Democrats Assail Obama's Hit List

[Pirate Smile]

Source: Washington Post

By Lori Montgomery and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 8, 2009

President Obama's modest proposal to slice $17 billion from 121 government programs quickly ran into a buzz saw of opposition on Capitol Hill yesterday, as an array of Democratic lawmakers vowed to fight White House efforts to deprive their favorite initiatives of federal funds.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she is "committed" to keeping a $400 million program that reimburses states for jailing illegal immigrants, a task she called "a total federal responsibility."
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said he would oppose "any cuts" in agriculture subsidies because "farmers and farm families depend on this federal assistance."
And Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept delivery of a new presidential helicopter Obama says he doesn't need and doesn't want. The helicopter program, which cost $835 million this year, supports 800 jobs in Hinchey's district. "I do think there's a good chance we can save it," he said.

The news releases began flying as Obama unveiled the long-awaited details of his $3.4 trillion spending plan, including a list of programs he wants to trim or eliminate. Though the proposed reductions represent just one-half of 1 percent of next year's budget, the swift protest was a precursor of the battle Obama will face within his own party to control spending and rein in a budget deficit projected to exceed $1.2 trillion next year.

As small as it is, the list of reductions highlights Obama's first effort to reshape priorities that were tilted heavily toward defense and national security under President George W. Bush. While the Pentagon would get a significant increase overall, more than half Obama's projected savings -- $8.8 billion -- would come out of 14 defense programs, the most from any agency. And for the first time since 2003, the budget would devote more money to the war in Afghanistan than to the one in Iraq.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050702001.html?hpid=topnews

[babylonsister]

1. Terrific. Hinchey in particlar is impressive:

And Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept delivery of a new presidential helicopter Obama says he doesn't need and doesn't want.

My disdain - no bounds.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. I know a fair amount about the Presidential Helos...he really should go for the new ones

It could also be used as the prototype for acquisition reform that is so badly needed.

Note: I don't live in the district or have any financial interest in any of it, its that the old helos are death traps if there is ever a problem.

[babylonsister]

7. The cost is prohibitive right now. He can't be wanting to

cut the budget and spend so much for new ones. I agree, new ones would be nice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I am serious about a crash in one being nearly unsurvivable

But I hear you about the money

[babylonsister]

12. That's the problem.

A crash in a new one would also be unsurvivable. I just have to keep the faith that he's being protected by the best maintenance team, pilots, etc., ever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. The new ones are much more crash worthy and survivable

[IntravenousDemilo]

24. Is there a helicopter factory in Hinchey's district? Oink oink. n/m

[No Elephants]

29. That's what the article says. I'm thinking ebay, ala Palin. A lot of folks

would LOVE to own a helicopter made for the POTUS.

[No Elephants]

30. Two things would get in the way of this twit trying to "force" the POTUS to

take delivery of anything: Separation of powers and Secret Service.

What a moran! Talk about posturing.

[SlingBlade]

34. YEP !

[SerfinUSA]

2. I smell trouble

[Robbien]

3. What a racket--jailing immigrants

Private prisons get almost two hundred bucks a day to snatch and grab immigrants and lock them up. Shut down the payment and see how fast these private prisons stop this racket.

And the factory farm subsidies should also be stopped.

Politicians and their pork.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Where else would you have them held, tents in Maricopa County?

[Robbien]

11. I don't want them held at all

Many are kept in these private profit center jails for years.

Until the immigration system is fixed, these raids and private prison dumping shouldn't be happening at all. If an undocumented person happens to be snatched then they should be promptly send home.

[destes]

35. If they're undocumented....

....how do you know where "home" is?

Just asking.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. The way I read it, it was those in jail for other crimes

[ieoeja]

41. Those crimes are presumably not federal.

If they are holding them for local crimes, then that blows away their entire argument that the feds should be paying for it.

[Zavulon]

45. "Be send home."

Where they're sure to stay. I mean, once you deport someone who doesn't give a shit about our laws, they're sure never to return, right? :eyes:

Works just as well as the "catch-and-release, they certainly won't fail to show up for their court dates" strategy.

I'd like to see illegal aliens (so that you can understand it, these are the people you call "undocumented persons") be jailed just for being here illegally. THEN they could do some of those jobs Americans supposedly won't do, such as making license plates. I'd like their prison time to be long and to suck, too.

Edited to add that it disgusts me that aid to states for jailing costs is being cut. Border security is a fed responsibility.

[Old Hob]

49. what if they break the law?

[Art_from_Ark]

28. In the case of Mike Ross, who represents Arkansas' 4th district,

he does represent a lot of family farmers, particularly in the rice, soybeans and sorghum growing areas in the southeastern part of the state which have always seen economic hardship, even in the best of times. Ending the subsidies for them would no doubt put a lot of them out of business and perhaps result in their land being snapped up by Agribusiness.

[No Elephants]

I just read that Arkansas is one of the few states in the country that is in the black. I did a

double take. I really have to give props to states in the black right now.

[No Elephants]

31. I just read that Arkansas is one of the few states in the country that is in the black. I did a

double take. I really have to give props to states in the black right now.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. I think one reason why Arkansas is in the black

is because it's the home of Wal-Mart, which continues to rake in the bucks even in the midst of the recession.

[dbt]

47. Mike Ross is, by his own email admission, a dumbass.

Regarding his vote to enable bu$hler to make a War Of Aggression And Profit on Iraq, he wrote to me,

"Sitting around that breakfast table, it was hard not to believe the president." This was in reference to my query as to why NOBODY in the entire Arkansas delegation dared to oppose bu$h in his March To War.

Hard not to believe the president? Excuse me! Two fucking THIRDS of Iraq had its air space under absolute control by the US and the UK. The country was undoubtedly under surveillance by satellites that can read license plates from 22,500 miles straight up and Saddam Hussein somehow had Weapons Of Mass Destruction that we couldn't find? Give me a break!

Now, Mike Ross may occasionally stumble onto something worthy, like looking out for family farms, but he's WAY too gullible to be representing me (HA!) in Congre$$. When you boil him down, the boy is a Dumbass.

[Psephos]

4. This is an effing joke. Where's the pay-go I voted for? Huh??

$17 billion??????

That's how much the US government will spend in 11 EFFING HOURS next year.

And even that sad sack of shillings is going to be spent on other programs, which means it's not even a cut, just a re-allocation of money. In other words, a lie.

Our government is spending trillions when the global economy is shot, with no idea and no concern about how this will ever be paid back. Anyone notice how soft the Treasury bond auction was today? Treasury had to pay more interest than expected to attract any buyers. I.e., increasingly, no one wants that toilet paper. Meanwhile, as the US government tries to borrow every dollar in sight, that means every one else in the world who needs capital has to pay through the nose for whatever scraps are left. It's selfish economic poaching, plain and simple, cheating those in the developing world who can least afford it.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=159954&t=01006124249416869148

[babylonsister]

9. No idea and no concern? You're wrong. Prove it if you're not. nt

[CreekDog]

10. Is cutting government spending your #1 and only #1 priority?

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

13. I'd venture to add, is this a new concern?

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

20. charming, but it's not a Republican ass

:think:

[Psephos]

15. No, pay-go is. Spend away, but stop the pathological borrowing.

It's shocking to me how all the rightful attacks on Bush's drunken spending suddenly dried up around here.

Does this make you worried at all? Seriously?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

Because there is no projection from anyone on how this is going to be paid back.

[CreekDog]

16. pay go is more important than stimulating the economy?

and running the government properly?

also, if you voted for Obama for pay-go, why? Obama didn't promise he would use pay go.

[Psephos]

17. You have a response to that graphic I posted or not? n/t

[CreekDog]

18. yes, i do, the deficit won't be affected by paygo

got it?

the main things that affect the deficit and government spending are social security, medicare and medicaid and they are statutorily set.

paygo is about new discretionary spending. you can moan about paygo all you want and it won't move those red bars enough for you to see with a magnifying glass.

[Psephos]

21. nice try, but social security isn't even shown on that graph

got it?

You can use your own personal definition of pay-go all you want, but most of us prefer the actual legal definition.

PAYGO became a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress:

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year.

PAYGO says that new spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit. New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings realized from existing outlays.

Discretionary spending is 40% of the budget, btw.

You have any idea what the actual future liability of the US Government is right now? (Hint: all the money in the SS "Trust Fund" has already been spent).

Any idea?

[CreekDog]

22. what was discretionary spending last year? what percentage?

what will it be next year?

[Psephos]

26. Look! A puppy!

Diverting attention doesn't work well with me.

The answer is that total federal future liability is north of $50 trillion.

Know what a trillion looks like?

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=159954&t=01006124249416869148

Meanwhile, the debt graphic I posted earlier from the WaPo shows that the new spending is not stimulus-based, but structural. If there was a one-year or even two-year spike in the deficit, it could be argued it's going to stimulus, but those deficits stretch on and on, and even worsen five or six years out. Which do you trust more: politicians or your own lyin' eyes?

So, not only are they catastrophically enormous, they don't even do what we've been told they're for. By the government's OWN figures. All they do is double the entire national debt in five years, and triple it in ten.

233 years dig the hole we're in now. Five more years to make that hole twice as deep. And five years after that it's three times as deep.

Insane.

[CreekDog]

27. look a puppy?

[Psephos]

42. Masterful demonstration of the rhetorical arts lol

When argument is weak, hand grenades are strong.


In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually
change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They
really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists
are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I
cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or
religion.
- Carl Sagan

[CreekDog]

43. coming from the guy who responded "look a puppy!"

clearly you care about high quality discourse. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

32. Bush took over a healthy-ish economy and put us in a gaping hole. Obama is trying to

get us out of the hole. The economy of the entire globe was in free fall and we are starting to see some traction. We're in a mess, but Obama did not create it. The policies of the past 30 years created it.

[Yupster]

46. It is true that in the old days

there would always be a 15 year projection that would balance the budget though usually it needed a wink to believe the numbers.

Now there's not even an attempt at a plan.

I think many people think the US is paying for 98 % of each $ 100 they spend - like we're making $ 45,000 a year and spending $ 46,000. I don't think people have yet caught up with the scope of the problem - that we're making $ 45,000 a year and spending $ 75,000 a year.

[Dark]

25. It's a start. I want to see more cuts to, but you have to start somewhere.

n/t

[Triana]

19. Democrats poison their own majority...

...how goddamn smart is that?

Idiots.

[bluestateguy]

23. Here come the crybaby interest groups

nt

[destes]

36. Need to pull more from "defense" spending.........

.........and, for the immediate future, plow it into infrastructure.

The problem is the same as fixing health care. The powers-that-be are resistant to having their allowances cut. Retired military count on post career placement in the "defense" industry. They're all "heroes", right?

Here's what it will take to fix the economy:

cut defense spending by 75% minimum
eliminate the private health insurance industry and replace with universal single payer
up to 90% inheritance tax starting with estates over $1,000,000
transparent public campaign financing

[droidamus2]

37. Typical

Though I don't support politicians kissing ass to their party leaders it would be nice for once to see the Democrats work with a Democratic president without giving him/her a ration of crap. This is why, as much as we don't like the results, at least the Republicans can get things done because when necessary they will gather around and support their president. Democrats seem to think having a Democratic president is just a time to bitch and fight for their own personal power and projects. If the budget will ever be balanced again somethings will have to be cut. The means somebodies or a lot of somebodies oxes will be gored that is a fact of life. If it just becomes a big NIMBY bitch fest then the Republicans will return to power faster than any of us want to think about. Just as everybody should pay their fair share of taxes when it comes to cutting the budget everybody should have to share some of the consequences. If Hinchey wants to keep the copter then he should have to come up with something else preferably in his district but at least his state to cut to match the same amount of budget cut.

[grahamhgreen]

38. IDEA- Maybe we could save money if we stopped the wars for profit in the mideast? Or let the banks

that just ripped us off fail?

Just thinking off the top of my head here....

[panzerfaust]

44. The above is a dangerous post and should be deleted by the mods

Imagine: THINKING!

This is America PAL.

But, every state has its pork, and we all need to lean it down, and cannot start squealing when that happens.

Oh, and yes, I do think it might be a good idea to end our expensive (to the tax-payers, to the integrity of our country - though rewarding to the war-profiteers), immoral, illegal wars and let the bankers (those who are left holding the bag - the ones who engineered and profited all retired with Bush) sink if they are insolvent.

[Honeycombe8]

48. We really do need to try to get Osama bin Laden and stop AQ.

Otherwise, they'll hit us again. So IMO the war in Afghanistan is unfortunately necessary (we're not fighting the Afghans, or at least we're not SUPPOSED to be).

We have a timeline to get out of Iraq, agreed to by the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, it takes time to get out of the messy situation Bushco got us into. But it looks like we're on our way out, as far as combat troops. BUT...remember we built the largest embassy in the world there. I dont think we're just gonna leave it empty, are we? Or hand it over to the locals? Naw, not a nice place like that.

[newspeak]

51. well, you need to read the other thread on LBN

OBL is supposedly dead. Ya know, OBL that villain that we just had to get so we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? So, if OBL died on 12/26/01 from lung complications which an Egyptian newspaper claims or if he died in 2005 in the Afghanistan earthquake--whose prompting the OBL propaganda? Why do you think we should get OBL--* himself stated on national TV that he wasn't interested in OBL. That was after he got his profitable, resource stealing wars.

[Infinite Hope]

50. No reason to save things that don't work. That money can be more effectively used elsewhere. n/t