May 7, 2009 1:17pm

Millions, Billions, Trillions

ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:

In formally introducing his $3.55 trillion budget to Congress today, President Obama emphasized $17 billion in spending cuts.

"Now, some of the cuts we’re putting forward today are more painful than others," the president said. "Some are larger than others. In fact, a few of the programs we eliminate will produce less than a million dollars in savings. And in Washington, I guess that’s considered trivial. Outside of Washington, that’s still considered a lot of money. But these savings, large and small, add up."

President Obama said "the 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone.  And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money."

And the president added: “It is important, though, for all of you as you’re writing up these stories to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant — they mean something.”

$17 billion is without question real money, and it means something, though within the context of the president’s budget it’s less than one half of one percent of the total budget.

And it’s about 1.4 percent of the projected deficit for 2010 of $1.17 trillion.

And as the Wall Street Journal points out, the president’s proposed "cuts are outweighed by proposals to spend more on an array of programs and regulatory functions." The budget for the Federal Railway Administration budget is increased, for instance, from $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion.

Whether or not $17 billion is a lot of money in spending cuts depends, of course, on what one compares it to — and who’s doing the comparing.

During the campaign last year, then-Sen. Obama discussed how Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, railed against earmarks, and pointed out that the $18 billion in savings from eliminating earmarks paled in comparison to the $300 billion in tax breaks McCain proposed.

“Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks," Mr. Obama said during the third presidential debate in Hempstead, NY. "That’s one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem.”

It was a frequent Obama talking point, that $18 billion — while not to be sneezed at — is a trifle comparatively to the proposed McCain tax cuts, and to the budget in general.

“Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget," Mr. Obama said on Fox News Sunday on September 28, 2008. "Senator McCain is proposing $300 billion in tax cuts. Now, $18 billion is important. $300 billion is really important.”

"The total amount of earmarks even broadly defined comes to about $18 billion," Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail in June in Wayne, Pennsylvania. "Now, I’m not a math whiz, but if you’re giving $300 billion in tax breaks, and lets say you eliminated all earmarks … even assuming all $18 billion is delivered, you’ve still got to, let’s see my math, $282 billion short and he hasn’t specified where else he’d get the money. And what’s likely is that he’d get the money the same way that George Bush got the money, which is to take out a credit card from the bank of China in the name of our kids and add a few extra trillion dollars extra worth of national debt.”

President Obama is not proposing $300 billion in corporate tax breaks, of course. But he is proposing a $3.55 trillion budget, with significant increases in many spending programs.

It may be difficult for the GOP to hit the president on this issue, however.

As Chris Edwards of the libertarian CATO Institute points told ABC News, "I don’t think the Republican party has any credibility on spending restraint anymore. Deficits soared hundreds of billions of dollars under President Bush, so President Obama is really continuing fiscal irresponsibility."

President Bush racked up almost $5 trillion in national debt during his two terms.

Interestingly, one of the 121 cuts the White House is touting today is the “Los Alamos Neutron Science Center Refurbishment.”

Says the White House: "The programs in Terminations, Reductions, and Savings are ones that do not accomplish the goals set for them, do not do so efficiently, or do a job already done by another initiative. They include: … Los Alamos Neutron Science Center refurbishment ($19 million). The linear accelerator housed here was built 30 years ago and no longer plays a critical role in weapons research.”

The president actually signed a bill giving $19 million to that very same program when he, behind closed doors, signed the omnibus spending bill in March that contained roughly $8 billion in earmarks, as Sen. Jeff Bingamin, D-NM, heralded in a press release.

“U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman today reported that President Obama has signed a spending bill that contains funding for important northern New Mexico initiatives," read a Bingamin press release from March 2009. "Bingaman worked to set aside funding for northern New Mexico projects.  They include: … $19.3 million for rebuilding the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center accelerator so the lab can use it to diversify into new science missions.”

– Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

User Comments

Guess Obama was for the Neutron Center before he was against it.

Posted by: jim | May 7, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm

The miniscule, by comparison to the spending, cuts are simply a sideshow for the state run Obamedia.
Already the Washington Post spends the bulk of its article focusing on the cuts, while ignoring this massive multi-trillion dollar spending bill.
The media now has a soundbite and can ignore that Obama spends more in this one bill than all other presidents combined have ever spent. Now that is some accomplishment for just over 100 days.
That doesn’t include the faux porkulus bill, or bank and UAW handouts of billions of taxpayer dollars, or the budget year trillion dollars plus the added spending of 100billion extra request by Pelosi to meet spending needs…. and so on and so on and so on!!!!!!
Obama is buying power with taxpayer dollars. He is spending money we will have to borrow and pay back with interest. If he taxes his very hated group of achievers, otherwise known as “the rich”, at 100% he would not come close to paying for all of this.
He is coming for the rest of you. They plan to pass a balanced budget amendment forcing the issue and will “have no choice” but to raise everyones taxes.
Oh, and by the way, has anyone asked what the premiums will be for national health insurance? It isn’t free and you will pay for rationed care. You will simply pay the government your premiums and have less control.
Read Tom Daschle’s book on this. He lays out the severe rationing that will take place. He was the chosen one to implement the national health care plan until his tax cheat ways came out.
So now we have tax cheats Geithner and Rangle crafting new taxes to pay for all of this but there is not enough money available.
Ask yourself why Pelosi held a hearing on how to CONFISCATE 401K’S and other retirement plans last october.
This person arranged the plan for Argentina when they confiscated EVERYONES retirement plan to re-fund their version of social security.
They have no other way to pay for all their spending and “save’ social security too. Pelosi held the hearing in secret and did not allow republicans in. What a shock!
Stop the kool-aid dems. They are coming for you too.

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm

“taken out of our discretionary non-defense budget”
Jake, for context it would be awfully nice if you stated what this number is.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm

MNM:”The media now has a soundbite and can ignore that Obama spends more in this one bill than all other presidents combined have ever spent. ”
That’s not just wrong, it’s laughably wrong. This bill is less than the DEBT that the last Republican Administration alone ran up – yet it is “more than all other presidents combined have ever spent”?
I understand Republicans have very little credibility, but you should at least try to make the lies credible.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm

“The media now has a soundbite and can ignore that Obama spends more in this one bill than all other presidents combined have ever spent. ”
Now the war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan are included in the budget and actually factored in to calculating the projected deficit. Before now, those billions in expenses were put in separate emergency spending bills called supplementals.
Would you rather Obama be open about the cost of war or sugar coat it leaving hard numbers out of the main budget to make you feel better?

Posted by: JKS | May 7, 2009, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm

JKS:”Now the war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan are included in the budget and actually factored in to calculating the projected deficit.”
Technically, that should be the Iraq costs WILL be included in the budget. The current FY 2009 budget was formed under the last administration so I think Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet honestly on the books. (Although all the numbers being discussed here have them, so your comment is valid.)

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm

So, how many posts do we need about this?
Mercy.

Posted by: Dead Horse | May 7, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm

Jake:
Yes, THANK you for asking the obvious question nobody else seems to have the stones for.
Three (3) Wash Post writers dutifully spend 40 – that’s 4-0, FORTY — paragraphs largely devoted to touting those meager $17 B in cuts to get to the essential point of the whole charade:
“The proposed cuts, if adopted by Congress, would not actually reduce government spending. Obama’s budget would increase overall spending; any savings from the program terminations and reductions would be shifted to the president’s priorities.”
$17 billion in the whole budget, most coming from Defense? (!!) Wells-Fargo needs to scrape up $15 Billion to shore-up to government stress test.

Posted by: kevin23451 | May 7, 2009, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm

The WaPo addresses the budget:
“The new budget documents, totaling more than 1,500 pages, fill in the details of a broad outline that Obama released in February. They include a massive appendix listing program-by-program information on the roughly 40 percent of the fiscal 2010 budget that constitutes discretionary spending, which will be set by Congress in what is expected to be a contentious appropriations process.
“Also included is a separate tome that provides details on the programs targeted for cuts or elimination. If approved by Congress, those trims would amount to only about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion federal budget. But the proposed reductions are expected to be equally controversial on Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers battling for programs they favor and others demanded deeper cuts.”

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm

LMAO keep this article up Jake we all need a BIG LAUGH
Obama is proving to be the biggest comedian there ever was LMAO
Kill women and children and dig a hole with debt..hey great going Obamie

Posted by: How am I doing now Comrades | May 7, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

“The current FY 2009 budget was formed under the last administration so I think Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet honestly on the books.”
It was “formed” while the Bush administration was in office, but it wasn’t formed by Bush, and Obama voted for it. In any event the Dems and Obama have already added substantially to it.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

As a taxpayer, I won’t dismiss a 17 billion worth of tax cuts. A billion is nothing to trivialize in the way of dollars or stars, and it takes a certain amount of illogic in math and cognitive disconnect to do so. Particularly when adding that to the potential of hundreds of billions to be gained from streamlining defense spending. There was a 93-0 Senate vote today on the acquisition overhaul of weapons. According to the GAO, there has been an accumulated overrun of 300 billion in defense spending.
With the stimulus funds having been released less than two months, It’s simply too soon to gauge the effectiveness of the stimulus. But the gain should help balance the expenditures, because according to Standard and Poor, there is typically at least a 1.9 dollars earned for every dollar spent on infrastructure stimulus.
It’s really premature to be complaining or intimating that Obama is wrecking the economy in the long term, and also hypocritical when you look at the deficit spending of the previous administration.

Posted by: kim | May 7, 2009, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm

The national debt held by the public will be 63% in 2010–an all-time high. The far worse news is that it will increase every year thereafter, reaching 80% in 2017.
For perspective, consider that no nation is eligible for membership in the EU if its public debt exceeds 60% of GDP.
This man can talk about “fiscal discipline” all he wants, but he is flatly contradicted by very cold, very hard facts.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm

Fascist Hyena:”The national debt held by the public will be 63% in 2010–an all-time high. …
This man can talk about “fiscal discipline” all he wants, but he is flatly contradicted by very cold, very hard facts.”
Cute – you are condemning Obama’s fiscal discipline by implying the entire debt, the majority of which in 2010 will have been run up under Republican Administrations, is his fault.
Just another example of why no one trusts Republicans anymore.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm

Obviously the $17 billion in cuts Obama is proposing is peanuts. I’m disappointed the Democrats in Congress are supporting such fiscal irresponsibility.
Obviously the GOP has no credibility on this issue because they happily ran up big deficits when they were in charge.
These days I’m ready for any politician who will at least pretend to care about the deficit. It’s a grim situation right now.

Posted by: Steve | May 7, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm

Well at least Hes Cutting Republicans Just spent Like there was no Tommorow and The sad thing out of all The Republican Spending Look the Mess we are in

Posted by: Angie in Pa | May 7, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm

Cut military spending it’s ridiculous to keep supporting these defense contractor/donors.
Wonder how many old people are against healthcare for all Americans but are okay with me paying their Medicare.

Posted by: Hege321 | May 7, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm

A genuine effort to reduce the defficit occurred during the George Bush Sr. presidency.’Pay-as-you-go’legislation required that government could not raise taxes to fund programs they wanted to implement.This was how Bill Clinton became the president with a fiscal year budget surplus four years in a row.He knew deficit spending would end his political career.With the combination of Fannie Mae & Freddie Macs careless loan practices,and multi-trillion dollar spending by the G W Bush & the Obama presidencies, the American people are now in peril.Americans need to move into survival mode and start buying essential items and goods.Food and a ‘non-electric’ means to prepare it,medicine,vitamins,portable radio,flashlight,and batteries.If you lose your job it will become difficult to acquire basic needs.If you’re using credit to supplement your lifestyle,consider scaling back.When our government loses its ability to borrow you can expect interest rates to climb as inflation starts to move in.When unemployment checks run out you can expect to see a growing number of desperate Americans willing to do whatever it takes to survive.

Posted by: wheedle- | May 7, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm

Regardless of whose fault the current deficit is now, or how much was wracked-up “…over the past 8 years…blah, blah, blah,” look at what POTUS has spent in 100 DAYS. (And I must have missed BO’s “Emergency Deficit Reduction, Transparency and Fiscal Responsibility” bill he sponsored while in the Senate during the last two years when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.)
How the Washington Press Corps can allow this guy to stand up there and boldface use terms like “A New Era of Responsibility” when he is actively planning on spending this much is beyond me. Where’s Sam Donaldson’s “now hold on Mr. President” when we need it?

Posted by: kevin23451 | May 7, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm

That’s not just wrong, it’s laughably wrong. This bill is less than the DEBT that the last Republican Administration alone ran up – yet it is “more than all other presidents combined have ever spent”?
I understand Republicans have very little credibility, but you should at least try to make the lies credible.
———–
DEMS ARE IDIOTS
THIS IS FROM THE REPUBLICAN REBUTTAL BY JUDD GREGG,THE OBAMA GAVE CREDIBILITY TO.
You will call it a lie, but the numbers back this up!!
“In the next five years, President Obama’s budget will double the national debt; in the next ten years it will triple the national debt.
“To say this another way, if you take all the debt of our country run up by all of our presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush, the total debt over all those 200-plus years since we started as a nation, it is President Obama’s plan to double that debt in just the first five years that he is in office.
“He is also planning to spend more on the government as a percentage of our economy than at any time since World War II.
“His budget assumes the deficit will average $1 trillion dollars every year for the next 10 years and will add well over $9 trillion dollars in new debts to our children’s backs.
“He also is proposing the largest tax increase in history, much of it aimed at taxing small business people who have been, over the years, the best job creators in our economy. And further, he is proposing a massive new national sales tax on your electric bill. So that every time you turn on a light switch in your house, you will be hit with a new tax — and it averages over $3,000 per household
Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009 1:41:41 PM

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm

YOU DEMS DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBT AND DEFICIT DON’T YOU??

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm

kevin23451:”look at what POTUS has spent in 100 DAYS.”
Do you really want to do that? Relatively little has actually been *spent.* Remember that $787 million stimulus cost Republicans like to say Obama has “spent” will actually be accrued over the next 10 years (over half is weighted to the next three years).

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm

Obama is out of control. This is an increase in spending, THERE IS NO CUT. Even id it was a cut it would be 1/2 of 1% of the budget that the Dems passed. This country is going to follow Russia “bankrupt”.

Posted by: billy bob | May 7, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm

MNM:”YOU DEMS DO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBT AND DEFICIT DON’T YOU??”
Yes, but you apparently feel the need to shout to the world that you don’t know the difference between allocation and spent. By your definition, how many trillions did Republicans “spend” when they passed the prescription drug entitlement?

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm

So, his “line-by-line” analysis of Federal programs turned up a measly $17 billion? There’s gotta be more, right Mr. President? Yes, the Bush Administration is on the hook for runaway spending (could have/should have vetoed some of it) but WHO proposed all that spending? Congress. Who has controlled Congress since 2006? Democrats. Bush increased the deficit approx. $500 billion a year from 2000-2005 (Republican majority). With the Dems controlling the purse strings, that average went up to approx. $933 billion A YEAR. And we’re only going higher from here. With the Dems STILL in charge. It’s not Manny being Manny. It’s Obama being Obama. “All of his statements come with an expiration date. All of them”.”

Posted by: Brian | May 7, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm

Folks – President Bush tried to cut too – probably a lot of stuff that Obama is trying to cut. Congress will smile and nod, and pat Obama on the back, and then restore all of that funding as quietly as possible.

Posted by: Mike S | May 7, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

Brian:”Bush increased the deficit approx. $500 billion a year from 2000-2005 (Republican majority). With the Dems controlling the purse strings, that average went up to approx. $933 billion A YEAR. ”
How many budget cut bills (Iraq draw down in particular) did the Republicans filibuster during the last 2 years? They set a new record for filibusters, almost doubling the number a Democratic majority ever did in those last 2 years.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

Obama would have to make a $17 Billion cut FORTY-EIGHT MORE TIMES just to get back to the level of last years budget!! —- And he’s trying to get you to believe he wants to “cut”!!! Geeeeeeshhhh!!!!

Posted by: Indiana Mark | May 7, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm

$17 Billion is just 1.4% of the projected DEFICIT for 2010!!!! —- OF THE DEFICIT!!!!! — Understand???

Posted by: Indiana Mark | May 7, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm

To all you dem defenders. If Obama is doing such a bang up job why does the media not fully report on
-the impact of the trillions he has spending with charts and graphs comparing it to prior administrations
-the fact that his position on gay marriage is the same as Ms. California who they are dragging through the shredder
-that he is a total hypocrite on “bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan” , just like he accused Bush of doing
-the fact that he is forcing Israel to commit suicide while buddying up to our enemies.
-that he handed over the auto companies to the UAW in return for campaign cash and votes, at the expense of those few of us who do pay taxes
-or let them explain how he will pay for all this because he could tax the achievers 100% and not come close to paying for it, although he postures about the deficit, as he did today, he is wracking it up in an unprecedented, corrupt, kickback, chicago thug manner that is who he is.

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm

Mike “How many budget cut bills (Iraq draw down in particular) did the Republicans filibuster during the last 2 years? They set a new record for filibusters, almost doubling the number a Democratic majority ever did in those last 2 years
Don’t care about filibusters or who tried to do what with whom and for what reason. Just looking at the numbers: who controlled the purse strings when Bush put away his veto stamp. That’s all. It’s painfully obvious the average went UP when the Dems regained control of Congress. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where we are heading with a Dem Congress and a Dem White House. And yes, Congress will restore most of what Obama has planned to eliminate – it’s in their DNA. They will protect each other like they usually do – screw the taxpayer.

Posted by: Brian | May 7, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

I could quite frankly care less if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Communist. You can not spend the kind of borrowed money Obama is talking about without long term negative consequences. Even when the economy does recover, we’ll still be saddled with this onerous debt. Any student who has taken a basic finance course should be able to comprehend that if you are in debt the last thing you want to be doing is borrowing more money. All you are doing is digging your own grave that much quicker.

Posted by: Jim | May 7, 2009, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm

“We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter and waste is not our problem. We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration — or the next generation.”, said President Obama without a hint of irony, at a press event announcing a $3.4 trillion budget with an estimated $1.4 trillion deficit and to add insult to injury the lap dog media laps it all up. We are all screwed.

Posted by: dan | May 7, 2009, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm

I forgot a few that matter, although you civil liberties hypocrites won’t speak up about these either.
You whined George Bush was infringing on your liberties, heads up folks, you ain’t seen anything like this.
——————–
To all you dem defenders. If Obama is doing such a bang up job why does the media not fully report on
-the impact of the trillions he has spending with charts and graphs comparing it to prior administrations
-the fact that his position on gay marriage is the same as Ms. California who they are dragging through the shredder
-that he is a total hypocrite on “bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan” , just like he accused Bush of doing
-the fact that he is forcing Israel to commit suicide while buddying up to our enemies.
-that he handed over the auto companies to the UAW in return for campaign cash and votes, at the expense of those few of us who do pay taxes
-or let them explain how he will pay for all this because he could tax the achievers 100% and not come close to paying for it, although he postures about the deficit, as he did today, he is wracking it up in an unprecedented, corrupt, kickback, chicago thug manner that is who he is.
-Or that his justice department is fighting to TAKE AWAY a US citizens rights to a lawyer when being questioned or interrogated by authorities, you know the Miranda right. Although they tell us you can still have a lawyer if you go to trial. GEE THANKS
-Or that Pelosi held secret hearings last October on how to CONFISCATE 401K’S AND OTHER RETIREMENT PLANS, from the public to fill the social security coffers????? It isn’t a joke, they did this in Argentina and the person who set it up is the one who testified for Pelosi!
Don’t you think the public deserves some assurances that it won’t happen.
WE are seeing so many things we never thought would happen.
Where was the reporting on this???

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm

President Obama is trying to con the public into thinking he is fiscally frugal while spending the US into the poor house. Another President Obama con game is his global warming bill spear headed by Congressman Waxman.
The facts are “… looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005 … or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2 … [the models say,] even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.”

Posted by: darryl | May 7, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm

Spend in Trillions, economize in Millions.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 7, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm

Brian:”Just looking at the numbers: who controlled the purse strings when Bush put away his veto stamp. That’s all. It’s painfully obvious the average went UP when the Dems regained control of Congress.”
Just like it shot up when Republicans first took control. The minority party finally got a chance to fund THEIR priorities. Based on past power transfers, your conclusion is pretty poor. In addition, your oversimplification is saying that Democrats are to blame for the increased spending required for the surge to get Iraq – a Republican adventure – under control.
It’s painfully obvious that the simple answer just isn’t always right.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm

Robert, Wake up please and stop looking at everything through the glasses of race. Everyone, black, white, green, whoever, will be impacted by President Obama’s out of control spending and quest to dictate every aspect of our lives.
For example.
Energy Costs: His global warming bill will cost the the average American $3000 more in energy costs and do nothing to reduce co2.
The Car Industry: They are going bankrupt, thousands of jobs are being lost, Chevrolet is being handed over to Fiat, and President Obama is using mafia like tactics to strong arm bond holders to give up their legal rights so his favored few Union workers gets most of the spoils.
The Health Care Industry: President Obama wants to put them out of business to “level the playing field” so everyone will get little or bad health care as dictated by some government bureaucrat.

Posted by: kay | May 7, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

Does anyone think he is saving that money ?? How d u m b can you be ?? That money is going somewhere else for sure.It was said that in 10 years the interest that most be paid for this crazy spending will be 1 trillion dollar
per year INTEREST people INTEREST alone. How about that for a change???
We’ll be jumping the border to Mexico in 10 years.

Posted by: Frank | May 7, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

darryl:”even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year.”
Citation please. Actually – send it to Exxon. They’ll be in touch with a big check tomorrow, unless it’s all based on some outrageously silly assumptions and bad math.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

Or that Pelosi held secret hearings last October on how to CONFISCATE 401K’S AND OTHER RETIREMENT PLANS, from the public to fill the social security coffers????? It isn’t a joke, they did this in Argentina and the person who set it up is the one who testified for Pelosi!
Don’t you think the public deserves some assurances that it won’t happen.
WE are seeing so many things we never thought would happen.
Where was the reporting on this??
———-
How do you dems think they plan to shore up social security with all this other excess spending going on.
Obama could tax the rich at 100% and still not pay for it, and still not address social security.
He is spending and spending and somehow we will have to deal with it.
Why do you suppose Obama claims that “when he is done remaking america the stock market won’t matter anymore”? That would be true if they confiscated our savings.
They held the hearings before you attack me, ask them!
There is a grand plan here and we have only seen the spending side, there will be a payment due side that none of us could have imagined.

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

kay:”Energy Costs: His global warming bill will cost the the average American $3000 more in energy costs and do nothing to reduce co2.”
Raise a trillion dollars in revenue AND do “nothing” to reduce CO2? That’s a new one. I get the condemnation of the cost, but that’s the first time I’ve heard it won’t do anything to reduce CO2.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm

Cuts like this don’t amount to a pail of water thrown into the ocean.

Posted by: jim 234 | May 7, 2009, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm

jhw539,
The facts are “… looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005 … or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2 … [the models say,] even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.”

Posted by: kay | May 7, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm

MNM:”How do you dems think they plan to shore up social security with all this other excess spending going on.
Obama could tax the rich at 100% and still not pay for it, and still not address social security.”
They’ll probably do it by extending the retirement age a bit again, just like last time.
And the top 1% in 2006 made $1,791,886,000,000. So your over the top statement about a 100% tax is quite literally false. The top 1% make enough to cover the entire deficit and start paying down the debt.
This is not surprising – the development of a wealthy aristocracy started with Reagan’s elimination of the top tax bracket (not reduction – eliminated it entirely), continued with the Republican’s fight to eliminate the inheritance tax (which only impacted the top 1% in practice), and really accelerated when Republicans slashed capital gains taxes radically lower than even Reagan had dared.
But that’s just, you know, reality based on documented fact.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

jhw539, Anyone can do the math and come up with the same result. It is not rocket science.

Posted by: darryl | May 7, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

kay:”[the models say,] even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.”
CITATION PLEASE. Which model? Which emissions profile is assumed for other regions? What is the rate of emissions reduction over time? What is the time period for the temperature reduction prediction? In short, where did you get that statement above that appears to be a classic case of “lying with statistics” (which only works if the reader is too gullible to ask for the underlying, potentially absurd, assumptions).

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

darryl:”jhw539, Anyone can do the math and come up with the same result. It is not rocket science. ”
The rocket scientists at NASA have done the math and come up with a different answer. And they’re not scared to provide their assumptions and data. Why won’t you just provide the citation?

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

MNM:”How do you dems think they plan to shore up social security with all this other excess spending going on.
Obama could tax the rich at 100% and still not pay for it, and still not address social security.”
They’ll probably do it by extending the retirement age a bit again, just like last time.
And the top 1% in 2006 made $1,791,886,000,000. So your over the top statement about a 100% tax is quite literally false. The top 1% make enough to cover the entire deficit and start paying down the debt.
jhw
———-
Your numbers are no longer accurate AND only address part of the spending going on. Everyone has seen huge losses,,, and you chose a year where market returns were quite high, so don’t spin the facts. The statistics of that year no longer apply!
It is factually wrong to imply simply extending retirement age a few years AGAIN will solve the problem, it will only postpone it briefly.
Aren’t you interested in why Pelosi held hearings specifically inviting someone to discuss how she had orchestrated the confiscation of the savings and retirement plans of Argentinian citizens in order to shore up their social security.
Pelosi held the hearing, look it up.
Dems are so incurious when they need to cover for their corrupt leaders.

Posted by: MNM | May 7, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm

where are the 3.0 million jobs?in my town the UNION just cost 50 people their jobs beacuse of their unwillingness to take cuts in pay. i have watched this with the teachers union in califoria as well. i guess the democrats only want to share the wealth when its someone elses.if michelle obama would quit wearing 540 dollar sneakers we could save a bundle. if ther pres and paloosi would use less gas than al gore we could also save a bundle.this guy throws up smokescreens for the ignorant masses. looks like we need to send the national guard to obamas old nieghborhood that he did so much good for.

Posted by: catman | May 7, 2009, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm

‘1984′ should be required reading for all school students. It would help people to understand “doublespeak”.

Posted by: Oonogil | May 7, 2009, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm

It is wrong to imply that extendng the retirement age WON’T be a must when addressing the issue of social security. I hear you crying Democrat corruption, but you are silent on the corruption that created this. The dergulation, back room dealing of the repubs. Cry your eyes out folks, the gap will close up a lot before it is said and done. We will still have rich and poor, but the middle class will once again dominate. That is the only way our economy survives.

Posted by: hahawrong | May 7, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

MNM:”and you chose a year where market returns were quite high, so don’t spin the facts. The statistics of that year no longer apply!”
I chose the latest year where actual REAL numbers have been compiled and made available. When dealing with reality rather than wild rhetoric, there is a delay to collect data, and the 2006 tax return analysis (of returns sent in 2007) is the best available. Do you have any data that would suggest the earning of the top 1% have dropped by 40% or so in the past two years?

Posted by: jhw539 | May 7, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

Pretty sure during the debates Mr. Obama said $18B wasn’t much money. Now that he wants to cut ONLY $17B he has decided it is bunches and bunches of money and trying to get America to fall for it. My guess-along with the media’s help most Americans will fall for it sadly. ABC Start to report real news please. Isn’t it about time.

Posted by: Linda | May 7, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm

Brilliant. Obama sets up programs under the cover of darkness so he can “slash” them from his budget months later.
And the statists continue to adore him. *insert eyeroll here*

Posted by: LoriInWa | May 7, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm

Whoa, using ObamaLogic (TM), if I owe $1,000 to the IRS I can just send it a check for 50 cents along with a note saying, “I’ve just made a serious dent in my outstanding balance! Don’t believe me? Ask President Obama!”
Hey, what’s not to like?

Posted by: MarkJ | May 7, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

If he cut the budget in half, the republicans will still not be satsfied. This is so funny as they ran up the national debt quite a bit before they left. Why do reporters and commentators even ask them what they think as they will only say something negative anyway and their opinion is really not important. If they knew so much….how come they left such a mess. This recession started before Jan of 08 and not Jan 09, a fact which they conveniently forget and refuse to speak of. When they start making intelligent suggesions and stop talking about tax cuts for the rich,,,,then I will listen to them.

Posted by: talmag | May 7, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm

Of course the GOP wants to trash the government. They are so hypocritical. Ten trillion of the present debt came under the GOP–Reagan and two Bushes. Then they left a depression. And the government can’t tackle any of the GOP favorite boondoggles, huge subsides to rich farmers, massive tax breaks to oil companies, groups who have gotten tax credits for overseas facilities and are now hiding money in places like the Cayman Island.
Don’t trust the GOP. They are the rich people’s friends, the ones who stole your jobs, health care, retirement and homes so that their rich friends could get richer . . . and richer . . . and richer.

Posted by: JAB | May 7, 2009, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm

$17 billion cuts vs $75 billion that might be needed for banks , just doesn’t make a lot of money sense. By the way I am not a right wing conservation or anti President Obama just livid about the actions of Congress.

Posted by: William | May 7, 2009, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm

President Obama inherited a deficit from the Republicans in the trillions of dollars on top of an economy on the verge of total collapse and two wars. President Clinton cleaned up the last astronomical budget mess the Republicans made and now president Obama is cleaning up a worse Republican mess. The fact is that given the crisis the American economy is in Mr. Obama deserves praise for his brilliance in being able to save 17 billion dollars by next year. The Republicans never worry about money as long as it is going to the wealthy. They defended the spending of both Regan and Bush why the indignation now?

Posted by: V. Brame | May 7, 2009, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm

Obama is absolutely wrong. You cannot solve a problem of too much debt by adding more debt. He is reckless and doing extreme damage to the country. I see people complaining about Bush’s spending and then giving Obama a pass even though his deficits are 4 times larger. Incredible logic.

Posted by: brian | May 7, 2009, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm

people in the know are purchasing assets immune from the pending hyperinflation and devaluation of the dollar. Since Obama has crated an utter disaster with more debt, entitlements and interest payments will consume 80% of the federal budget in 10 years. How is that going to work? IT ISN”T, and the depression he is going to cause will be like something never seen before. Obama needs to be reined in before the damage he does is non-repairable.

Posted by: brian | May 7, 2009, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm

“Mr. Obama deserves praise for his brilliance in being able to save 17 billion dollars by next year.”
He’s “saving” it from his own budget. That’s brilliant, allright.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm

The wealthy folks who are involved with businesses have something most of us don’t have. That is, the ability to leave the US for another country that has a much more friendlier business climate. Obama wants to tax income made in foreign countries – fine, let’s just move our ENTIRE business outa here. This will back fire on Obama. Don’t believe me? Stick round.

Posted by: Jimbo | May 7, 2009, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm

Obama has, in 100 days STUCK US with a multi trillion debt. And he is talking about saving 17 BILLION? Talk about a flea on an elephant’s butt!!

Posted by: Jimbo | May 7, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm

” President Clinton cleaned up the last astronomical budget mess the Republicans made and now president Obama is cleaning up a worse Republican mess.”
Might as well look at some actual numbers and see how that statement measures up. Bush I’s final budget deficit was $290 billion; Obama’s silly “stimulus” package alone is 2 1/2 times that amount.
In his first two years in office, with a Democratic congress, Mr. Clinton incurred deficits of $255B and $203B. A total of $751B was added to the national debt in his first five years. In his final three years (with a GOP congress) he reduced the national debt by $362B, for which he is to be commended. Bear in mind that he greatly incresed revenues from capital gains taxes by reducing the cap gains rate (which Obama proposes to restore), he “ended welfare as we know it”; Obama is effectively restoring it; and he enacted NAFTA. In all three of these initiatives he had far more GOP support than Democratic, but nevertheless he deserves a great deal of credit for them and I for one grant it to him.
The deficit “mess” inherited by Clinton is absolutely trivial compared to the one that Obama is very deliberatedly creating. His own OMB Director says that his spending proposals simply cannot be sustained.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 9:06 pm 9:06 pm

News Flash: Scientists Discover Money Actually DOES Grow on Trees. Bailouts and the Fed were a nice proxy, but this new finding changes everything.

Posted by: wendy | May 7, 2009, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm

“In his final three years (with a GOP congress) he reduced the national debt by $362B, for which he is to be commended.”
Numbers can be chosen to make a point and if you want to find credit for Republicans you would pick measuring the debt in straight dollar amounts. Expressed as percentage of GDP however Clinton lowered the debt every year with or without the Republicans.

Posted by: Skip | May 7, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm

“…Clinton lowered the debt every year…”
He absolutely did no such thing. He reduced the deficit each year, but not the debt, either absolutely or as a percentage of GDP. The day he took office the debt was $4.188 trillion; one year later it was $4.515 trillion. The GDP in that period went from $7.532 trillion to $7.835 trillion. As a percentage of GDP the debt thus rose from 5.55% to 5.75%. (I have not computed his second year–his only remaining one with a Democratic congress–but I’ve already disproved your assertion.)
He did not run a budget surplus until the GOP had been in control of congress for three years. But the national debt on the day he left office was $5.727 trillion, or 57.3% of the GDP of $9.980 trillion. As I say, Clinton and the GOP congress deserve credit. Bush and the GOP/Democratic congresses deserve none. But Obama and the Democrats deserve very severe criticism, much more than they have yet received.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 7, 2009, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm

For those Dems that want to lay blame on Bush for the current financial problems, I hope that you understand that the Congress votes on the budget and authorizes spending.
News flash: Congress has been controlled by Dems for the past two years.

Posted by: AmericanPatriot | May 7, 2009, 11:46 pm 11:46 pm

Bingaman got the shaft, huh? Well, I guess he won’t be able to use that as an example of how he’s helping New Mexico.

Posted by: Dale Evans | May 8, 2009, 12:04 am 12:04 am

Well we might finally all agree whether Republican or Democrat, THEIR STEALING OUR money and they got us bickering at each other when it’s a game to those in POWER. 535 people destroying 320 millions peoples lives. When in the hell are ya’l going to wake up and VOTE THEM ALL OUT??????? It’s not Republican & Democrat, it’s 535 against 320 million. Whose the stupid ones hey????? Those folks been in their 30 years playing a game and it’s you idiots arguing class warfare just like they want you to while their fleecing our pockets. Wake up and VOTE THEM ALL OUT. THat’s the new Tea Party anthem, VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am

By the way, the facility Obama is going to gut produces medical radioisotopes. I guess under his health care plan, we won’t have to worry about that because we’ll all die waiting for tests.

Posted by: Dale Evansd | May 8, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am

“As a percentage of GDP the debt thus rose from 5.55% to 5.75%. (I have not computed his second year–his only remaining one with a Democratic congress–but I’ve already disproved your assertion.)”
OK, you got me by +.2% so my assertion is disproved, however I also object to your implied assertion that revenues increased by cutting capital gains tax rates alone, ignoring the tech bubble.

Posted by: Skip | May 8, 2009, 12:10 am 12:10 am

Bozo will leave as his legacy the same financial irresponsibilty that guided him through life until America’s useful idiots swramed all over “his” (writtten by Bill Ayers) wonderful book and he got in the sack with Tony Rezko. Bozo and superhero-greenethumb-first mom meeeshall continuously spent way beyond their means and we’re in debt up to their eyeballs until “THE BOOK”, and Rezko. Sadly, we folks who will pay for his lunacy don’t have any Rezkos around

Posted by: hughglass | May 8, 2009, 5:40 am 5:40 am

“I understand Republicans have very little credibility, but you should at least try to make the lies credible.”
————————————-
jhw539 ,
Is that like Obama saying he will not raise the taxes on 95% of Americans/Americans making less than 250K? Then performing the insane concept of raising taxes on ALL cigarette smokers in the US regardless of income to pay for SCHIP.
So Obama LIED about raising taxes on people under 250K.
We want people to smoke less for the obvious heath reasons and we have severely limited where people are allowed to smoke, YET we turnaround and WANT them to smoke in order to fund child healthcare! Somehow liberals think this kind of @ssbackward logic is a good thing and the way we should run things from now on.

Posted by: Mike_C | May 8, 2009, 8:31 am 8:31 am

“Is that like Obama saying he will not raise the taxes on 95% of Americans/Americans making less than 250K?”
He was talking about income taxes. Obama certainly doesn’t have direct control over the whole array of taxes we all pay.

Posted by: Skip | May 8, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.