Obama seeks 5 percent cuts in some programs

[The Northerner]

June 8 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama is asking government agencies to develop plans for 5 percent reductions in array of domestic programs, the White House said on Tuesday.

"We are asking each agency to develop a list of their bottom 5 percent performing discretionary programs, as measured by their impact in furthering the agency's mission," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in excerpts from remarks he is to deliver later at the Center for American Progress think tank.

"In addition, to ensure that we can meet the president's insistence on a freeze for non-security agencies while funding priority areas, we are asking non-security agencies to specify how they would reduce their budgets by 5 percent," Orszag said.

Republicans have seized on huge budget deficits to attack Obama's handling of the economy in a congressional election year in which they are seeking to overturn Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

Obama has said the deficits are a legacy of the Bush administration and has pledged to tackle the problem but says that must be balanced against the need to boost the economy in the near term.

The White House strongly backs a package of measures such as an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to cash-strapped states and cities that it says will give growth a lift.

The U.S. budget deficit reached $1.4 trillion last year and is projected to come in at $1.6 trillion this year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0823932220100608

[Bluebear]

1. 'a freeze for non-security agencies' = the war machine doesn't have to go on a diet

[FiveGoodMen]

2. As always...

:grr:

[gratuitous]

3. That jumped off the page at you, too?

Yeah, the lean and mean $700 billion dedicated to the never-satisfied defense budget doesn't have even a dollar of fat in it. Every penny is absolutely vital to the security of . . . well, not the nation, but many people and industries in the nation. Not you. And not me. But others.

[enlightenment]

5. This article is talking about the new UK government,

but the points apply perfectly to our government as well.

It has to be all or nothing, it seems (and I say 'seems' because I'm a dolt about economics, not because I know something).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/08/george-osborne-canada-cuts-model

[Nite Owl]

8. Having a well educated and

healthy populace is part of national security but I guess they don't agree on that.

[Pharaoh]

9. The War Machine

IS the problem!

[Bluebear]

11. YOU SAID IT!

[DrDan]

4. whew - looks like the war budget will survive . . .

[xchrom]

6. Take it out of afghanistan and Iraq war budgets first. Nt

[ieoeja]

7. I'm glad he said 5% of "discretionary" spending.

Because administrative overhead for the Veterans Administration when I worked there was roughly 5% of the total budget.

So if he asked them to cut 5% from their overall budget, but limit it to discretionary spending, I guess we'd have self-service VA hospitals and some guy dumping a huge pile of money on a street corner in D.C. the first of every month hoping the veterans find their direct benefits!

I notice that he *does* go on to ask for a 5% overall budget, but did not specify discretionary. That means cuts in medical services and benefits.

I know one RWer who will be thrilled by this. He is always accusing Dems of cutting VA benefits ignoring the fact that it has *always* been Republicans who cut those benefits 100% of the time they have been cut. He will finally, after decades of lying about this, have a single, documented instance to back him up. He will be dancing in the streets.

[dflprincess]

10. By my definition

wars of choice are "discretionary" and the spending for them should be cut completely.

[Ardent15]

12. There are too many people in power who benefit from imperialistic wars

But they don't benefit from the populace being educated and having good health care.

[Bluebear]

13. +

[Autumn]

14. Thank God he isn't asking to cut the

war budgets by 5 percent.







:sarcasm: