Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:15 AM ET, 02/15/2011

Federal Budget 2012: Tell us what you think

By Lisa Rein
Lisa Rein

Join The Post and GovLoop, the social network for feds, for a live chat Tuesday morning on President Obama's proposed budget. We want to hear how you think the budget will affect federal workers. Join the conversation at 11 a.m. Tuesday in the box below:

By Lisa Rein  | February 15, 2011; 10:15 AM ET
Categories:  Budget  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Federal Budget 2012: 15,000 more federal workers?
Next: Reagan Building partially reopens after fire

Comments

It is another example of Obama caving to Republicans on ridiculous issues that the GOP is pressing b/c they want to look "cool" to their base

Cutting numerous programs and saving little while allowing MASSIVE deficit-eating programs to stay around is a JOKE. A joke that Republicans refuse to answer about

Posted by: Bious | February 14, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't care, it's not like anybody living is going to paying for most of it.

Posted by: getjiggly1 | February 14, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

For the discussion session.....why do we allow the Government to fool us with their under stated spending on the military?

Gates' DOD budget of around $ 770 B is really about 50% of our total military spending. The public needs to see the total spending....then let the outrage begin.
- nukes are in the DOE
- NSA and the CIA are outside of Gates' numbers
- DHS has a large chunk of military spending
- DOJ has a lot of military spending
- Costs from past wars in the form of military pensions and health care are not under Gates' budget
- The debt financing for the military's portion of the deficit needs to be absorbed (allocated) to military spending.

Finally, the press needs to stop allowing the Republicans to include social security in the general budget.....social security is a separate tax and expenditure entity and that needs to be kept out of the budget discussion.

It's time for the PRESS to present an honest summary of the budget....stop letting the Repubs and others from distorting the facts.

Total annual military spending in 2010 was right around $ 1.5 trillion.....not $ 700 B. Over 50% of the budget is for military spending!

Posted by: go2goal | February 15, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The issues posed by go2goal are spot on. Our government has played shell games for years, hiding the cost of programs in the budgets of other agencies, and this is known and condoned by politicians who want to protect the image of a particular organization that We, the People, might criticize strongly if we only knew the true cost. For the money we spend on DHS, we get a very small benefit, if any. If you want to count feelings of security a benefits, some of us might see a benefit. Many others of us would say that DHS is disorganized and ineffective. When wearing simple eyeglasses through a metal detector sets off the alarms, something is wrong. When the governments in Europe faced harsh budget realities, they cut spending and the people had to face new realities. Our politicians choose to just try to borrow our way out of their own malfeasance, the kind that requires the Defense Department to keep programs it does not want and things like extra engines for fighter planes that the Pentagon says it neither needs nor wants, JUST BECAUSE the defense contractors involved in those decisions have operations in the districts of the two top Republicans in the House. THAT IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Posted by: ronjeske | February 15, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Question? What would the affect be if the government cut the military spending by 2/3?

Posted by: kojoman68 | February 15, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company