Wow, here’s a story we’re going to see all over the mainstream media:

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs… By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.

Or maybe not… (via Sully)

Share
  1. Gherald says:

    That's nice. If Bush tried to end those programs as well, they must have been particularly wasteful parochial giveaways.

    And it's also great that the administration hasn't raised post-recession spending and taxes by a level of magnitude that dwarfs these cuts. Oh, wait…

    • Metavirus says:

      All in good time.  Taxes will certainly need to be raised.  Bush ensured that with his reckless tax cuts in a time of multi-trillion-dollar war.  What happens when you launch two unfunded wars that will ultimately cost us between $1.4 -- 1.8 trillion and pass tax cuts that ripped $2.5 trillion out of government revenue?  Yup, tax increases.

      • Gherald says:

        The problem is not tax increases per se, it's tax increases with spending increases….such that new revenue streams are being squandered on giveaways.

        Just as the problem during the Bush years was not tax cuts per se, it was tax cuts without spending cuts.

        And the wars are a whole 'nother additional problem added on to this. Which is fine to point out, but that ship has sailed and doesn't justify continuing the earlier, underlying bad budget accounting.

        • Metavirus says:

          i don't see a problem with tax increases right now or in the near future. we need them. Bush ensured that would be the case.

          • Gherald says:

            Your myopic point that tax increases are needed without regard to the other side of the budget (thus squandering new revenue with new spending) is every bit as pernicious as Republicans who correctly note that tax cuts are economically helpful without addressing the other side of the budget (the need for spending cuts to go with the cut revenue).

  2. Metavirus says:

    Well that's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that its thelargest spending binge since… George W and the republicans. At leastour society will get something out of this besides the bodies ofhundreds of thousands of people killed by wars fueled by trillions

    • Gherald says:

      Yes Bush's war spending was bad. You know what else was bad? Hitler.

      None of this excuses Obama's budgeting, though obviously I voted for it as the lesser evil.

  3. Metavirus says:

    Well, Scott Brown will be a great ally in your fight for fiscalresponsibility. Er, at least in terms of cutting taxes cutting taxesand cutting taxes.I can't wait to start hightlighting insane rightwing quotes from brownfor you when he takes office :)

    • Gherald says:

      You expect tax cuts during a time of large deficits and the largest Democratic majorities in…well, a very very long time?

      Nay, I endorse Brown to restrain Democratic spending.

      From a libertarian perspective any study of history will show that divided government produced the best results. I have little faith in the ability of politics to solve problems. It's most often best to create as much deadlock as possible to restrain them from creating new problems.

      At this point I want Republicans to control the House, I want 41-45 Republicans in the Senate, and I want a Democrat in the White House focused on foreign policy. That's my ideal partisan composition for the foreseeable future.

      While we're at it, I also want all our immediate problems to go away so we can get back to focusing on who blew the president… *best 1990s Republican voice* It's about the rule of law, people. Rule of law!

  4. Metavirus says:

    Yeah, well, that's the naive/simplistic way to look at it.  What you're really voting for is across the board filibustering of every democratic initiative, whether wise or sound.  Think they can get through a much-needed tax increase, even if they cut spending and the deficit more?  No, the republicans will then have the numbers to filibuster ANYTHING. 

  5. Metavirus says:

    PS. You know it, and I know it, and Bruce Bartlett knows it; we are going to need tax increases to pay for trillions bush and yes obama required us to pay for

    • Gherald says:

      Sure it'll restrain their ability to raise taxes--especially their ability to soak the rich. But it'll also restrain their ability to spend other people's money as soon as they raise the revenue, which is what they've been doing. Those are good restraints in toto.

      I'm not sure if a grand compromise like what Bruce Bartlett favors--paying for a welfare state, but doing so with a flat, conservative consumption tax (like the VAT)--is more likely to happen with or without a more divided government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *