Obama to seek freeze on part of budget

[I'm Gone 60]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing voter anger over mounting budget deficits, President Barack Obama will ask Congress to freeze spending for some domestic programs for three years beginning in 2011, administration officials said Monday. Separately, Obama unveiled plans to help a middle class "under assault" pay its bills, save for retirement and care for kids and aging parents.

The spending freeze would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.

The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details. They said Obama was expected to propose the freeze Wednesday night in his State of the Union address.

The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Yobama is going to freeze spending on programs that affect U.S. citizens to send money to foreign countries, not touch the military that spends about as much as the rest of the world and propose new spending. I'm sure the Dems in Congress are going to jump right on this.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing voter anger over mounting budget deficits, President Barack Obama will ask Congress to freeze spending for some domestic programs for three years beginning in 2011, administration officials said Monday. Separately, Obama unveiled plans to help a middle class "under assault" pay its bills, save for retirement and care for kids and aging parents.

The spending freeze would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.

The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details. They said Obama was expected to propose the freeze Wednesday night in his State of the Union address.

The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Yobama is going to freeze spending on programs that affect U.S. citizens to send money to foreign countries, not touch the military that spends about as much as the rest of the world and propose new spending. I'm sure the Dems in Congress are going to jump right on this.

Hes gotta year to go shopping, GO STIMULUS!

[luckytxn 2,264]

I am sure making token freezing is gonna help his poll numbers. Sure the sheep will be bleating more loud though.

[alienlovechild 75]

Unfortunately, there's little to cut as interest payments on the debt and entitlement programs can't be cut by law. A simple freeze on a few budget areas is just for PR purposes and will be forgotten as easily as Obama's promise to cut "waste" in government spending with one hand while jacking up spending with the other. No one is buying what he's selling anymore.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hes gotta year to go shopping, GO STIMULUS!

:rofl:

[SMR 368]

I find it interesting that we are cutting domestic programs but foreign aid is protected spending. Something is backwards. Are foreign countries paying taxes to the US government now?

[mawilson 2,133]

I find it interesting that we are cutting domestic programs but foreign aid is protected spending. Something is backwards. Are foreign countries paying taxes to the US government now?

No, but it's part of our national security policy - we pay countries like Egypt to cooperate with the US in countering terrorism.

[Ali G. 37]

I am sure making token freezing is gonna help his poll numbers. Sure the sheep will be bleating more loud though.

On one and you are hating on him for spending, no you hate him for cutting back. Just say it, no matter what he does you will not support him, period.

[SMR 368]

On one and you are hating on him for spending, no you hate him for cutting back. Just say it, no matter what he does you will not support him, period.

The tax and spend government follows this cycle:

1. Increase spending, while increasing services for most taxpayers only marginally or not at all.

2. Realize that the budget doesn't balance.

3. Reduce critical services so that the average taxpayer feels the crunch and will agree to higher taxes.

4. Raise taxes to restore services to their original pre-step 1 state.

5. Repeat.

So taxes creep higher and higher while services stay about the same. This is well illustrated by the article that was in thread here not long ago, comparing Texas to California. Levels of service were similar while taxes are much higher in California. California is in a budget crunch and thus is trying to raise taxes/reduce critical services.

Every time there is a budget crunch, the government fires police officers and teachers or reduces something else visible. But when was the last time you heard about increased funding being used to increase these services?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...ing_freeze.html

[Ali G. 37]

The tax and spend government follows this cycle:

1. Increase spending, while increasing services for most taxpayers only marginally or not at all.

2. Realize that the budget doesn't balance.

3. Reduce critical services so that the average taxpayer feels the crunch and will agree to higher taxes.

4. Raise taxes to restore services to their original pre-step 1 state.

5. Repeat.

So taxes creep higher and higher while services stay about the same. This is well illustrated by the article that was in thread here not long ago, comparing Texas to California. Levels of service were similar while taxes are much higher in California. California is in a budget crunch and thus is trying to raise taxes/reduce critical services.

Every time there is a budget crunch, the government fires police officers and teachers or reduces something else visible. But when was the last time you heard about increased funding being used to increase these services?

I agree with you there, as this does seem to be an issue. However, where I disagree with 99% of the folks is the root cause. People, particularly repubs, falsely assume it's the premise of government and its incompetence that is to blame for this cycle and misuse of funds. People are correct on this point; however, where they fail is in identifying the root cause. The problem is the government but not in the sense of the principle of the government. The problem is with the type of workers and leaders that are in the government. We pay the workers peanuts but expect them to perform similarly to that of someone working in the private sector. That is simply is not going to happen, period. Go to Australia and use any government service, you will be amazed by its UPS like efficiency. They way us conservatives back in Aus achieved this was by consolidating the government, training them (regularly), holding them accountable, hiring competent professionals, firing those that are not and actually paying them more than the private sector; actions that go against the repub ideology of preferring lots of smaller (inefficient) governments. The end result is that as a taxpayer, they have a very efficient government and are glad they pay them more and receive reciprocal service accordingly.

Apart from the older generation who worked for the government because they loved their country and community, therefore, overlooked the conditions and pay, who in their right mind under 40 is going to take up a government job in the US? Heck the president has the responsibility of 303 million people and a good portion of the world on their hands yet they are paid what ~$200K. All while an athlete who does nothing for this country or community is paid $25 million to throw a ball around.

The issue with California is not the tax alone. The fact is that illegal immigrants have had a huge drain on their system (budget and resources). You cannot feed and take care of another country's poor (millions actually) yet expect to have a high standard of living for yourself. Doesn't work that way, hence why no other first world country does it. Californian schools, for example, are now ranked almost last in the union. So while certain people like some posters here have cheered on illegals, it's their kids who are going to suffer because of it.

[SMR 368]

I agree with you there, as this does seem to be an issue. However, where I disagree with 99% of the folks is the root cause. People, particularly repubs, falsely assume it's the premise of government and its incompetence that is to blame for this cycle and misuse of funds. People are correct on this point; however, where they fail is in identifying the root cause. The problem is the government but not in the sense of the principle of the government. The problem is with the type of workers and leaders that are in the government. We pay the workers peanuts but expect them to perform similarly to that of someone working in the private sector. That is simply is not going to happen, period. Go to Australia and use any government service, you will be amazed by its UPS like efficiency. They way us conservatives back in Aus achieved this was by consolidating the government, training them (regularly), holding them accountable, hiring competent professionals, firing those that are not and actually paying them more than the private sector; actions that go against the repub ideology of preferring lots of smaller (inefficient) governments. The end result is that as a taxpayer, they have a very efficient government and are glad they pay them more and receive reciprocal service accordingly.

Apart from the older generation who worked for the government because they loved their country and community, therefore, overlooked the conditions and pay, who in their right mind under 40 is going to take up a government job in the US? Heck the president has the responsibility of 303 million people and a good portion of the world on their hands yet they are paid what ~$200K. All while an athlete who does nothing for this country or community is paid $25 million to throw a ball around.

The issue with California is not the tax alone. The fact is that illegal immigrants have had a huge drain on their system (budget and resources). You cannot feed and take care of another country's poor (millions actually) yet expect to have a high standard of living for yourself. Doesn't work that way, hence why no other first world country does it. Californian schools, for example, are now ranked almost last in the union. So while certain people like some posters here have cheered on illegals, it's their kids who are going to suffer because of it.

You make some good points but your facts are a little off. The average government salary is actually much higher than the average private sector salary.

And I think the president is a bad choice to try and make an example. His official salary is actually $400k. But beyond that, if you compare it to the private sector, the compensation is actually probably easily in the millions. In the private sector, if your employment pays for your residence, your car, your helicopter, your security, your personal chef, your private jet, your gardener, etc. those are seen as part of the compensation (I don't know how the taxes work, I'm just talking about from a standpoint of comparing the compensation between two jobs). I don't argue that the president should get those things, necessarily. It's a drop in the bucket and really not worth arguing about for one person. But I think the president is a bad example. Also, I think this needs to be taken into consideration when people start talking about how executives shouldn't make more money that the president. The president, in any sort of private sector scenario, is making a lot more than $400k.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You make some good points but your facts are a little off. The average government salary is actually much higher than the average private sector salary.

And I think the president is a bad choice to try and make an example. His official salary is actually $400k.

Did they raise it ? I thought it was around $285,000, while congress was at $167,000

[mawilson 2,133]

Every time there is a budget crunch, the government fires police officers and teachers or reduces something else visible. But when was the last time you heard about increased funding being used to increase these services?

Yep. It's always the schools that suffer, never government officials.

[SMR 368]

Did they raise it ? I thought it was around $285,000, while congress was at $167,000

Don't know how accurate it is but I heard $400k and wikianswers provides this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_d..._President_earn

If wikianswers is right, the official compensation is $669k. But that still doesn't include a lot of the things I mentioned in my other post.