Obama Confirms Budget Deal as The Spin Begins

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 10:31:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama briefly spoke from the White House tonight. His statement aired on the White House website and Facebook. Via CNN:

The president said the agreement "invests in our (America's) future while making the greatest annual spending cut in our history." Thanked House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for their "leadership and dedication" during the negotiation process.

I wouldn't describe this deal as historic. It's more like the all too obvious final scene of a badly scripted movie. And the spin begins. A Democratic source tells CNN:

[T]he budget deal would cut between $38 and $39 billion dollars over the 2011 fiscal year.

Reid and Boehner released this statement: [More...]

“We have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, as well as a short-term bridge that will give us time to avoid a shutdown while we get that agreement through both houses and to the President. We will cut $78.5 billion below the President’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders. In the meantime, we will pass a short-term resolution to keep the government running through Thursday. That short-term bridge will cut the first $2 billion of the total savings.”

$38 billion, $79 billion, $2 billion? Right now it's a handshake deal and both the House and Senate have until midnight to vote on the one week continuing resolution to avoid the shutdown while they put it in writing over the next several days. (Added: The Senate has now passed the resolution, House to follow.)That's when we'll know the real numbers. The big winner is the media which got to tote out their countdown clocks and now will report the spin from both sides all weekend.

What about the cost of the manpower expended by every federal agency who had to put ordinary business aside and research and draft a shut-down plan in case no agreement was reached?

CNN has more here.

< Friday Night News Roundup and Open Thread | Republican Budget Plan to Kill Medicare Gets Vote Next Week >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Confirms Budget Deal as The Spin Begins | 57 comments (57 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think Steve Benen (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:35:39 PM EST

who probably needs some sleep right now! phrased it well:

Three, taking $38.5 billion out of the economy right now strikes me as a reckless idea.

(Washington Monthly)

It's just a shock to people who supported the stimulus. I mean...how do people think we got out of the Great Depression? Pretending the federal government was similar to a checking account?

yep (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Left of the Left on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:45:59 PM EST

Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history."

At one of the worst possible times for it. But hey, being historic is what matters, who cares how it works out.


An economist on an admittedly leftie radio show (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:26:57 AM EST

Predicted the cuts will stall job growth by around 500-600 thousand jobs in the next 2 years.

Can't remember the name of the think tank he was from- it was one I had not heard of, with 'budget' in the name.

It made me wonder why the same people, especially the ones in the media, who were so smug and sure that it was just unthinkable to raise taxes in the middle of the recovery think cutting spending during a recovery is a laudable plan.


CBPP (none / 0) (#30)
by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:38:59 AM EST

Probably the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.


: I think that was it (none / 0) (#40)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:10:50 AM EST

He was on Make it Plain on Sirius, my favorite of their left leaning talk shows.

Countercyclical fiscal policy (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:44:45 PM EST

it a bit of an intellectual stretch for this crew.


I mean (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:50:27 PM EST

people in DC realize the federal government is not a "pocketbook," right? When I stay in on Friday I save twenty bucks, how wonderful. Life goes on (so hard to accept, but yes). When the government chooses not to bus routes are shortened or ended, people lose their jobs, etc.

The problem with giving into right wing rhetoric is that there are very few brains in DC capable of recovering. They just don't know, or care. I guess?


: I assume (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:07:03 AM EST

that a fair number do. Not hard to understand why they've given up speaking up, though.
Aggressive ignorance wins the day again.

i hope everyone has their paddles at (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:41:19 AM EST

at the ready, you've just been sold down the river.

Things happening around the edges, too (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:30:43 AM EST

Barack Obama recently issued an executive order imposing a wave of sanctions against Libya, not only freezing Libyan assets, but barring Americans from having business dealings with Libyan banks.
So raise your hand if you knew that the United States has been extending billions of dollars in aid to Qaddafi and to the Central Bank of Libya, through a Libyan-owned subsidiary bank operating out of Bahrain. And raise your hand if you knew that, just a week or so after Obama's executive order, the U.S. Treasury Department quietly issued an order exempting this and other Libyan-owned banks to continue operating without sanction.
[snip]
The ABC loans are just one example of the Fed's bailout madness. Again, there are 21,000 transactions on the Fed's list of released names, and "every one of these... is outrageous," as one Sanders aide put it. You will be shocked, for sure, to find out who else is on that list. We'll have a lot more on those other loans in the next issue of Rolling Stone.

Why is the Fed Bailing Out Qaddafi?, Matt Taibbi, April 01, 2011

I can't wait for Taibbi's installment on this (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:59:20 AM EST

I did find out that the Fed had some outrageous Libyan bank dealings a few days after our "humanitarian cause" began. Considering how the Fed literally runs our White House in many ways, this sure dirties up that "humanitarian" label. It's pretty filthy now. Who knows why our leaders chose to do what they did now? Tim Geithner is some sort of strange BFF to Obama.


: I get the funny feeling (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:10:46 AM EST

that if what Taibbi says is true that he mentions in that blog post, his upcoming article on the audit of the fed might be one of the biggest stories (bombshells?) of the year...

The ABC loans are just one example of the Fed's bailout madness. Again, there are 21,000 transactions on the Fed's list of released names, and "every one of these... is outrageous," as one Sanders aide put it. You will be shocked, for sure, to find out who else is on that list. We'll have a lot more on those other loans in the next issue of Rolling Stone.

Not (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:10:27 AM EST

surprised. We all knew Obama was going to cave and the GOP knows that he is going to cave too eventually on whatever they want if they just hold out.

There was something that (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:14:55 AM EST

showed up on my facebook that lead to a "military discussion board" yesterday afternoon. When I went there I was reading some really outrageous stuff just frothing at the mouth at President Obama, but nothing about Republicans at all. Of course I started arguing and there was another military spouse too that was arguing with me, and then she sent me a private message asking if I had noticed that the board was attached to Fox News? I had not, it was only a tiny logo in the left corner. It was really crazy, and I'm certain that many of the people spewing the insanity were a sort of poser because their postings were so incongruent with families living our current military reality. I wonder if Fox News pays posers to mob those boards and spin their Fox News followers HARD. The other poster who saw things much as I did later took down all of her posts as did I because they were attached to our facebooks and we weren't posers.

Interesting. We are really going to have (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:01:55 AM EST

to scrutinize stuff like that, specially with the campaigns gearing up. When stratgists talk about 'using social media' they don't just mean tweeting the rally locations.


: I was reading along (none / 0) (#41)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:15:34 AM EST

And struck by our propensity for human herd mentality, and how malleable that herd can be and the herd does not question itself. When some of us started asking hard questions though that board only grew to be four pages long and then died off. I did choose to leave one comment up overnight because most posters did not understand that the real fight now wasn't about money but was about PP. I posted that the real problem now was religious fundamentalist terrorists and I never negotiate with such people and I don't whine and cry and sob about having to stick to that principle. If most of the people on the board were truly military, that would mean something to them. There is no reason to allow the thing that is destroying Afghanistan and getting our spouses killed to destroy our country too.

Anyone realize yet (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:05:28 AM EST

that Obama is a republican in all but name?

He's not caving, he's achieving the results he sets out to achieve, and he's very very good at achieving them.

It's no wonder he has that big grin plastered on his face so often. He must have hard time not bursting out laughing, but give him more time...

Would 2008 be soon enough? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 11:46:27 AM EST

Hoped I was wrong back in 2008 but can't say I'm the least surprised that Obama is achieving these results.


He's good. Maybe the best. (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:19:36 PM EST

No one who calls himself a republican would have had a hope in hell of getting away with the things he gets away with, and still have people cheering and clapping.


Unfortunately you are correct. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:24:41 PM EST

Bottom line the people in the U.S. will not have a real choice in 2012. Policies that are destructive for 98% of the population will be passed no matter which candidate is elected. The cheering and the clapping will continue all while the ship sinks. That leaves me with little hope that the citizens in this country will wake up in time.

Too old and too poor to leave. Just hope there is a country remaining that has not adopted the same policies as the U.S. and my grandchildren wake up in time to go.


Things coud change almost overnight (none / 0) (#50)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:59:02 PM EST

I think the "Arab Awakening" has barely begun, and I wouldn't be surprised after this budget debacle to see the awakening and uprising spread now to America, and maybe sooner than later...

The extraordinary events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are the initial high tides of an eventual tsunami that will impact the world that globalists have so fervently promoted for decades, in ways not necessarily to their liking. The first wave has struck and is now retreating from the shore, but will shortly return with redoubled force, and what and who will be swept away and what will be left standing is anyone's guess.
[snip]
In the United States, 48 years after Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his stirring "I have a dream" speech at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, 45 percent of young African-Americans have no jobs and the top hedge fund managers are paid, on average, $1 billion a year, a thoughtful American can only expect the mass protests against cuts in services and jobs in Wisconsin to spread.
And America's propensity for eventual chaos is far higher than the Middle East, demonized in the press as a violent region, when one considers that America's 300 million citizens have between 238 million and 276 million privately owned firearms.
As a prescient 23-year old from Hibbing, Minnesota, Bob Dylan warned an earlier generation 47 years ago about to embark on its misguided mission to safeguard and democratize in Vietnam, "There's a battle outside and it is raging, It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, For the times they are a-changin'."
America has older prophets on the current situation - as Thomas Jefferson observed, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
Take heed, Governor Walker of Wisconsin and all the rest of you political leaders in Washington DC - or fuel up your learjets and head for the Cayman Islands.

The Extraordinary Events in the Middle East and the Coming Global Tsunami
By John C.K. Daly for the Global Intelligence Report


I like your scenario better than mine (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 03:13:28 PM EST

I am much more pessimistic.

45% percent of young African-Americans have no jobs

Obama continues to have overwhelming support from the AA community regardless of those high unemployment rates, increased taxes for the working poor, reduction in money for food stamps, funds for WIC and for emergency heating assistance. I don't see that changing any time soon.

And America's propensity for eventual chaos is far higher than the Middle East, demonized in the press as a violent region, when one considers that America's 300 million citizens have between 238 million and 276 million privately owned firearms.

Depending on who is in political control and the racial and economical composition of the protesters, it is within the realm of possibility that many of those citizen owned weapons would be turned on the protesters.

Large groups of protesters made up of a cross section of the population would IMO be controlled by the government using non-lethal weapons.

Increasingly, combat vehicles, such as the urban variant of the Leopard 2 main battle tank, are being fitted with non-lethal weapons.[10] The pictured Humvee has been fitted with the Active Denial System. A dish that projects electromagnetic radiation just powerful enough to penetrate human skin and make the nervous system think the victim is on fire although no physical damage is done.

Doubt that there would be any humanitarian intervention if the U.S. declared that the protesters were "terrorists" and chose to use lethal weapons.


Not so sure on "overwhelming support" (none / 0) (#52)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:21:45 PM EST

The Real News Network's Paul Jay talks with Glen Ford, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, "The Journal of African American Political Thought and Action", who evaluates the first year of Barack Obama's presidency, and observes, for a variety of good reasons, that the first US black president "takes every opportunity available to spit in the faces of black people, and to do this quite ostentatiously, very dramatically..." (video interview here)

More from Glen Ford, here...


That's a good interveiw (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:47:54 PM EST

and he's right. It's going to take grassroots movements to change things.


Glen Ford has never supported Obama (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by MO Blue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:02:11 PM EST

and IIRC did not vote for him in the primary or the general election in 2008. His commentary on Obama's first year as president is consistent with his views from the very beginning.

While his support has slipped somewhat, it is still very high in the AA community.

COMMENTARY |According to a new Gallup Poll, support for President Barack Obama has slipped substantially in two groups that no Democrat can afford to lose. Obama is down 7 percent to an 85 percent approval rate for African Americans. link

: True.... (none / 0) (#56)
by Edger on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 05:18:27 PM EST

although those polls I imagine will start showing even more slipping of support after these budget cuts.

his reputation will (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:24:47 AM EST

Always be hanging from a coathanger now, as far as i am concerned.

Still handy (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:11:11 PM EST

The agencies should have had a contingency plan in place the moment the Democratic Congress didn't pass a 2011 budget in 2010.
The agencies will need a contingency plan for the giant Paul Ryan budget battle next year.

: you forgot the contingency plan (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Makarov on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:34:48 PM EST

for when the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling in a couple weeks.

We are screwed (none / 0) (#4)
by kmblue on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:36:54 PM EST

but Obama is already selling it as a triumph.

What's getting cut? (none / 0) (#8)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 08, 2011 at 11:55:47 PM EST

I haven't heard word one about where that $39 billion or whatever they ended up with is to come from.

Obama and Reid went blah, blah, blah, blah, historic, blah, blah, blah, I want to thank, blah, blah, blah. And frankly, "historic cuts" doesn't exactly send a happy thrill up my leg.

I'm glad they managed not to cave on all those riders (they didn't, right?) on NPR and Planned Parenthood and the EPA and whatever the other 50-some were about.

But what's getting hit?

I think that (none / 0) (#19)
by Madeline on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:55:05 AM EST

Planned Parenthood is still on the table for "adjustments".

I think that $39 billion is the $40 billion that Obama asked for over the 2010 budget. So what did Democrats get?


I think that (none / 0) (#20)
by Madeline on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:58:30 AM EST

Dems played defense all the way. They (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:29:32 AM EST

Did not get anything except the glory of being known as willing to compromise. Their new base is so proud.


: As an old football Giants fan (none / 0) (#47)
by NYShooter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:49:54 PM EST

I still remember the days of kicking a field goal in the first quarter, going ahead 3-0. Then, play "Prevent Defense" the rest of the way........to 31-3 loss.

There's to be a vote on PP (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:34:28 AM EST

as a separate issue, which is fine. It will likely survive. The blackmail is what was completely unacceptable. I'm actually surprised Obama realized caving on that was a bridge too far.


Why the fig is women's healthcare (none / 0) (#10)
by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:52:53 AM EST

a "social issue" that deserves discussion??????

And talking about some dim mom who wrote him about her kid's class trip? Are we supposed to be relieved that they reached an agreement to deprive struggling families of food and heat so that some spoiled brats wouldn't find the Washington monument closed when they got to DC?

Ugh. His presser was just awful.

just fuuuccck that slimy (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by observed on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:10:29 AM EST

Reagan wannabe. This is the political equivalent of the bombing of the barracks, and he is proud to let the terrorists win. The only question is what will he
Cave on next. Feeling nervous about social security yet, dems?


Frankly . . . because we don't have (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:21:54 AM EST

a p*nis. Therefore our parts seem to be up for discussion/bargaining. And I'll stop there rather than risk my full out rant. But I will go on record saying "I'm F***ING sick of it."

I guess we should all take our v@ginas to a national park now . . . .


: A FLDem pol raised a minor flap by saying (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:35:40 AM EST

on the floor of the FL house that maybe his wife should incorporate her uterus so she could have some protection.
Later it came out that his wife had thought of the line.....and she was Alan Grayson's campaign manager.

: Except for the women of DC (none / 0) (#29)
by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:35:30 AM EST

The Dems sold ours back to the GOP. No Yosemite for us.

Wasn't even a presser (none / 0) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:58:51 AM EST

He doesn't have the stones for that. It was just a statement-- carefully set in the Blue Room so he'd have the Washington Monument in the background.


More awful substance (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 01:03:55 AM EST

Democrats did agree to ban the District of Columbia from using federal and local taxpayer funds on abortions[.]

Feel the compromise!

: I think I hear a resurgence (none / 0) (#46)
by Peter G on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:43:45 PM EST

of the home rule / statehood movement bubbling up in D.C.

Don't wanna say ... (none / 0) (#22)
by Robot Porter on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:24:12 AM EST

I told you so. But I told you so. Played out exactly as I predicted. Tons of fake drama. A much ballyhooed "last minute deal". The Republicans cave on Planned Parenthood. The Dems on almost everything else.

: Hey, are you Eliot Spitzer? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 06:31:55 AM EST

It was amusing to watch him laugh and shake his head all through Bill Maher last night. I don't watch his show, but apparently he had been calling it all week too.

Our Caver in Chief (none / 0) (#28)
by kmblue on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 07:17:42 AM EST

Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them. And I certainly did that.
Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances.

Ha.

OMG, I can't believe the complete (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Anne on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:57:26 AM EST

idiocy of that statement; why for the love of God would you make cuts in programs that are going to hurt people when people are still not back to work, are being forced out of their homes, are seeking assistance at food pantries because the work they have managed to get isn't enough to support them? Why?

Where is the part where he tells about the magnanimous and gracious agreement by the wealthy to sacrifice in order to ensure that people who are living on the edge don't fall over the cliff?

Where was his own effort to spare people who have already suffered in this economy and who have little, if any, left to give, from once again being on the chopping block?

This is not just insanity, it is cruelty on a level that is just unconscionable. And, honest to God, if he (as if: Obama thinks we women need a committee of men to help us make decisions) or someone doesn't soon step up and tell these people with their teeny-tiny minds that women's health issues are the purview of individual women themselves, and not subject to discussion by a bunch of (mostly) men who want to use us as bargaining chips...it may be time to mount a campaign - we can name it after Lorena Bobbit, perhaps - to let them know that we are done. D. O. N. E. with politicians of any gender or affiliation, who think our lady parts are fair game.

I could not be more disgusted, and on the off chance Obama Cheerleader and Chief Apologist ABG decides to stop by to gloat, I think I have to find something else to occupy my mind.


: It's like revoking part of the stimulus before (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:07:19 AM EST

the recovery is even done. When what was needed was more stimulus. It is purely bad economic policy.
And yet it is true that it could have been worse.
I'm fed up with all of them.

: Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 10:17:13 AM EST

we should incorporate our uteruses so that it can be protected under the Citizen's United decision.

: "Both sides have to make tough decisions (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Zorba on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 12:58:51 PM EST

and give ground.......etc." Translation: "I am here to tell you today that the Republicans originally demanded that we chop off both our arms and both our legs. We made the painful compromise of agreeing to only cut off one arm and both legs. And I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances."

At least (none / 0) (#32)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:00:58 AM EST

Obama got the GOP to remove the language that would have made it illegal to provide health care to any woman or child.

Okay, I'll bite (none / 0) (#33)
by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 09:13:24 AM EST

Presumably, that was snark.

What was it supposed to mean?


Reid said that was a house rider (none / 0) (#53)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 04:30:26 PM EST

That's ridiculous (none / 0) (#57)
by Yman on Sat Apr 09, 2011 at 08:30:30 PM EST

You're claiming Reid made this statement - which would be all over every news station in the country if true - without so much as a link?

BS.


Reid was referring to the rider (none / 0) (#58)
by DFLer on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:08:13 AM EST

defunding Planned Parenthood.

Google "Harry Reid" rider/women/health /budget...plenty of stories


: Sound like (none / 0) (#59)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:33:43 PM EST

.

"I have nine granddaughters and I want them to have the peace of mind that if something later goes on I can't help them with, that they can go get a cancer screening, have some information that they can't get at home and we're not going to violate that," he told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.

Apparently Reid believed at least cancer screenings would be illegal, but for funding Planned Parenthood, a giant corporation and leader in the abortion industry whose PAC ponies up big time to elect Dems.