3 Year Freeze on Discretionary Spending

[helolumpy]

Obama answered a question at the G20 and stated that his budget freezes discretionary spending for the next 3 years.

Guess who accounts for 54% of the discretionary budget???

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._those_complaining_about_debt_he_created.html

 

[HeyJoe]

Obama answered a question at the G20 and stated that his budget freezes discretionary spending for the next 3 years.

Guess who accounts for 54% of the discretionary budget???

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._those_complaining_about_debt_he_created.html

That's why SECDEF recently called for "savings" by trimming the modernization (ie trim/cut programs), force structure (units go away) and overhead accounts thereby giving him "maneuvering room" underneath the topline to tune of $101.9B over the FYDP (five years). Note comments about topline in link.

 

[SkywardET]

Well, not having the budget increase could perhaps be considered progress towards deficit reduction, but only in a very, very cynical way. Increasing the budget as much as this administration (plus the prior administration) has and then "freezing" it at that level is like adding a whole birthday cake to your daily food intake and then "freezing" your diet where you don't add anything else to your meals from now on. Sure you aren't eating any more than you "used to," but you're still going to get beyond obese. I guess the analogy returns to the real world by saying that although we evidently won't be increasing our spending which will be frozen, we will still lose purchasing power.

 

[phrogdriver]

It's a positive step, and even a pro-military guy like myself will admit that DoD can't keep on its current path.

However, until we deal with the cost curves on the non-discretionary side of the budget, we're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Until the leadership admits that, and the people don't punish them for speaking the truth, the iceberg is still going to sink the ship of state.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Does this mean that I'm not going to be able to go TAD first class anymore?

 

[Recovering LSO]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128320487

 

[C420sailor]

Is this limited to procurement and other tangibles, or are we going to see massive cuts in flight hours as well?

 

[mountainman]

I wholeheartedly agree with the President's comments. The same people who are carrying on about how out debt and deficits are out of control will be the first ones to step up and defend massive boondoggles related to defense spending. NOT MY 2nd JSF Engine, Not my LCS, NOT MY DDG 1000! Unbelievable!

 

[magnetfreezer]

I wholeheartedly agree with the President's comments. The same people who are carrying on about how out debt and deficits are out of control will be the first ones to step up and defend massive boondoggles related to defense spending. NOT MY 2nd JSF Engine, Not my LCS, NOT MY DDG 1000! Unbelievable!

Agree that inefficiencies in contracting, etc should be eliminated; however, when looking to reduce discretionary spending, get rid of all the useless and probably unconstitutional stuff the government spends money on before looking at defense. In addition, discretionary austerity will only go so far; the fiscal train cannot get back on track until we realize that most of the "entitlements" really aren't and will bankrupt their respective funds.

 

[Flash]

Agree that inefficiencies in contracting, etc should be eliminated; however, when looking to reduce discretionary spending, get rid of all the useless and probably unconstitutional stuff the government spends money on before looking at defense. In addition, discretionary austerity will only go so far; the fiscal train cannot get back on track until we realize that most of the "entitlements" really aren't and will bankrupt their respective funds.

Unconstitutional? What exactly? And according to who?

 

[Spekkio]

It's unconstitutional according to strict constructionists, "original intent"-ists, and quite a few former and current(?) Supreme Court justice opinions.

However, since the majority of the Supreme Court members have set the precedent of upholding social welfare programs after being bullied by FDR in the 1940's and bastardizing the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses since then, they are considered Constitutional by the judicial branch of the federal government.

The thing is, if the US gov't were to magically rid itself of Social Security, Medicare/medicaid, and "other discretionary spending" overnight (total ~32% of budget, approx $1.15 trillion), we still would be barely breaking even.

 

[SkywardET]

The thing is, if the US gov't were to magically rid itself of Social Security, Medicare/medicaid, and "other discretionary spending" overnight (total ~32% of budget, approx $1.15 trillion), we still would be barely breaking even.

It's almost as if having a budget that is twice the size it was ten years ago is unsustainable...

 

[Flash]

It's unconstitutional according to strict constructionists, "original intent"-ists, and quite a few former and current(?) Supreme Court justice opinions.

However, since the majority of the Supreme Court members have set the precedent of upholding social welfare programs after being bullied by FDR in the 1940's and bastardizing the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses since then, they are considered Constitutional by the judicial branch of the federal government.

The thing is, if the US gov't were to magically rid itself of Social Security, Medicare/medicaid, and "other discretionary spending" overnight (total ~32% of budget, approx $1.15 trillion), we still would be barely breaking even.

So still constitutional here in the real world, got it.

 

[wlawr005]

Constitutional? Maybe. Stupid? Yes.

Too many hands in the pie these days, not enough pie.

 

[Spekkio]

So still constitutional here in the real world, got it.

Legally, yes, but it's worth noting that the Supreme Court justices release majority and minority opinions, and they have wavered on past decisions, so quoting them as an end-all, be-all authority of Truth is a bit...well, off. But this has been covered ad naseum in other threads.

It's almost as if having a budget that is twice the size it was ten years ago is unsustainable...

It is when you pair it with cutting taxes.

One thing that has been proven over the past 30 years is that "Reaganomics" doesn't work...you aren't going to get rid of a Federal deficit by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Our deficit grew under those policies, and shrunk under Clinton when he actually raised taxes. Tax fluctuations are so small relatively that the growth or lackthereof does not overcome the change in taxes.

I'm not saying that we should tax and spend; what I am saying is that we can't have the best of both worlds.