Obama Budget to Call for Freeze in Non-Security Discretionary Spending
On an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior administration official outlined the Obama administration’s plan to call for a freeze in non-security discretionary spending spending starting with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. 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. (Let me note right here that all of the reporters on the call, myself included, screwed up and forgot to seek clarification as to whether this is a nominal freeze or a real dollar freeze).
The freeze would not apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, or to the foreign operations budget of the State Department. The official emphasized that the freeze is not the only element of the administration’s plans for deficit reduction, just the only element he was prepared to discuss on this particular call. “This is only one component of an overall budget,” he said, “you’ll see other components on Monday.”
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.
This of course leaves some serious unanswered questions about both specifics and political strategy. To try to game this out, let’s assume that Obama is really serious about tackling weak claims rather than weak claimants. That means you’ll see a proposal for drastic, politically unrealistic cuts in farm subsidies while keeping in place growing funding for useful things like community health centers. So what happens when that hits congress?
Scenario one is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks like Kent Conrad turn out to like farm subsidies, decline to implement those cuts, and pass a budget that doesn’t actually freeze spending. Then Obama gets to chide them, and say it’s not his fault congress is so spendy.
Scenario two is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama launches a big political crusade on behalf of his cuts, threatening to veto anything that doesn’t come close to the spirit of what he’s proposing. That would be . . . interesting.
Scenario three, the really troubling one, is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama draws a line in the sand over the concept of a freeze, while being flexible about the details. Under that scenario, the weak claims don’t get cut and instead the politically powerless need to bear the brunt of the burden of a tactical political gambit.
Last, though probably least likely (call it Scenario Q) the administration has actually tried to draw up what it thinks is a politically realistic list of spending cuts that doesn’t touch the most famously untouchable areas of the budget. I don’t even have any idea what that would look like.
Last week in a paper for CAP, Michael Linden criticized undue emphasis on discretionary spending freezes as a solution to fiscal problems:
Freezing discretionary spending, the spending that Congress reappropriates every year, at current levels will similarly yield only very small budgetary savings. The federal government spent a bit more than $625 billion on non-defense discretionary programs in 2009. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in five years, the federal government will spend about $660 billion on the same programs. Freezing non-defense discretionary spending at current levels would therefore only produce a total savings of $35 billion in 2015. That year, the budget deficit is expected to be around $760 billion. Saving $35 billion would solve less than 5 percent of the problem. There may be some savings to be found in non-defense discretionary programs, but a spending freeze would accomplish extremely little in the way of measurable deficit reduction.
The official emphasized that there’s more to the administration’s plans that this freeze proposal, though what that might be will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I’m very skeptical of this approach. I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.
176 Responses to “Obama Budget to Call for Freeze in Non-Security Discretionary Spending”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 25th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
instead the politically powerful need to bear the brunt of the burden of a tactical political gambit
I think you mean “politically powerless“, no? Or am I missing something?
January 25th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Freezing non-defense discretionary spending at current levels would therefore only produce a total savings of $35 billion in 2015. That year, the budget deficit is expected to be around $760 billion. Saving $35 billion would solve less than 5 percent of the problem. There may be some savings to be found in non-defense discretionary programs, but a spending freeze would accomplish extremely little in the way of measurable deficit reduction.
This is intended as a political tactic, not something serious to cut the deficit. Obama knows that the Republicans are going to be attacking him hard on the budget for the next year. And inevitably when the GOP are talking about the budget, somebody will ask them, well what do you propose? The standard GOP response is “across the board freeze”. But now, Dems can respond: “we’re already doing that, what else do you want to do?” To which the GOP does not have an answer, currently.
January 25th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
hm, i seem to recall the liberals really savaging this proposal when it was made by tim pawlenty a couple months ago…
January 25th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I’m confused: why is this post showing up through Google reader but not on the actual website (going straight to Yglesias doesn’t reveal the post)?
January 25th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Now it’s up, nevermind.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
If this actually gets out of committee I’ll happily write my Senators and Congressperson to ask that they back reduced farm subsidies. Why in the hell is it so difficult to defeat the Archer Daniels Midland corp?
January 25th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
We’ve got 50 mini-Hoovers running the states and now we have a mega-Hoover in the WH. We are so fucked.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Obamareagan adopted Republican talking points and framing durig the campaign. Harry and Louise p 2.
Stealth Friedmanite from University of Chicago. How long have Republicans been training the mole?
January 25th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Al nails it.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I’ve been warning you Rubes for the past day –but did you listen. Noooooo.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
After Matthew gets through discussing how Obama is gonna help the Middle Class, maybe we could discuss how many angels can dance on the head of pin.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Give it up, Matt. There’s no 11 dimensional chess game here–Obama I’d a corporatist tool.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Mr. A. Schwarzenegger, charismatic centrist, currently has a 27% approval rating. He seems likely to leave office with a comparable approval rating.
If the Obama fellow thinks his path to universal popularity is to slash the safety net, health care, education or infrastructure spending (the Department of Agriculture only costs so much, after all) as opposed to cutting Pentagon spending and crime and prison spending he’s got another thing coming. Maybe we need President Brown after all.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Last summer, or even last month, this would be taken as a serious proposal. But now? An act of desperation? Or well thought out economic policy? November = Bloodbath.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
CHANGE is coming this November…
January 25th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Obama has been liberated from that damn oppressive Democratic Senate Majority. Free at Last!
January 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
http://digg.com/politics/Matthew_Yglesias_Obama_Budget_to_Call_for_Freeze_in_Non_Se
January 25th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I’ll second that.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Re matthew’s comment: “I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left”
HEY, if I had to suck Mitch McConnell’s dirty cock to pay the bills, i would pretend it was my idea too.
Call it “Senatorial comity”. “Bipartisanship”
Anybody seen Rahm?
January 25th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
18:Bullshit. This comes from Oszag, Romer, Summers etc.
Obama has been a cruel deficit hawk since the inauguration.
This is not 11 dimensional chess, this is who Obama is.
Tax cuts and social spending cuts, big defense, bullshit spin and flowery speeches.
Reagan redux.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
So how is that $1.9 Trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling coming? VISA says you will hit your limit by Feb 7???
January 25th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Say adios to the majorities in Congress. I’m sure Obama will enjoy the years of “bipartisan” Congressional investigations into gate crashers and other important affairs of the state.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Inflation won’t be factored in, so this is a cut in “non-defense discretionary spending” (does any other phrase do more damage to the cause of real deficit reduction?).
January 25th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Weak. Cynical. Gutless. Finger in the wind politics.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
A freeze that exempts the Pentagon? Didn’t Matt go full tilt batshit when Conrad or whoever the fuck proposed this not long ago?
January 25th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Can I just say — I have no idea yet what I think of this policy, but I am impressed by the journalistic side of the story.
Am I getting it right that this is a major scoop delivered directly to the progressive blogosphere??
And — whether that’s true or not — this is pretty sharp analysis for MY to be generating in a matter of a couple hours.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Someone should have told the president that you never go full retard.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Party like it’s 1937.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
On Digby’s blog, someone called Obama a catastrophe. Depending on what Obama has in the works with this one, there may be no other way to describe this policy. With luck, there’s a game plan to this that we’re all missing, but I fear there’s not. Republicans are going to call for more cuts. What will he do then given what we’re seeing from him right now?
January 25th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
NYT says it’s a freeze in nominal dollars — i.e., it’s really a cut.
But, going by the post date, Matt scooped them on everything else about the story. Moreover, you get your policy analysis *and* your meta-political analysis (see the cynical last sentence) all in one package.
Hats off.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Why is this such a bad idea? I realize the economy is weak, and the last thing you want to do is cut the budget, but the budget isn’t going to be cut (save for one-time bailout expenditures that hopefully won’t occur every year). Entitlements and defense will both increase by many billions of dollars. And hopefully they’re only talking about a inflation-adjusted freeze. Also, it’s not clear to me from Matt’s post that this bullshit “freeze” would preclude additional stimulus (just don’t call it part of non-defense discretionary spending; call it “jobs” spending or somesuch).
It’s a pretty meaningless gesture, but if the healthcare bill somehow manages to get enacted, I don’t see the huge harm. The millions of economically semi-illiterate people who vote apparently think the country’s on the verge of being repossessed by the Chinese, so they’re bound to like the idea, and there is, you know, an election to fight in the fall.
This strikes me as standard election year US political BS boilerplate 101. Not worth getting worked up about.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
NYT says it’s a freeze in nominal dollars — i.e., it’s really a cut
Ugh. Are they high? I guess that pretty much demolishes my suckup @31.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Kafka: Matt said he is highly skeptical. And, supposedly, there are going to be other proposals. Obviously if this freeze were all that was being considered it would be worth freaking out over.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
With luck, there’s a game plan to this that we’re all missing, but I fear there’s not.
Well, that was my thinking @31, but no allowance for inflation — ie., a cut in real terms rather than a “freeze” in real terms — just seems wildly wrong-headed.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Okay, now that I’m done sucking up to MY, I’ll give an opinion about the policy.
If this goes together with a) populist-sounding economic proposals b) a serious determination to fight for comprehensive health care reform and c) a serious statement on DADT …
I will be totally pumped. I want the administration to pursue left policy in a politically savvy way, which requires showmanship at times. What I see in the package outlined above are a) pretty impressive progressive policy achievements followed by b) a tactically brilliant political repackaging. I really, really, really like the looks of this.
That being said, MY’s questions about farm policy are sharp. And, of course, it’s really not clear yet that Obama has any intention of fighting for comprehensive HRC.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
I’m getting tired of politicians following the economic stupity of the American people. Politicans need to tell them that balance budgets in a recession is a really stupid idea, and that some of the economic problems of this nation can be traced to economic policies that the American people suported. Now is the time to display elitism because the biggest problem is not with Washington but with the incredibly stupid American people.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
[...] people should see my initial reaction. That being said, there are still details to work out and Matt Yglesias runs through some of them. I trust Yglesias a lot, and while he admits his skpeticism, I will wait before commenting much [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
[...] tags: deficits, federal budget, fiscal policy by Jamelle Matt Yglesias does the admirable work of explaining President Obama’s bizarre plan for a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I will be totally pumped. I want the administration to pursue left policy in a politically savvy way, which requires showmanship at times
You would think. The problem with Obama is that sometimes he seems to drink his own kool-aid when it comes to seeking “middle ground.” I don’t think he’s cynical enough to propose a spending freeze for show as a back door to pushing through liberal reforms.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Why don’t you man-up and tell us who this official is? Why is this a secret?
I’ve never trusted journalists who won’t disclose their informants, and I’m not going to trust bloggers that won’t do the same.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Seriously, what the hell does ‘non-security discretionary’ spending add up to? A few billion or something?
January 25th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Ted is another “eleven dimensional chess” Obama cutlist/useful idiot.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
What I see in the package outlined above are a) pretty impressive progressive policy achievements …
Yeah, “populist-SOUNDING economic proposals, “a serious DETERMINATION to fight for comprehensive health care reform,” and “a serious STATEMENT on DADT,” sure would be impressive policy achievements.
Or, rather, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
The bottom line is this:
With this insane Hooverite policy Obama will set the country and progressive causes back 20 years.
It’s time to bolt fro the Democratic Party, this should make it CLEAR Obama is NOT where any true person of the Left should place their hopes, as Greenwald and others have been pointing out for a year now…
January 25th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Why don’t you man-up and tell us who this official is? Why is this a secret?
No kidding. Why is this guy anonymous? It’s not like he’s leaking some kind of secret information that could damage his career for revealing. Why do you put up with this bullshit, MattY? Tell us who this “senior administration official” is.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Everyday I get a “Throw a State of the Union Watch Party” email from Organizing for America. Why the fuck would I do that now? To hear about spending freezes and no health care? To see cutaways of Boehner’s smug sneer? To listen to my guests justifiably rant about DADT for two hours?
January 25th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Re Jonathan at 40: “I’ve never trusted journalists who won’t disclose their informants, and I’m not going to trust bloggers that won’t do the same.”
Since I cannot think of any reason why Matthew should give a hairy rat’s ass about your trust, I will intervene and point out that the
New York Times has the story also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html?hp
Maybe they will give you their sources.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Or maybe Jonathan could check with something called the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503549.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
January 25th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
By the way, Lori Montgomery’s timestamp on her Wash Post story is 7:52 p.m. ET.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
I don’t think Obama always plays 11-dimensional chess. The health care thing dragged on too long. He expected bipartisanship that never came.
But this actually does seem pretty smart to me, politically. If we can reposition ourselves as semi-credible deficit hawks, the GOP is f*cked.
And as Matt grasps, the fact that this announcement has 70% of the commenters here pissed off … is a central part of the plan.
Whatever. Obviously I’m not going to persuade people. But I like it, as a piece of theater.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
So it’s official now — spending more than the rest of the world combined on war, and increasing that spending every year, no matter what the condition of the economy, no matter what the objective security condition, is the policy of the Democratic Party.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
B-b-but the Washington Post publishes known climate change liar George Will and the New York Times refuses to call waterboarding torture even though that’s a proven fact, so nothing they say can be trusted.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Yeah, who cares if the economy tanks like it did in 1937 Ted?
What matters is that Obama punched some hippies again (with Rahm’s instructions) and people on the left are pissed.
Yay, Barack Herbert Hoover Obama!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Hello? McFly? Where have you been? Obama CAMPAIGNED on increasing military spending.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I was completely glossing over the fact that this “freeze” (ie cut in real terms) is for three years. This is just godawful. Matt’s probably right, though: they’re probably trying to provoke a reaction from the left. Maybe the left-wing sound and fury, combined with this Friday’s strong GDP numbers, will convince the SUV set that Obama’s not a communist, and help start nudging his numbers upwards again, and that will help the Senate bill pass. I don’t know what else to say.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Obama is too far right for DeLong, Krugman, and Yglesias, and they’re all centrists. Obama is worse than I could have imagined (though McManus tried to tell me.)
January 25th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Looks like some other-world chess match Obama is playing with the world, but what if the result is some taxes actually go up for the super-rich (the only people alive in America who can actually pay increased taxes) to help pay for some increases in favored expenditures? I know, a guy can dream. Or maybe congress will put two synapses together and decide defense spending decrease in order to pay for some useful service. I dunno. We’ll see
January 25th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
I also question whether this is Obama’s idea or whether he is being FORCED to ..er..swallow it in order to get past a Republican filibuster of Obama’s pressing need to raise the federal debt limit.
I noted this at 1:12PM today on an earlier thread:
——————-
Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch:
From http://www.waaytv.com/global/story.asp?s=11876087
“WASHINGTON—As public scrutiny intensifies on Washington’s penchant for spending and borrowing, senators will face a clear choice this week when they consider a measure to legally limit the growth of discretionary spending over the next four years.
The proposal, offered by a bipartisan group of senators including U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), presents a rare opportunity to impose budget discipline on Congress. The proposed spending caps will be considered as an amendment to broader Senate legislation needed to permit the U.S. Treasury to borrow more money.”
January 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Bush’s Third Term?
We’re living it, folks.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I’m just lovin’ all the Obama-hate from members of his own party. We have something in common after all. Keep it coming.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
or maybe Obama is taking some ammo away from the Republicans. Just enough to maintain a majority in Congress. Then he’ll take a little more ammo away from Republicans in 2012 and get his self reelected POTUS. Then, and only then, will he be confident enough to do things he was elected to do.
Doesn’t seem to be a good plan, because Republicans and invent fresh ammo out of thin air, and the media helps them, faster than Progressives or Obama can take it away.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Unlike you, Sean, we don’t blindly follow politicians because they claim to be on our side (like you idiots did with Bush, every time he force-fed you a shit sandwich (even by right wing “standards”) you said “mmmm. chocolate! May I have some more?”
January 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Tom, THERE IS NO ELEVENTH DIMENSION.
The corporations control both parties. Obama and his advisers (especially RAHM) are corporatist tools. Face it, this country is finished. Over. Done. We’re fucked.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
He campaigned on a lot of things.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Great, freeze everything that helps people in this country, but keep ramping up spending on wars overseas. Is Obama trying to piss off his own base intentionally?
And even if he puts this through, the republicans are still going to go after him.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
You Rubes still don’t get it — Scott Brown was a fucking Strategic Surprise for which Obama and the Democrats were totally prepared. A one in a 100 years Pearl Harbor that has buttfucked the Democratic Pooch in about 11 dimensions.
The full damage hasn’t even been acknowledged by Matthew and the Democratic leadership yet. No global warming action. No Financial Reform. NOTHING to help the middle and working classes. NOTHING to change the culture of corruption in Washington. Nothing to halt the Superrich’s relentless march to grab another 23 percent of the National Income.
Where is Rahm? I thought it was his JOB to protect the President from things like this.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
ProgressiveActivist Says:
January 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Give it up, Matt. There’s no 11 dimensional chess game here–Obama I’d a corporatist tool.
I think you mean, “Obama is a corporatist tool,” which I agree with.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Correction to 67: “a fucking Strategic Surprise for which Obama and the Democrats were totally UNPREPARED.”
January 25th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
When will the Democrats learn that defensive politics DOES NOT WORK? Nothing they do will prevent Republicans from describing them as granny-killing socialists. Changing policy to preempt expected criticism doesn’t do a damn bit of good if your opponents just MAKE SHIT UP.
To be fair, 1937 was FDR, not Hoover. Still depressing that Obama seems to want to repeat those mistakes. Who cares about a double-dip recession when we can have campaign ads that say we froze spending!
I was a big defender of Obama until last week, but his silence about health care during the great Scott Brown Freak-Out has really turned me off.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Is it clear to you all yet that I’m an empty suit, incompetent, ill-prepared for this job, and that you voted for me because I gave some pretty speeches?
SUCKERS!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
People, this is 50-60% a rhetorical move. Congress actually appropriates money, not the WH. The House may not play along. The part of the budget we’re talking about isn’t that large in any case.
I’m just saying, you don’t have to turn the freakout up to 11.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
What Politico sez, and all that political jazz? That this is about politics is completely and thoroughly dead wrong.
This is everything about assuaging bond vigilantes and preserving our access to the debt markets. Not showing our “responsibility” to the “public” or beating Republicans.
Don’t think that this won’t be the last such effort! This is only the start. Much of that flexibility Obama is manuevering for is precisely for HCR, bailouts (for banks and jobs), and the other high priority items. I also wonder whether this is intended to make available the funds for state bailouts or signal the lack of funds for such…
Again, this is just not a politics thing. Just Peak Debt. Keep your eyes on websites like Fistful of Euros, how Europe deals with the troubled coutries in its borderlands and how it acts in concerts wrt China is going to drive the thoughts about the context about the worth of US Bonds. Like I’ve been ranting about recently, the raw lack of function of the gov’t can’t have been anything but extremely concerning to major players with US bond reserves.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
I think so. By doing that he will get the votes of people who call him a fascist baby-killer and make pictures of him dressed as a witchdoctor and wave Confederate flags at him. It’s a brilliant strategy!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Don Williams, why are you an ass?
Do you not agree that Matt should disclose sources, without having to point me towards other articles?
Does that fact other reports did disclose who the official is exempt MattY from doing the same in some sense?
I’m an avid MattY reader, and generally support his views, and I have a bunch of respect for him… and for that purpose, I hope to keep him honest in his “reporting” posts.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Thinking more now, I think I understand Evan Bayh’s game more. He’s trying to get out in front of the inevitable budget cutting and trying to lock in gains by trying to drive discussion towards the most regressive actions rather than tax cuts and farm subsidies…So I think the latter part of Matt’s post here is of some merit.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
[...] Knapp | Monday, January 25, 2010 Matthew Yglesias reports that the Obama Administration is proposing a Discretionary Spending Freeze from 2011-2013. On an [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Re Jonathan at 75: “Do you not agree that Matt should disclose sources, without having to point me towards other articles? ”
—————
The first time a reporter or blogger –or a CIA officer –discloses a source without their permission, he ensures that he will not have any more sources in the future.
And before we get into the Scooter Libby-Judith Miller-Dick Cheney menage a trois, note that a GOOD reporter or blogger does not knowingly let a source con the American People — or con the blogger himself.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
@61 You have a thread full of unreconstructed Pumas, the insane, a couple revolutionary communists and some asshurt liberals who are not going to like the framing on this even if the substance probably doesn’t mean anything. Good luck with your new allies.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
When are you going to leave the Obama cult, Ed Marshall?
He’s a corporatist tool controlled by Rahm and the Rubinites. Greenwald has been saying this for MONTHS and lo and behold, it’s true.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Activist,
Still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I see. We already knew you hate Bush. Now you hate Obama too. With people like you, that’s what it all comes down to, isn’t it. The need to hate. Feed the beast.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Well you should love Obama, Sean. He’s for corporatism and more war and torture! CHANGE!
I guess you’ll be voting for him in 2012.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Ted,
It’s not the substantive impact. It’s that the HCR debacle and the “late unpleasantness in MA” have destroyed progresive’s trust in Obama. Right now the narrative is “not willing to fight, doesn’t know how to fight, and doesn’t know when to fight”
January 25th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Don’t forget the trolls!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
To the utter nincompoops tempted to believe that this is somehow good politics and now republicans will cease to be seen as the party of “fiscal restraint”: you are dead wrong!
HCR was going to reduce the deficit even in its final stupidly watered-down form, but did that make a damn bit of difference in the propaganda-addled minds of voters?
Enact sound policy for the good of the freaking country. Let’s give that a try before we bemoan the sad electoral state of democrats everywhere. It’s a radical plan indeed.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I don’t know, maybe if Greenwald makes his posts a couple 100,000 words longer?
I actually have you pegged as a ratfucker, I used to hang out at freerepublic.com back in 2002 and had a persona of an outraged conservative about Big Government Bush and his Medicare Bill the like.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
I will volunteer to go door to door for Obama’s primary challenger.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
So is Greenwald just a “ratfucker” too Ed Marshall? How about Matt Taibbi? He basically said a month ago Obama has betrayed everything he ran on (except for the right wing elements like expansion of illegal wars and following the Bush Plan on Iraq, and indefinite detetions).
January 25th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
There is no defending this. The areas that rightfully need the largest haircuts, “defense” and “homeland security,” will be spared and the cuts will further erode the government’s ability to provide for the welfare of its citizenry. The U.S. is seriously approaching failed state status, having already passed the stage of banana republic.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Oh no Jeff, Obama will ride in on a white horse and save us all…that’s what idiots like Ed Marshall probably thought in 2008.
America is in TERMINAL decline and Obama is just a smiling black face on the same rotten, corporatist/militarist system.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
You know, this thread is pretty interesting. It’s completely trolled up, but not really by the familiar trolls and full of recriminations…
January 25th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
@91: I agree.
When I said this was mostly rhetorical, I may have been wrong. Apparently he’s seriously promising to veto budgets that go over the freeze limit. That’s cold.
But I still think I like this. Assuming he comes out swinging for HCR on Wed. Which is a big assumption.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Oh the terminal shit was baked in the cake by Bush. I suspect Obama’s appeal to his backers was precisely that he’d manage the US’s situation a bit back from the brink.
I think we’ve all underestimated just how deep the rot was, and I was reading Chalmers Johnson about the archepelago of military bases quite a while before now. I was expecting the Big Sleep to start hitting around 2012, but the HCR debacle just about took ten years offa my life.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
ProgressiveVoice/Activist is a RW concern troll–I recognize his name and manner from other progressive blogs he frequently trolls, and he is known to spout typical RW talking points under other names.
That said, he’s not actually wrong.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
No, Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer, I know what he is doing.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
“No, Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer, I know what he is doing.”
What would that be? He’s waking you up to the fact that Obama is a right wing corporatist?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
What Matt, no link to Politics as a Vocation and no talk about the slow boring of hard boards?
You mean you can actually see that Obama and the Democrats are a fucking joke at this point?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
After I finished being angry, I reasoned that Obama’s lack of leadership was in part due to distractions (that election day and particularly the next day had a bunch of stuff going on) and in part due to the fact that he just didn’t have the power to make senators be responsible. I’m pretty sure the main reason you haven’t been hearing much from senators beyond a bit from Reid is that they really don’t want to pass HCR, but are just being completely browbeaten by everyone concerned that yes, they have been tactically and strategically outmaneuvered, and if they actually welsh on the prime facie agreement that HCR needs to happen along the lines of the current bill, that they will actually be punished for it, even the Blue Dog Senators. Obama is simply letting that process happen without inserting any sort of polarizing comments or giving anyone any chance to push off “HCR Failure” on someone else, namely him…
January 25th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
[...] and large majorities in both houses of Congress.I suspect those left-leaning bloggers will be fuming tomorrow:On an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior [...]
January 25th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
“At this point?” The Democrats have always been a fucking joke. Always have, always will.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
comment at 98 directed at ted…
will keep in mind about PR troll.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
also there’s no way a (democratic) congress agrees to this-they shot down even his relatively modest proposals to trim subsidies earlier in ‘09.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
You have got to be a spoof or you are most shitty, half-ass left radical on the planet. Why Greenwald? I can make up my own spoof and skewer him seven ways to sundown for being a liberal squish, red-baiting, democratic party tool. I don’t need to be “taught” anything.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
So, EM, is Obama a right wing corporatist or not? What about Rahm?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Matt, why are you so freaked out? For at least two or three months we’ve known that Obama was going to shut the government down in January. I mean, whip-dee-do.
Honestly, I can’t figure this blog out. Is it all a charade on your part or are you actually the one and only Slow Motion Man, a superhero blogger who reacts so lethargically that time does, truly, pass him by.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
At some point, maybe people will make a distinction between what the Democratic politicians say, and what they do. And when you reallize that what they do–as opposed to what they say–is not that much different than the Republicans, the distinctions between the two will blur, and you’ll be embarassed to associate with either.
As it stands, many Democrats on this blog compare what Democratic politicians say to what Republican politicians do, which is not an equal comparison. The opposite is true on other blogs.
When you realize that the apparatus itself is broken, and the people operating it have no interest in repairing it, the logical conclusion is to make the apparatus smaller, not larger.
Change? You fell for that? Well, don’t judge yourself to harshly–the Republican voters fall for smaller government and fiscal responsiblity lies constantly.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
The good news for me is that I can now stop wasting my money giving to political campaigns. I was warned by my Republican friends that I was wasting my money on the Dems. Turns out they were right.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Sheesh, it’s gotten pretty sad when a post by Al (#2) is sensible in comparison to the rest of the comments.
The actual dollar amounts involved here don’t seem like much as a percentage of the overall US budget. I don’t think $20-$30 billion per year either way is going to make or break the performance of a $14 trillion economy. This is more about politics.
Specifically, this sort of proposal strikes me as an effort to chip away at widespread and deeply influential myth that the federal budget can be balanced without harming programs that the great majority of the public considers untouchable. This particular mistaken belief has provided the underpinning for the GOP’s grotesquely dishonest domestic policy appeals for decades – from Reagan’s promises to curtail “waste, fraud and abuse” to McCain babbling about bear DNA studies.
That said, I’m pretty pessimistic about the prospect of bringing public perceptions of US fiscal policy anywhere close to reality. Delusions about government spending are deeply ingrained in the imagination of the ignorant majority.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
When you realize that the apparatus itself is broken, and the people operating it have no interest in repairing it, the logical conclusion is to make the apparatus smaller, not larger.
a. Wouldn’t that make sense only if the size of the apparatus is what causes its brokenness? That’s a defensible position (potentially) but needs to be defended.
b. How does that happen if “the people operating it have no interest in repairing it”?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Which delusions, specifically?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Definitely time to “freak out.”
January 25th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
This year appears to be a good year to find other interests than US politics.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Which delusions, specifically?
Proportion of the budget occupied by things like non-mandated social spending and foreign aid. People grotesquely overestimate sending on such things.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Which delusions, specifically?
The delusion that discretionary spending on non-security programs contributes significantly to the Federal deficit.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
That said, I’m pretty pessimistic about the prospect of bringing public perceptions of US fiscal policy anywhere close to reality. Delusions about government spending are deeply ingrained in the imagination of the ignorant majority.
The biggest mistake Obama is making is the fact that he’s working within the established narratives rather than actively trying to shift the perceptions of the electorate. By doing this, he risks leaving the country no better off structurally and ideologically than it was when he took office.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
If Obama thinks this is going to get the Republicans to cut him some slack then he is sadly mistaken. What a complete and utter fool. 2012 can’t come soon enough. Will be awesome to primary Obama right out of office.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
MYP: “I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.”
What was deliberately leaked, Matt? What’s with all the cloak and dagger. The Obama/McCain January freeze was big topic on the internet in late October and early November, and then once it was acknowledged to be a foregone conclusion, everybody stopped talking about it.
I swear, either this is some corpo/government strategy you guys have cooked up or you are blogging as if this were a video game, and we are just characters to be manipulated with an Xbox controller.
Creating a false sense of excitement does pump up the blog’s ratings, though, I’ll give you that. Too smart Yglesias.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Josh
a. Wouldn’t that make sense only if the size of the apparatus is what causes its brokenness? That’s a defensible position (potentially) but needs to be defended.
No. Accepting this premise: The apparatus is broken and will not be repaired. Even if the size is irrelevant as a cause, why continue to devote resources to it, that could be used elsewhere? Limited/simple example: The size of the vehicle usually is not a cause of its malfunctioning, yet, if deemed irreparable broken, why would you keep devoting resources to it?
b. How does that happen if “the people operating it have no interest in repairing it”?
It’s working for the politicians and corporations. And it’s working for the government workers. It’s working perfectly, in fact. It happens because the people designing the apparatus, design it in a way to meet their own needs. Not ours.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
edward writes:
Which delusions, specifically?
You obviously know little or nothing about US public opinion.
Start with the median American’s belief that foreign aid makes up 20% of the US federal budget, compared to roughly 1% in reality. Page 6, here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb01/ForeignAid_Feb01_rpt.pdf
Then, ponder the numbers in the poll cited below, in which vast majorities of Americans call for increased or maintained spending on almost everything the government spends money on. These are the same Americans who claim to support small government and balanced budgets, and who don’t want significant tax increases.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1336/more-budget-commission
These tendencies appear universally in opinion polls. Overall, public perceptions of fiscal policy are completely detached from reality.
January 25th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
If I wanted the Republican approach to budget deficits, I’d vote for motherfucking Republicans. What kind of bullshit is this? Reads like a fucking GOP platform, non-defense spending cuts….who is this guy? I am at a fucking loss…
January 26th, 2010 at 12:04 am
I myself am curious why no one in Democratic Washington is floating a “Soak the Motherfucking Rich” policy.
After all, we would only be asking Rich to pay off the $9 Trillion run up by those 3 motherfucking Republican Presidents that they installed.
You never hear that asskissing cocksucker George Will pontificating about the RICH showing some responsibility.
But then our goddamm modern day “opinion makers” are more fucking craven and corrupt than medieval Bishops.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:05 am
The apparatus is broken and will not be repaired. Even if the size is irrelevant as a cause, why continue to devote resources to it, that could be used elsewhere?
Because the apparatus even in its broken state does some goddamned important things, like alleviate poverty and fund scientific research.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:13 am
well, it looks like Obama’s trying to be Clinton. Except the economic Situation is much worse than 94 and the GOP is much crazier. we are in real deep doodoo and the Prez is panicking.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Well why are we paying more for the Military than everyone else combined. We are well and truly effed.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Noam Scheiber wrote about this likely strategy last month: http://www.tnr.com/article/metro-policy/balancing-the-budget?page=0,1
I recommend the article. It helps put it in the context of the administration’s broader policy agenda.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:26 am
Tyro writes:
The problem with trying to directly create a new narrative to supplant an old narrative is that voters who are attached to the old one (in this case, the great majority) will take that as evidence that you’re out of touch. An initiative like this tries to undermine the narrative indirectly, by forcing the GOP to state what other spending they would freeze or cut.
Unfortunately, as I said, I’m pessimistic about effectiveness – the public delusions are simply too widespread and too deep. And, as with health care, the Republicans will do everything they can to obscure the issues at stake by flinging focus-group tested gibberish into the national discourse.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Because the apparatus even in its broken state does some goddamned important things, like alleviate poverty and fund scientific research
Poverty: There’s no law against people pooling their money privately and redistributing exactly as they see fit. Is it splitting hairs to suggest “perpetuate” rather than “alleviate”? Without government, you’d help the poor, right? Can people express compassion without government?
Scientific research: Your faith-based support of government is revealing itself. Private companies invest heavily in scientific research, with corresponding increases in productivity. And the lower their tax rate is, the more they invest. Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences, in congressional testimony noted: “I suppose that university presidents have always known that he who pays the piper will one day call the tune… [Now], while avowedly only purchasing research services, the government uses the threat of withholding payment as the means of enforcing laws unrelated to those services.”
The more important the issue is, the more important it is to not have a broken apparatus managing it.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:31 am
You could eliminate all non-discretionary spending and we’ld still be in deficit.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:31 am
I’d be flattered, if that wasn’t the New Republic…
They got no cred.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:34 am
Scientific research: Your faith-based support of government is revealing itself. Private companies invest heavily in scientific research, with corresponding increases in productivity. And the lower their tax rate is, the more they invest.
You’re either a parody troll or a complete moron. The lion’s share of BASIC research is funded by the government- by definition it’s stuff that doesn’t pay off in the short time frames in which profit-making companies must operate. And without the resulting new discoveries, the APPLIED research funded by industry will eventually grind to a halt. And anybody who woks in a technology-intensive industry will be happy to explain this to you.
I won’t even dignify your other “point” with a response.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:52 am
[...] Para poner las cosas más difíciles, Obama pretende congelar el gasto en agregado, no en todos los programas. Esto quiere decir que la administración intentará aumentar el gasto en programas “buenos” (digamos educación, I+D, gatitos) mientras reduce el gasto en programas “malos” (como las excepcionalmente incompetentes subvenciones agrícolas). Como señala Ezra Klein, esto es una maniobra peligrosa: los programas malos están allí porque tienen muchos amigos en el Congreso (Monsanto ama la subvenciones agrícolas), mientras que los buenos son pequeños porque realmente no tienen demasiados amigotes (los pobres no tienen lobistas pidiendo guarderías). Si Obama quiere meterse en gloriosas batallas políticas para reducir las subvenciones a Monsanto los pobres granjeros de la América profunda, buena suerte. La va a necesitar. [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 1:08 am
Huh. Volcker, stagflation killer, re-arrived on the scene recently…and now this.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:14 am
[...] an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening… Go to Blog Post – © POPNEWS | POPULAR NEWS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. var cookie = [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 2:16 am
America is fucked.
Fuck Obama and his idiot team.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:09 am
Rahm said he’d make progressive bloggers pay. What better way than to hit them in the program pocketbook.
If it were the Bayh family checkbook, there’d be plenty of money to go around.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:13 am
What most other people said…any way, “screwed up and forgot to seek clarification as to whether this is a nominal freeze or a real dollar freeze”: “President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that”
It occurs to me that all this is in character with his social security reform ideas back during the primaries, but of course that was the sacrifice we had to make in order to get out of Afghanistan and close Guantanamo.
January 26th, 2010 at 3:20 am
Speaking of which, “On the Social Security front, Yves Smith recently groaned over a report (via Jesse’s Café Américain) that the Obama administration was seeking to promote conversion of retirement accounts to annuities.”
From the same place as the previous quote:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2010/01/dustbin-of-history-looking-increasingly_25.html
January 26th, 2010 at 3:31 am
Yglesias says: “let’s assume that Obama is really serious about tackling weak claims rather than weak claimants.”
Yes, let’s assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary based on his record. And then spin some scenarios based on that extremely dubious proposition. That will be a useful exercise.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:24 am
The sad part is that Matty actually found this Obabullshit being blown up his ass “exciting”.
After his yeoman work spinning for the WH he should at least be getting tongue don’t you think?
January 26th, 2010 at 5:10 am
[...] Matt Yglesias runs through the scenarios for how the proposed freeze will pass through the congressional sausage machine. But he is actually skeptical the proposal is serious. Yglesias concludes, “I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.” That is, Obama is inviting a fight with the left in order to center himself. [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 5:13 am
Jean Paul: That was sarcasm on Matt’s part. He’s obviously totally pissed.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Does Obambi think that because it will be decried by left and right that the middle will see it as anything more than a political stunt?
Memo to Barry: There is no O in Scott Brown. Well there is, two of them, but you get the drift.
The WH is certainly correct that this isn’t pale beer Clintonism…. it isn’t that good… though probably the only thing that will save him now is a good fuck in the Oval Office. Not the fuck over he’s been giving the middle class.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:32 am
[...] about saving money, today the Obama Administration unleashed dual proposals. The first is to freeze government spending in 2012 and 2013. The second is to furlough all Federal Government employees on Tuesdays and [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 7:03 am
I wondered that Walt, thank you mon amie. But then I thought “Why would Matt be pissed over something which is not even symbolically significant? Why would he spill more ink over this nothing than he could muster for Guantanamo or eavesdropping on Americans or the escalation of the wars?”
Obama has thrown down a meaningless marker for the next Congress, a marker nobody expects to be honored. In American politics that is several lifetimes away.
Why would Matt be pissed? But brava to him for not making this Obama’a Sister Soulja moment.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:21 am
Two words: Herbert Hoover !
January 26th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Dammit.
I can take some political pandering, but if one makes pointless symbolic gestures for political gain, can we get some that won’t a) piss off a base that is already incredibly demoralized, and b) be politically disastrous?
I mean, we can make the argument that we need to spend in a recession to stimulate the economy– but this really undercuts it.
He needs really badly to shore up his left flank right now, and this has to be categorized under the heading of ‘unhelpful’.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:08 am
What a riot. Piss off the left, amuse the right and all over an amount roughly equal to the bonus pool for Goldman and Chase.
Keep up the good work.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Well the deficit needs to be reduced by allowing all the Bush tax increases to take effect on schedule, and then eliminated altogether by substantial further tax increases on six+ figure incomes.
Cutting spending on the ridiculous crap that annoys tea baggers is not going to gain a single Senate vote for the tax increases that are necessary.
January 26th, 2010 at 8:51 am
If this is real, Obama has lost his mind.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am
I’m hoping that the freeze is a counterweight to other measures – a show of combatting long term deficits, while in the short term there is more stimulus.
I think explicitly making discretionary spending a zero sum game is an effective way to put corporate giveaways on the defensive. It could backfire, but Republicans will have a hard time selling corporate giveaways to their base in the curent climate.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:17 am
[...] did some of the de rigeur outraged base stuff on my twitter feed last night over the proposed post-FY 2011 freeze in non-security discretionary spending. But all that said, it’s far from clear what this will mean in practice. For one thing, the [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 9:26 am
One truism I have learned from private industry is you can always cut your way to success.
Not.
January 26th, 2010 at 9:32 am
[...] Two: WTF? For pro and con on the looming domestic spending freeze, see Matt Yglesias (trying to put the best face on it) and Brad DeLong (“Barack Herbert Hoover Obama?”) Robert Reich thinks it’s a huge [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 9:52 am
[...] main policy initiatives; and hey, maybe even with it as cover for going after a few things like farm subsidies, then that all sounds okay to [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Steve LaBonne wrote, The lion’s share of BASIC research is funded by the government- by definition it’s stuff that doesn’t pay off in the short time frames in which profit-making companies must operate.
Of course it’s not just the short time frame—it’s that even with a very heavy handed “intellectual property” regime, it’s very difficult/impossible for firms to capture the benefits of basic research and exclude others. In that sense basic research has some of the properties of a public good. Though I’m guessing you knew that given your history of intelligent posts.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
[...] and Bigger Stimulus, but it’s looking more and more like that’s now off the table. I’m also with Matt in being pissed that this was apparently leaked to liberal bloggers in an attempt to win their outrage and, [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 10:32 am
[...] administration’s contention is that, unlike McCain’s proposed freeze, this operates more like a spending cap, with some programs’ funding going up and others down. As Matthew Yglesias put it, Obama is [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 10:38 am
[...] Yglesias got a bit dour last night, but this morning he seems to be cautiously optimistic: [Obama is] aiming for what you might call [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am
[...] (D-IN) appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to endorse President Obama’s new proposal to institute a discretionary spending freeze for two years. “The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
[...] administration’s contention is that, unlike McCain’s proposed freeze, this operates more like a spending cap, with some programs’ funding going up and others down. As Matthew Yglesias put it, Obama is [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 11:42 am
What’s hilarious is that the people here who just LOVE the fact that Obama hates the Democratic party and his voters are also apoplectic at the idea that those voters no longer support him.
You can’t have it both way, dipshits. Either you want liberals out of the Democratic party or you want them in it. Actions speak louder than words, and Obama and you fucknozzles have made it clear with your action how you really feel.
So suck it. 2 years and Obama goes down. Hope you all enjoy the Cult of Mr. One Term.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
[...] Matthew 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. [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Steve
The lion’s share of BASIC research is funded by the government
I know that. People here, for example, are debating Obamas’s spending cuts and what they SHOULD be…we are all clear about what they ARE. I know how research is financed. Do you want to discuss how they could be financed without the government this? Is your faith in government so solid that you cant even DISCUSS the possibly that your religion won’t be involved.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Steve
Steve
I encourage you to look into the work of Zvi Grilliches of Harvard. He found that of the 900 largest US compaines those that engaged in BASIC resarch predictably outperformed those that did not. In this scenario, the privatecompany and the public taxpayer benefit.
Zvi Griliches of Harvard University, in a study of 911 large American companies, discovered that the companies that engaged in basic research consistently outperformed those that neglected it.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
[...] Lemieux on proposed spending freeze: The most charitable construction, reflected in a couple of Matt’s scenarios, is that he’s trying to expose “deficit hawks” on both sides of the aisle as [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Rahm said he’d make progressive bloggers pay. What better way than to hit them in the program pocketbook?
Echoed by FireDogLake:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/
January 26th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias won’t “give them the satisfaction”, The official emphasized that there’s more [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
[...] leaked to progressive bloggers in the hopes that they would freak out, is open to question. Matthew Yglesias thinks this was the case, but I was not on the conference call he discussed yesterday and don’t know if the story [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
[...] Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. John McCain are behind President Barack Obama’s call for a multi-year spending freeze on “non-security discretionary spending.” But these same politicians who want to impose [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I don’t know what’s going on in the heads of those clowns in Washington but if I were President I’d do an immediate “spending freeze.” Of course there would have to be little exceptions and loopholes. But the effect of my “spending freeze” would be to completely screw over all the “red states.” Highway bridge fall in the river? Sorry, but Uncle Sam can’t afford to fix it for you. Farm subsidies? Schools going broke? High unemployment? We’d be glad to help but our hands are tied by that pesky old “spending freeze.” Oh, and you say the local Army base is responsible for a quarter of the jobs in your district? Well, somebody’s got to show some fiscal discipline, and we’re going to start by shutting that base down and redeploying the soldiers to bases in “blue states.”
By the time I got done with my “spending freeze” all those people would be begging for Federal intervention.
January 26th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias takes a breath: “’I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.” [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
[...] January 26, 2010 Filed under: Budget | Tags: President Obama, Spending, Taxes | This Morning Matthew Yglesias put forth the following scenarios to describe what happens when Obama’s proposed spending [...]
January 26th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I like the political strategy suspected of Obama’s spending freeze move. I am one of those pragmatic, moderately liberal Democrats (who much admires Obama’s own moderate temperament) who thinks all of you far lefties are woefully unrealistic — and woefully uncreative — regarding how slowly, how incrementally, progressive policy change must be undertaken in this country in order to make real gains without backfiring.
January 26th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
…never go full retard…that is a good one.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:11 am
All they can do is inlate to get rid of overburdening debt – effects of curtailing discretiony spending are minimal … What’s wrong with Economics?
January 31st, 2010 at 6:48 pm
[...] families. Despite Bayh’s preening, “far left-wing” blogs haven’t been the only critics of Obama’s freeze. Additionally, part of why progressives are criticizing Obama about is not [...]