By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama to Cut Budget by $17 Billion

Obama will slice budget by $17 billion

White House will propose cutting or reducing funding for more than 100 federal programs in latest salvo in 2010 budget fight.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/06/news/economy/obama_budget_cuts/index.htm?postversion=2009050620

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The White House on Thursday will detail a proposal to save $17 billion next year by eliminating or reducing 121 federal programs, according to a senior administration official.

Roughly $11.5 billion of the savings would come from the discretionary side of the fiscal 2010 budget -- that is, for programs whose funding is not automatic. And roughly half of the savings would come from non-defense programs, the official said Wednesday.

"In many cases we have multiple programs that do the same things," the official said in a briefing call with reporters. "Duplication can be the enemy of efficiency."

In other cases, the results of the targeted programs didn't justify the expense, the official said.

Among the programs on the president's chopping block:

  • A long-range navigation system now made obsolete by the GPS. Cost: $35 million.
  • An early education program called Even Start, the performance of which had been poor. Cost: $66 million.
  • A Department of Education attaché position in Paris. Cost: $632,000.
  • The Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation, which only pays out 20% of its funds in awards every year. Cost: $1 million.
  • A program that pays states to clean out abandoned mines even after the mines have been cleaned out. Cost: $142 million.

The proposed program eliminations and reductions will be part of the release Thursday of the president's 2010 budget request.

The cuts are likely to be the first of many to come, the official said. "This is an important step, but it's just the first step. We will continue to search for additional savings and efficiencies."

A few weeks ago, the president announced that he had asked his cabinet members to cut $100 million from their agencies' expenses, a number budget analysts characterized as symbolic at best.

Whether or not lawmakers adopt the president's recommended cuts is unclear. They are likely, however, to come up with their own cost-saving proposals. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for instance, has given her House committee chairmen until June 2 to provide a list of ways they can reduce expenses.

Deficit on the horizon

Fiscal discipline is among the pillars of the new economic foundation Obama has said he wants to build.

But it was unclear Wednesday whether the $17 billion in savings in 2010 would be used to fund other federal programs or to reduce the country's growing deficit.

The House and Senate have agreed to more than $3.5 trillion budget outline for fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1. That's roughly the size of the president's budget request. The proposals Congress and the president are making, however, would push long-term deficits significantly higher.

While few suggest the government retract its spending largesse while the economy is still struggling, deficit hawks caution that lawmakers must do more than pay lip service to the long-term debts situation.

Thanks to the financial crisis, tax receipts are down sharply this year while spending demands have grown to record levels. Forecasts of a slow recovery and estimates of a large price tag for Obama's proposed health care, energy and education initiatives have worsened somewhat the already tough fiscal outlook.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that all federal revenue will be eaten up by government costs for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and public debt interest by 2025. Last year, the estimate was 2030, said Charles Konigsberg, an expert on the federal budget at deficit watchdog group the Concord Coalition.

The official reiterated the administration's position that the biggest deficit-cutting efforts will come from curbing the growth in health care costs.

The White House budget office's cost-saving proposals are part of a two-stage release on the final details of Obama's budget request. Next week, the OMB will release more analysis on the country's fiscal policies, along with "minor updates and changes" to the administration's summary tables of budget forecasts, first put out in February.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network



its still no where near what it needs to be



I can't believe how fitting the expression "too little, too late" is here.



 

 

All you need to know about the article.

But it was unclear Wednesday whether the $17 billion in savings in 2010 would be used to fund other federal programs or to reduce the country's growing deficit.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

17 billion down... 1.5 trillion or so to go.

And he claimed those savings weren't there in the campaign.

Nice to see he was wrong.

 

You know also... I think it's a dick move to cut our contracts on the Fighter planes boeing made... just from like a fairness standpoint.


I mean we promised to buy like 450, and we're going to end up buying less then a dozen... and it's not like Boeing can sell those planes to anyone else due to national secruity.  They got screwed.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

17 billion down... 1.5 trillion or so to go.

And he claimed those savings weren't there in the campaign.

Nice to see he was wrong.

 

You know also... I think it's a dick move to cut our contracts on the Fighter planes boeing made... just from like a fairness standpoint.


I mean we promised to buy like 450, and we're going to end up buying less then a dozen... and it's not like Boeing can sell those planes to anyone else due to national secruity.  They got screwed.

 

 

and that will probably lead to some major lay offs as well



dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:

17 billion down... 1.5 trillion or so to go.

And he claimed those savings weren't there in the campaign.

Nice to see he was wrong.

 

You know also... I think it's a dick move to cut our contracts on the Fighter planes boeing made... just from like a fairness standpoint.


I mean we promised to buy like 450, and we're going to end up buying less then a dozen... and it's not like Boeing can sell those planes to anyone else due to national secruity.  They got screwed.

 

 

and that will probably lead to some major lay offs as well

Oh yeah.  People will definitly lose their jobs.  Like 5,000 people.

Not as massive as you might expect really... but that's not the issue so much as those 5,000 people were basically assured jobs because of a deal the US government made... and now the US government is going back on it.

For example,  I'm in charge of the shipping and receiving for the college I work at's book store.

We're bout to be aquired by Barnes and Nobles.  If we agreed to buy 200 math books a semester for 6 semesters.  Barnes and Nobles would still be on the hook for those books.  They couldn't go... "We're the new bookstore administration all those old guys have been fired... we aren't buying these."

Or at least I don't think they could.  I'm no corporate law expert.  It bothers me when the government doesn't follow the rules.  Because if your government doesn't follow the rules, why the hell should anyone else.



Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:

17 billion down... 1.5 trillion or so to go.

And he claimed those savings weren't there in the campaign.

Nice to see he was wrong.

 

You know also... I think it's a dick move to cut our contracts on the Fighter planes boeing made... just from like a fairness standpoint.


I mean we promised to buy like 450, and we're going to end up buying less then a dozen... and it's not like Boeing can sell those planes to anyone else due to national secruity.  They got screwed.

 

 

and that will probably lead to some major lay offs as well

Oh yeah.  People will definitly lose their jobs.  Like 5,000 people.

Not as massive as you might expect really... but that's not the issue so much as those 5,000 people were basically assured jobs because of a deal the US government made... and now the US government is going back on it.

For example,  I'm in charge of the shipping and receiving for the college I work at's book store.

We're bout to be aquired by Barnes and Nobles.  If we agreed to buy 200 math books a semester for 6 semesters.  Barnes and Nobles would still be on the hook for those books.  They couldn't go... "We're the new bookstore administration all those old guys have been fired... we aren't buying these."

Or at least I don't think they could.  I'm no corporate law expert.  It bothers me when the government doesn't follow the rules.  Because if your government doesn't follow the rules, why the hell should anyone else.

 

 

what i am saying is that obma is trying to boost the economy right? why would you stop buying stuff? those people re going to lose their jobs and then they are not going to afford thei rmortgages and then we are back where we began.



Kasz216 said:

17 billion down... 1.5 trillion or so to go.

17 billion down, 1,500 billion or so to go. Put it into perspective :)

Here are some numbers to put 17 billion in its place.


Program Type of program FY 2008 (Billions of dollars) FY 2009 (Billions of dollars) FY 2010 (Billions of dollars)








1 Department of Defense Appropriated program 593 666 673








2 Other appropriated programs Appropriated program 528 613 695








3 Social Security Mandatory program 612 662 695








4 Medicare Mandatory program 386 425 453








5 Medicaid Mandatory program 201 259 290








6 Troubled Asset relief Program (TArP) Mandatory program 0 247 0








7 Additional financial stabilization efforts Other 0 250 0








8 Other mandatory programs Mandatory program 411 673 571








9 Net interest Other 253 139 164








10 Disaster costs Other 0 4 11


I love the fact that he is cutting these expenses... but it means little if he spends so much more elsewhere.

 

http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/datasets/2009-united-states-budget/versions/1



I'm always for cutting government spending, but this is kinda like going out and buying a PS3, then selling back your used copy of Madden '05. Really doesn't do much.