To me, this sounded like a colossal pander to the Tea Party and fiscal conservative crowd, brought on by post-Brownday panic attacks. It also struck me as a pretty radical suggestion: freeze government spending for the next three years on everything except Homeland Security (Defense as well, I assume), Medicare, and Social Security. Has anybody thought through the ramifications of this idea for other domestic programs? Maybe it’s not as big a deal as it seemed to be to me, but I haven’t seen a lot of discussion here about it yet. Anybody have any thoughts? Is it a good idea?
Please share widely!
What is the bid deal of announcing a spending freeze on the “next” budget?
<
p>Reminds of Whimpy from Popeye,
<
p>
<
p>A year is a long time, especially with this President who has a poor record of keeping his word. Plus, he fails to mention the 84% increase over last year’s budget. Think of any thing in the world where someone gets or takes an 84% increase and then says they’ll freeze it this level and give the “air” of it being a cut… get an 84% raise in your paycheck and then make it sound like you are sacrificing by freezing your income at that new level.
<
p>Pure political rhetoric!
If you want to cut spending in some categories, go through the budget and make a case for it. If there are good programs that are working, why subject them to some random “freeze”? Case in point that I know, the Agriculture Department is trying to shift some of its gears to respond to the healthy/local food initiatives springing up all around the country. Can’t some money be shifted from other, maybe outdated ag accounts to support these efforts or is the “freeze” that rigid? I honestly hope not for those of us interested in an aggressive and creative domestic agenda. Democrats need to be energized as we enter the 2010 elections so we need to “warm” up the economy, not “freeze” domestic programs.
There is an AP piece in Monday’s Globe clarifying that some programs may be cut in order to fund priority initiatives of the Administration.