The NY Times with a preview of the budget:
President Obama’s budget proposal for 2010 projects a stunning deficit of $1.75 trillion for the current fiscal year, which began five months ago, reflecting a shortfall of more than $1 trillion as the fiscal year began, plus the costs of bank bailouts, the first wave of spending from the newly enacted stimulus plan and the continuing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration, as it had announced, will try to cut that amount sharply by 2013, when Mr. Obama’s first term ends, to $533 billion, even as it escalates spending on crucial priorities.
“There are times when you can afford to redecorate your house,” Mr. Obama said on Thursday morning, “and there are times when you have to focus on rebuilding its foundation.”
His administration will attempt to close the large fiscal gap even while starting a major health-care initiative meant to substantially extend coverage; to do so, it foresees increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and using revenues from a new program: selling carbon credits to manufacturers as part of a cap-and-trade plan meant to slow climate change.
I remember when a 1.75 trillion dollar budget was massive, let alone a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit (and yes, I am fully aware this number is bigger than it would be under older budget rules). Oddly enough, I think the bitterest fight in this budget will not be over health care, but cap and trade (even though the two are connected, as one is allegedly paying for the other). I just sense the public has shifted on health care, and the old forces that aligned to fight it back in the Clinton years are exhausted and spent, while the public mood (in part because no one has job security anymore, and in part because the cost of health care keeps jacking up) has changed.
And while we are talking about spending, what is up with this:
The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike.
The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the largest spending bills in the nation’s history, a $787 billion measure meant to rejuvenate a sluggish economy.
The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October.
I don’t really need to point out how tone deaf it would be to trumpet the stimulus bill as earmark free then turn around and pass a spending bill filled to the brim with earmarks, do I (and in the comments, someone has suggested that 40% of the earmarks are from Republicans)? The PR war on this has already begun, and I am betting the Dems will lose this PR battle. Obama and Rahm better get this under control, and quickly.
gex
Please, please, please remember that Obama has also changed the process to show all the expenditures that under Bush weren’t included in the budget, i.e. war costs. A lot of the increase in the deficit you will see will be a result of this. It’s not all the stimulus bill.
John Cole
@gex: I am pretty sure I am aware of that. Still, the number is breath-taking. I will amend the post so 500 people don’t do the same thing you just did.
Dave
That spending bill is thanks to Bush threatening to veto all sorts of funding bills from last year. The Dems just decided to wait him out and pass it now.
Napoleon
40 % of those earmarks are Republican earmarks.
jibeaux
I do want Obama to explain this line-by-line budget review he keeps talking about though. The previous line item veto was ruled unconstitutional. There is probably a way to do it constitutionally, but it seems at a minimum it would require some new legislation he hasn’t asked for. I’m just not really sure what he means by this or how he plans to do it.
gex
@John Cole: I’ve no complaint against your post, and I agree the number is breathtaking. I just wanted to make sure that we all have the tools to fight back against the fabricated talking points that will be flooding the MSM and blogosphere. You just know that people will put up Bush’s budget next to Obama’s and try to do a direct comparison, much like they did with the inauguration costs where they used Bush’s numbers excluding security costs and Obama’s numbers including security costs.
The Moar You Know
More importantly, the views of employers on single-payer have shifted. It costs my company $20,000 per month to insure sixteen people. It’s our single highest cost, period, and they keep raising it every year.
Pudentilla
What percentage of the total bill is the total cost of the earmarks?
scarshapedstar
1) "Filled to the brim" is now defined as "less than 1% full"; that’s just my guess, the article is understandably vague about the total size of this unprecedented unchecked unaccountable Earmarkzilla that is attacking the city. But, good to know.
2) Many of these "earmarks" had dozens of cosponsors, which means that either Senators were sponsoring projects in other states (which is about as far from an "pork" as one can get) or that they were national-scale programs, which… doesn’t really bug me. Putting up trade schools on indian reservations sounds like a decent idea to me, having seen how shitty most reservations are. That’s simply not a Bridge to Nowhere.
That said… let’s make these the last riders ever, cross our hearts and hope to die, stick a needle in our eye, no stampouts, etc.
Dave
I’ll predict right now one thing the GOP bitches about with this omnibus bill: $6.8B for WIC. Because, for some reason, the GOP hates the idea of women and children getting food.
Oh, if anyone wants to peruse the bill, go to Thomas.gov and search for HR 1105.
sgwhiteinfla
I just want to say something. John Boehner is scheduled to come out and give a "reaction" to the budget that they are just getting. Now at this point lets not forget how he railed about not getting the stimulus bill until a few hours before he had to vote for it. So if/when he trashes the budget which he will have had much less time to look at how will that add up.
Patrick
@jibeaux
This is not a veto, there is no bill. He is proposing a budget for FY10. He is reviewing the FY09 budget, line by line. His FY10 proposal will then reflect any changes he would like to make from his review of the FY09 budget. Then Congress gets to work making the changes to his proposed budget. In fact, Congress doesn’t even need to work off the President’s budget, and many times they don’t.
Cat Lady
@Dave:
There might be illegal immigrant women and children (read "brown people") getting food, that’s why.
Malron
Here we go again.
I read the NYT article. After crowing about all the supposed pork in the bill, the article concedes later on that:
What the fuck. Round that off to $8 billion and guess what the whopping percentage of "government waste" is in the bill? Two freaking percent. So, Congress presents a bill that’s 98% efficient but once again we let the GOP dupe us into bitching about 2% waste? Really?
Then fine. Scuttle the 2% projects and shove the other 98% straight up their obstructionist asses. But, whatever you do, DON’T let this turn into another exercise of paring down the needed 98% to appease a few pundits.
mistermix
@scarshapedstar:
Yep.
Also, whenever a Member of Congress brings home an earmark here in Western NY, it generates a positive story. There’s no downside for earmarks for individual MoCs who bring home earmarks to depressed areas. It’s money, after all.
So, John’s right that Dems might lose the national media battle, but it won’t inflict much lasting damage on individual MoCs, and Obama can distance himself from the whole mess.
jibeaux
@Patrick:
Oh. I thought he was proposing something with a couple more teeth. Thanks for the context.
syl
It’s really only tone deaf if you assume that anyone actually cares about earmarks. I know John McCain cares, which means Broder cares, but I’m not sure anyone else does.
P.S. When does the Senate vote on the omnibus bill? The agreement that the agencies are working under now expires next Friday, so it has to be soon.
Atanarjuat
Yeah, who’d ever suspect that President Porkulus wouldn’t submit a budget proposal so sky-high that it wouldn’t give an angel a nosebleed?
To those of you credulous lefties who actually have FAITH in Obama’s promise of reducing the deficit based on this performance so far, I can only say this:
http://www.jlh-design.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/simpsons_nelson_haha3.jpg
-A
Svensker
Personal anecdote re same: A friend of mine on the opposite coast got laid off from her job a few months ago. She managed to pay for her insurance, which is good, because she was just diagnosed with liver cancer — treatable, but expensive, even with insurance. She was struggling to bring in some income (e-bay, on-line selling, freelancing, etc.) and seeming to do OK…then I didn’t hear from her. Called, e-mailed, nothing. 2 weeks go by. She e-mailed yesterday to say that she’d just got out of the hospital, where she was admitted after collapsing at home. Reason she collapsed? Malnutrition. She doesn’t have enough fucking money to pay for food AND her medical costs. (She’s in her 60s, single, no family except for a schizophrenic sister.)
The Republican response to her problems? "Tax cuts! Bomb Iran! Drill, baby drill!" Maybe we should think about changing the system? "Socialism!"
Fucking assholes.
sgwhiteinfla
Malron
40% of the earmarks were put in by the Rethugs and 153 of them in the House (who voted against the stimulus bill) voted for the omnibus yesterday and you can look of the Rethugs in the Senate to follow suit. They are just talking out their ass on this one.
John Cole
@Svensker: Does she have a paypal account? I know I will pitch in.
DJShay
Does this story have anything to do with this story?
If it is, then there is a talking point right there.
Napoleon
By the way, a second point should be made about the $410b omnibus bill, it is my understanding that it basically covers part of the year for Bush’s last budget that he completely fell down on working to get passed. Even if it happens to pass now it is really attributable to prior to Obama (and in fact in conjunction with my comment up thread on the earmarks being 40% Republican I had also read that some of those earmarks are for Republicans that are gone, including Ohio’s Hobson).
PS here is one story on ex-Rep. ties to the earmarks, including Bush.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_92/news/32607-1.html?type=printer_friendly
anonevent
@Atanarjuat: I’ll try to take you seriously if you write a serious response to #19. How would you solve this?
flounder
I read somewhere yesterday that there is $3-4 billion in earmarks, or 1%. Big f-ing whoop. The suckiest thing about that number is I live in Arizona, so with Kyl and McCain it is doubtful any of that money is for a project in this state.
Larry Kudlow came out of a commercial break a little while ago throwing a full out temper tantrum about cap and trade. He might as well have thrown himself on the ground and held his breath. I think you are right, accounting for the negative externalities of energy production is their worst nightmare.
jibeaux
@Svensker:
How awful. She should write up her story and send it to every single Congresscritter, and the media too. Please help her find out about whatever social support network exists in her area, too, if that wouldn’t be too intrusive.
Malron
@ sgwhiteinfla
I know they are, as usual. What pains me is how those of us who claim to be level headed progressives immediately jump at their bait time after time, only to discover days later its just another lie. The good news is the Republicans are in on it too, but you wouldn’t be able to tell from the NYT article because most of the focus is on the Democrats.
Napoleon
From the Politico:
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=9&subcatid=44&threadid=2096947
Atanarjuat
@anonevent:
I’m not sure I understand your question.
What does Svenker’s friend, who is suffering from lack of steady employment, a terrible illness and malnutrition, have to do with President Obama’s budget proposal?
-A
Punchy
Hey Boy Genius, what the fuck do you think you spend shit ON? You spend it on PROJECTS, which, yes, are earmarked for certain things in certain states.
It’s a fucking SPENDING BILL. Hence, earmarks are projects that require money.
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.
SGEW
Perfect summation. If one cannot understand the connection at all, one cannot begin to understand the Democratic party’s platform, or any progressive policy ideas put forth since, oh, say, 1796.
Atanarjuat, thy spoofing has once again nailed the bottom line. What we have here is a basic misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of liberal governance.
sgwhiteinfla
Malron
Same with this Time.com story.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881855,00.html?iid=tsmodule
But the good thing is you can go to this blog post and tell one of the authors of that story how you really feel about it. I already did.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/26/the-earmark-debate/
Atanarjuat
@SGEW:
SGEW, the reason the connection cannot be understood is because no one has bothered to explain the specifics, including you. Condescending hand-waving is no substitute for an evidence-based argument.
Once again, the topic of this post is Obama’s budget proposal. Svenker raised a personal anecdote that dealt with the terrible state of health care in this nation, but had little to do with the budget proposal (no disrespect to Svenker’s friend’s misfortunes).
And no, I really don’t care for the Democrat Party platform. If I did, I’d be a Democrat myself, ipso facto.
-A
Svensker
@John Cole:
She does. I don’t want to post it on a public board, but I’ll be happy to give it to anyone who e-mails me at [email protected].
Thanks, John. I’ll shoot you an e-mail with her info.
Adrienne
It will never, ever, in a million years pass the Senate. The House could pass bills all day long if it wants to. It doesn’t mean jack shit if it can’t get through the Senate. Therefore, it is already under control – no freakout necessary. That is why it is good to have people in the Executive Branch who understand the Legislative Branch, its processes, and its politics. Between Obama, Biden, and Rahm, they got this.
argh
Atanarjuat the Goat-blower spits: "Yeah, who’d ever suspect that President Porkulus wouldn’t submit a budget proposal so sky-high that it wouldn’t give an angel a nosebleed?"
Hey you seditious scum residue, your idiot double-double negative sentence is unintelligible. But any and all of the President’s "sky-high" measures are a reflection of the nearly infinite failure of your squishy Rightist views which change with the weather and time of day.
Yes the measures are vast, but only because repairing this nation from its years in your traitor claws requires it. Personally I wish that we had no TARP or bank give-aways, but then it is your side, again the traitors, who make it politically necessary.
TheHatOnMyCat
Look, the whole "earmark" thing is a PR scam in the first place.
Congress has always been in the business of buying votes for its members. Members are expected to bring home the bacon, to see to it that their districts are getting their "share" of the goodies. That is how it works and has always worked.
They can package it up, put icing and ribbons on it, call it something else, whatever … but in the end, the entire machine that represents congressional politics and its 2-year election cycle rests to a large extent on this system of going to Washington and getting the money for needed projects or endeavors, for jobs, for whatever.
All the sound and fury around this issue is just theatrics and always has been. Unless you are going to reinvent the US government (and before you starting posting crazy shit about what a great idea that is, you will need to describe how the alternative will work and why it will be better than what you have now) …… you are stuck with it.
Stop yer bitching. Useless bitching all the time is what Republicans do.
As for "winning the PR battle" ….. Clinton had this affair at the beginning of his first term. The GOP fought him tooth and nail. Gingrich used it as a stepping stone to his success in 1994. The difference now is that the political landscape has changed, the GOP is not in ascendency, and they have no Newt Gingrich. That movie ain’t coming back to town.
Plus, Obama is smarter than Clinton was. We will win this battle, and I am going on record right here, we will gain seats in 2010.
Conservatively Liberal
Sounds better untranslated.
The Grand Panjandrum
They’ll lose the PR battle on this the same way they lost the PR battle on the stimulus package.
SGEW
@Conservatively Liberal:
German doesn’t have a word or phrase for "nosebleed"? I would think that they would. And that it would be awesome.
kay
@TheHatOnMyCat:
I agree on earmarks. A big part of the job is getting federal money and bringing it home. I understand that earmarking is a specific mechanism, but if there’s an objection to that mechanism, rewrite the rules, and disallow it.
I suspect that Republicans now object to members of Congress bringing money home to districts because Republicans are in a minority, and at a disadvantage in directing that money. Elections have consequences, and a sudden "moral" opposition to a practice they have used looks suspicious.
TenguPhule
But there are enough Republican votes in it to keep the worst of them quiet.
Brick Oven Bill
You can produce and you can borrow. After that the only option is to inflate. M3 stopped being tracked in 2006, when the money supply was ~$10 trillion, as far as I can tell.
Within the last year, also as far as I can tell, the money supply has risen $13 trillion. If one believes in supply and demand, this equates to 56% inflation for the year. The forces behind this do not care about people who are down on their luck. These forces work on Sundays.
They should kick in somewhere around one year from now.
Brick Oven Bill
You’ve got to figure that a certain percentage of Wall Street understands inflation and the nature of the DJIA being indexed to the dollar. These people would realize that the money supply will work its way through the system in time and that the value of the DJIA is really:
7300 * (1/1.56) = 4680
I have seen Cold Play perform on TV, and the performance was good, but not great. Their art is more of a beautiful expression of the human condition, than it is great music, in the Liberal Arts sense of music. In this manner, they are similar to Warren Zevon. This is not to take away from the accomplishments of these men, which are excellent.
TenguPhule
Household wealth fell by 30+ trillion.
Come again on Inflation?
Skepticat
Ya think?
When are we going to learn?
m
georgia pig
The earmark thing smells like a setup to me, kind of like the chum ("Condoms!") that was put in the stimulus bill and the sandbagging of McCain on the presidential helicopters. If the Repubs make a fuss about the earmarks, Obama can make a show of urging the senate to remove earmarks or threatening a veto if the bill has earmarks, send it back to Nancy and ram it through. If they don’t raise a fuss, the GOPers lose credibility with the Wurzelbacher/Santelli mob and the "earmark!" play dies a well-deserved death. Goes back to DougJ’s "Losing the Thread" post — "Earmarks!" "Volcano Monitoring!" When you rely so much on symbology, you get stuck with the symbols. Yangs and Khoms.
bootlegger
To be perfectly cynical about it, Obama’s institution of real accounting in the budget also allows him to claim the end of the Iraq war as "savings". So he can claim he’s reduced the deficit by x-amount with this new accounting system. I still think its a good idea, just saying.
Brick Oven Bill
Re: $30 trillion
Residential real estate wealth has fallen by $3 trillion, by the Case Schiller index ($10 trillion to $7 trillion). Almost all of this loss was in Michigan, New York, and high immigrations areas. 90% of American real estate has continued to rise in value, at least through 2007. And the money supply has gone from $10 trillion to $23 trillion, and counting.
Case Schiller only tracks urban centers. I suspect that, if there was a national index of real estate prices, the actual loss would be much smaller.
neff
The German word for nosebleed is Nasenbluten. Not sure why the auto-translator didn’t get that one.
Laura W
@Brick Oven Bill: Bill, sit down. I have something for you.
Warren Zevon singing about trains.
D-Chance.
I am betting the Dems will lose this PR battle. Obama and Rahm better get this under control, and quickly.
No problem. All Obamamerica has to do is veto the bill.
Next.
SGEW
Nasenbluten!
Awesome.
bootlegger
@Brick Oven Bill: Anecdotally, I’m still trying to sell my house in Auburn, AL where there have been no layoffs and the net population continues to increase. It is a college town with several high tech industries. I’ve dropped the price of my house now 15% and my agent says it should go down even farther.
bootlegger
@D-Chance.: And he should, just to show his chops as a deficit hawk.
Gregory
@syl:
What pisses me off is that the Republicans have managed to define "earmark" as "wasteful spending." That ain’t necessarily so…
snds4x4
Do you all think that Washington politics is going to change overnight? The stimulas bill was special, or on top of the regular budget process.
So the stimulas bill had to be perfect with no earmarks. But this year’s new budget will probably be politics as usual.
Let’s face it, most people like it when their Reps bring home some projects that help the locals. So there will always be pork in spending bills, we just have to be vigilant and try to keep out the ‘bridge to nowhere’ kind of projects.
Even though I agree in principle that pork should be kept to a bare minimum during these trying times.
Martin
I’m home sick today and watched a bit of CNBC and holy shit, have these people always been this unhinged lately? War on the Rich! They were bitching that bailout money couldn’t be used to sponsor PGA tournaments and how this meant the death of golf as a sport. And Fox seemed to lead into each story "In this time of tax increases…"
Now, someone needs to remind those making $250K or more that the tax cuts were *temporary*. The personal responsibility argument would have been that they should have taken those cuts and saved and invested it. Will we hear that? No, it’s ‘War on the rich!’. Pigfuckers…
les
I’ll add my vote to those above–I think earmarks are just another in-house repub freak out that the rest of the country yawns at; and I think people know the anti-markers go home and brag about their own, just like they’re doing about the stimulus they voted against. Let ’em scream–it’s more self-marginalization. And if they get rid of them all, peeps will listen to their mayors and governors explain why the projects they want aren’t happening.
TenguPhule
BOB, stop making it impossible to parody you.
Bondo
Aside from the fact that I disagree with the earmark=bad premise (Americans are not particularly savvy on the institutional ins and outs), I don’t know what you expect Obama to do to prevent this. His only power to prevent earmarks is vetoing entire bills, which would be much more devastating.
What is the PR pitch? Pointing out that only 2% or whatever are earmarks is a start, but some effort needs to be made to talk about why we have earmarks in the first place.
Joshua Norton
CNBC has gone over the cliff. They have about zero credibility left.
Steeplejack
@Laura W:
Splff! I just passed (cheap) Chardonnay through my nose and did a full Danny Thomas spit-take. Thanks, preesh.