With much fanfare, President Barack Obama rolled out his intentions to cut $17 billion from the federal budget on May 7. But despite the spinmeisters, not everyone was buying it.
"The White House today played up its proposed cuts to the federal budget," ABC "World News" anchor Charles Gibson said on his May 7 broadcast. "That budget plays up to $3.6 trillion. The White House wants to trim a tiny fraction - $17 billion. The president, arguing that seemingly small amount is a step in the right direction."
And that's exactly what ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper emphasized during his report on the budget cuts.
"President Obama today spotlighted 121 programs he seeks to cut from his budget, saving $17 billion," Tapper said.
But, Tapper wasn't buying the premise that the $17 billion in cuts were a major accomplishment. In fact, he pointed out that President Barack Obama wasn't impressed with a similar dollar amount eight months ago at the height of the presidential campaign.
"Of the president's $3.6-trillion budget, the proposed $17 billion in cuts amount to a reduction of less than one-half of 1 percent," Tapper said. "On the campaign trail last year, then-Sen. Obama seemed to belittle the impact of his opponent's call to cut earmarks - $18 billion worth."
And Tapper's right. Obama said on Oct. 15, 2008 during the presidential debate against his Republican counterpart Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. that earmarks weren't "going to solve the problem."
"Now, Sen. McCain talks a lot about earmarks," Obama said. "That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for one-half of 1 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem."
"The White House said today the $17 billion in cuts was just a start," Tapper said.
"Let's do this - let's you and I walk down on the street today," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Let's interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether they think $17 billion is a lot of money."
So that's what Tapper did. Before putting the $17 billion in context of the entire budget people thought it was a lot of money. But after he explained that is part of a $3.6 trillion budget, those he interviewed on camera, weren't impressed.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Uhmmm, Jeff, one wee little
May 8, 2009 - 08:30 ET by dscottUhmmm, Jeff, one wee little problem... the $17 billion is not a cut, it is a "reorienting" to be spent on something else. So ZERO dollars were cut, ZERO is the operative figure. This is exactly the same stunt they pulled with the $100 million just with a bigger number.
“What we’re trying to do is reorient government activity toward things that work,” said White House Budget Director Peter Orszag
In other words they LIED, AGAIN!
So no kudos to Jake because he failed in his journalistic duty to report ALL the facts.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
As Bill Clinton said
May 8, 2009 - 14:49 ET by mattmAs Bill Clinton said (plagiarizing Rush Limbaugh, or Bill Buckley or someone) "Only in Washington could an increase in spending be called a cut."
B.J. was being disengenuous, but the fact is, the Libs use this language to scare politicians away from even daring to think about reducing the growth rate of spending, let alone actual total spending. I think it's called newspeak....
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon . . .
May 8, 2009 - 08:32 ET by Galvanic"Let's do this - let's you and I walk down on the street today," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Let's interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether they think $17 billion is a lot of money."
And while you're at it, ask them if they know how many zeroes there are in $1,000,000,000,000.
Managing the Press?
May 8, 2009 - 08:40 ET by slickwillie2001In this version of the story, the Bamster appears to give marching orders to his sycophantic press corps:
"And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are 'significant' – a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage. "It is important, though, for all of you, as you're writing up these stories, to recognize that $17 billion taken out of our discretionary, non-defense budget, as well as portions of our defense budget, are significant," he said. "They mean something.""
Ref
One of few bright spots in the MSM
May 8, 2009 - 08:55 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarI'm wondering how long before Jake shows up on Fox. I'm torn, though, as I enjoy having someone like him in the ranks of the MSM to keep Glibbs in check during the daily/weekly WH spinfests.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
I hope he doesn't end up on Fox.
May 8, 2009 - 09:07 ET by pbthinkerRight now, we need the press to do their jobs, even if they have to do it kicking and screaming. If Tapper were to go to Fox, Obama and company can say "It's just Fox News against us." As it is, Fox News doesn't get to ask questions at a press conference, it's Fox News that gets the "B" team interviewees, it's Fox News that gets singled out for negative comments from the President, it's just too easy for them.
Sooner or later, these press people are going to understand how their children are going to be affected by this generational theft that's going on and then, perhaps, they'll start asking the tough questions. If it starts coming from more than one network then we'll have a good reason for a free press. Perhaps, before the next election, there will be only one network, MSNBC, who's still working as Obama's media wing and the rest will be doing their jobs.
Right now, lying Pelosi and lying Obama can say what they want because no one questions them on it.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
I agree
May 8, 2009 - 09:12 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarwhich is why it would be bitter-sweet if he were to jump ship. Jake is a thorn in the side for "them" and I'm actually surprised he is still called on. I'm sure there is a memo that has been drafted, ready to be sent, with ABC's address, "Hi, this is Rahm, about this Jake guy ..."
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
Jake Tapper is doing his job
May 8, 2009 - 19:58 ET by SayAnythingIt just shows you confused folks that there is no Liberal media bias. Not to the extent that you think. You're just angry that every news station isn't populated by insane people who hate all things moderate or progressive. Or Dijon Mustard...
NEWSFLASH
Jake Tapper wrote a book about how the 2000 election was stolen, he worked for a gun control agency, called Rush Limbaugh fans "dittoheads" on ABC and wife works for Planned Parenthood.
He doesn't need to work for a BIASED right-wing network to do his job. If his goal is to truly be "fair and balanced", he needs to stay as far away from Faux News as possible.
I posted a comment about
May 8, 2009 - 08:59 ET by BKeyserI posted a comment about this yesterday, here -purely in jest- and used Brian Williams as the anchor noting the dicotomy. Gotta hand it to Jake Tapper, but I prefer my version of the report better...
Sing it.....What a difference a "D" ( not a "day" ) makes....
May 8, 2009 - 09:26 ET by motherbeltSing it.....What a difference a "D" ( not a "day" ) makes....
Now that a Democrat is proposing it, it's a ton of money!
So the President says (paraphrasing)
$17 billion out of discretionary, non defense spending, [pause, stall] as well as portions of the defense budget.....
So which is it...is he trying to make the point that he's not cutting just defense spending, or is he appeasing his base by assuring them that he's got some defense spending cuts in there too?
Why the hesitation, and then adding the latter almost as an afterthought?
Just strikes me as odd....
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Smoke and mirrors from the MSM again.
May 8, 2009 - 09:32 ET by c5thenObama proposes to increase the spending on domestic programs by $84 billion and proposed to pay for some of that by cutting programs worth about $17 billion (over 10 years)and the MSM spin that as proposed budget cuts.
Q: What happens to an industry that is no longer fullfilling a useful service to the public?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
There won't be any cuts...
May 8, 2009 - 09:37 ET by Prester John....because the Dems in Congress won't allow it.
Check it out:
Democrats Assail Obama's Hit List
Lawmakers Vow to Protect Pet Programs
President Obama's modest proposal to slice $17 billion from 121 government programs quickly ran into a buzz saw of opposition on Capitol Hill yesterday, as an array of Democratic lawmakers vowed to fight White House efforts to deprive their favorite initiatives of federal funds.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she is "committed" to keeping a $400 million program that reimburses states for jailing illegal immigrants, a task she called "a total federal responsibility."
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said he would oppose "any cuts" in agriculture subsidies because "farmers and farm families depend on this federal assistance."
And Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) vowed to force the White House to accept delivery of a new presidential helicopter Obama says he doesn't need and doesn't want. The helicopter program, which cost $835 million this year, supports 800 jobs in Hinchey's district. "I do think there's a good chance we can save it," he said.
Etc., etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050702001_pf.html
"The truth is treason in the Empire of Lies"
www.campaignforliberty.com
Intimidating California
May 8, 2009 - 11:01 ET by slickwillie2001Re porkulus money going to states; Arnie is finding out the downside of taking money from the feds. Now California is being strongarmed by a micromanaging federal government, just as the banks and the car companies have.
US Threatens to Rescind Stimulus Money Over Wage Cuts: http://www.latimes.com
"The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers (note: SEIU Union) approved in February as part of the budget."
The message here is clear, the unions just have to pick up the phone and the Bamster will give them anything they want.
PS Note the headline: "US Threatens...", isn't California part of the US? Would 'Obama Threatens...' have been too upsetting for his supporters? Or did the LA Times unionized workers make this change?
I guess Callyfornia is not
May 8, 2009 - 11:19 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarI guess Callyfornia is not too big to fail.
Arnie, tell him to shove it. You'll be better off in the long run without B Hussein's welfare.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
slickwillie
May 8, 2009 - 11:25 ET by BKeyserI saw that on Drudge this morning. Question: What are Union dues for, anyway? I mean, not what are the used for, what are they supposed to be for? Loss of pay, right? At least in part? My guess is the SEIU has enough in their coffers to cover the $2/hr drop in these worker's pay scale during these tough times...
This is what the Feds have been doing for decades
May 8, 2009 - 11:55 ET by c5thenHolding out lots of money that is usually unconstitutionally appropriated and then threatening to withdraw it if the States or cities don't do what they are told. Obama is just much more blatant about it because he thinks that he has the support of most of the country.After all that 52% who voted for him (including the 1% of the ACORN fraudulent votes) is simply a HUGE mandate, right?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
Let's see here...
May 8, 2009 - 11:40 ET by MrDavisonStart with $3.6 Trillion. Then:
$3,600,000,000,000
- $17,000,000,000
--------------------------
$3,583,000,000,000
Which is...let's see here...oh yeah, I got it...$3.6 Trillion.
Nice job Hopadope. Can't even get the least significant digit to change.
Bummer.
May 9, 2009 - 01:56 ET by avenarYou sure put it in perspective for me.
I can' t believe it...
May 8, 2009 - 13:18 ET by PrairieSkyA sign of intelligent life over at ABC News...Who'd of thunk it??
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
tapper
May 8, 2009 - 12:27 ET by katainkentback to being a critical journalist today? Thanks Jake. Please keep at it.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
Obama Grows Budget by Whopping 10%
May 8, 2009 - 17:13 ET by deerjerkydaveObama grows the budget by a whopping 10% over last year. Obama's PROPOSED cuts are smaller than Bush's proposed cuts from a lesser budget.
And the dirtly little secret is that most of the proposed cuts by the President NEVER HAPPEN!!!
Do not fool yourself into believing the words of a politician. Obama is NOT really interested in making cuts to the budget.
Can't get off the island...
May 8, 2009 - 19:07 ET by AmmoManThe 3.4 Trillion dollars would allow you to build a wall of dollar bills stacked over 93.7 feet high, end-to-end from Palm Beach Florida to New York City (about $523K per foot).
The 17 Billion dollars they're so proud of saving, wouldn't even get them off the island...