Obama Tells Journalists To Stress "Significant" Nature Of Budget Cuts

(AP)

In remarks on his administration's proposed $17 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget this morning, President Obama was somewhat on the defensive against charges that his cuts don't amount to much considering that next year's total budget amounts to $3.4 trillion.

As Steve Chaggaris noted in Hotsheet's morning bulletin today, the news that the cuts totaled $17 billion "landed with a bit of a thud" in the media. Reporters stressed that the cuts made up "a tiny fraction" of the total budget and that they would be hard to push through; USA Today noted that the "proposed cuts are about one-fiftieth the size of this year's $787 billion economic stimulus package — all of which was added to the deficit."

In his remarks today, the president sought to change that tenor of that coverage. He mocked the notion that smaller savings are considered "trivial" in Washington and stressed that "these savings, large and small, add up."

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." (Here's the White House report on the cuts.)

The president is embroiled in a public relations battle over perceptions of his administration's spending against Republicans who have cast him as reckless. Consider this tweet from Sen. John McCain on the cuts: "Obama budget cut of $17 billion is less than 1/2 of 1% of the entire $3.55 trillion FY10 budget - is that change we can believe in?"

As he takes hits from Republicans, the president would rather see journalists stress the enormity of the $17 billion figure – and it's certainly huge when considered in a vacuum – as opposed to the fact that $17 billion looks paltry against the total cost of the budget. Such a direct appeal, however, is rare – and probably won't be particularly effective in light of relentless Republican rhetoric concerning irresponsible spending.

[desertrat200]

All of you posters (and me) will soon be investigated and charged under a new bill submitted by Rep. Sanchez (D) that will sider it a felony to use blogs to harrass Obama:

conhttp://www.dailytech.com/Bill+Aims+to+Turn+Internet+Flamers+Into+Felons/article15099.htm

Brace yourself, fellow truth seekers.

[PacificGatePost]

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING, it seems, and the Obama White House has mastered the art of affecting consciousness in presenting the ?budget cuts.?

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-aggressive-budget-cuts.html

Obama is completely squandering an opportunity for reform.

[journogirl]

I'm surprised and (very) impressed that CBS ran this piece.

Look, the WH "press" corp aren't journalists, they are the WH steno pool. They are too busy gazing lovingly at the president and drawing hearts on their notepads instead of taking notes. How about a question? Sure, why not ask about some more "enchanting" moments in the WH.

And papers wonder why readership is dropping off at a large rate????

[impeachbhb]

They better do what he says or the communist in chief will nationalize the media. That is probably on his long term agenda anyways. Nationalization of media is required to run a socialist state and Obama is certainly well aware of that.

[totalkaosdave]

I believe Stalin told his reporters what to print also...as did Hitler, Kim Jong Il, etc...

[scruffy1216]

It should be noted that many of these spending cuts were originally proposed by G.W.Bush, but were turned down by the Democratics in Congress.

[Koblog]

Why should anyone be surprised that don Obama is instructing his White House Press Corpse what and how to report?

Remember, Obama actually threatened to destroy the reputation of the Chrysler lawyer by using "his" White House press corps.

Sadly, the Press Corp didn't even report it, much less disagree with it. Their noses are so far up Obama's butt their ears are plugged.

The Press--from the NY Times to Olbermann, going from large to small--is there to do Obama's bidding. They do anything Obama tells them to.

Did you hear the fawning gushing at CNN over him eating a hamburger? (And here I thought His Otherness survived on Kobe Wagyu steaks washed down with unicorn tears.)

If He wants them to report a story a certain way, they obey.

If don Obama says to make a big deal about less than a half of one percent budget "cut," they will.

[flataffect]

Thanks for some straight reporting. I'm grateful to you for letting us know how the White House attempts to manipulate the media.

[pooflingingmonkey]

It's insanity and it's being aided by the media. Sometimes I think they think they'll all be offered jobs in the Ministry of Misinformation.

They make Baghdad Bob look positively objective.

[sydneybrilloduodenum]

The anti-gay bigot LimbaughricansSuck at 7:20 pm asks what percentage of discretionary spending Pres. Obama's $17 billion of cuts represents.

In the 2010 budget, discretionary spending is approximately $1.37 trillion. Doing the math for lazybones LimbaughricansSuck, we arrive at a little more than 1 percent of discretionary spending.

Keep in mind that discretionary spending is up about 7% from 2009, and the budget does not include the $787 billion in the pokulus bill.

More importantly, these are not true cuts, because they are perceived as savings by the administration to be plowed into other boondoggles and flimflams. This is about reorganizing programs, not reducing them.

In any event, the President, himself a baby, should be lauded for taking the conceptual step of cutting something. Funny how half his cuts focus on the military, not that he has anything against the military.