You Have to Start Somewhere

[hank scorpio]

Obama's Cabinet claims $243 million in federal savings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A challenge that President Obama made to his Cabinet in April resulted in cost-cutting measures that more than doubled the original $100 million target, his administration said Monday.

At his first Cabinet meeting, Obama asked Cabinet members to find $100 million in savings in 90 days. The deadline passed last week with no announcement, and the White House responded to reporters that information was being compiled.

The Office of Management and Budget announced the results Monday, saying Cabinet members identified $243 million in savings through the end of next year.

The Defense Department had the bulk of the big-ticket items. Replacing the standard jet fuel used by the military with commercial jet fuel was expected to save the Air Force more than $51 million, the report said. Increasing the number of soldiers per chartered aircraft going on leave was estimated to save the Army more than $33 million, it said.

The Department of Homeland Security was expected to save $47,000 by consolidating subscriptions to professional publications and newspapers, while the media relations office at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was expected to save $2,000 by using electronic copies of daily newspaper clippings instead of hard copies.

"These savings reflect the president's belief that even small savings can add up," Budget Director Peter Orszag said in a message on the OMB Web site.

Orszag added that the White House would continue to work with federal agencies "to identify further savings as part of the 2011 budget process," with hopes that such steps "will start to instill a culture of cost-savings and care when it comes to using taxpayer dollars."

After Obama made the challenge to the Cabinet, critics said $100 million in savings would be a small amount in the context of the federal budget and a $787 billion stimulus bill that Obama signed in February.

"Any amount of savings is obviously welcome," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in April. "But [$100 million is] about the average amount we'll spend every single day just covering the interest on the stimulus package that we passed earlier this year."

In April, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Americans nevertheless would appreciate the savings effort.

"Only in Washington, D.C., is $100 million not a lot of money," Gibbs said.

Obama has faced Republican criticism about stimulus spending, and Republicans and fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats are fighting health care reform proposals that would cost an estimated $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/27/ ... index.html

[Col Hogan]

All these savings are great...but when you are running up the deficit by BILLIONS, you really should not be trumpeting $243 million in savings...because in the end, all you did was slow down the runaway train by 1 MPH...it's still a runaway...

Yea, you need to start somewhere...there are much bigger cuts they could make...but won't...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Just another lie, he isnt saving anything our government spends more money every year, it never spends less or "SAVES" anything.

[Cap'n Cat]

Beers on me when he cuts back on that fat, bloated-ass, ineffectual military we got out there fumblin' and stumblin' across the world!

[Col Hogan]

Beers on me when he cuts back on that fat, bloated-ass, ineffectual military we got out there fumblin' and stumblin' across the world!

And beer's on me when he cuts everything that is not a Constitutionally mandated federal requirement.....

[danefan]

Did anyone watch the Obama press conference last week where he discussed the deficit?

He said he is concerned about the deficit increase. He also said that his deficit is projected to reach [insert huge number here (called "X")] over the next 10 years. He then said had they kept the budget exactly the same as it was from the Bush Administration, the deficit would have been projected to be around $800 or so billion more than X.

I'm surprised this got no attention. I obviously cannot speak for the veracity of his statements, but if true, that seems to indicate progress towards spending less than the previous administration, which is far from what is being portrayed.

Thoughts?

[hank scorpio]

Did anyone watch the Obama press conference last week where he discussed the deficit?

He said he is concerned about the deficit increase. He also said that his deficit is projected to reach [insert huge number here (called "X")] over the next 10 years. He then said had they kept the budget exactly the same as it was from the Bush Administration, the deficit would have been projected to be around $800 or so billion more than X.

I'm surprised this got no attention. I obviously cannot speak for the veracity of his statements, but if true, that seems to indicate progress towards spending less than the previous administration, which is far from what is being protrayed.

Thoughts?

That would be a huge possitive to be used in the re-election bid if it is true.

[Chizzang]

Did anyone watch the Obama press conference last week where he discussed the deficit?

He said he is concerned about the deficit increase. He also said that his deficit is projected to reach [insert huge number here (called "X")] over the next 10 years. He then said had they kept the budget exactly the same as it was from the Bush Administration, the deficit would have been projected to be around $800 or so billion more than X.

I'm surprised this got no attention. I obviously cannot speak for the veracity of his statements, but if true, that seems to indicate progress towards spending less than the previous administration, which is far from what is being portrayed.

Thoughts?

I've got no personal issues with Obama, in fact he is clearly the right president for right now...
but I find this numbers game suspicious (at best)

[danefan]

Did anyone watch the Obama press conference last week where he discussed the deficit?

He said he is concerned about the deficit increase. He also said that his deficit is projected to reach [insert huge number here (called "X")] over the next 10 years. He then said had they kept the budget exactly the same as it was from the Bush Administration, the deficit would have been projected to be around $800 or so billion more than X.

I'm surprised this got no attention. I obviously cannot speak for the veracity of his statements, but if true, that seems to indicate progress towards spending less than the previous administration, which is far from what is being portrayed.

Thoughts?

I've got no personal issues with Obama, in fact he is clearly the right president for right now...
but I find this numbers game suspicious (at best)

I believe he referenced the CBO, which would mean the numbers weren't his numbers at all, they were compiled by what is supposed to be a nonpartisan entity.

The other thing I read is a NY Times analysis of the origins of the deficit, which is not necessarily a nonpartisan analysis even though the foundations of the analysis were compiled using data provided by the CBO. That article (which I'm having trouble finding now) concludes that Obama's spending so far accounts for only 7% of the actual deficit. The remaining 93% of the current deficit can be linked to the Bush Administration, including the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the medicare prescription drug plan.

[UNI88]

Beers on me when he cuts back on that fat, bloated-ass, ineffectual military we got out there fumblin' and stumblin' across the world!

Cap'n, those adjectives and verbs could apply to almost any agency of the federal government. Hopefully he streamlines government and makes it more efficient and effective.

[UNI88]

Did anyone watch the Obama press conference last week where he discussed the deficit?

He said he is concerned about the deficit increase. He also said that his deficit is projected to reach [insert huge number here (called "X")] over the next 10 years. He then said had they kept the budget exactly the same as it was from the Bush Administration, the deficit would have been projected to be around $800 or so billion more than X.

I'm surprised this got no attention. I obviously cannot speak for the veracity of his statements, but if true, that seems to indicate progress towards spending less than the previous administration, which is far from what is being protrayed.

Thoughts?

That would be a huge possitive to be used in the re-election bid if it is true.

The financial bailout was probably credited to Bush so Obama's big ticket was the stimulus plan. The tax cuts, Iraq War, and financial bailout add up to some pretty serious change so it seems possible.

[D1B]

I've got no personal issues with Obama, in fact he is clearly the right president for right now...
but I find this numbers game suspicious (at best)

I believe he referenced the CBO, which would mean the numbers weren't his numbers at all, they were compiled by what is supposed to be a nonpartisan entity.

The other thing I read is a NY Times analysis of the origins of the deficit, which is not necessarily a nonpartisan analysis even though the foundations of the analysis were compiled using data provided by the CBO. That article (which I'm having trouble finding now) concludes that Obama's spending so far accounts for only 7% of the actual deficit. The remaining 93% of the current deficit can be linked to the Bush Administration, including the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the medicare prescription drug plan.

Hogan? Z? T? Alphadick? Clenz? Ivytwat? Care to comment?

(crickets chirping...)

[Col Hogan]

I believe he referenced the CBO, which would mean the numbers weren't his numbers at all, they were compiled by what is supposed to be a nonpartisan entity.

The other thing I read is a NY Times analysis of the origins of the deficit, which is not necessarily a nonpartisan analysis even though the foundations of the analysis were compiled using data provided by the CBO. That article (which I'm having trouble finding now) concludes that Obama's spending so far accounts for only 7% of the actual deficit. The remaining 93% of the current deficit can be linked to the Bush Administration, including the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the medicare prescription drug plan.

Hogan? Z? T? Alphadick? Clenz? Ivytwat? Care to comment?

(crickets chirping...)

Yea...while danefan heard something that the media hasn't picked up on...I can't find said "numbers" in any CBO release.....

D.....Care to comment?????

[Col Hogan]

I believe he referenced the CBO, which would mean the numbers weren't his numbers at all, they were compiled by what is supposed to be a nonpartisan entity.

The other thing I read is a NY Times analysis of the origins of the deficit, which is not necessarily a nonpartisan analysis even though the foundations of the analysis were compiled using data provided by the CBO. That article (which I'm having trouble finding now) concludes that Obama's spending so far accounts for only 7% of the actual deficit. The remaining 93% of the current deficit can be linked to the Bush Administration, including the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and the medicare prescription drug plan.

Hogan? Z? T? Alphadick? Clenz? Ivytwat? Care to comment?

(crickets chirping...)

The Accumulation of Federal Debt
For a path of spending and revenues to be sustainable,
debt must eventually grow no faster than the economy.
Persistent annual deficits lead to larger and larger
amounts of debt, which in turn require more spending
for interest payments on that debt. Thus, even moderate
primary deficits (deficits excluding interest costs) can lead
to unsustainable growth in federal debt.
A useful barometer of fiscal policy is the amount of government
debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP.
(For a discussion of why such debt is important, see
Box 3.) That debt stood at 41 percent of GDP at the end
of fiscal year 2008, a little above the 40-year average of
36 percent. CBO projects that in the next few years, deficits
will be extraordinarily high by historical standards—
almost 12 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009 and almost
8 percent in fiscal year 2010. As a result, debt will grow to
60 percent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Under the assumptions of the extended-baseline scenario,
annual deficits would fall below 2 percent of GDP by
fiscal year 2013. Debt would remain roughly stable as a
share of GDP for the next decade. After that, however,
growing spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security would lead to higher deficits, and debt would
once again increase faster than the economy. By 2035, it
would equal 79 percent of GDP. Federal debt peaked
at 113 percent of GDP shortly after the end of World
War II, a mark that would be passed in 2046 under the
extended-baseline scenario.
Under the alternative fiscal scenario, deficits would
decline for a few years after 2009 but then grow quickly
again. By 2019, debt would reach 83 percent of GDP.
After that, the spiraling costs of interest payments would
swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt would
exceed its historical peak of 113 percent of GDP by 2026
and would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.
Many budget analysts believe that the alternative fiscal
scenario presents a more realistic picture of the nation’s
underlying fiscal policy than the extended-baseline scenario
does—because, for example, it does not allow the
impact of the AMT to expand substantially. To the extent
that such a belief is valid, the explosive path of federal
debt under the alternative fiscal scenario underscores the
need for large and rapid corrective steps to put the nation
on a sustainable fiscal course.
Moreover, CBO’s projections understate the debt that
would accumulate under the two scenarios. Long-term
budget projections require a stable economic backdrop;
thus, for the purpose of the projections, CBO made
assumptions that generated a stable real interest rate and
stable growth in real wages and output. In effect, the
analysis omitted the pressures that a rising ratio of debt to
GDP would have on real interest rates and economic
growth. Changes in the demographic structure of the
population are likely to offset somewhat the effects of
high debt levels on real interest rates. In the end, however,
ever-growing deficits and debt would lead to

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc104 ... timony.pdf

[D1B]

Hogan? Z? T? Alphadick? Clenz? Ivytwat? Care to comment?

(crickets chirping...)

Yea...while danefan heard something that the media hasn't picked up on...I can't find said "numbers" in any CBO release.....

D.....Care to comment?????

"Oh the humanity, Hogan can't find the numbers! They must not exist then."

[danefan]

Hogan? Z? T? Alphadick? Clenz? Ivytwat? Care to comment?

(crickets chirping...)

Yea...while danefan heard something that the media hasn't picked up on...I can't find said "numbers" in any CBO release.....

D.....Care to comment?????

I don't remember the numbers. I was asking a question to see if anyone else remembered them. I'm not arguing their validity either. Just something that caught my ear.

[Col Hogan]

Yea...while danefan heard something that the media hasn't picked up on...I can't find said "numbers" in any CBO release.....

D.....Care to comment?????

"Oh the humanity, Hogan can't find the numbers! They must not exist then."

I'm glad we can agree on something...

[danefan]

Here is the exact quote from the transcript:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07 ... confe.html

First of all, let's understand that when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. We had to immediately more forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Consumers had lost, through their 401(k)s, through their home values, you name it, they had lost trillions of dollars. That all just went away.
That was -- the day I was sworn in, it was already happening. And we had 700,000 jobs that were being lost. So we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy.

Then we had to pass a budget, by law, and our budget had a 10- year projection -- and I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in your budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be 7.1 trillion (dolla rs).

Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in..

So the -- the reason I point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mine. I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion. It's not enough, but in order for us to do more, we're not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system -- and by the way, we had a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program, the F-22, that the Pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need. So we're going to have to eliminate waste there. We're going to have to eliminate no-bid contracts. We're going to have to do all kinds of reforms in our budgeting. But we're also going to have to change health care. Otherwise, we can't close that $7.1 trillion gap in the way that the American people want it to change.

So to all -- everybody who's out there who has been ginned-up about this idea that the Obama administration wants to spend and spend and spend, the fact of the matter is, is that we inherited a(n) enormous deficit, enormous long-term debt projections. We have not reduced it as much as we need to, and as I'd like to, but health-care reform is not going to add to th at deficit; it's designed to lower it. That's part of the reason why it's so important to do, and to do now.

I thought the numbers came from CBO, but I cannot find anything supporting that. Regardless, is he just playing a numbers game here?

[Col Hogan]

Here is the exact quote from the transcript:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07 ... confe.html

First of all, let's understand that when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. We had to immediately more forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Consumers had lost, through their 401(k)s, through their home values, you name it, they had lost trillions of dollars. That all just went away.
That was -- the day I was sworn in, it was already happening. And we had 700,000 jobs that were being lost. So we felt it was very important to put in place a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy.

Then we had to pass a budget, by law, and our budget had a 10- year projection -- and I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in your budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be 7.1 trillion (dolla rs).

Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in..

So the -- the reason I point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit are deep concerns of mine. I am very worried about federal spending. And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion. It's not enough, but in order for us to do more, we're not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system -- and by the way, we had a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program, the F-22, that the Pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need. So we're going to have to eliminate waste there. We're going to have to eliminate no-bid contracts. We're going to have to do all kinds of reforms in our budgeting. But we're also going to have to change health care. Otherwise, we can't close that $7.1 trillion gap in the way that the American people want it to change.

So to all -- everybody who's out there who has been ginned-up about this idea that the Obama administration wants to spend and spend and spend, the fact of the matter is, is that we inherited a(n) enormous deficit, enormous long-term debt projections. We have not reduced it as much as we need to, and as I'd like to, but health-care reform is not going to add to th at deficit; it's designed to lower it. That's part of the reason why it's so important to do, and to do now.

I thought the numbers came from CBO, but I cannot find anything supporting that. Regardless, is he just playing a numbers game here?

With apologies to danefan, who asks a good question...

D1B...TTBF...Wedgie...Care to comment?????


(crickets chirping...)