SavvySugar

Hidden Cuts in Defense - What "O's" Budget Won't Reveal

Cassandra57 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:47:45 -0800

* Public Post *

This is an *excellent* piece!
====================================================
Hidden Cuts in Defense - What "O's" Budget Won't Reveal

James Carafano, PhD

By all reports, when President Obama's budget is released today, it will envision spending more money on defense. The figure thrown around most is an 8 percent increase over last year. But that doesn't necessarily mean more money to support our men and women in uniform - and there's good reason to fear otherwise.

The problem is, we won't know the truth until the administration reveals its plans for "supplemental" funding.

When something happens "out of cycle," like a war - which is not in any department's budget - Congress pays for it by approving supplemental spending. It's been doing just that ever since 9/11.

It made sense. Especially in the early going, it was hard to predict year-to-year what might be needed for operations in Afghanistan - and Iraq only added to the problem.

So, for the last eight years, you had to add the regular and supplemental defense appropriations together to figure out total Pentagon spending

After a while, however, supplemental spending just became a "Christmas tree" for busting the budget. Plus, we can predict now pretty much what is needed each year for fighting the War on Terror overseas. So it would make a lot of sense now to kill the defense supplemental and give the Pentagon one budget - ending the Washington shell game of doling out dollars right and left.

But, if the White House kills the supplemental outright, that means it will actually be spending about $70 billion less for defense next year.

A big defense cut is a big problem. Unlike previous wars, the US military never mobilized for this one. During the Cold War, the Navy had 567 ships; today it has 283. The Air Force has about half as many wings. On 9/11, the Army had 10 divisions - down from 18.

The terror war started with a smaller peacetime force and it was fought on a peacetime budget, so there is no "peace dividend" to be had.

Anyway, a "peace dividend" presumes a peace - and, while Iraq may be calming down, the president intends to boost our commitment in Afghanistan.

Adding to the problem is that defense was underfunded before 9/11. Indeed, the Pentagon's been on a two-decade post-Cold War "buying holiday" - buying far less new equipment than was the norm up through 1989.

Now the military equipment we do have is getting pretty worn out - the average Air Force bomber is 32 years old. And trucks and helicopters are wearing out five times faster than expected, because the Army has been very busy.

In his speech Tuesday night, the president told the nation: "To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned." Pointedly, he did not promise new and better equipment.

It's great that Obama means to spend more on paying and taking care of our troops - but that was already the most expensive part of military spending. If he's also shaving billions off the defense budget, he'll be leaving these new members of the armed forces with some pretty shabby stuff.

It gets worse. The president also promised to cut military systems and curtail contracting. It takes about 20 years to procure a new weapons system: If the White House scraps what's in the pipeline now, odds are all those soldiers and Marines recruited in the next few years will be retired before they see their new equipment.

FDR, to whom the president is often compared, faced similar challenges. During his first two terms, he faced mounting fiscal challenges and the constitutional requirement "to provide for the common defense." He cut defense to the bone - until world war loomed.

FDR, however, had a saying. "I never let my right hand know what my left hand is doing." Obama has said he won't do that - that he'll be straight with us. If so, he needs to put all the cards on the table.

When it comes to defense, the test of the president's promise won't be the budget he releases today. We won't know if he plans to shortchange defense until he puts all the numbers for next year's spending plans on the table.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2629/pub_detail.asp

Share Your Tried and True Budget Tips

SavvySugar — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:00:42 -0800

You want the truth? Creating and sticking to a budget is a pain. It takes dedication, daily effort, and compromise. We each develop our own smart saving style and tricks over the years, which is why we started the How Do You Save? group for you to divulge your winning tactics. We want you to dole out your advice to other SavvySugar readers trying to save a little moola and learn from their experiences - particularly as we all buckle down and try to set a smooth savings course for 2010.

Share your budget tips with SavvySugar readers. Create a PopSugar account or log in to your account. Then post your tips in the How Do You Save? group.

U.S. Senate Democrats move ahead with budget plan

Cassandra57 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:40:10 -0700

* PUBLIC POST *

UPDATE 1-U.S. Senate Democrats move ahead with budget plan
Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:53pm EDT

* Senate Budget Democrats approve $3.41 trillion plan

* Republicans offer budget alternative with few details

* Senate budget panel rejects attempt to cut some spending (Recasts with Senate committee action, Nelson comments)

By Jeremy Pelofsky and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. Congress on Thursday pushed forward President Barack Obama's $3.55 trillion budget proposal with minor changes, brushing aside Republican attempts to slash spending and taxes.

Budget committees in the Senate and House of Representatives shaved some spending and tax breaks from Obama's fiscal 2010 spending plan, which he has described as central to his attempt to rescue the U.S. economy.

But Democratic leaders, who will take the proposals to full chamber votes next week, were still scrambling to keep their support lined up amid bipartisan criticism that the plan would make the deficit soar by $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

"I'm not looking for reasons to vote against it, but at the end of the day that is always a possibility if I think the revenues are something I can't live with and or the spending is too much," Senator Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat who was key to passing the $787 billion stimulus bill, told reporters.

Nelson said about 15 moderate Democrats would meet next week to discuss the budget proposals and possible changes.

"There may be a couple of (Democratic) senators who may not like what's going on, but it's a handful," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, flanked by fellow Democratic leaders, told a news conference.

"I feel very comfortable that we are going to be able to pass a budget that is going to protect what we need to protect -- education, health care and energy and cut the budget (deficit) in half," he said.

COURTING MODERATES

The Senate Budget Committee on Thursday approved its own $3.41 trillion 2010 budget plan, adopting a handful of amendments but rejecting Republican efforts to slice billions of dollars by freezing some government spending.

The House Budget Committee late on Wednesday passed its $3.45 trillion budget plan that included large new investments in education and in healthcare.

"We'll have a strong vote next week" to pass the measure, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad told reporters.

The budget requires a simple majority and while Democrats control 58 of the 100 Senate seats, they must walk a fine line not to shed too many moderates.

Conrad said he did not expect Republicans to support it.

Obama has argued that big spending is required to help pull the country out of its recession and help accomplish his goals of overhauling U.S. energy, healthcare and education programs. [ID:nN25406725]

But critics in both parties say the spending plan goes too far, setting up a showdown that could affect everything from bond rates and the value of the dollar to the future of middle-class tax cuts. [ID:nN26499438]

The Democrats plan to pass their budgets in the full House and Senate next week, with or without Republican support, and work out a final compromise next month.

Obama has lobbied to keep moderate Democrats from bolting and challenged Republicans to offer their own ideas.

House Minority Leader John Boehner offered a 17-page pamphlet he described as a Republican alternative to Obama's budget, saying it "will return fiscal sanity in Washington."

Boehner called it a leaner budget, with lower taxes and less government borrowing. Lean it is -- several pages were chapter titles or attacks of Democratic positions.

The document lacked deficit projections that would result from the Republican plan, how much it would reduce the growth in government debt or specifically where savings would be accomplished. Nor did it forecast U.S. economic performance, which has a big impact on deficits.

Republicans said those details would be provided next week.

What proposals House Republicans did detail included a parallel income tax system with two brackets instead of six, 10 percent for income under $100,000 and 25 percent for earnings above that level.

SENATE PANEL FINISHES ITS PLAN

While any budget Congress passes would be nonbinding, it would set the funding parameters for such Obama initiatives as alternative energy development, the overhaul of the healthcare system and controlling the size of budget deficits.

The House and Senate proposals leave to committees the difficult task of crafting those initiatives Obama is seeking, but without adding to deficits.

The Senate Budget Committee adopted amendments including one to create a commission to root out government programs that no longer were needed, and another to authorize a probe into how the financial crisis originated.

It also agreed to take $350 million from crop insurance and put it toward child nutrition and deficit reduction over five years.

Both committees rejected Obama proposals to make permanent a new $400 tax cut for workers unless the White House finds a way to pay for it, and to set aside $250 billion in case additional money is needed to bail out banks and other financial firms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN26505143200903...
============================================================================================

I can't say I like the sound of this.
Opposition to the proposed budget--regardless of party--should have been better researched and detailed.

"...large new investments in education and in healthcare."
Dollars do not equal results in education. I don't believe they have yet determined which input factors are the most critical. Therefore, the outcomes are questionable.
As for healthcare, I'd like to know exactly what they intend to spend all that money on.
My belief is that they're building socialized medicine into the budget to avoid open debate and discussion on the floor of Congress. That is *not* the way things are supposed to be done in this country; it's banana republic tactics.

I don't like the idea of only two tax rates. If you are going to have a progressive tax system, it should not jump from 10% to 25%. That's a pathetic attempt at a compromise. Go with a flat rate, or make it more gradual.

"...several pages were chapter titles or attacks of Democratic positions."
I say it of some posters here on Sugar, and I will say it of our Congresscritters: If you want to be taken seriously, don't approach the issue at hand in a snarky and insubstantial manner.

"...a commission to root out government programs that no longer were needed...."
Pardon me, but doesn't this sound suspiciously like "a program to eliminate programs"?
Sounds improbable, at best.

"Both committees rejected Obama proposals to make permanent a new $400 tax cut for workers unless the White House finds a way to pay for it, and to set aside $250 billion in case additional money is needed to bail out banks and other financial firms."

Wow, now Congress is even more spendtacular and less cautious (by reducing reserves) than Obama.
What every happened to checks and balances?

Help! Need ideas for Planning a wedding on a Budget...

bridalgirl — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:41 -0700

I recently got engaged and am SO excited!! It was the best proposal I could have ever imagined. However, I am trying to plan my wedding on a limited budget.. With this horrible economy right now, I am trying to save money any way I can. I want my wedding favors, decorations, invitations etc to look like I spent more money on them than I actually will. We will probably have close to 150 people attending (huge family) so any ideas on inexpensive, BUT cute favors etc would be greatly appreciated! I recently started searching and have found a few bridal websites that had some DIY favors (do it yourself that didn't seem like they would be that time consuming to put together, (always another plus!) I put a picture on here of one of the cute personalized favor boxes I found... I had read one of the posts from a few months ago, and found the website Gracious Bridal; they had some fabulous yet inexpensive favors, and favor packaging. Some of them, you can put together yourself, and others are already done for you! There prices were actually extremely reasonable, and they had a lot to choose from; even edible favors, which are always fun for the guests!
Gracious Bridal has Mini Hershey Bars that have personalized wrapping with the bride and grooms monogram on the packaging; so cute!!
I also found a site that had inexpensive wedding invitations, www.weddinginvitations.be , they also give you 25 free invites! Hopefully, this information helps other brides in my situation, but ANY other ideas or suggestions will be greatly appreciated!!!!!! I would like to save some extra money to put towards my honeymoon.....

Simple and Effective Budget Tips From Savvy Readers

SavvySugar — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:00:14 -0800

I recently asked you to share your most effective budget tip in the How Do You Save? group, and was wowed by the smart and simple suggestions you shared. We all know that sticking to a budget is the foremost hurdle to saving money once you have a steady income, so a little help from friends always helps. Here are some great tips to help you through this pricey month, thanks to PopSugar Community members:

TidalWave advises: Track your spending for a month or two before creating a budget. This will stop you from making unrealistic budget estimates.
Zigggy says: Stay out of malls, that way you won't see an item that you just "have" to have. Impulse buys are the worst budget busters.

For additional tips, read more.

cheekyredhead suggests: After setting a budget, take only that amount of cash with you into the grocery store . . . no credit card/atm card. Seriously. It really put a stop to my impulse buying, made me stick to my list, and if I chose to buy something not on my list - I had to put something back.
Spectra notes: I have a grocery list that I pretty much stick to every week so I'm not tempted to just randomly buy things. Another tip: get a Netflix membership instead of going to movies at the theater and go to the library instead of browsing bookstores.

Do you have an effective budget tip? Create a PopSugar account or log in to your account, then join the How Do You Save? group and share it! And you never know, it could be featured on SavvySugar! Here's a detailed guide to posting questions or posts to groups if you are new to the PopSugar Community.

New Jersey: Corzine calls for 'choices we might not otherwise make' in budget address

tdsollog — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:54:00 -0700

Corzine calls for 'choices we might not otherwise make' in budget address
By DEREK HARPER Statehouse Bureau, 609-292-4935

Published: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/185/story/425145.html

Gov. Jon S. Corzine proposed a $29.8 billion budget Tuesday that would slash state spending by 9.4 percent but cushion the blow to the state's most vulnerable residents, the governor said.
"Even as we cut the government in unprecedented and historic amounts," Corzine said in his budget address to both houses of the state Legislature, "we are doing so in the right way - the way that sustains our abiding commitment to those core values ... nurturing our children, honoring our seniors and protecting the most vulnerable."

The budget document estimates that without cuts or adjustments, the $32.9 billion budget approved in June would grow to $35.7 billion next year. But at the same time, the state expects to collect just $28.6 billion.

To make up the difference, the election-year budget proposes $3.6 billion in cuts or other spending reductions or deferrals, relies on about $1.1 billion in new taxes or fees, and uses $2.2 billion in federal stimulus spending and about $199 million in surplus funds.

Corzine's budget increases spending for grade-school education and children's health programs, while keeping the state's property-tax rebate programs largely intact for senior residents.

At the same time, it cuts about 850 programs, calls for a one-year, 0.75 percent tax increase on state residents earning more than $500,000 and halves the income eligibility for property-tax rebates for non-senior citizens.
It increases the nation's highest $2.575-per-pack cigarette tax by an additional 12.5 cents per pack, and raises taxes on liquor and wine by 25 percent.

The budget calls for a new tax on all lottery winnings in excess of $10,000 and extends a 4 percent corporate business tax surcharge set to expire this year.

"The unprecedented circumstances of our national economic crisis require choices we might not otherwise make," Corzine said in his address. "Our responsibility requires us to have the courage to meet these challenges, deliberately, honestly, with compassion and good judgment. And that is precisely what we have done in crafting this budget."

State legislators in southern New Jersey said the austere budget was dictated by the times.

"It's a real budget, and it's not a pretty one," said Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney D-Salem, Gloucester, Cumberland. "We're doing what the public wants. We're spending less money.

"There is no sunshine in this room today," Sweeney added. "None at all."

Sen. Jim Whelan, D-Atlantic, said he expected worse.

"You can't plug a $7 billion gap - which is what we're looking at - without everyone feeling some pain," Whelan said. "You can do it with smoke and mirrors; that's the way we used to do it. We can't do it that way anymore."

While Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic, said there was a lot of good in the spending plan, "Currently as it's constructed, I can't support the budget," he said, citing new proposed taxes as well as cuts to tourism and beach replenishment programs.

At the same time, Assemblymen Daniel Van Pelt and Brian Rumpf, both R-Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, called for reducing the size of government. Van Pelt advocated layoffs.

"The state of New Jersey does not have a revenue problem," he said, adding later that it has "a spending problem."

Others said Corzine missed the mark.

"We're not targeting where we should," said Assemblyman John Amodeo, R-Atlantic. "We should eliminate health care benefits to part-time legislators."

The largest single reduction to the state's base budget is an $895.3 million cut to state pension funding, which apparently includes a $564.7 million reduction to state teacher pension fund contributions.

Also likely to be controversial is a proposal to cut some property-tax programs to save the state an additional $517.1 million.

The budget eliminates property taxes as a state income tax deduction, which the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services said would yield between $500 million and $580 million in savings. An analysis of 2006 returns found eliminating the deduction would affect about 1.6 million filers, costing them an average of $300 each.

Lawmakers were uneasy with this.

"I don't know that we're sold on eliminating that deduction," said Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli, D-Salem, Gloucester, Cumberland. "It may not survive."

Sen. Christopher Connors, R-Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, said the proposal was startling. "You can't eliminate the property deduction from taxes. That'd be devastating."

Assemblyman Vince Polistina, R-Atlantic, echoed Connors.

"It sounds to me like he plans to finance this on the backs of middle-class New Jersey," Polistina said. "So that means it is going to punish every single person in this state that owns property."

The budget also keeps property-tax rebates for seniors citizens earning less than $150,000, while halving that eligibility for everyone else for one year to $75,000.

Budget documents estimated the average senior property-tax rebate check would be $1,200 next year. Checks to non-senior households earning less than $50,000 would average $900, while those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would average $700.

This is down from this year, when checks averaged $1,115 for homeowners earning as much as $100,000, $665 for those with incomes between and $100,000 and $150,000 and were eliminated for those earning more than $150,000.

Corzine blamed the ongoing economic downturn and called for restoring the rebates when state finances stabilize. The problem, he said, were too many layers of government that must be cut or combined.

"But in the meantime, however, rebates remain the primary tool by which the state can ease the property-tax burden on individual citizens."

Renters' rebates, which averaged $80 last year, remain intact.

While the budget reduced the limits on property-tax rebates, budget documents said that more than two-thirds of people getting them last year would continue to receive them.

Furloughs and salary freezes for state and college employees would save an additional $418.5 million.

Published reports prior to the address said the state could furlough workers one day per month for the next year, or if unions do not agree, lay off several thousands workers. Corzine's address briefly mentioned furloughs but not layoffs, which might suggest the issue had been settled.

Not so, said Bob Master, spokesman for the Communication Workers of America, the state's largest public employee union.

Master said while there had been some "informal exchanges of ideas which were not terribly productive" no negotiations are currently scheduled. As for layoffs, he said, "I don't believe this is a settled question but I think you need to speak to someone on their side."

Corzine spokesman Robert Corrales declined comment, saying state Treasurer David Rousseau would address the question at a news conference today.

Of local interest, state beach replenishment spending will decrease from $25 million to $18.75 million, while tourism funding is budgeted to decrease from $10 million to $7.5 million.

In his speech, Corzine cast it as prioritizing.

"We didn't want to cut funding for tourism advertising and beach replenishment, but we chose to maintain safe neighborhoods, safe highways and homeland security," he said.

Van Drew said the cuts reduce funding below a "poison pill" threshold and would prevent the state from collecting taxes that fund the programs. As such, they would require legislative changes for enactment.

Assemblyman Matt Milam, D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic, said he wondered why the governor targeted this.

"You don't cut a revenue stream," Milam said. "When I'm sitting in my living room and see a commercial about Delaware and Maryland beaches, I want people in Maryland to see commercials about our shore."

E-mail Derek Harper: DHarper@pressofac.com

Obama's budget makes a bad situation worse.

Grandpa — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:50:18 -0700

A Big, Fat Failure
Obama's budget makes a bad situation worse.
by Matthew Continetti
Well, it's about time. The Beltway is waking up to the realities of President Obama's budget plan, which taxes, spends, and borrows as far as the eye can see. The president's vast new commitments in the areas of health care, energy, and education have already spooked small-government Republicans and the foreign investors who help finance America's public debt. Now even some Democrats are beginning to realize that the president's fiscal policies are unsustainable in the long--and maybe medium--run. What took them so long?
The realities of the modern global economy require government to play a substantial role in ensuring the national and economic security of the people. Americans aren't going to dismantle the welfare state. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are--like the Pentagon--here to stay. The task, then, is to ensure that those programs are sensibly structured and financed, and compatible with robust economic growth. And on this score, Obama's budget is a big, fat failure.
It's true, as he so often reminds us, that Obama inherited a public debt that had doubled to 40 percent of GDP from 20 percent, and an economy in the midst of a deep recession. But Obama proposes to take a bad situation and make it much worse.
It was pretty much inevitable that government would pick up the pieces of the financial crisis and its aftermath. A stimulus bill and some form of bank bailout were going to be facts of life. And tax revenues are plunging thanks to the recession. So the federal government's balance sheet
was always going to deteriorate in 2009. The problem is that Obama's policies would move us from deterioration to disaster. The national debt Obama gripes about? His budget will double it to 80 percent of GDP in 2019. Whatever that is, it's not "a new era of responsibility."
The debt burden, moreover, is likely to increase as tax hikes weigh down the economy. Obama's budget brings rates up to Clinton-era levels. But those rates probably will be raised even more to service a growing debt and pay for new spending. And don't forget the added levies that will hit us if Obama has his way. There could be taxes on employer-provided health benefits, the indirect tax of a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, an increase of the payroll-tax cap, and maybe a national Value Added Tax.
Nor will Obama's resistance to free trade encourage economic recovery. The president, remember, signed a stimulus bill that included protectionist "Buy American" provisions. When Congress killed off a pilot program to allow Mexican trucks into the United States, Obama acquiesced in an apparent violation of NAFTA. (The Mexicans have retaliated, imposing duties on some American exports.) The president has done nothing to advance through Congress the already-negotiated bilateral trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea. Recently Obama's energy secretary spoke of imposing a "carbon tariff" on foreign polluters. Plenty of congressional Democrats would like to impose tariffs on Chinese products. All this, even though bringing the global trading system to a halt is the surest way to turn our recession into a depression.
It is going to be an impossible task for us to balance the budget," Obama said the other day, "if we're not taking on rising health care costs." He's right, but the budget exhibits a strange understanding of cost control. Whatever savings you get from preventive medicine and electronic medical records pales in comparison to the projected growth in Medicare spending. But Obama hasn't given any sign that he's about to tame Medicare or change its faulty reimbursement mechanisms.
Obama isn't going to lower prices by having consumers bear more costs directly and introducing competition in open markets. Quite the contrary. His budget expands government health insurance subsidies and may even introduce a Medicare-like public health insurance option available to all Americans. If Obama tried to run a business with this sort of accounting, it wouldn't be long before he had to ask Secretary Geithner for a bailout. Absent the economic growth his budget will squelch, the only ways out of the fiscal hole Obama is digging are massive tax increases, defaults and devaluation, and inflation. If you think today's news is bad, just wait.
Americans of all political stripes, as well as the non-Americans who hold U.S. bonds, are voicing concern. May-be that will be enough to make Obama change course. If not, conservatives have a real opportunity to introduce a truly responsible vision of a welfare state that maximizes efficiency and growth. The budget outline that House Republicans released last week is a start, but it sure could use some work. And
if the president persists in giving America a big and slothful government rather than a limited and energetic one, then it will be incumbent on Republicans and sensible Democrats in Congress to stop him.

SPIN METER: Obama's latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime's worth of difference

Grandpa — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:05:18 -0700

SPIN METER: Obama's latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime's worth of difference
Andrew Taylor and Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

--Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.
--4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.
--Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.
--7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.
--1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

Obama only asked his Cabinet secretaries to identify waste in their annual operating budgets, which total a little over $1 trillion. He's leaving out war costs, the economic stimulus measure, the Wall Street bailout and benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

THE SPIN:

"He will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days," said a White House news release. "Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days."

"I'm asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets," Obama told reporters afterward. "None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone."

THE FULLER STORY:

Obama's marching orders to the Cabinet on Monday were less than meets the eye. Many of the savings he asked them to achieve are already under way and are included in the calculation.

To be sure, this is an extra effort, on top of an agency-by-agency review of programs and proposed multibillion-dollar cuts in weapons programs. But it is decidedly marginal.

"It's always a good sign when the president is talking about savings," said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal discipline.
"It's valuable as a symbol," he said, "but $100 million is just not going to cut it."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the $100 million target, saying it's not the full extent of Obama's cost-cutting efforts. He called it "a short-term goal ... to identify further administrative savings" and added: "$100 million may not be a lot to people in this town, but I think it's a lot to people who live in this country."
Republicans were quick to point out that borrowing costs for February's stimulus package will on average cost almost $100 million a day over the next decade.

In large measure, the examples of economizing given by the White House were of the painless, seemingly commonsensical variety. They were not the program cuts that people feel and that budget-watchers say are essential to make a meaningful difference in the exploding deficit.

Some of them will take many years to play out.

The Agriculture Department, for one, will move 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into one place in early 2011, saving $62 million over 15 years.

Some are hard to quantify.

Will buying multipurpose office equipment, such as a combined copier, printer, fax and scanner all in a single unit instead of separate units, really save the Homeland Security Department $2 million a year over five years?
Some are microscopic. The White House estimates savings of tens of thousands of dollars from freeing up warehouse space stashed with obsolete equipment that had been used by a federal entity few people have heard of, the Bureau of Information Resource Management.

And some raise eyebrows at wasteful practices of the former administration.

The White House says Homeland Security, the third largest federal department, has not been buying most of its $100 million a year in office supplies in bulk.

The administration thinks it can save $52 million over five years with bulk-buying bargains at the department.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet: House GOP Accepts Obama’s Empty Offer to Debate Budget Proposal

Cassandra57 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:04:16 -0700

* PUBLIC POST *
Finally, an alternative proposal. Now if the Conservatives and Moderates will just work together to come up with a reasonable final product....
====================================================================================
Throwing Down the Gauntlet: House GOP Accepts Obama’s Empty Offer to Debate Budget Proposal
Boehner, Ryan, GOP Answer the Challenge from President "I Won" to Provide Alternatives to Spendtaculous Maximus

Posted by Jeff Emanuel (Profile)

Thursday, March 26th at 2:10PM EDT

Just hours after the House Democratic leadership forced President Obama’s $3,600,000,000,000.00 budget for fiscal year 2010 through the House Budget Committee, the House GOP unveiled their alternative to the president’s astronomical spending bill (the GOP document can be seen here, courtesy of good friend and RS contributor Dan Spencer).

President Obama has pulled out all the stops in pushing his multi-trillion-dollar budget, which even USA Today has called “unprecedented in size [and] breathtaking in scope.” He has returned to campaign mode, mobilizing as much of his Obama/Organizing for America volunteer force as possible (a number which, it turns out, is significantly lower than that which was willing to help him get elected in the first place) and sending them door-to-door to evangelize for a document they haven’t read (and which will saddle them, their children, and their grandchildren with ridiculous amounts of debt). He has called for public input and participation in a TeleTownHall held today.

And, last night, in a move reminiscent of his actions during the actual campaign, Obama threw down the figurative gauntlet to detractors from his $3,600,000,000,000.00 spending plan, saying “To a bunch of the critics out there, I’ve already said, show me your budget! I’m happy to have that debate.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because he repeatedly made such bold declarations while on the campaign trail. Of course, he always made sure he was a safe distance from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), his opponent for the office, when doing so, as he never had any intention of actually following through on his own tough-talking challenge.

As I wrote at the time:

“If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, in Iran, in the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have,” said Obama to an adoring audience of “reporters” in Waterstown, South Dakota. “I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush…and I think their policy has failed.”

Of course, the McCain campaign responded to this with an immediate call for ten town hall-style “debates” - a style and quantity unheard of in recent presidential campaigns, when most candidates want to be able to limit the damage that can occur as a result of going off-script at any time.

The Obama campaign responded with a North Korea-style offensive, refusing to participate (clearly, they too have heard Obama speak without a TelePrompTer - it is not pretty) but claiming that it was the McCain campaign that actually declined the opportunity.

In true Brave Sir Robin fashion, Obama didn’t stop there; just weeks after weaseling out of the opportunity to make good on his challenge to debate McCain “anywhere, any time,” he repeated the challenge he had no intention of living up to, saying at a Missouri campaign stop, “I’m ready to duel John McCain on taxes right here, quick draw.”

There was a time in our country’s history where opponents who had a genuine beef with each other were not only unafraid to debate the issue (see Lincoln-Douglass), but were willing to actually do battle over it (see Sumner-Brooks). Heck, we’ve even had a sitting Vice President kill a former Treasury Secretary in a duel!

How fortunate it is for President Obama that he lives in an age in which the virtue of manhood as once understood and revered has been utterly depleted; an age in which we not only have nonviolent disagreements (which are largely - and sometimes unfortunately - governed by the rules of comity), but where out-and-out challenges like those he repeatedly made to McCain during the campaign, and like that he made to the House GOP last night (during what is, for all intents and purposes, simply an “extended campaign”), are treated as being a sign of all the toughness a Democratic president needs, even when they are nought but rhetorical devices he has no intention whatsoever of backing up with actual action.

However, should President Obama decide to actually live up to his own words and engage on the topic of his budget and sensible alternatives, the House GOP is waiting in the wings to “have that debate” the chief executive claims to be “ready” for. As Rep. John Boehner said in a press conference this morning:

Two nights ago, the president said, “We haven’t seen a budget yet out of the Republicans.”

Well, that’s not true, because here it is, Mr. President

The video is below:

The GOP has proposed their alternative to President Obama’s multi-trillion-dollar spending plan. The question that must now be answered is this: Will the president live up to his challenge and promise to debate those with alternative budgetary proposals? Or will he remain in smug “I won” mode as he flees the field to escape the challenge put forward by those who won’t take his tough but empty talk lying down?

I’m pretty sure what the answer is, though I’d like to hope that I’m wrong.

http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/03/26/throwing-down-the-gauntl...

Gregg: Budget forecast a lie

Grandpa — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:14:00 -0700

Gregg: Budget forecast a lie Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:55 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House, Congress, Republicans

From NBC’s Ken Strickland
It was obvious to most Capitol Hill insiders why President Obama wanted Republican Judd Gregg as a member of his cabinet: He's one of the sharpest money-minds in Congress.

But instead of getting Gregg's counsel within the administration, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner found himself today of the receiving end of Gregg's fiscal conservative wrath.

In a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee Gregg dressed down Geithner with facts, figures, and charts. While always keeping his cool, the exchange was somewhere between a mother's scolding, a drill sergeant's questioning and an attorney's cross examination.

In his opening statement, Gregg politely called the administration's budget forecast a lie.

"The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ahh, is truly spurious," he told Geithner.

President Obama himself gives Gregg's comments a sense of stinging credibility. When the president introduced Gregg as his nominee for Commerce Secretary last month, he said Gregg is known for is fiscal discipline.

"He shares my deep-seated commitment to guaranteeing that our children inherit a future they can afford," Obama said.

Today, the president's compliment of Gregg turned into an attack on Geithner. Gregg said the budget is essentially "putting on our children's backs a debt they can never get out from underneath."

He added pointedly, "I think we're putting at risk not only our children's future, we're clearly putting at risk the value of a dollar and our ability to sell debt."

When Gregg withdrew his nomination, he said he and the administration were "functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."

Gregg's opening monologue today would indicate that was a gross understatement.

"The argument that this budget doesn't have tax increases [on everyone] is, I think, an 'Alice in Wonderland' view of the budget," he said.

He challenged the budget's math on cutting the debt: "When you take the deficit and quadruple it and then you cut it and half, that's like taking four steps back and two steps forward. That's not making any progress; you're still going backwards."

Gregg questioned why any foreign country would continue to buy up U.S. debt: "Because if I'm in the international marketplace, and I'm looking at this budget, I'm saying to myself, ‘Where's the discipline? Where's the containment?' There isn't any."