Obama’s $3.8T Budget (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out his plan to pay off America’s financial debt:
“But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we’ll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it. (Applause.)”
Now the New York Times clarifies what President Obama meant when he said he would repay America’s trillion dollar debt:
“President Obama will send a $3.8 trillion budget to Congress on Monday for the coming fiscal year that would increase financing for education and for civilian research programs by more than 6 percent and provide $25 billion for cash-starved states, even as he seeks to freeze much domestic spending for the rest of his term.”
Total savings? At best, three percent of the projected deficit:
“The three-year freeze would save $250 billion over the coming decade, assuming the overall spending on the domestic programs is permitted to rise no more than the inflation rate for the remainder of the decade — an austerity that neither party has ever achieved in Washington. Even so, the $250 billion in savings would be less than 3 percent of the total deficits projected through 2020.”
Oh, and that recent 4th Quarter 2009 GDP of 5.7%? It may be due to inventory changes, and analysts expect continued sluggish growth and high unemployment.
— DRJ
PS — At the GOP retreat attended by President Obama, Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling:
“… cited Congressional Budget Office statistics putting the average deficit during 12 years of GOP House control at $104 billion and the average deficit under three years of Democratic control at $1.1 trillion.”
Obama disputed Hensarling’s statistics as “factually just not true” and said: “With all due respect, I’ve got take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do. The whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”
UPDATE 1/31/2010: The budget for FY2010 reportedly forecasts a $1.6T deficit.
No wonder the audience chuckled at that line.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:20 pmThey’re freezing the discretionary spending after last year’s 10% increase.
Where’s Michale Steele and Meghan’s daddy?
happyfeet (713679) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:23 pmwhat are “tax cuts for investment fund managers?” Is that douche-speak for capital gains taxes?
happyfeet (713679) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:25 pmDRJ, did you see this piece, linked off of Glenn Reynolds’ blog?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:28 pmNo, I hadn’t seen that, SPQR. Thanks for the link but I don’t have the stomach to read it tonight.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:30 pmOkay, I read it anyway. So that’s another $800B per year added to the deficit?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:32 pmthis applies to us all now………
is there any way to get him to take a piss test? as the C-in-C for the military, you’d think they’d wanna see WTF he’s been smoking. either that or they need to test those vegetables the First Klingon had someone grow out back in “her” garden…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:32 pmtodays headlines;30 billion tax breaks for business;200 bilion to who ever will take the show trial new york is rejecting. can it be any clearer what the priorities are?
clyde (1459de) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:35 pmHensarling should hve also mentioned that under the 12 years of GOP control Taxation per % of GDP was the lowest going all the way back to hoover
For decades I have always used this page to access the government budget and got this message
.
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:38 pmI cant find it
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:40 pmWell I had to type in my own search string piggy backing off of the 2003 budget to get the 2009 budget
but here are the facts – BTW I would down load it because, well it might become a tad bit difficult to find especially after facts being thrown at the president
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:48 pmThe government isn’t posting timely bankruptcy statistics, either, Eric. The statistics are supposed to be posted quarterly here but the last update was June 2009 (the fiscal year report goes thru 9/09). In the Bush years, the updates were posted during the month following the end of each quarter.
It’s been this way since Obama came into office. More recent bankruptcy statistics can *sometimes* be accessed through the Newsroom but you have to know what you’re looking for and it takes time to find them.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/30/2010 @ 8:19 pmWhy in the world would the federal government be sending money to “cash-starved” states?
We pay the federal income taxes so that the federal government can do the work of the federal government.
We pay state taxes so that the state government can do the work of the state.
That’s why we vote in local, state and federal elections.
I’m really not a “states rights” guy in the sense that I know full well the federal government has a place in maintaining the peace and the rights of all its citizens.
But, by gosh, if the people of an individual state can’t elect representatives with the sense enough not to run it into the ground, what’s the point of having state elections?
Seriously, let’s take a random state — say California. It has sudden green-guy and Kennedy in-law Arnold as the governor, a majority Democratic legislature, the Speaker of the House, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein as U.S. Senators.
These are the smartest people in the world and they belong to the Party of the Smartest People in the World(TM), except for Arnold, and they represent the richest state in the nation and the state is going to go belly-up again in March?
I blame George W. Bush. That bastard.
Ag80 (1592cc) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:08 pmDRJ
We’ll on one hand I’m glad it isnt just me losing what little grip I have left on reality 🙂 but then – its kinda sad…
EricPWJohnson (7585b7) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:22 pmI know this isn’t the right thread but the NY Post is still featuring a “Lousiana senator ‘Bug'” story dated the 27th as a current story headlined on its website. Thought I’d mention it if anyone is in contact with those still trying to get the proper corrections made.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/acorn_filmmaker_among_four_arrested_ndukbN1yJi7Hpm6aCOypNL
elissa (fa4a18) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:54 pmThanks, elissa. I’ll let Patterico know.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:58 pmWhy is it when this administration says “transparency”, I hear that line from “The Princess Bride” movie:
Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means”
rtrski (5c372f) — 1/31/2010 @ 6:12 amTransparency: use it in a sentence.
It is quite transparent that this administration is doing its best to eliminate the transparency of their machinations via their closed door policy at all levels of government.
political agnostic (515f92) — 1/31/2010 @ 10:03 amObama’s transparency is so in-depth that it has crossed over to invisibility. The machinations of the Obama administration are invisible to most who want to see them. And that coincides with Pelosi’s pledge to have the “most ethical[ly challenged] Congress in history”.
John Hitchcock (d004ce) — 1/31/2010 @ 10:39 amMore bad news in the Update.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/31/2010 @ 8:55 pmI think it’s time for a new stalactite graph.
John Hitchcock (f78ce7) — 1/31/2010 @ 9:52 pmDoesn’t a $3T deficit (FY-2009 $1.4T + FY-2010 $1.6T), in just two years, exceed the total of all eight of the deficits of that spendthrift GWB?
AD - RtR/OS! (951da8) — 1/31/2010 @ 10:03 pm…and politically, this – the upcoming election in November – will be double difficult since the final figures for the Fiscal Year are normally published during the last week of October. A lot of incumbents, especially those with a “D” following their names, will have a lot to answer for when those numbers get set down in ink – it will have to be ink since the broadcast media, except for Rush and the other members of the VRWC in talk-radio, will studiously ignore the bad news.
AD - RtR/OS! (951da8) — 1/31/2010 @ 10:13 pm> … will be double difficult since the final figures for the Fiscal Year are normally published during the last week of October.
The operative word is “normally”.
Start predicting now that they are delayed due to “unspecified problems”.
Predict it now and continue making the prediction for the next nine months.
You can claim the mantle of a prophet, because you can bet on it as certainly as you can bet on spending from Congress.
This way people will be predisposed to cough (bullsh**!) as well they should when it happens, and the effect of the delay will be zero or negative.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 2/1/2010 @ 9:14 am