Obama 4/25/09 Weekly Address Calls For Fiscal Discipline
In his weekly You Tube/radio address, President Barack Obama calls for fiscal discipline and says his administration plans to take steps to institutionalize it:
4/25/09: Your Weekly Address from White House on Vimeo.
ABC News’ Jake Trapper puts this address into perspective noting that the Obama administration is now coming under fire:
President Obama alludes to the $100 million he this week asked his Cabinet to locate in savings (amidst his $3.55 trillion budget proposal) and calls on Congress to pass “pay-as-you-go” legislation. He says his administration will create incentives for agencies to cut costs and identify savings, and pledges to establish a process for government employees to submit their ideas on how their agency can save money and perform better.
In addition, the president says, “we will reach beyond the halls of government. Many businesses have innovative ways of using technology to save money, and many experts have new ideas to make government work more efficiently. Government can –- and must –- learn from them. So later this year, we will host a forum on reforming government for the 21st century, so that we’re also guided by voices that come from outside of Washington.”
The president’s talk about protecting taxpayer dollars comes at the end of a week where two independent government watchdogs expressed concerns that the Obama administration is not ensuring sufficient oversight over the trillions in new government spending.
The Office of Special Inspector General for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program Neil Barofsky called on the Treasury Department to require all institutions that receive TARP funds to report how they use the money.
….The Government Accountability Office issued a report on the $787 billion stimulus bill reporting that officials from most of the states surveyed “expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff — limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.”
According to ABC, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs first told the network he’d get back to them, and the administration later noted specific efforts to Vice President Joe Biden to look into GAO concerns.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “Obama 4/25/09 Weekly Address Calls For Fiscal Discipline”
(from the Tapper article)
The way President Obama's numbers-crunchers find 3/4ths of this $2 trillion savings is by creating a “baseline” wherein the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are fully budgeted for 10 years. They then claim that since they're not going to spend that much over the next ten years, they're saving $1.5 trillion.
In other words they're fudging the numbers. Obama has no credibility talking about fiscal responsibility.
Who does have credibility talking about fiscal responsibilty?
GeorgeS, I think to have credibility you have to have the power to use fiscal responsibility and then demonstrate it. When the GOP was in power they did not demonstrate it so have little credibility even though they are now talking the talk; now that Obama/Democrats are in power they have not demonstrated it either.
Anyway sorry for the long answer – currently no one with significant power in government has credibility.
There are also few politicians at the state level that has shown restraint. Virtually every state or major city has grown their spending faster than should have occurred due to population growth and inflation.
I think part of the spending problem is that too many people believe that others will do the paying. That is the message of the Obama Administraiton, Tax the whites and give the money to others.
DaGoat–
The size of the deficit scares me too.
At some point, someone's got to cut something.
Increased government spending is the conventional wisdom when it comes to recessions, so I understand why the Obama administration is spending so much. But that scares me too.
It would certainly be nice if the call for fiscal discipline were followed up.
Look beyond that racist remark SD.
Our problem, system wide, has been the Reagan era meme that we can pump borrowed money into the system and make it so vibrant that the growth side outpaces the spending side. It didn't work under Reagan or Bush I. They simply borrowed and spent too much, quadrupling the national debt and returning our debt to GDP ratio back to the 1950s (from 30% when Reagan took office to 70% when Bush I was done). Clinton did reverse the trend (70% to 55%), largely a result of the dotcom phenomenom, which raised GDP so much that his relatively moderate spending (compared to Reagan/Bush) was less than GDP growth. He produced huge surplus. Bush II spent that on tax cuts and war, about equally, returning our indebtedness to about 65% of GDP. The whole “trickle down” approach did not yield the GDP gains promised (fantasized) by conservatives, and exploded the debt. The record since 1980 has been that Democrats are more fiscally conservative than Republicans (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush White House numbers).
Now we have a mess. Investor and consumer confidence are hammered, further depressing the spending side, hence reducing GDP. It's easy to blast the spending, but it's always done in a vacuum. For example, the GOP balked at the initial $700 billion stimulus bill as too expensive. The next *day*, the market lost $1.3 trillion, twice the stimulus proposal.
Confidence is very tricky. When investors think something -anything- is being done, the market advances. If Obama said tomorrow, no more government spending beyond tax revenue, the market would crash. Badly. Is that fiscal discipline?
Now, our problem, system wide, is spending beyond our means, and consuming unsustainably. How do we create a new culture that venerates not “increased consumption” but a new sustainable lifestyle; making things that last, making them last, stopping the pressure to consume ever more? It is a huge question, as we have a multi trillion dollar marketing industry that seeks to drive us to buy new stuff when our old stuff is still working fine, replace perfectly wearable clothing with the latest style, etc. We need to reduce consumer credit spending and increase savings, so individuals, as well as businesses, government and academia, are living within their means.
It's a huge challenge, and beyond partisanship. How do we get there? Anyone? I'd really like to hear some ideas, not just partisan sniping.
GD you keep asking for ideas, and I've given you some, but I don't know that I agree with the premise that we can't criticize the current budget unless we have better ideas ourselves. We trust professionals to do the jobs we can't do as well, but you also have to employ them with some degree of skepticism and hold them accountable.
Obama's portrayal of the 2 trillion dollars he's “saving” is dishonest. Is that a partisan statement? That Bush was also dishonest is no defense. Obama is trying to portray himself as fiscally responsible by using bad numbers.
Your prediction of the market crashing if Obama says he will not run a deficit is probably true, but ignores that an excessive deficit is also poor fiscal discipline. It seems like you are trying to defend excessive spending by saying what could happen if we don't spend enough.
Your first paragraph is a good review of the last few decades and the point I take from it is in order to duplicate the economic success of the Clinton years, Congress should be acting economically more like the GOP of the 1990's, not less.
GD,
The current accounts were in to negative numbers beore inaugural day in 2001. Clinton benefitted from a Republican Congress that was not going to let the Clinton Administration start any new programs. In Clinton has passed nationalized healthcare, I doubt that the budget would have been in surplus from 1998 to 2000.
The long term problem is that more than 50% of Americans are going to get used to the massively high level of government spending and services. The idea of sustainable economy is betray by the overwhelming support for open borders and unlimited immigration. There is no way for the U.S. to be a highly regulated, socialist state while maintaining open borders. FDR at least had enough sense to limit government works to citizens.
The talk about fiscal discipline is just meant to create the justification for a massive tax increase in the near future. To Democrats, fiscal discipline always means higher taxes. Of course, the problem is that the ratchet effect takes over and the governments spend more than they can hope to raise in taxes.
The middle class has to be very afriad looking at the future. The Obama Admnistration could, with the creation of new regulations, eliminate whole sectors of the economy while raising taxes and maintaining open borders.
What is the most frightening is how most of the Obama advisors know what the long term consequences of their policies on the middle class and they just do not care.
“overwhelming support for open borders and unlimited immigration”
I dispute this and have asked before that you document it. I have heard no calls, from any Dem legislator, for either of those.
Also, let me remind the history challenged, that the GOP fought every one of Clinton's fiscal policies and claimed the sky would fall. They were wrong. Spectacularly. Results speak louder than speculation of what might have been.
The reason I keep asking for ideas, is that I am sincerely interested if any readers have ideas of how to move toward a strong sustainable economy. I have presented ideas, involving cutting of cold war military budgets that ignore the reality of current conflict, applying more spending toward green economy goals that meet multiple national priorities. Further, I propose that we apply any tax incentives we allow, specifically toward those national goals. Here's an example. Home Depot thinks it can sell compact fluorescents for $1. Our state, using federal stimulus money is considering a $1 rebate. Free compact fluorescents. They last longer, use less energy and involve less toxins, including mercury, than incandescents. For more on the five national priorities, look HERE: http://greendreams.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/gre…
Still, how do we reconcile the belief that a healthy economy means constant growth with a recognition that resources, including financial resources, don't allow for unfettered mass consumerism?
Is that before or after Obama takes your guns and puts in you in a FEMA re-education/concentration camp? Besides, how else is Obama going to pay for those slavery reparations?
Biggest idea, hardest to implement:
Eliminate corporatism. Reverse the failed concept of “corporate personhood” and deny companies the ability to bribe politicians and impede progress toward sustainability and fiscal responsibility.
The only way individuals can do this is through amendments to state constitutions:
“For all purposes under Colorado law, 'person' shall be defined as a natural or naturalized citizen of the USA.”
That would do it.
I just adore the decoration of the room. It seems so “American Empire” in style. Bold, confident and powerful.
Obama has pretty much lost all credibility when it comes to fiscal discipline given the size of the stimulus bill that he signed into law. His administration's claim that they will cut the deficit in half by 2012 is so ridiculously far-fetched that it is insulting to those of us who actually do care about fiscal discipline.
Also having lost all credibility when it comes to fiscal discipline are all the Republicans who are now calling for fiscal discipline despite having been silent during George W. Bush's 8 year long spending binge and vocal support for his $700 billion dollar war in Iraq.
That statement is one giant contradiction. -1
Totally fair. I appreciated Obama's ability to speak the tough truths during the election season. If he just came out and said deficit reduction will have to wait until we're on a stronger economic footing, he'd gain a ton of respect from me. If he pushed Congress to go further and pass a law requiring deficit reduction under better economic conditions, I'd be even more impressed.
The real kicker re: fiscal sanity down the road is entitlement reform. Minor changes to Social Security and Medicare would fix the big long-term debt problem, thus making the current recession-based fiscal shortfalls a mere short-term problem. I'll wait to see if he has anything serious to offer on entitlements before making any judgment on fiscal policy as a whole. Remember, the big issue is not our current federal deficit but our growing deficit over time – which has the potential of devaluing the dollar and/or driving up interest rates.
But, as we know, there are powerful interests blocking changes to SS and Medicare. Part of the problem is the criminally stupid privatization plan put forth by Bush. I wish Obama just came out and said: We are raising the retirement age to 69 and aising the SS cap by $50,000. It would solve a huge portion of our fiscal problems – the left won't like the raised retirement age and the right won't like the lifted cap. But it'll go a long way toward setting our country on the path of fiscal health.
elrod, I'm all for raising the SS cap by $50,000 (or even more).
elrod,
There is no way that the Obama Administration is going to have entitlement reform. When they are talking about free healthcare and free college for everyone, you know that there is no concern about entitlement control. When they support open borders and unlimited immigration and support full entitlements for illegal immigrants .
Also, progressives like GD lose all crediblity when thye talk about doing away with corporations. Do you relaly think that the a $3 trillion dollar government can function if all of the goods and services it needs were produced by single proprietorships or limited partnerships. Talking about doing away with corporations is as stupid and as short sight and too many of the policies of the Bush Administraiton.
SD, I never advocated doing away with corporations, only treating them as businesses, not citizens. And you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that Dems support “open borders and unlimited immigration.” As for the thought that we the people should care for the health and education of our citizens. Oh, the horror.
“There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
— Thomas Jefferson
GD,
You should look at http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?Content… form the progressive caucus. In consecutive data points, they say that they do not want employers to be immigration enforcement personnel but that they want them held responsible for employing illegal aliens. No deportation, no border security, a path to citizenship for everyone who makes it to the U.S. Please explain how letting everyone stay and no enforcement is not open borders and unlimited immigration. As long as the illlegal aliens support democrats and join unions, the progressive consider them better than middle class Americans who do not want to pay high taxes.
If corporations cannot own property, then there no reason for their existence. Corporations solve a huge number of problems. What you seem to really be upset about is that corporations and their employees can petition the government. I guess in your world, the government is support to look a groups politics before deciding what protections they receive.
Corporations cannot make donations to elections now. When 90% of the politicians sit in extremely safe seats, it is hard to argue that donations really mean very much. What politicaisn do is reward their friends and punish their enemies. What you want politicians to do is to be limited in who can be winners and losers.
SD, so glad that you're so much smarter and more patriotic than the framers of the Constitution and a steady progression of presidents, including great Republican presidents like Lincoln and T Roosevelt. They saw the danger. You do not.
BTW, corporations are big factors in fighting against employers being held responsible for employing illegals. If you want them to keep calling the shots, we can pretty well predict what those shots will be. But if you don't think corporations have big influence on politicians and legislation, well that just shows me another of your blind spots.
GD,
There is no way that employers can keep from employing illegal while also complying with all of the EEOC rules and relations. Considering that President Obama was not checking the identify of donors using credit cards, considering that the Democrats oppose in use of government issue identities (see voting), considering that the Democrats have oppose any reform for preventing identity theft, and considering that Democrats will sue anyone who remotely uses profiling,
Also, I find it odd that a progressive is going to invoke the founding fathers. When the country was small farms and the government was less than 3% of the GDP, of course, you did not need large corporation.s However, if you want electronic medical records, it is going to take a number of large corporations to make it happen.
Remember, private colleges, unions, and professional associations are not for profit corporations. Do you really support the idea that unions should not be able to donate to campaignes.
Yes, I support the idea that unions and all other corporations whether for profit or not, be treated as businesses and not as artificial persons. Their speech is not free speech; it is commercial speech. They are welcome to meet with and attempt to persuade or educate legislators. They are not entitled to gift them, fly them around, give them a lucrative lecture invitation at a resort in the Bahamas, or any other sneaky bribery. That is a huge cause of corruption and must stop.
SD, I can't say it any clearer. I do not oppose the existence of corporations. I support them as a customer and buy their stock. I wish them great financial success. The presidents and constitutional authors you dismiss were eloquent and passionate in their warnings about the danger of corruption.
Remember, the Boston tea party was a protest against the British royals making law (the tea tax) to favor their corporate buddies at the British East India Company, which the royals exempted from the tea tax. We knew all about the danger of collusion between big business and big government. It's nothing new.
GD,
If you take away the personhood of corporaitons, the who will own the buildings, the patents, the trademarks, copyrights, etc. Corporations are persons so that they can own things. Also, doing away with corporaitons puts other people at much higher risk. Do you really want the stock holders to be criminally liable for the actions of the corporation. Do you want the trial lawyers to sue the stock holders, the CEO, or the employees, instead of suing the corporation. The idea that the U.S. can funciton without the current form of corporation is insane. YOu have fallen for a socialist strawman. You do not want corporations to affect politics but you have made a proposals that would eliminate all corporaitons.
That's not what I mean, SD. Of course corporations can own assets. They are just not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. “Personhood” is also not required to sue a corporation (or a government, church or academic institution).
Again, you are arguing against the greatest thinkers in American history. It is you who are wrong. Corporations existed, thrived and were very prosperous without the fiction of corporate personhood. You have fallen for fascist corporate scare tactics. (just kidding. Let's cool it with the flaming rhetoric)
GD,
If you can sue a corporation, that makes it a person. How else is the corporation suppose to mount a defense. Doing away with corporate personhood would cause people to sue the corporate officers or the partners.
Portugal Property…
…[Portugal property, Villas for sale in Portugal]……
Algarve property – Albufeira Real Estate. Portugal property…
Those taking a Portugal villa holidays in the Algarve this year will be pleased to learn that the country is home to 18 of the world’s top courses and recently scooped the International Association of Golf Tour Operators Award. Property Algarve……