spent inefficiently, ineffectively and, in some cases, in ways that are actually pretty stunning.” He cited several examples, including a $465 million program to build an alternate engine for the Defense Department’s joint strike fighter, a program that Pentagon brass neither wants nor plans to use.

Obama said some proposed cuts are larger and more painful than others, while some would produce less than $1 million in savings. “In Washington, I guess that’s considered trivial,” he said. “But these savings, large and small, add up.” He said of the $17 billion total in projected savings, “Even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money.”

Obama also stressed that the proposed cuts do not replace the need for “large changes” in entitlement spending.

I find it very funny how President Obama speaks of fiscal discipline at the same time he releases the largest spending increase the country has ever seen. $17 billion in cuts is a small start, however, how can that be squared with billions more in new spending?

This appears to be taking 1,000 steps forward with trillions in spending, realizing you went too far, and then taking 1 step back with $17 billion in cuts to programs that need cutting anyway.

It also appears many of the cuts overlap with cuts examined by the Bush administration as well.

Bloomberg also breaks it down by numbers:

Even with the proposed cuts amounting to only about one- half of 1 percent of the total budget, Obama is confronting resistance in Congress and from interest groups seeking to keep alive favored programs. In 2008, then-President George W. Bush, working with a Democratic Congress, proposed ending or reducing 141 federal programs. Of those, 29 were terminated or trimmed for a savings of about $1.6 billion.

Unlike past years, the administration won’t release until May 11 its “analytical perspectives” or “historic tables” that help explain its spending decisions and put them in context. Obama repeated his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term in 2012.

Though the White House is trying to focus public attention on cuts, federal spending is on the rise. The blueprint Congress adopted last week provides for a 9 percent increase in domestic discretionary spending and a 4 percent defense increase.

I’m wondering how you increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade and then point to $17 billion in cuts to make up for it? Also, if that is just a start, will we be cutting another trillion from the budget to trim it back to a manageable size?

The bottom line is that President Obama believes in big spending and big government, this simply is an illustration of that. President Bush also believe in big spending as well, this is an ongoing problem.

Therefore, these $17 billion in cuts to programs that were wasteful to begin with do not even begin to put a dent in the doubled national deficit.

$17 billion does not change this chart either:

If Prsident Obama is actually serious about reducing the deficit, perhaps he should set his goals to the levels of President Bush’s reckless spending before he can make some headway.

I applaud President Obama for cutting things which probably should have been cut years ago. However, I am dismayed by the trillion dollar increases in spending which makes the billion dollar cuts pale in comparison.

If I spend $100,000 and then propose spending $200,000 while cutting $1,000 to make up for it, that is a massive net increase, not a cut.

Furthermore, this budget proposal cuts off the successful Washington, DC school voucher program which makes no sense whatsoever. That program was successful and producing results yet President Obama nixed any future funding let alone expansion.

Update

Here is President Obama debating Senator McCain during the 2008 campaign. In this clip, within the first 2 minutes, Obama lays out his argument that earmarks only represent $18 billion which isn’t much at all and doesn’t fix the problem.

So which is it, President Obama? Does $18 billion matter more now than it did then are you just putting on a good show for the cameras?

Yet another example of what Obama said on the campaign trail being diametrically opposed to what he’s doing and saying now.

  • Path

    Bush’s last budget was 3 trillion but he didn’t include the 2 wars we’re fighting which come to around 250 Billion a year. Or the 700 billion Tarp package or the 25 billion the GM. Just for some perspective.

    I glad when the Repbulicans had complete control of the government they took care of the deficit right away… oh wait…

    I know you guys don’t think government should spend money during a recession. Deficits are not great, I understand that and thats the paradox of the situation that we’re in now. Because government’s the only entity with the wherewithal to prop up a demand in the economy when businesses and consumers are all pulling back. Traditionaly the fed reserve could just cut intrest rates and banks would lend more but that didn’t work this time. The banks are in deep troubles.

    If you look at the last chart posted above the deficit will shrink every year after this. After 2012 the difference between the CBO and the whitehouse esitimates have to do with the rate of growth. 2.0 or 2.2. Healthcare is also a major burden on the budget and every family and business. Social Security is another one that needs reform.

    Rupublicans had 8 years in the whitehouse and had the fist 6 with a republican controlled Congress in both chambers. You droped the ball and now the democrates are going to do something about it.

  • “Rupublicans had 8 years in the whitehouse and had the fist 6 with a republican controlled Congress in both chambers. You droped the ball and now the democrates are going to do something about it.”

    That’s correct. The Democrats are going to out-waste the Republicans like never before seen which will be sad.

  • Path

    I guess we will see on that. I don’t think they will.

  • Path,

    They just did. Look at that chart above. Even in the most rosy of circumstances Obama’s deficit still will be nearly double Bush’s in 2019, and that’s the White House’s low estimate. The CBO puts it over a trillion.

    So I’m pretty sure they are and will continue to do so. The writing is on the wall and Obama has guaranteed it with his budget and his own projections.

  • bones

    ‘“Republicans had 8 years in the whitehouse and had the fist 6 with a republican controlled Congress in both chambers. You droped the ball and now the democrates are going to do something about it.”’

    That’s correct. The Democrats are going to out-waste the Republicans like never before seen which will be sad.”

    It’s true. One day America may wish there was a conservative party to vote for, instead of two parties who both like massive spending and big government, but hold different opinions as to how and where to apply it.

  • Path

    Taxes will have to go up eventually. Its only been 100 some days there is a lot we don’t know yet. One interesting fact: In the last election Obama won the affluent vote. Those making over 200,000. They knew there taxes were going to rise under him yet they voted for him anyways. I guess the clinton rates weren’t that bad after all

  • D.D.Mao
  • D.D.Mao

    “Obama Tells Journalist To Stress Significant Nature of Budget Cuts” can be found at:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4998541.shtml

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Basically Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Dodd and others are runnig our country straight in to the ground. Obama’s budget will quadruple Bush’s by 2019!

    I wish a real conservative could run, maybe our country would be smart again under him.

    I told you all from day one Obama presidency would be a terrible thing for this country, and guess who was right, ME!

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Cuts $17 billion? Like that’ll make a difference!

  • Path

    How about cutting TWO TRILLION in healthcare?

    “The effort, which those familiar with the plan say will aim for greater care coordination, lower administrative costs and the bundling of payments among health care providers and recipients, could result in a three percent reduction of gross domestic product by the year 2019. That year alone, the industry could save $700 billion. On a more personal level, White House aides project that after five years a family of four could be saving $2,500 a year.”

    And this is just the beginning…

    Link will be in next post. Its on the front page of the huffington post right now

  • Bill Hedges

    “Six major groups plan to deliver a letter to Obama and pledge to cut the growth rate for health care by 1.5 percentage points each year, senior administration officials said Sunday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to sketch the offer before full details are revealed at a White House event scheduled for Monday.”

    …”The industry groups are trying to get on the administration bandwagon for expanded coverage now
    in the hope they can steer Congress away from legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years”

    …”Lawmakers in Congress are generally following Obama’s outline, but the Senate plan is likely to go further by requiring all Americans to carry health insurance, much as states now require motorists to carry auto coverage. Democrats hope to get legislation to the floor this summer”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_savings
    …..

    “President Obama May Tax Health-care Benefits”
    2009 March 15

    “During the campaign, when the issue of health-care came up, President Obama claimed that John McCain was going to tax health-care benefits. President Obama vigorously opposed that idea calling it “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” He claimed that he had a plan and it was better that John McCain’s plan.”

    ” Meet the new plan, same as the old plan. In what this article calls a shift, I prefer flip-flop, President Obama is now willing to support taxing health-care benefits. Evidently it is Obama who wanted to be the one who would create the largest middle class tax hike in history”

    “The president has said that he will not propose the idea that would tax our health-care benefits, but if congress approved it and the bill made it to his desk he would sign it.”

    …”President Obama will not only be breaking his promises to the middle class, he will own what he himself called the largest tax hike on the middle class in history. Congratulations will be in order for the president, he will be making history again, this time for the largest screwing of the middle class in history.”

    “Candidate Obama and President Obama are two different people”

    http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/15/president-obama-may-tax-health-care-benefits/

  • Bill Hedges

    April 24, 2009
    Obama: The Grand Strategy
    By Charles Krauthammer

    “In the service of his ultimate mission — the leveling of social inequalities — President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.”

    “Problem is, the math doesn’t add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Obama’s vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region.”

    …”Except that Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs.”

    “Obama’s own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what’s he up to?”

    “He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted. When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he’s incurring, Obama spoke vaguely of “additional adjustments” that will be unfolding in future budgets.”

    “Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. “Additional adjustments” equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.”

    “Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age, and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.”

    “The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.”

    “Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical “comparative effectiveness research”? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is “best practice” for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you’ve laid the premise for funding some and denying others.”

    “It is estimated that a third to a half of one’s lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain’s National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective — and if you’re old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/24/obama_the_grand_strategy_96152.html

  • JD

    Did any of you watch the white house correspondence dinner? I died laughing!

  • JD

    Path,

    I heard the same thing about the healthcare cuts. I really think the republicans are going to have foot in mouth syndrome when Obama is able to meet and exceed some of his projected deficit reductions, if only to cover his programs.

    I wonder if the republican party is weighing too hard on the fiscal argument because if Obama takes that away than they are going to lose in 2010 and 2012.

  • Path

    Definatly, the only chance Republicans have to winning the ’12 election is if the economy gets way worse. But even thats a long shot. Most people view them as hypocrites on the fiscal argument anyways.

  • “I wonder if the republican party is weighing too hard on the fiscal argument because if Obama takes that away than they are going to lose in 2010 and 2012.”

    If that’s what you’re counting on, then GOP victories are all but assured. Obama has shown no sign of slowing down spending and if he has fooled both of you into believe he truly wants to cut government, he is succeeding with his double-talk.

    See, you digest everything he says without looking at what he actually does. Actions speak louder than words, I’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere before.

  • JD

    lol. Nate, it has been 100 days and 200 days since the big collapse. Time will tell and I think it will tell the conservatives to stop worshiping crazies like Rush and Chaney.

  • Always excuses with you libs, never answers. What will you say 4 years from now when we still have an trillion dollar deficit and a government so large we’re all working half the year just to support it?

    Plus, if Cheney and Limbaugh are “crazies” who keep hurting the party, then why do you care what they say? Wouldn’t you want more people listen to Rush so they’ll vote Obama? Sounds logical to me.

    Please. Dems attack Limbaugh because he poses a threat. If not, they’d be ignoring him entirely but they keep attacking him. One has to wonder why they’d go out of their way to divert money to attacking him.

  • JD

    Naw… No threat. They are the voice of the fringe Republicans. 🙂

  • Path

    I DO want Rush to be the GOP leader. I would love to see Palin as the the gop pick for president. It would be the biggest landslide since LBJ and Goldwater. It would be comedy gold. Wonder why only 22% identify themselves as Republican. And Rush wants the party to be more exclusive.

  • “They are the voice of the fringe Republicans.”

    I tend to disagree with the notion that 20 million+ listeners per week constitute “fringe” republicans.

    Plus, Rush’s commentary could be further right, he’s pretty mainstream with analysis since he just speaks common sense and truth. However, I realize it is in your best interest to paint it as the “fringe” so that you can demonize it instead of responding to it, which you can’t.

    Democrats are losing their edge on many issues they held back in October:

    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/05/11/rasmussen-and-the-quietly-rusting-democratic-advantage/

    The pendulum shifts as it always does. Obama is pushing too far already and more people wake up to it everyday. The GOP just needs to grow some gonads and point it out effectively.

  • D.D.Mao

    Republicans lost by what 3 million votes in the last presidential election? And that was runnining a left moderate as the lead in the ticket.McCain wouldn’t have lost by that close if it wasn’t for Governor Palin drawing the Conservative vote.Over my life I’ve seen both politicial parties declared irrelevant,incompetent and for all intent purposes dead on more than one occasion.Yet they both survive,eventually finding a voice and a leader to catch the swinging pendulum of American politics and rise to power again.So I think reports of the death of the Republican party are premature…….from the politically immature.

  • Path

    Well 20 million is stll only like 5% of the population and not everyone that listens to him agrees with him. So yes thats a fringe. He’s only ‘mainstream’ if you only watch him and fox and visit free republic

    And Mao you guys lost the popular vote by over 10 million. Anyways if we decided elections on popular vote Gore would have been president in 2000.

    The pendulum will swing no one denies that. But political parties in the US usually hold power for 20-40 years.

    Please, Please pick Palin as your presidental canidate

  • Path

    If the right got rid of the fundamental religious nutjobs I could see myself voting for them but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

  • “If the right got rid of the fundamental religious nutjobs I could see myself voting for them but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

    So if Republicans became Democrats you’d vote for them? Thanks, but no thanks.

    Let me ask, did you vote for McCain? I only ask because he seems like your kind of candidate. Someone who bucks his own party, believes in the man-made global warming hoax and voted the same way Obama did on Bush’s $700 billion stimulus. In fact, they both wanted to close Gitmo!

    So Path, let me ask you then. You’re in favor of smaller government, less spending, keeping a private health care system, strong national defense, free market capitalism, individual liberty and states’ rights? If so, then you’re already more in line with conservative principles than you are with Obama.

    If you answer “No” to most of those, I very much doubt you’d be voting GOP if you’re pro-socialism and anti-free market.

  • D.D.Mao

    Bones…..errrrr I mean Path or what ever you call yourself this week……..I have a liberal friend up in New York who tried for hours to define WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE IN AMERICA to me and now you are so worried about how we Conservatives can win the next election.If the so called fringe didn’t worry you liberals you would just ignore us INSTEAD OF GIVING US ADVICE.How many listeners did AIR AMERRICA get or does Alan Colmes currently get?

    NO THIS IS JUST ONE OF YOUR GRENADE THROWING TACTICS!…AGAIN

  • Path

    So to be a Republican you have to be religious? Its the people that say their god is better than someone else. Or that rely on the Bible to make laws against gay marriage. Or preach abstinence-only sex education while their own children are popping out babies. Or think the earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is the devils game. I don’t want your bible telling me what I can or can’t do. If you do, your no better than the Islamic extremist.

    If you start getting rid of those people I’d take republican ideas more seriously

    If you were for states’ rights why didn’t you allow California the right to set its own emission standards or use weed as medicine?

    Sorry that rant wasn’t at anyone in particlar, I just had to get it off my chest.

  • Bill Hedges

    “So to be a Republican you have to be religious”

    bones, err path, who brought up religion ? Nobody but you from what I notced on this article.

    You sure went off real good though. Real good.

  • Path

    I thought you left bill

  • Bill Hedges
  • D.D.Mao

    Path…..Your the one who made religion a criteria for joining the Republican party not any of us.Let me ask you why doesn’t the Democrat party accept pro-lifers into it’s supposed big tent? Ask Bob Casey of Penn. Why doesn’t the Democrats accept pro-war people into it’s supposed big tent? Ask Sen. Joe Lieberman.

    Who are you B.S’ing you wouldn’t neither vote for or take any idea serious the Republicans propose.So get off your pious soapbox.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path May 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    “Well 20 million is stll only like 5% of the population and not everyone that listens to him agrees with him. So yes thats a fringe. He’s only ‘mainstream’ if you only watch him and fox and visit free republic”

    I not up on radio LIBERAL TALK SHOWs. Name one with more listeners than Rush. I want to listen him or her.

  • D.D.Mao

    Bill………..I’ve already been ignored when I asked Path how many listeners AIR AMERICA or Alan Colmes had.

  • Bill Hedges

    DDMao

    I give my thoughts here. I do not go to Republican source to get there take in how to respond. Without giving name, I believe someone on this site does without ” “. If you know what I mean. I have considered checking into that. Not sure how to do

  • Bill Hedges

    I could not find list of top political radio hosts. Found this interesting about Alan Colmes & decling Conservative audiience..NOT..And Colmes unsubstatiated statements(or lie).

    Fox ip up
    …..
    “Local talk radio hosts are being pink-slipped in favor of national ones, because a syndicated show is cheaper than a local show.”

    “If anything, this shows conservative talk radio is doing quite well because the audiences are staying, and perhaps growing.”

    “Because even in a blue state like California, liberal talk radio is almost nonexistent.”

    “Because if audiences were shrinking, believe me, the radio stations would switch formats in a New York minute.”
    …..

    INTERSTING ALAN COLMES__GUY NEEDS HELP”

    Enter Alan Colmes who uses this drop in ads — which is mediawide, mind you — to pontificate: “With conservative talk radio in decline in California, one has to wonder how long before the rest of the country catches up.”

    “Bogus.

    “Of course what do you expect? The man is a liberal talker in search of an audience somewhere because no one wants to hear it.”

    …..

    “The LA Times used the radio numbers in such a way that it is hard to tell just what direction the audiences are going. There is no then-and-now comparison and instead of using station rankings or even market shares, the Times used raw numbers.”

    “Are 670,000 listeners in the LA radio market good?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “I do know that beats the 485,000 average viewership for MSNBC nationally last Thursday (which is a big TV day).”

    “It is pretty neat when you draw 670,000 listeners locally against the 437,000 viewers nationally for “Morning Joe” on MSNBC or the 522,000 the CNN program drew.”
    …..

    WHOOPS__FOX UP

    “Which brings us to Fox. Killer. Numbers up, big time. Every show from 5-11 pm weeknights beat the top show on MSNBC or CNN.”

    “A year ago, Fox News was No. 6 among all cable outlets (its audiences average more than MSNBC and CNN combined). Now Fox is No. 3 among all cable networks.”

    “Glenn Beck at 5 beats Olbermann in prime time at 8.”
    …..

    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/03/15/alan-colmes-doesnt-know-radio/

  • Path

    “I’ve already been ignored when I asked Path how many listeners AIR AMERICA or Alan Colmes had.”

    I sorry I forgot about this thread. But what does it matter that air america or alan colmes are failures. I’ve never watched or listened to either they don’t speak for everyone. There are already plenty of places to get news

    Do you think its good that your party is only at 22% and alienated an entire generation because of the bush administration?

  • Bill Hedges

    You forget you history lessons.

    Republican was considered dead when Clinton was elected. Repblicans won majority and forced Clinton to balance the budget. Has occured thoughout our history.

  • Bill Hedges

    My link shows, even in California, Liberal radio does poorly. Republican lost because of the economy. And people like yourself who watch sugar coated news.

    Speaker of house was questioned hard today by sugar coated news. A first. May be not last time. I bet not last

  • Path

    “My link shows, even in California, Liberal radio does poorly.”

    Is the radio the only provider of news? NPR seems to be doing good for themselves anyways. In 05 a Harris poll NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the U.S.

    “Republican lost because of the economy.”
    Is that why Obama was leading most the summer?

    “Has occured thoughout our history.”
    yeah usually in 30 to 40 year paterns. Who is claiming the republican party dead?

    “Speaker of house was questioned hard today by sugar coated news. A first. May be not last time. I bet not last”

    Try forming a complete sentance. They can’t really be sugar coated news if they ask hard questions can they?

  • Bill Hedges

    You are not asobing. Are you drunk or high

    “Try forming a complete sentance. They can’t really be sugar coated news if they ask hard questions can they”

    Did you not see

    “A first”

    If you can not uderstand, you need to go sleep it off. My english is fine. You are not

  • Path

    “You are not asobing. Are you drunk or high”
    I just got off work a couple hours ago. I don’t drink at work. And I haven’t smoked anything in over 5 years. How many spelling mistakes do I have compared to you?

    “A first. May be not last time. I bet not last”

    That is not good English.