Framing The Budget Conversation
President Obama seems to be playing a long game in the budget negotiations, as evidenced by the press blitz over the past few weeks. So far, the White House has been very effective in setting the direction of the conversation taking place over the budget. By doing so, they have laid the groundwork for a much more realistic conversation on the federal budget which is long overdue -- the specifics of what to cut. This gets into territory the Republicans have been shying away from for a very long time, for very good reason. Because when you get down to the details of what, exactly, to cut from the federal budget, the questions get a lot tougher than easily-tossed-off campaign rhetoric. To put this another way: Obama is opening a conversation with the American people into what our federal priorities should be. That's what has been missing from the political debate for a long time. So far, Obama seems to be dominating this argument.
The president knew he was going to lose the first of three upcoming budget battles. As early as two or three weeks ago, just about everyone inside the Beltway knew that the sequester was going to take place on schedule. The next budget battle -- over the "continuing resolution" which will keep the government funded for the rest of this budget year -- is going to be the big one, however. The third will (hopefully) never happen, as if any sort of Grand Bargain is reached, it will likely include an extension of the debt ceiling as part of the deal.
The American people, as always, want more from the federal government than we are willing to pay for. It's a historical fact -- it's been true throughout all of our history, back to 1776. We like government, but we hate taxes. We can't make up our minds, which current polling shows once again. When asked if (in the abstract) cutting federal government spending is a good idea, something like two-thirds to three-fourths of Americans agree. When asked specifically (program by program) where the cuts should be, large majorities agree -- on virtually every single program -- that spending should not be cut. We want it all, we want it now, and we certainly don't want to pay for it. It is just who we are, as a people.
What Obama has been doing has been highlighting the specifics, in a way that simply has not occurred throughout all the budget debates, cliffs, supercommittees, commissions, and crises of the past two years. By doing so, he is forcing the American public to confront the disconnect between wanting to cut "the federal budget," and also not wanting to cut any individual part of it.
The federal budget can be divided up into five large chunks. Four of those chunks are largely understood by the public. The fifth is where the rubber meets the road, and is what Obama has been pointing out in the sequester debate.
The four everyone can wrap their minds around easily are: interest on the national debt, the Pentagon, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. All these subjects are easy to identify, so when the budget talks bring them up, everyone is fairly comfortable with the boundaries of the discussion. The fifth and largely unknown part of the budget is a kind of "everything else" category, where all other money the feds spend is lumped together as: "discretionary spending." This discretionary spending is what the White House has been highlighting for over a week, hand-in-hand with highlighting the sequester cuts to the Pentagon's budget.
Now, if you conducted a poll, I bet Americans would be just as willing to "cut federal discretionary spending" as they are willing (in the abstract) to "cut the federal budget." I'd further predict that Republicans would probably poll overwhelmingly in favor of such cuts. "Discretionary" doesn't sound all that important, so we can cut that stuff, right?
Republicans have always been in favor of cutting the discretionary chunk of the budget, in general. Or, at the very least, more willing to cut discretionary money than, say, the Pentagon's budget. Many Republicans see discretionary spending as all that "nanny state" liberal stuff that they'd just as soon not fund at all.
Problem is, discretionary spending includes all sorts of things. Sure, there are programs conservatives have been trying to kill for decades (the Department of Education springs immediately to mind). But there are also a whole lot of things which are (or should be) non-partisan and neutral, even in the midst of a budget fracas. These would be the things that virtually nobody could make an argument against -- things like food inspectors and air traffic controllers. While Republicans might argue that this or that item in this category could have its funding trimmed, they're (at least) not fundamentally or ideologically opposed to any of them.
But what Obama has so far been doing a pretty good job of pointing out is that there is also a third sub-category of discretionary spending that Republicans are actually strongly for. These mostly fall under the "law and order" umbrella. Things like the Border Patrol, federal prosecutors, the F.B.I., the T.S.A., and pretty much all the other alphabet-soup agencies which make up the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department. So even "discretionary spending" has things in it which Republicans likely wouldn't drastically cut, given the chance.
This is what Obama has been laying on the table in the past week, card by card. You want across-the-board budget cuts? Well then, guess what? Fewer Border Patrol agents. That's the way it works. Fewer anti-terrorism dollars. Because that's part of the discretionary slice of the budget pie.
This has been a good argument for the president to make, and it has already laid the groundwork for the upcoming (and much bigger, with a government shutdown as the threat) budget battle over the continuing resolution. The government can't spend money past the end of March, so we've got another three or four weeks of this fight.
Up until now, politicians could argue their budget priorities in shorthand. This has allowed Republicans to get away with hiding behind the vague nature of the label "discretionary spending." While everyone knows what the Republican and Democratic priorities are on things like the Pentagon budget, Social Security, or Medicare, all other federal spending was conveniently brushed under the discretionary rug. The much-vaunted Paul Ryan budget plan had precious few statistics on how discretionary spending would be cut -- he would have just "let the committees deal with that" instead of laying out what to cut himself. Mitt Romney ran on a campaign platform of "trust me -- I'll cut a bunch of stuff, but I'm not going to tell you what!" for the entire election season. Up until now, Republicans have been able to avoid specifics when it comes to the last chunk of the federal budget.
Entering into the next round of budgetary battling, what is the media now talking about? The particulars of discretionary spending. What are the arguments revolving around? This or that agency's budget priorities. What are the "scare stories" the Republicans are denouncing? Actual, tangible cuts in what the federal government actually does -- not some pie in the sky "let's just cut the budget" campaign-trail hoo-hah. The conversational conventional wisdom inside the Beltway has visibly shifted -- right before the real debate begins over what the federal budget will contain for the next six months (and, if a real "grand bargain" is met, perhaps the next eighteen months).
President Obama will not be able to stop the sequester. But, as with any shift in federal spending, it won't happen overnight. If a deal can be reached in March, then most of the sequester's impact can be adjusted before the worst of it happens. The main budget battle is just beginning this Friday, not ending. So far, President Obama has done an excellent job of laying out exactly what the Republicans don't want to talk about in public -- that when the federal budget is cut, it has real and lasting consequences to the American economy and to what the American government does for the people. The budget conversation will now revolve around: "OK, if you don't want to cut the budget of Agency X or Bureau Y, then what exactly do you think we should cut instead?" This is a much more realistic discussion to have, and it is one that -- up until the White House began the conversation last week -- has so far been long overdue.
-- Chris Weigant
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This has been a good argument for the president to make,
The fact that it is a completely and utterly bogus argument appears to not matter a whit...
According to the non-partisan CBO, the amount required to meet Obama's sequester is $44 billion dollars..
That is a bit more than 1% of the entire 3.8 TRILLION DOLLAR budget..
ONE PERCENT!!!
Does Obama expect Americans to believe that he can't find ONE PERCENT of the budget that will NOT decimate our country and end our world as we know it!??
If this is true, If Obama can't find a mere ONE PERCENT of needless waste to cut, then he is more incompetent then even *I* thought...
And I have always thought he was pretty incompetent..
Obama's argument is one thing and one thing only..
Pure, unadulterated, unequivocal fear-mongering bullshit...
"OK, if you don't want to cut the budget of Agency X or Bureau Y, then what exactly do you think we should cut instead?"
Cut White House staff...
Cut Campaign Trips...
Cut Expensive Vacations..
Those things ALONE would likely meet Obama's Sequester requirements 10 times over...
But nooooooooo...
The Obamas MUST have their perks....
Michale
The budget conversation will now revolve around: "OK, if you don't want to cut the budget of Agency X or Bureau Y, then what exactly do you think we should cut instead?" This is a much more realistic discussion to have, and it is one that -- up until the White House began the conversation last week -- has so far been long overdue.
-- Chris Weigant
-- Chris Weigant
First David and now you!
Are ya'all copying my style!!! :D
hehehehehehehehehe
Michale
Michale
Cut White House staff...
Cut Campaign Trips...
Cut Expensive Vacations..
Those things ALONE would likely meet Obama's Sequester requirements 10 times over...
But nooooooooo...
The Obamas MUST have their perks....
Lolololololol amazing. This might be your best nonsensical rant yet!
The Dow Jones is pretty close to it's all time record high. That's what you get for electing a socialist President you communists.
Lolololololol amazing. This might be your best nonsensical rant yet!
TRANSLATION: I have no rebuttal so I am just going to spew nonsense...
:D
'S ok... I understand... :D
Michale
The Dow Jones is pretty close to it's all time record high. That's what you get for electing a socialist President you communists.
Amazing how the Left cheers on Wall St when it suits their agenda... :D
Michale
Translation: arguing with that statement is like arguing with someone who says the sky is red. They clearly have no clue what they are talking about and indulging them would be a complete waste of your time, especially if you were a professional in the realm of 'Sky Colours'.
And yes colour is spelled colour North Americans!
Translation: arguing with that statement is like arguing with someone who says the sky is red. They clearly have no clue what they are talking about and indulging them would be a complete waste of your time, especially if you were a professional in the realm of 'Sky Colours'.
That's what YOU claim, Michty...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-obamas-golf-weekend-tiger-cost-much-341-federal-workers-furloughed_704915.html
But the FACTS say different...
Eliminate the White House perks, the excessive travel, the extravagant vacations and all the other crap that the 99% would NEVER be able to afford...
THAT will meet the requirements of Obama's sequester right there...
But I guess ya'all don't mind when Emperor Barack The First lives the luxury life while the 99% suffer...
Frankly, it pisses me off...
Michale
MFCCFL
Eliminate the White House perks, the excessive travel, the extravagant vacations and all the other crap that the 99% would NEVER be able to afford...
I mean, seriously!
How often did Laura Bush and the Bush girls travel to Spain for vacations?? Aspen?? Paris??
For a group that loves to routinely savage and attack Wall Street and Banker "Fat Cats" for their extravagances, ya'all sure give the Obamas a pass..
That seems to be the prevailing theme around here..
Obama gets a pass...
Ya know, here's some food for thought..
If ya'all would slam Obama more when he actually DOES deserve it, maybe I might slam him less when ya'all think he DOESN'T deserve it..
Hmmmmmmm????
Something to think about, eh??
Michale
MFCCFL
Michale -
Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing, sorry.
Google "Bush twins vacation Buenos Aires" or perhaps "Hawaii"...
What would you say now if Michelle Obama and the girls "refused to cut their vacation short over security concerns"? Be honest -- what, exactly, would you say? Well then, why didn't you say it THEN? Oh, right, because Bush could do no wrong, and when Republicans are in the White House we don't mention things like this.
ODS, plain and simple.
George W. Bush spent more days on vacation than ANY PRESIDENT. By a LONG shot. Those are facts. Bitching about the Obamas occasionally going to Hawaii or playing a round of golf is like a chimeny sweep covered in dirt telling you you've got a speck on your shoulder, sorry.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're full of moose poop. Cutting Obama's vacation would save $40 or $80 billion? That's just a right-wing fantasy. The Obamas take a TINY FRACTION of the vacations the Bushes did. That's fact.
And the Bush twins, in particular, weren't exactly model citizens on their vacations, so you can park that nonsense by the door, too.
-CW
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're full of moose poop. Cutting Obama's vacation would save $40 or $80 billion?
Vacations, plural..
Add up all of Obama's vacations, their exotic venues of the past 4 years and I would be willing to wager the costs would DWARF the vacations of the past 5 presidents COMBINED...
Sorry, but I gotta call moose poop on that one :D
It's not even the COSTS that bug the hell out of me and SHOULD bug the hell outta ya'all..
It's the leadership issue. In OCS, it is INGRAINED in JEEPs that your troops come first. A GOOD leader doesn't eat til all his troops have eaten. A GOOD leader is the first one up and the last one down.
And a GOOD leader sure as hell doesn't drone on and on about how everyone must tighten their belts and share in the sacrifice and then go jet-setting across the country and across the world, having million dollar yacht/golf club dates with golf pros and celebrities..
Call it ODS all you want, but you simply CANNOT deny that it's true...
Obama is NOT a good leader. PERIOD...
While you may make a case for my Obama Derangement Syndrome, you simply CANNOT deny the fact that the OLS (Obama LOVE Syndrome) is a LOT (by FAR) more prevalent amongst rank and file Weigantians..
As I said above (or afore) I would be a LOT less inclined to slam Obama so much if rank and file Weigantians would be willing to take Obama to task for his MANY screw-ups...
To read the comments here, Obama is the second coming and can play 12-Dimensional Chess while walking on water and creating the Higgs Boson from thin air...
When it comes to Obama, I am simply the mirror image of RnF Weigantians... :D
Google "Bush twins vacation Buenos Aires" or perhaps "Hawaii"...
Sorry, that doesn't hold water..
A> There was maybe ONE or TWO vacations, compared to the Obama kids' and Michelle's dozen or so vacations..
and
2> The taxpayers didn't foot the bill for the Bush girls vacations.. We did in the case of Michelle's Marie Antoinette jaunts...
and finally, Bush didn't go on and on in CAMPAIGN mode about how everyone must tighten their belts and share in the sacrifice..
If you have information that Bush and family took extravagant jaunts in the aftermath of 9/11 then you MIGHT have a legitimate comparison...
But such information doesn't exist because it just didn't happen..
"There was no poison on the rag and there was no intent to kill and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile because it just ain't true."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
And the Bush twins, in particular, weren't exactly model citizens on their vacations, so you can park that nonsense by the door, too.
Oh come on... POTUS kids are off limits..
Or does that just apply to POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSiums??) that have the '-D' after their names??
But, since we went there, come talk to me when Sasha and Malika (or whatever) hit 18 or 19...
That would be the ONLY fair comparison, no?? :D
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
And, since I am (wrongfully) accused of NEVER giving Obama credit for ANYTHING...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-does-little-environmental-harm-us-finds/
Looks like Obama is going to finally do something that is actually GOOD for this country...
Props to Obama for doing something right...
ODS my left arse cheek! :D
Michale
If you have information that Bush and family took extravagant jaunts in the aftermath of 9/11 then you MIGHT have a legitimate comparison...
Scratch that.
You WOULD have a legitimate comparison... No "might" about it..
Michale
George W. Bush spent more days on vacation than ANY PRESIDENT.
We're not talking about heading to the family homestead.
We're talking jet-setting around the world to hobnob with celebrities and golf pros, shopping jaunts in Spain and France or extravagant ski vacations to Aspen or exclusive Martha's Vinyard estates...
You simply CANNOT compare the two, in costs and in a complete and utter failure of leadership..
You don't ask Americans to share the sacrifice and tighten their belts and then jet-set off to some exclusive golf club to hobnob with TIGER WOODS, for all people!
I mean, ya'all are supposed to be liberals. Yet ya'all don't have any issue with TIGER WOODS!!!???
Are you serious!!!????
Michale
As far as the current FTP, don't think I didn't notice the Trek Reference...
I am ITCHING to comment, but I vowed to myself that I would give it a few days and give others a chance to chime in on the current FTP so as not to dominate the conversation, as I am wont to do. :D
But seriously.. "Jedi Mind Meld"!!!???
That's worse than Han Solo bragging on the Millennium Falcon and how it made the Kessel Run in "12 Parsecs".... {{{collective groan}}}
:D
Michale
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572180/u.s-capitol-official-obama-wrong-on-janitors-pay-cut/
Amazing...
No FACT CHECKING what so ever on Obama's speeches..
I guess Fact Checking is for Republicans only..
One more way Obama gets a pass.. :^/
Michale
Michale [11] -
I answered you, but I pasted it in to the FTP column by mistake, so please click on over there for my answer.
Short answer: You would lose that wager, big time. You don't even have to combine them, just measure Obama and Dubya... Dubya probably set a record that Obama PLUS Clinton can't match, in fact.
-CW
Michale -
PS. Flights to Spain are shorter than flights to Buenos Aires, I bet. So which do you think cost more? Exotic enough for you?
:-)
-CW
Michale,
I guess Fact Checking is for Republicans only..
FINALLY!!!
Finally, you are beginning to understand what is happening here.
I knew it was just a matter of time - granted, a very, very, VERY long time - before we got you on public record admitting that the (congressional) Republicans are the one group, en masse (there may be one or two notable exceptions, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate) who have an aversion to the facts and who need to be "fact-checked" pretty much whenever you see their lips moving.
Thanks, Michale, for this long overdue acknowledgement.
Now, can we please move on and have some intelligent discussion around here for a change about some issues - that's ISSUES - that really matter without getting so personal about who or who is not currently occupying the White House?
It would be refreshing and ... we'd be eternally ... grateful ...
CW-
I have to say I think Obama loses by focusing on what cuts to make. This whole idea of "cuts" is a bad idea. This will shrink the economy. Just a terrible idea all around.
What I'd like to see him argue is that we should be making investments in our economy and in our country. We should be pointing out how defunding the country has completely failed in Europe and we should be investing.
-David