Obama's Cuts: A Start or a Joke?
Our Readers Who Comment are having a partisan debate this morning about whether President Obama's line-by-line review to find federal budget cuts is worthy of anything other than derision.
As Lori Montgomery and Amy Goldstein write, $17 billion in proposed trims represents "a tiny fraction of next year's $3.4 trillion budget." History tells us that even most of those suggestions won't survive Congressional review.
Readers who sound like sympathetic Democrats suggest that modest cuts are the reasonable thing to do while fighting a recession. Several of them also complained that the Post's headline and the tone of the article were sympathetic to the Republican viewpoint that the whole exercise is nonsense. And Readers of both stripes have their own proposals for what should go.
We'll start with birvin9999, who wrote, "Gee, so let me do a little quick math. If you were making 70K per year, this would be a cut of less than a hundred bucks. You gotta give Comrade Obama one thing - the guy's too funny for words. What a moron."
But stichmo said, "Let's remember that the goal during a recession is not to cut spending but to increase spending to turn the economy around. The goal of these spending cuts was to make a down payment on cutting waste, not to make a significant cut in overall spending. Once the economy turns around, then we should look for serious spending cuts."
treetopflyer wrote, "...drumroll, please - ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT!! Obama should man up and say these are necessary expenses for the time being... the breadwinner of the family (the economy) is in surgery right now. We either put everything we have into saving it or we starve. Once its out of the woods we can worry about the bill."
But John_C_Page_III_ suggested that "...Now if Obama will start using the Veto Pen on Pork filled legislation that will be even better, even if he has to veto something he really wants to get his point across about his promise to curtail pork."
clairevb wrote, "Just paying up for 8 yrs of Republican rules."
ChangeAgent2 complained that "The tone of this article is very editorial, quotes not withstanding. There was no reason to believe this action was supposed to do the whole job. Shame on WashPo."
Lappel1 added, "Another Republican-slanted headline story from the Post. Sigh."
And farkdawg wrote, "...How can everyone, press included, scream bloody murder with every earmark that gets approved and then scoff at billions of dollars in savings?...Let's get real, Washington Post. Just the facts please."
EarlC said, "While presenting an honest budget for the first time in over 8 years, the budget trimming is also needed. Give President Obama time to get the Federal house in line with the 21st century."
But Curmudgeon10 said, "I'm not sure why Mr. Obama even goes through the motions. It invites ridicule. Except, of course, from the Obamamaniacs... Why, if he announced that the only budget cut he could find this year was switching to dry dog food for the dog, these folks would crow that he was saving the country..."
ripvanwinkleincollege wrote, "...to be really serious for the next fiscal year, the cuts should be in the range of $200 billion and should include
1) Freeze on cost of living increases for non-Social Security Federal pensions.
2) Freeze on other non-entitlement spending.
3) Hiring freeze
These actions would help restore credibility with the American people..."
wesco1 said, "instead of "scouring the federal budget" for small potatoes, we can save 300 billion by cutting wasteful military industrial complex spending. after that, the stupid war on drugs which would reduce gun violence more than any anti-gun program. let's get to it..."
guytaur1 wrote, "President Obama is on the right course. For proof look to Australia. The Australian Labor Government has gone into deficit to spend on stimulus. It did so before the USA. Today 05/07/09 Australia has had a RISE in employment... Republicans your tax and spend mantra will not work..."
To which Tupac_Goldstein replied, "Any suggestions then on how American taxpayers, both current and not yet born are supposed to pay of[f] the more than $10 Trillion dollars in debt when the Obama is through with us?..."
postfan1 predicted, "...Government agencies' budgets each went up 5%-15%, which will be reflected in their budgets year after year until the end of time. This is the gift that keeps on giving, as every penny of this will get an increase every year. And then they do a line by line cut? Nice sleight of hand, but even the weakest of intellects can easily see that this is much ado about not much..."
yokosuka1985 wrote, "obama lied about pulling out of Iraq and he continues to lie about cutting wasteful spending."
We'll close with heatherczerniak, who wrote, "...Thank goodness I'm a Libertarian! We may never land a candidate in the White House, but at least we aren't to blame for anything."
All comments on this article are here.
Posted by: overed | May 7, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ROYSTOLL2 | May 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: LostinAmerica1 | May 7, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: eadler2 | May 7, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: JoeMcD | May 7, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ttj1 | May 7, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: wkorn | May 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: shipxc18 | May 7, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Sprintaway1 | May 7, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Taylorsucram | May 7, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 7, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: NotClyde | May 7, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: davideconnollyjr | May 7, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: debmries | May 7, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: BubbaRight | May 7, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: getsix1 | May 7, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: yard80197 | May 7, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: TexasGal2 | May 7, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.