Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Yesterday President Obama issued a statement saying:
Last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending. But there's not much further we can cut in either of those categories.
Not much more to cut? Not much more to cut? That's one of the more unserious comments to come from an executive in chief. Mickey Kaus calls this a "hanging curve ball" and an open invitation for ridicule.The kind of statement only someone who pushed a half-trillion-dollar stimulus plan before realizing that there was "no such thing as shovel-ready projects" would say.
Kaus points to the official list of federal job openings. Not only are they hiring, they're hiring additional layers of bureaucracy, administrative staff getting $179,700. There's no sense, Kaus says, that the federal bureaucracy knows it is in crisis.
The rarely Code-of-Conduct-compliant Ace of Spades also notes something that comes to mind after Obama's bizarre comment, something he calls "the dog that didn't bark":
Have you heard any stories of older, more expensive federal employees losing their jobs during this budget crisis -- as corporations typically do when they are hemorrhaging money?
Have you read any stories about departments drastically cutting back and looking for money-saving solutions -- doing more with less, as they say, or "working smarter, not harder"?
Has the media been full of stories by weary bureaucrats complaining, like teachers are apparently instructed by their unions to claim, that they have to buy their own supplies to properly do their jobs?
Has there been any grousing that federal employees are missing expected pay raises and promotions, being forced to work at their old salaries through this crisis?
The answer is no.
While the country is teeters on the verge of a Depression (if it has not tottered over already), the federal bureaucracy remains gold-plated and immune to cutbacks.
I used to cover the federal government for a Gannett newspaper and I keep following that paper and it's interesting that you never read anything suggesting that the feds are part of the group that is expected to sacrifice for the future health of the country.
In fact, the top story cutline right now is "Federal employees who feared that a debt-ceiling deal would mean steep cuts to their pay and benefits have been given a reprieve." But of course!
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
The president's statement, "There's not much further we can cut..." is absolutely chilling. Proof positive the leader of the free world is completely out of touch with reality. We could, in fact, reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy by 50% and improve our lives immensely by doing so.
Nov '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Mollie, for some of us old Cold Warriors, it seems that our federal bureaucracy has transformed itself into a "communist party" of the United States, used as a buffer to carry water for the elites. That 'protection" comes with a price, security and bennies. My Son works for the Federal Government. I told him not to leave as we needed at least one member of the Family in the "party".
Jun '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
In Obama's mind, all jobs are government jobs--the first tier, where he works, the second tier, the various state jobs, and the third tier, "private" occupations--the support staff--where everybody else works. But, be proud all you little people. The third tier is very very important.
Jun '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
The statement might be abridged to :
"But there's not much further we can cut in either of those categories and still buy all the votes we need from various 'victim' groups."
Jul '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Frankly, if we adhered to the Constitution, we'd cut the majority of the budget out as being unconstitutional. Half the Cabinet, most of the federal agencies, all of the social programs. None of this has any place as a federal responsibility.
Sep '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Obama is a big government socialist who lies and doesn’t get it. I have read 100 posts on Ricochet that either provide antidotal evidence of this or say so directly. Apparently preaching to the choir is a profitable endeavor that requires less effort than the alternative. While the last two years have been horrific and the Democrats have inflicted a lot of damage what they have done is make a horrible situation worse.
I view establishment Republicans as potentially more dangerous and equally culpable. I hear no cries from the GOP to cut government salaries and benefits or even means-test the more than generous benefits given to retired elected government officials.
Antidotes and evidence which would hold establishment Republicans accountable is just a readily available. I therefore conclude it isn’t as profitable to bring it to light.
May '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Oops. Wrong thread.
Edited on Aug 10, 2011 at 8:08amRe: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
When young people ask me for advice, I always tell them to get a government job!
Apr '11
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
I would love for a reporter to ask Obama the following:
"Mr. President, please list for us in writing and in line item form every budget item added since 2008 that is essential for our country."
Mar '11
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
But of course in fairness, Mollie, you should have included the second sentence of the Gannett piece you cited: "But that relief is likely to be fleeting — those feared cuts could come in a few short months." Federal bureaucracy bashing is fun and usually deserved, but it's a distraction from the real drivers of the deficit: social security, medicare and medicaid.
Sep '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Seeing as how the "draconian cuts" we are talking about are in reality just a 20% or so reduction in the growth of spending (depening on how much they really are), I think we can officially say this is a bovine expletive (Al Gore style). If we only froze spending at current levels and did not cut anything we would "save" $9 Trillion over the next 10 years. We only have to do half of that to get our credit rating back.
I believe that our elected officials are afraid to tell us that they in fact do not have control the federal bureaucracy.
Dec '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
What much of the federal bureaucracy has in common with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is none of it is supposed to be a function of the federal government. Here's a sweet little graphic showing How Congress Spends Your Money.
If you combined Ag, Ed and Labor, you'd get close to the budget for Treasury in 2010.
Note also what has happened to Labor's budget over the last two years under Obama. The 2009 budget apparently doubled from 2008 and 2010 looks about tripled from the same.
There's no disputing your point, Basil. I just want conservatives to make a coherent case for the keeping the role of government confined to the Constitution.
Mar '11
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Western Chauvinist
What much of the federal bureaucracy has in common with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is none of it is supposed to be a function of the federal government. Here's a sweet little graphic showing How Congress Spends Your Money.
If you combined Ag, Ed and Labor, you'd get close to the budget for Treasury in 2010.
Note also what has happened to Labor's budget over the last two years under Obama. The 2009 budget apparently doubled from 2008 and 2010 looks about tripled from the same.
There's no disputing your point, Basil. I just want conservatives to make a coherent case for the keeping the role of government confined to the Constitution. · Aug 10 at 11:31am
I agree entirely, WC. But concentrating our ire on bureaucrats, while satisfying, amounts to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than its underlying cause.
Aug '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Thanks. This helps me know my purpose... I am very, very important. I feel better now.
Dec '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
Basil Fawlty
I agree entirely, WC. But concentrating our ire on bureaucrats, while satisfying, amounts to treating the symptoms of a disease rather than its underlying cause. · Aug 10 at 12:29pm
I think there's still a slight distinction to be made. We shouldn't focus our ire on bureaucrats, but we should be downright hostile to the unconstrained vision of government as manifest in SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the Departments of Ed, Ag, Labor, ... (600 some agencies later...). Nothing in the federal government outside the essential need for defense of individual rights from enemies foreign and domestic and the enforcement agencies necessary should escape the ax. If we have any hope of restoring limited government federalism, we have to tirelessly go after this noxious weed, root and branch.
The underlying cause is the unconstrained vision, not the entitlement programs.
Edited on Aug 10, 2011 at 1:07pmRe: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
I keep hearing that "could" line but I never see it realized. Maybe this time will be different. And I agree that even the bloated, inefficient, wasteful and occasionally outright fraudulent bureaucracy pales in comparison to the entitlement programs when it comes to the deficit.
When I covered federal managers, I met several who were highly competent and were perhaps the most frustrated at the poor incentive structure in place for the federal bureaucracy.
Dec '10
Re: Obama: Not Much Further We Can Cut In Spending
The biggest problem I see in all the bashing of the bureaucracy is that it is a power player in policy making. Three years ago the Admiral that runs the program I work for (SSP) gave us a big speech about how the federal workforce was aging and how SSP would hire 250-300 new people to keep continuity of the knowledge base when people start to retire. Three years later he announced a hiring freeze. Over that time my shop hired 2 but lost 8. When push comes to shove we simply make due with less people who actually load missiles onto submarines while the fat at the top is never skimmed off. If it really comes down to it, the bureaucracy will stay and real, legitimate functions of government will be cut. There will be lots of butter, but no bullets.