Obama asks Cabinet for cuts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21392.html

President Barack Obama will ask his Cabinet Monday to identify cuts in their budgets as he moves in the coming weeks to eliminate dozens of wasteful government programs.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama also announced the appointment of a chief performance officer and a chief technology officer who, he said, “will help us revamp government operations from top to bottom.”

His promise to break “bad habits” in Washington and trim unnecessary programs from the federal budget was a standard line on the campaign trail, and after directing billions of dollars in the first months of his presidency to prop up the economy, Obama needs to show he can trim money as well as he can spend it.

“In this effort, there will be no sacred cows, and no pet projects,” Obama said Saturday. “All across America, families are making hard choices, and it’s time their government did the same.”

Obama did not identify specific programs or a targeted dollar amount. He did, however, identify examples of what he’s looking for: The Department of Homeland Security axed a $3 million project to create new seals and logos, and the Defense Department is overhauling its contracting system.

He commended his former presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for his work on the spending issue along with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

“If we’re to going to rebuild our economy on a solid foundation, we need to change the way we do business in Washington,” Obama said. “We need to restore the American people’s confidence in their government – that it is on their side, spending their money wisely, to meet their families’ needs.”

Republicans cast a skeptical eye Saturday on Obama's address.

Don Stewart, spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), emailed a statement:

"While we love the idea of trimming the fat, here’s a little factoid to remember about promises to rein in the debt through finding waste in government:They could shut down the entire government—bring all our troops home from overseas and shut all the bases here, recall our ambassadors and shutter our embassies, close every government building here and around the world, stop spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, close the postal service and layoff all federal law enforcement officials and every other federal employee—for three years, but keep the IRS open so we could still collect taxes, and we would STILL owe money and carry debt. And that’s BEFORE the bulk of the Stimulus money is spent."

Obama appointed Jeffrey Zients, a former CEO, management consultant and entrepreneur, to serve as the chief performance officer. He will work “to streamline processes, cut costs, and find best practices throughout our government,” Obama said in the address.

Zients is Obama’s second choice for the post, which he first proposed at the height of the Wall Street meltdown in mid-September. The president named Nancy Killefer in January, but she withdrew from consideration amid questions about her taxes.

Aneesh Chopra, who is currently Virginia’s Secretary of Technology, will step into the role of chief technology officer.

“In this role, Aneesh will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities – from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure,” Obama said.



Yeah, I know it is all just talk and it won't do good to cut here but add there. Cut what needs to be cut and move on.

How will the talk radio crowd avoid this one..

easy. by saying that whatever is getting cut is indispensable.

it's not so much how much money is being spent on things... it's that they want money to be spent on things that they want.

I'm curious.

What good will this do beyond him claiming he tried to do something?

When all is done, he will end up approving the spending of probably more than twice as much money than president Bush did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm curious.

What good will this do beyond him claiming he tried to do something?

When all is done, he will end up approving the spending of probably more than twice as much money than president Bush did.

---

Even if it's hypocrisy, I do appreciate Obama putting up at least the bare pretense of fiscal prudence. It's timely. It'll be interesting to see what *voluntary cuts* are actually recommended by the department heads.

My guess is Team Obama has already done its homework and identified the cuts. The intramural food fight will soon commence BCD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm curious.

What good will this do beyond him claiming he tried to do something?

When all is done, he will end up approving the spending of probably more than twice as much money than president Bush did.

---

Technically speaking, any cut is less money we're spening. Yes, it may not make a difference in the long run, but better to cut some off your bill than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

How will the talk radio crowd avoid this one..

---

Cmon, that's an easy one.

They'll bring back their old favorite... he's a "cut and runner"!

Thank you ladies and gentleman, I'm here til Friday. Enjoy the fish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Technically speaking, any cut is less money we're spening. Yes, it may not make a difference in the long run, but better to cut some off your bill than nothing.

---

True, but the cuts I'm afraid of are the important programs so he can move more money to the programs that violate the premise:

"promote the general welfare"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

True, but the cuts I'm afraid of are the important programs so he can move more money to the programs that violate the premise:

"promote the general welfare"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

easy. by saying that whatever is getting cut is indispensable.

it's not so much how much money is being spent on things... it's that they want money to be spent on things that they want.

---

That took, what 6 posts?

And WC, I'm pretty sure you're not the person who gets to decide exactly what "promotes the general welfare" means. :) Right now, that's up to Obama and Congress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And WC, I'm pretty sure you're not the person who gets to decide exactly what "promotes the general welfare" means. :) Right now, that's up to Obama and Congress...

---

"Promote the General Welfare" is an easily understood concept, and is in the preamble to the constitution. The same document says "Provide for the Common Defense." Provide and promote are two distinct words. It does not say "provide for the General Welfare!"

Socialism is wrong, and can clearly be argued, unconstitutional, by many aspects including those two phrases.

Oh, please give us you constitutional scholar argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

"Promote the General Welfare" is an easily understood concept, and is in the preamble to the constitution. The same document says "Provide for the Common Defense." Provide and promote are two distinct words. It does not say "provide for the General Welfare!"

Socialism is wrong, and can clearly be argued, unconstitutional, by many aspects including those two phrases.

---

So how would you define "promote the general welfare"?

Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar. I'm not sure the exact meaning of promote, and if you do know it, feel free to provide. However... from dictionary.com...

pro⋅mote   /prəˈmoʊt/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictiona...on_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-moht] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictiona...on_default.gif Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -mot⋅ed, -mot⋅ing. 1.to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace. 2.to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote ).3.Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.4.to aid in organizing (business undertakings).5.to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.6.Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.


Now, I might be twisting words here, but if Obama's policies were designed to help faciliate class movement amongst the lower and middle class, wouldn't that fit the first two definitions?

Providing welfare WOULD be socialist. However, I don't see how programs designed to HELP others without supporting them fully would be a complete departure from the idea of PROMOTING the welfare of the nation.

Also, from the few sources I've found, the term tends to be quite general and not easily defined. Do you have a better source? (One that is, of course, relatively well-accepted and free from bias?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Oh, please give us you constitutional scholar argument.

---

No. It gets complicated. I'm not willing to take time for the several arguments that can be made. I'll say this… You do not promote the general welfare by subsidizing the poor. Short term programs for unexpected events are one thing. When you allow people to live off of other people labor is, it discourages rather than promotes. It actually promotes more people to live off of others rather than standing on their own two feet. The immediate result is helping a person or family, but in the long run, it promotes a larger population of people in poverty rather than the general welfare.

I am all for promoting a better living for people. However, you make it more desirable for them to work for it rather than just giving it away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'll say this… You do not promote the general welfare by subsidizing the poor.

---

You and your mom should never have been subsidized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So how would you define "promote the general welfare"?

---

Also, from the few sources I've found, the term tends to be quite general and not easily defined. Do you have a better source? (One that is, of course, relatively well-accepted and free from bias?)

---

The problem is what the term "welfare" meant when the Constitution was written. It is wrong to use a changed meaning of a word and apply it as constitutional law. The word welfare in the constitution means "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." The term welfare never meant a social program back then.

Here is a definition from my 1906 dictionary:

Quote:

---

Welfare:

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity, or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessing of life; prosperity; happiness; well-being.

2. A blessing.

---

Quote:

---

Promote:

1. To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement, or excellence of, as of anything valuable, or to the increase of as anything evil; as, to promote learning knowledge, or religion.

2. To exalt; to elevate; to rise; to prefer in rank or honor.

3. To inform against. [Obs]

4. To originate, organize, or capitalize, as a commercial or manufacturing company; to float the stock of, as a mining corporation.

Syn. – Advance, encourage, forward, prefer, organize, equip.

---

I wish I had an older dictionary.

Here's a link that helps also:

PREAMBLE TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Can you give a particular example of an Obama cut that does not serve the general welfare?

It is well enough to state your objection to cuts in the abstract, but is there a policy you actually disagree with here? Or were you just announcing to us that you are counting on Obama to disappoint your expectations?

If the latter, why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Can you give a particular example of an Obama cut that does not serve the general welfare?

---

I'm sure there are some, but I don't know what they are. I hope I'm wrong. I haven't looked or can think of an example. My concern are his spending increases. Not his cuts, unless they are necessary programs, and constitutionally valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It is well enough to state your objection to cuts in the abstract, but is there a policy you actually disagree with here? Or were you just announcing to us that you are counting on Obama to disappoint your expectations?

If the latter, why bother?

---

Neither. My expectations are that he will hurt this nation. I cannot be more disappointed that I already am. If anything, he will surprise my by making a 180 on his plans. I see this congress and president as an all time low for our nation. We can only go up from my expectations of future events.

Well, that's an honest opinion at least. You admit your ignorance and confess your bias.

Cheers to honesty, WC. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

My concern are his spending increases. Not his cuts, unless they are necessary programs, and constitutionally valid.

---

can you give an example of proposed spending that is unconstitutional? state the program and your rationale for declaring it unconstitutional. You should reference the amendment that his spending violates, and hopefully the legal precedent that you are relying on. Please don't refer to El Rushbo as your authority on the issue.

LOL at how easy it appears to be to have the drones defend your empty crumbs :lmao

I'll admit it's not really sporting to pick on WC, but sometimes it's irresistable, and he just keeps putting himself out there for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

LOL at how easy it appears to be to have the drones defend your empty crumbs :lmao

---

are you retarded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Even if it's hypocrisy, I do appreciate Obama putting up at least the bare pretense of fiscal prudence. It's timely. It'll be interesting to see what *voluntary cuts* are actually recommended by the department heads.

---

Maybe they'll be cuts in the earmarks which amount to approximately 0.01% of the federal budget. Yet another example of both parties yanking the citizenry's chain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Maybe they'll be cuts in the earmarks which amount to approximately 0.01% of the federal budget. Yet another example of both parties yanking the citizenry's chain.

---

Exactly. Here's a couple of token budget cuts. Just ignore that $50 trillion dollar pile of IOU's over in the corner known as medicare and social security.

The president asked for 100 million in cuts...:lmao

A FAR cry from the BILLIONS in we are wasting under this administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpuronyourFace

The president asked for 100 million in cuts...:lmao

A FAR cry from the BILLIONS in we are wasting under this administration.

---

He has no clue what he is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Exactly. Here's a couple of token budget cuts. Just ignore that $50 trillion dollar pile of IOU's over in the corner known as medicare and social security.

---

True, but the consensus there is bipartisan.

If waste is trimmed that's to the good. Even if the cuts are not statistically significant, Obama struck the right note. It's entirely appropriate to pretend to worry about fiscal prudence right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

True, but the consensus there is bipartisan.

If waste is trimmed that's to the good. Even if the cuts are not statistically significant, Obama struck the right note. It's entirely appropriate to pretend to worry about fiscal prudence right now.

---

No doubt that republicans and democrats are equal in their desire to ignore the medicare/ss problem. And you're right that in and of itself Obama's gesture here to cut some spending is a good thing. But given the context that these cuts won't come anything close to the additional spending he's proposed and they do nothing to address the much more significant problem I can't get too terribly fired up about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

No doubt that republicans and democrats are equal in their desire to ignore the medicare/ss problem. And you're right that in and of itself Obama's gesture here to cut some spending is a good thing. But given the context that these cuts won't come anything close to the additional spending he's proposed and they do nothing to address the much more significant problem I can't get too terribly fired up about it.

---

I have the same problem. I wish more people shared it. For good and for ill, spending is power.

But Obama is a master politician, and he plays the game well.

The uninformed American will see this on the news and think that this will help and make a difference. Never mind the wasted billions.

Good political move by team Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

He has no clue what he is doing.

---

Sure he does. It will blow up on someone else's watch. GWB did the same thing, as did his predecessors.