Not that anyone finds that unusual anymore.

It's too bad, really, that someone who was, by all accounts, serious about the job he was tasked with, had to do it in an atmosphere a little too insular and clubby; having read the Geithner piece yesterday, I have a much better grasp on what Barofsky faced.

The giddiness at Treasury over Barofsky's departure is more than a little disturbing.

My question was this: Where does the Administration think demand will come from to reverse a three-year demand shortfall if you cut budgets in the immediate term at a time when 14 million people are unemployed, if state budgets show the same contraction, if trade remains in imbalance and if corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash? In other words, do you think economy can generate its own demand right now? I added this for Plouffe to give it a political angle: The budget predicts 8.2% unemployment at the end of 2012. No President has ever run for re-election with unemployment over 7.8% since 1948. Do you think it's worth cutting budgets over the next two years and reducing aggregate demand at a time when 14 million Americans are unemployed, if the political benefit appears to be facing re-election with the highest unemployment in recorded history?

So here was the answer. Plouffe said that the employment estimates, they hope are conservative. (Actually, one criticism of the budget I heard yesterday was that the projections were pretty aggressive and above what CBO projects for the next few years.) He said that there is a lot of positive trajectory in terms of job growth, though not nearly enough, he stressed. He said that the President has said repeatedly that we cannot jeopardize the recovery with the budget, and that it does not have negative effects on the economy in terms of hiring and growth.

I don't know how he can say that. Simple math indicates that taking $90 billion out of the economy, which this does in the first fiscal year starting in October, would have negative effects. The positive trajectory on job growth, reflected by two consecutive months of reductions in the topline unemployment rate by 0.4%, have not carried with it actual hiring growth, and could be attributed to noise in the data and rejiggering of population statistics. So when you're talking about actual job growth, not many economists see it yet. And sucking money out of the economy when states are contracting and businesses aren't spending will necessarily reduce that hiring.

This is when Ken Baer stepped in. And his answer was baffling. He said that the President's budget covered Fiscal Year 2012, which was "a bit away," and that the budget was constructed so that the cuts wouldn't go into effect until a little later. Republican cuts from the current budget year will start March 5 if they get their way, and there's a risk there.

I mean, everyone had a lot of fun with Jeff Sessions yesterday talking about the budget, but is this any less nonsensical? Do you mean to tell me that spending cuts are risky in March but not in October? Exactly what is supposed to happen in those intervening seven months to change the game? Is there any serious economist who thinks that the jobs crisis will be over by this October, and that contractionary fiscal policy would therefore not harm the economy at that point?

Neither Plouffe nor Baer answered the $64,000 question: where's the demand going to come from?

This is all about managing the message, not solving the jobs problem or turning the economy around for the 98% of us who don't comprise the elite.

Ah, 'tis but a dream.

shorter Halperin: the president punted because he wants the republicans to go first with cuts but they will probably also essentially punt and then Obama and McConnell will work out a back room deal that they can hopefully get through the house that will address the tax code, entitlements and smorgasbord of other stuff.  the term to big to fail was used.  this sounds likely to me.