Please don't freeze the spending now!!!

[rockon]

I listened to the SOTU speak last night and was once again very impressed with Obama's ability to articulate a message. He seemed most at ease, personable, and threw in a little humor for good measure. I also thought his tone towards the opposition was measured and much more conciliatory then in the past. Of course he needs them a little more then before so that part was no big surprise. In terms of substance I gave his speech very low marks since there was really nothing new, just spend more money and hope things get better in the long haul. The part that brought me out of my chair was when he almost seemed proud to announce that he wants to freeze discretionary spending at current levels. Our spending levels are at all time and unsustainable highs so please don't freeze them now. We need to cut spending immediately not freeze them. Maybe he didn't get the November message after all.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Here is an article on Comcast.Net this morning. I will post the link and cut/paste some of the article.
I am not vouching for anything in this article, just thought the group here would be interested.

www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20110126/US.State.of.Union.Fact.Check/

FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger

WASHINGTON — The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
___
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

[ed1066]

In terms of substance I gave his speech very low marks since there was really nothing new, just spend more money and hope things get better in the long haul.

This shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. He ran on a useless platform of "hope", as in "let's hope things work out since I don't know what the hell I'm doing and my advisors are all useless, communist, academic blowhards, tax cheats and other assorted criminals who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag..."

[rockon]

Any mention of the Health Insurance Reform bill could not only get me out of a chair it could wake me from the dead because this bill will have more negative effects to our economy then anything in modern history. Remember the CBO says it will cost over 950 billion dollars over ten years but they also say it will reduce the deficit by 143 billion over ten years in the same report.

[Deleted]

Yeah, let's freeze spending at an unsustainable high. Makes sense to me.

[Deleted]

From the posted article by Savoir--
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill's $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

___

Obama is our hero, right???

[dancinmama]

The next couple of years is going to be very interesting to watch. Let's see if these bozos in Washington ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE will have the BALLS to make a dent in our problems.

Entitlement programs need to be addressed. The talking heads say that Obama wants the Republicans to take the initiative so that they will be the ones to take the fall in the next election.

I say to the Republicans: GO FOR IT!! There has been no better time in history when "the people" are behind doing SOMETHING, even if they might have to make some sacrifices.

If anything passes in the Republican controlled House of Reps, it still has to pass the Senate and then be signed by the Pres, so there will be plenty of "blame" to go around in the next election cycle. I think that this could be a heroic moment for Republicans IF they find a workable (not necessarily totally likable) solution to the problem and do their due diligence with PR in explaining EXACTLY what they are doing and how it will help overall and in the long term.

[Deleted]

Discretionary spending hardly has any impact at all on the budget... and really, while there should be a general purging of inefficiencies, it isn't all that unreasonable... its the MANDATORY spending we have to cut... SS, Medi, Defense... et...

uhh... the only talking about SS at all IS OBama, last i saw... republicans don't actually want to DO anything... except stay in power...

[rockon]

dancin, Couldn't agree more. Just do the right thing and accept responsibility for it. The person who makes the first me will be my hero for the day.

[Deleted]

Earmarks are hardly worth mentioning... and everyone wants them gone, until they find out that is how their bridge gets built and their factories stay open... its MANDATORY spending we need to cut... not discretionary.

[fairlycrazy23]

In other news, after spending a hard and ultimately futile night out looking for his lost horses, the rancher said boldly and firmly "We will absolutely close the barn door starting today!"

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 26, 2011 14:30:00 GMT -5 oped said:

Earmarks are hardly worth mentioning... and everyone wants them gone, until they find out that is how their bridge gets built and their factories stay open... its MANDATORY spending we need to cut... not discretionary.

I don't even like the distinction, all spending is ultimately at the discretion of Congress.

[Deleted]

But you understand the distinction as it is used... correct?

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 26, 2011 14:33:29 GMT -5 oped said:

But you understand the distinction as it is used... correct?

Yes, mandatory is spending that has already been authorized and will continue (mostly all? are welfare/entitlement programs), discretionary is new spending or re-authorizing expiring spending.

They should change mandatory spending term to something else maybe 'ongoing spending'

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2011 14:30:00 GMT -5 oped said:

Earmarks are hardly worth mentioning... and everyone wants them gone, until they find out that is how their bridge gets built and their factories stay open... its MANDATORY spending we need to cut... not discretionary.

So...your idea of cutting spending is pretty much bass ackwards from a normal budgeting or reducing costs scenario?

Let's take it from a YM standpoint: You believe in chopping the mortgage (mandatory) payment while waiting to see about the cable (discretionary) bill? Interesting take there.

[b2r]

Reid to Obama on earmarks: 'Back off'

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell

Dismissing President Barack Obama's opposition to earmarks as "an applause line," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told NBC News on Wednesday that the president should "back off" and let lawmakers continue to direct spending to their home districts.

Asked during a one-on-one interview with NBC whether Obama was wrong to promise a veto on any bill that contains earmarks, Reid quickly replied, "of course."

"This is an applause line," Reid said. "It's an effort by the White House to get more power. They've got enough power as it is."

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/26/5925377-reid-to-obama-on-earmarks-back-off-

Good cop Obama needs to be re-elected, bad cop Reid is good for 6.

[rockon]

Realistically the feds just like our states, need to put it all on the table. No sacred cows. We need to determine a 5 year plan that leads us to a balanced budget with an amendment that forces them to maintain a balance moving beyond that point. It's going to be painful, it needs to affect every single person and it needs to happen quickly because everyday that goes by is a deeper hole that we must get out of and last but not least it is not necessary to increase revenues to do it. As a matter of fact monies kept at the local level could be used much more effectively then when it is spent via Washington. So lets put pressure every where we can to make them step up to the plate and then reward the party who actually does it.

[Deleted]

"You believe in chopping the mortgage (mandatory) payment while waiting to see about the cable (discretionary) bill? Interesting take there. "

Well, i don't have cable either... I believe in being prudent about discretionary... so why pay 70 for cable, when we're satisfied with 30 for netflix/online stuff.... but i will say i think one of the reasons we've ben able to afford to have one parent home at all times is because our mortgage, taxes, insurance for the house is under 700$ a month... (which also has much lower utilities than a mcmansion would have) and because we don't buy cars every 2 years... the two BIGGEST expenses most families have... and my opinion is actually NOT unusually on YM...

And of coarse... it takes a LOT of little stuff to add up to the necessary savings (actually, you could cut ALL discretionary spending (which is of coarse unrealistic) and it would STILL not fix the budget... it is that small of a percentage...

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 26, 2011 15:00:56 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jan 26, 2011 14:30:00 GMT -5 oped said:

Earmarks are hardly worth mentioning... and everyone wants them gone, until they find out that is how their bridge gets built and their factories stay open... its MANDATORY spending we need to cut... not discretionary.

So...your idea of cutting spending is pretty much bass ackwards from a normal budgeting or reducing costs scenario?

Let's take it from a YM standpoint: You believe in chopping the mortgage (mandatory) payment while waiting to see about the cable (discretionary) bill? Interesting take there.

Well both a cell phone and satellite tv would both be considered mandatory spending because you have already authorized them (you are in a contract).

And in the case of a mortgage, if you can't afford the mortgage payment alone, cutting the cable bill won't change that, you need to downsize, shrink your mandatory payments

[rockon]

oped, It appears you do well with personal finances. To bad more Americans don't handle their personal finances as well as you but most of all we need our elected officials to handle our countries finances with this much diligences. If they did we wouldn't be having this conversation and the sooner we demand this change the better.

[Deleted]

It is not 'ass backwards' at all... if you keep necessary expenses low (ie. at basic, necessary, levels) then you can save and also have room for some 'extras'... Its obvious really... choosing a 1000 appartment over a 1500 apartment gives you 500 dollars a month... you can have 100 worth of extras, and still save 400... much better than trying to find 400 worth of shampoo and coffee to cut in a month...

[Deleted]

I'm not saying that Mandatory government spending shouldn't be looked at. It most definitely should. There are huge cuts that MUST be made in that area if this country wants to reign in its fiscal problems. However, we should first be focusing on reducing or eliminating as much discretionary spending as possible while also making cuts to mandatory spending.

While discretionary is a small percentage, it is still something that needs to be addressed.

Some people on these boards have a post going about a $1M electric bill. Some of those same people were also saying that a $54M cut in some program last year wasn't worth it since $54M means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I beg to differ with that. You've got to start somewhere.

Edit: I can't type words correctly today, apparently! ;D

[burnsattornincan]

This shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone. He ran on a useless platform of "hope", as in "let's hope things work out since I don't know what the hell I'm doing and my advisors are all useless, communist, academic blowhards, tax cheats and other assorted criminals who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag..."

It is a good thing I'm in an office alone Mr. ed1066. It would be hard to contain myself in the immediate presence of others.

[Deleted]

The thing is, people seem to equate discretionary with 'waste'... when in fact, discretionary spending is often very necessary... vital to the local areas, and research, and would either just have to be transfered somewhere else... or be sorely felt locally... and most people, while for cutting 'other people's' spending.... are not so keen on cutting their own...

... did you read that 1 M electric bill post? ... First of all, if you dig into it, that was not 1M for the month... they were undercharged some months and had to make a 'make up' payment... never was it more than 300K a month... ahttp://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2011/01/25/update-wusas-report-on-federal-building-lights-misses-the-mark/ and the building in question is huge.. and by square food uses less than most commercial builidngs...

[rockon]

Of course we need to look at every type of spending. On a personal level it would not be prudent to say since my home mortgage is so large I really don't care what I spend for utilities or cable. We need to improve efficiencies and reduce spending at all levels otherwise we could never achieve the goal of a balanced budget. most likely any efficiency study would conclude that controls and money kept at a local level make much more sense and would save us billions if not trillions. (and as a bonus it would be what our constitution requires)

[fairlycrazy23]

discretionary is all spending that has not already been authorized, this includes the ongoing operation of the Federal Government (the budget submitted by the president).
So that goes back to my point of it being somewhat confusing to the average joe to distinguish between mandatory (previously authorized) and discretionary (not already authorized) spending.

Just as a side note, the reason DOD is discretionary and not mandatory is probably linked to this little nugget in the Constitution:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

[rockon]

Surprisingly enough it seems like there is common agreement that we must cut our spending even if there is still going to be plenty of discussion on exactly where or how much. So what can we do to encourage these guys in Washington to move on it and how do we avoid the typical Republican vs Democrat crap that usually stops any movement on these things? Would it be better to tell every department to present a plan that comes up with reductions equal to 10% of their budget? This would be about what size of a cut we would need to make each year to reach a balanced budget in any reasonable time frame like 5 years or so. After that any growth in the economy or additional savings could be applied to our national debt which is really a big budget killer already. And speaking of debt maybe we need to negotiate with our creditors now since they are expecting the cost to service our debt will be one of the biggest costs in our budget by around 2020. Thats not very far away and will only get worse as we continue to pile more debt on.

[fairlycrazy23]

Asking Federal departments to cut will come out of the discretionary spending (the operation of the government is not a mandatory expense), the so called budget is ALL discretionary. You have to talk about mandatory, which is all already laws.

[rockon]

So lets talk about mandatory spending. Can we cut 10% of our spending in every category for 4-5 years in a row? Some of this can be achieved through efficiency gains but it's unlikely that anyone could find that much in gains alone so a good portion has to come from actual cuts like reduced benefits or a reduction in who qualifies for these benefits. The Military can be cut but needs balanced with providing for our defense.

[rockon]

Wow it's amazing how people clam up when you start talking specifics and who might be affected. Maybe thats why its not getting done. The politicians know we don't want anyones benefits cut either or at least we don't want to be the first to say it. I put my suggestion out there as a starting point. Any seconds for the motion?