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

(AP)
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.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 Commentsconhttp://www.dailytech.com/Bill+Aims+to+Turn+Internet+Flamers+Into+Felons/article15099.htm
Brace yourself, fellow truth seekers.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-aggressive-budget-cuts.html
Obama is completely squandering an opportunity for reform.
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????
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.
They make Baghdad Bob look positively objective.
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.
Posted by njindependent at 4:27 PM : May 7, 2009
Yes but what is the percentage of discretionary spending, idiot?
Don't you have some teabagging to do?
Posted by LimbaughricansSuck at 7:20 PM : May 7, 2009
All spending is discretionary, parasite. Now go teabag Obama fool.
I did forget to say that.
Well, the fact is that at least the Republicans were trying. :^)
Have a nice day.
Posted by cattmasey at 2:29 PM : May 7, 2009
You forgot to mention the dem controlled congress shot down those cuts.
"I never mentioned Bush you did. And never said I was a liberal. I just want to know which REPUBLICAN cut $17 billion dollars from a budget."
The plan is less ambitious than the hit list former president George W. Bush produced last year, targeting 151 programs for $34 billion in savings.
Have a nice day.
this could be a very big deal in the Obama administration, he tried to manipulate the press. Lets see how they respond. If he loses them hes in trouble and watch the polls. He will put out more damage control tomorrow.
Posted by Maddog10
Once again....that is 1 half...... of 1%!!!
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 Comments