
President Barack Obama will selectively freeze spending on hundreds of government programs for three years in an attempt to get unprecedented budget deficits under control.
The spending freeze, which will begin with the 2011 budget starting in October, will target programs that weren't working well and save $250 billion over the next decade, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Rob Nabors said in a conference call.
"Under this budget, by the middle of the decade, non-security discretionary spending will fall to its lowest share of the economy in 50 years," Nabors said.
That is still a fraction of the $9 trillion in budget deficits expected to accumulate in that time, according to the New York Times, but Nabors argued it is a step toward developing long-term fiscal sustainability.
A team of 500 budget analysts spent the last three months going over the budget line by line in an effort to isolate the spending programs that would be frozen. Exempt from the freeze are security-related programs, such as the Pentagon and Homeland Security as well as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Nabors also said programs, such as the Pell grants, which provide money for poor students to attain higher education, "will be taken care of in our budget."
"The president's objectives haven't really changed. We are still focused on creating an economy that will work in the 21st century. We are still working on improving the education system. We are still working on making investments in clean energy. More than anything, we are slowing the growth of some of these programs, while at the same time eliminating things that really aren't priorities or that we believe don't work," Nabors said.
The move is seen by many as an attempt by President Obama to appeal to centrist voters by addressing concerns over the size of the budget deficit. It is also part of a larger strategy to craft a more populist message by focusing more on economic recovery and jobs as opposed to health care, which Obama has deemed as his top domestic priority. Yesterday, he announced a package of tax changes designed to help the middle class.Republicans are skeptical.
"Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," Michael Steele, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Politico.
"I applaud [Obama] for attempting to have some fiscal restraint," Republican strategist Ed Rollins told CNN. "But at the end of the day, he's got to make sure the Democrats are disciplined and they don't have big spending programs alongside of this."
Nabors said the spending freeze is part of a three-pronged strategy by Obama to get the country back on the right track. Health care reform and a job-creation package that will go in to effect for the 2010 budget year are also major parts of the effort.
"The president is very focused right now in terms of putting people back to work," said Nabors. "In 2010, we are focused on making sure we can get people back to work. In 2011, when we believe the economy will be back on stronger footing , we will be looking to make sure the footing we are putting them on is a more sustainable discretionary fiscal footing."
"Health care reform is long-term deficit reform. In order to bring our long-term deficit under control, we need to do something about health care. On the discretionary side, the president is proposing this three year freeze that will save a quarter of a trillion dollars over 10 years. The president has expressed his support for a fiscal commission that will sit down and look at revenues and take a look at some of the mandatory programs and make proposals Congress can consider going in to next year. Between those three things, we have a solid strategy that will allow us to put the country back on a sustainable path," Nabors added.


Comments: (6)
Add a comment
By: paul on 1/26/2010 6:26PM
I have an idea... We build prisons in Haiti and give the Haitians something to do. They obviously need the work, and we've got far too many prisoners, at far too great an expense to those of us that can stay out of trouble. We could really pack them in there and make it a living hell. If conditions were worse, sentences could be shorter and prison might actually become a deterrent to crime.
Instead of just giving them money, we could be outsourcing work to them and investing in their future.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: rbk84 on 1/26/2010 4:24PM
What a crock. Still no cuts to the defense budget that takes almost all the budget. Another president who wont stand up to the defense industry. Ike was right when he said beware of the defense industry. I guess he'l be cuttting programs for the poor. Guess what will happen when he does that. Crime will go up and the need for more police officers will increase and so on and so forth. The change we voted for my ass. All that money going to defense. Name me an army, air force, or navy we should be afraid of since the end of the cold war. China is our favorite trade partner and the war on terror is an intel war. wE Stood around and saw Bush spend needless money on a unnecessary war. And this dude is doing the same. When will we wake up.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: BlackMoose on 1/27/2010 10:33AM
I would have to say that for the most part domestic spending is a drop in the bucket compared to defense spending and tax giveaways for corporations. Domestic programs are an easy target compared to cutting the military budget because the president doesn’t want to appear weak on defense. However, pandering to the Right will only result in more pandering to the Right because the republicans will simply move the goal post in which they will never be satisfied. This political pandering really makes him appear weak not to mention a total flip-flop from his 2008 campaign.
If you really want to cut the deficit then bring the troops home and absolutely cut corporate welfare, especially for the companies that’s deemed to big to fail.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: bob o on 1/27/2010 11:21AM
THATS GREAT. AND IN KEEPING WITH THAT LOGIC, MICHAEL JACKSON HAS GIVEN UP DRUGS.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: sherridina on 1/27/2010 12:53PM
How about freezing Congress's salaries? How about making them pay for healthcare? How about cutting their benefits? How about giving them a list of hotels they can go to? It is one thing to pay for the president, but $2200/night for congress.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Arlene Williams on 5/25/2010 7:07PM
I voted for the current adminstration,Mr. President I wish you would reconsider the freeze on social security. All of us do not have a paid for home,we rent. Healthcare is a joke to most senior citizens,our cost keep rising while our money stays the same. If you are going to freeze our income;find a way to freeze our expenses.
Reply to this Comment | Report This