The guy is a maroon.
Considering that there is a projected deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars, you might think that the White House might start taking the idea of spending cuts seriously.
You would be wrong: the Budget Office has released the President’s proposed 2012 budget, and they involve a paltry 775 MILLION in spending cuts. That would be .05% of the total deficit. Not five percent; point-oh-five percent.
Obozo says that this is a "tough call."
Well, for a "professor" it might be. For someone intent on demolishing the US, it's an easy call.
Drown the country in debt, regulation, and dead babies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And the Republicans have a proposal for how much?
Depends on whom you ask. Sen. Paul likes $500Bn for next FY.
Over the next 5 months, Ryan wants to cut $74Bn--really it will be ~$38Bn due to technical factors.
Others want a $100Bn cut over the next 5 months and MUCH more for next FY, but that next FY number has not been released.
But Obama's cuts are delineated in a budget. What are the Paul, Ryan, Others' specific cuts?
Points of order a-plenty are required here:
- There is no FY2012 budget from Obama yet (that's next week). Hence, even if there were actual cuts, there are no official details.
- Worse, what the Obama crowd is calling "cuts" are, in the aggregate, reductions in previously-planned increases in "non-security" discretionary spending, not actual cuts, because it is a 5-year "freeze" (unspecified whether it's over FY2010 actual or FY2011 Obama-proposed). Not $0.01 less will be spent in discretionary non-security spending in FY2012 than what was spent in FY2010 (and likely not even $0.01 less than what Obama wanted to spend in FY2011). Again, that's for FY2012, which won't start for several months.
- If you're talking about actual cuts, that "$100 billion" turns into $82.9 billion (less any increases in "security-related" discretionary spending) because that "$100 billion" was based on just "non-security" discretionary spending compared to what Obama wanted for FY2011, not what was actually spent in FY2010. Add in the "security-related" increase and that drops further to $75.2 billion.
- Finally, as for the $38...er, $35 billion "hard cut", that's for the entire discretionary part of the budget versus what was spent in FY2010. If one wants to focus on just the "non-security" discretionary spending, that's $42.6 billion less than what was spent in FY2010.
One more thing; the various Appropriations subcommittees are working on where all that money is to be spent as we type. That level of detail is outside the purview of Ryan's Budget Committee.
Focus, gentlemen.
Don't ask Jim to focus. Way too difficult.
No worries, boys. The job creators have been appeased with their tax cuts, and we stand on the brink of a massive jobs explosion that will create the tax revenue needed to assuage our budget shortfalls. I haven't seen the dead babies but unsure what meds they have you on these days.
Post a Comment