White House Copes With Wall Of Bad News

Top Aides Say It's Too Early To Judge Economic Plan's Success, Point Finger At Bush's "Large Mess"

(CBS/AP)  President Barack Obama's top aides have launched their battle to push his ambitious budget package through Congress during a week that has seen further economic erosion, particularly on the stock market.

White House aides blame the Bush administration for creating a situation that made the massive plan necessary and stress that new measures need time to work.

"It's way too soon to start judging success or failure here," White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on CBS' The Early Show Wednesday. "We inherited a large mess."

Mr. Obama's proposed budget blueprint for the 2010 fiscal year is a part of a series of efforts to reverse America's harrowing economic slide. But Wall Street remained on edge with both the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500 index registering their lowest finishes in more than a decade.

That has prompted economists to question the effectiveness of President Obama's recovery plans, reports CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante.

"The budget doesn't look very promising but why would it? [Office of Management and Budget] and Treasury are doing exactly what we got under Bush, which is more government and more waste," Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute told CBS News. "The stimulus plan doesn't seem to have worked and the bailouts don't seem to have worked based on the stock market."

But Orszag told Early Show anchor Harry Smith that the administration isn't focused on the daily gyrations of the market.

"We're trying to focus in this budget on tackling the key things that we need to get the economy moving again - jumpstarting job growth and then tackling the long-term problems we face in education, energy and health care and doing it honestly," he said.

While proposing a $3.5 trillion budget, Mr. Obama is also looking for ways to curb wasteful spending to boost Americans' confidence in Washington.

On Wednesday, he was scheduled to outline a plan to change how federal contracts are awarded, saying it would save Americans tens of billions of dollars, the White House said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also were expected to talk about wasteful spending when they visit the White House.

Mr. Obama was also turning his attention to global efforts to reverse the economic meltdown, meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Tuesday. Answering press questions after their meeting, Mr. Obama compared the stock market to the daily tracking polls used during electoral campaigns, saying that paying too close attention to how Wall Street "bobs up and down" could lead to bad long-term policy.

"We dug a very deep hole for ourselves. There were a lot of bad decisions that were made. We are cleaning up that mess. It's going to be sort of full of fits and starts, in terms of getting the mess cleaned up, but it's going to get cleaned up," he said.

Brown was scheduled to address a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday. He was expected to urge the United States to avoid protectionism at a time when lawmakers have embraced "buy American" provisions in economic stimulus legislation.

Administration officials say the U.S. economic crisis requires bold action to right the economy and expand access to health care while providing tax breaks to middle- and low-income families.

Mr. Obama and his top aides unveiled an outline for his budget package last week, but Tuesday marked the first time lawmakers could publicly question top officials about the details.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, left, told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that Mr. Obama entered office facing a $1.3 trillion deficit - about 10 percent of the nation's economic output. Republicans have complained that Mr. Obama's budget proposal would swell the deficit even higher, to $1.75 trillion.

Geithner said additional spending is necessary because the previous administration was unwilling to make long-term investments in health care, energy and education.

Similarly, Orszag told the House Budget Committee that Mr. Obama inherited a whopping deficit and an economy in crisis, but that should not block investments in education and an overhaul of the U.S. health care system to help the uninsured.

"We have lived through an era of irresponsibility," Orszag told the House Budget Committee. "Looking forward, we must change course."

Orszag also defended Mr. Obama's plan to raise taxes on people making $250,000 or more, saying the tax policies of President George W. Bush transferred too much wealth to the rich.

Lawmakers in both parties question Mr. Obama's call to reduce high-income earners' tax deductions for the interest on their house payments and for charitable contributions. Also drawing fire is his proposal to start taxing industries on their greenhouse gas pollution - a move sure to raise consumers' electric rates.

Mr. Obama's budget plan drew fire from a senior Republican, who is calling it the biggest expansion of government since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan told Orszag that administration claims of deficit-cutting are mostly bogus since the deficit would fall anyway as the war in Iraq winds down.

The Obama administration has produced a flurry of economic plans and short-term programs in its six weeks in office, in the face of an economic downturn after the nation's housing market began its collapse last year. The bursting bubble threatened the country with a financial implosion and put the economy in reverse despite a $700 billion financial bailout package set up by the Bush administration.

The emergency fund has kept the economy on life support, but Mr. Obama's subsequent $787 billion economic stimulus package has yet to kick in. The president has already set forth a new budget outline that foresees the possible need to spend as much as $750 billion more to prop up America's banks and investment houses.

Mr. Obama has also been working to create more jobs to stem rising unemployment. On Tuesday, he said the new road-building initiative in his stimulus program will create or save 150,000 jobs by the end of next year.

Mr. Obama met with Brown, who is laying the groundwork for the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, later Tuesday. The summit, which Brown is chairing, is critical for improving global economic confidence.

The two nations have shared interests on other urgent matters, such as the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear program and global warming. The leaders discussed those issues, but, with the economies of both nations in tailspins, they came up only briefly when they appeared together before reporters.

[bajajohn1]

One wag said that President Obama had run for chief janitor of the U.S. because he had to clean up the mess and trashed-out economy the Republicans left behind. Seems that is how every Republican President leaves the White House without exception. Hypothetically, if this were the beginning of Bush's second term, we would already be in a deep recession while the only solution the Republican's would offer would be more tax cuts for the rich. And there was McCain arguing about the earmarks in the budget bill, not knowing that over 40% were introducted by Republicans and the amount of earmarks in this year's bill amounted to $ 500 million less than the last Bush budget. Amazing.

[bajajohn1]

The man from the Cato Institute says the stimulus plan has not worked. Hello, Mr. Cato, the money is not yet released and some will be released until the end of this fiscal quarter. Other portions of the stimulus package will be released gradually into the economy. They have to build the bureaucratic infrastruture to release the money responsibly.

[CaryBrus]

Gibss and Obama can spin it any way they wish. The fact is this: the economy and its recovery or demise will be linked to Obama forever. Not Bush II, not Rush, not Bush I, not Delay.........Obama.

The Market is brutally efficient. It is telling me, you and Obama every day, minute-by-minute what it thinks of his "Plan". The Market is telling all of us, in real time, the "Plan" is bad for America. This despite Gibbs condescending efforts to lay blame for the Market's meltdown on Bush. Or whomever has the audacity to question Obama.

Message from Flyover Country to Obama: your actions speak louder than words. Your words of "cutting pork" are in direct conflict with your willingness to allow all the garbage in your "Plan".

Message from Flyover Country to Gibbs: you work for me, assh*le. Answer the questions posed without the attitude. You are a public servant. Understand that and be humble about it.

[CaryBrus]

Gibss and Obama can spin it any way they wish. The fact is this: the economy and its recovery or demise will be linked to Obama forever. Not Bush II, not Rush, not Bush I, not Delay.........Obama.

The Market is brutally efficient. It is telling me, you and Obama every day, minute-by-minute what it thinks of his "Plan". The Market is telling all of us, in real time, the "Plan" is bad for America. This despite Gibbs condescending efforts to lay blame for the Market's meltdown on Bush. Or whomever has the audacity to question Obama.

Message from Flyover Country to Obama: your actions speak louder than words. Your words of "cutting pork" are in direct conflict with your willingness to allow all the garbage in your "Plan".

Message from Flyover Country to Gibbs: you work for me, assh*le. Answer the questions posed without the attitude. You are a public servant. Understand that and be humble about it.

[rhs648]

I said, "America would be more beautiful if there weren't any conservatives", not conservarives. That's not arrogance or arrogange, whatever that word means; that's something called 'truth', a word conservatives try to avoid at all costs. That does not show arrogace or arrogange; it shows just how fed up we are with you people running your mouths but never having anything of merit to say. The world would probably be much better if there were no conservatives. No one to start wars, no one to give taxpayer dollars to businesses and the people who need it the least, no racists, no bigots, no moronic speech, no one whining about abortion even though they probably had one themselves
Posted by tj217-2009

Again poppycock and the ravings of an idiot. There are plenty of other countries where your ravings would be welcomed. Maybe Castro or Chavez would give you a job,

[clemenhagen1]

With respect to Gaza: We spent upwards of 12 billion a month in Iraq (that equates to 3 billion a week). We spent well over 500 billion a year on the defense budget. Why? We have been at "war" covertly with the Islamic world since our overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran and subsequent restoration of the Shah. This led directly to the rise of the Ayatollah and the initial radicalization of Islam. We funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan and this helped create both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We might try another approach. Rather than funding covert wars and overt invasions / occupations we might focus on investment. The Marshall Plan proved to be the best money we ever spent on national defense. Anyone care to disagree with that?

[ioweign]

Posted by ioweign at 10:13 AM : Mar 4, 2009

You do know it's ok to disagree with your party, and have independent thought.

Regardless of what happened in the past, Do you agree with Obama in sending millions to Gaza (Hamas) ? at this time of financial crisis ? couldn't that money be better spent domestically towards education or to fund one of Obama's socialist programs, instead of to terrorist groups/governments like Hamas ?
Posted by Joe-NY-3 at 10:23 AM : Mar 4, 2009

Joe - I forgot to mention that a drop of $900 million to Gaza is nothing compared to the $10 to $12 billion a month we pump into Iraq which makes us sooo much safer and your car runs much smoother on that Iraqi crude....

[ioweign]

Posted by ioweign at 10:13 AM : Mar 4, 2009

You do know it's ok to disagree with your party, and have independent thought.

Regardless of what happened in the past, Do you agree with Obama in sending millions to Gaza (Hamas) ? at this time of financial crisis ? couldn't that money be better spent domestically towards education or to fund one of Obama's socialist programs, instead of to terrorist groups/governments like Hamas ?
Posted by Joe-NY-3 at 10:23 AM : Mar 4, 2009

It has already been pointed out that whatever monies that goes to Gaza will not go for terrorism. I believe Bush started the socialistic program push with his and Paulson's banker bailout. There is also the ever popular No Child Left Behind socialistic program with strings attached that the teachers here just love...

[slownewsday-2009]

I'm in favor of cutting off money to anyone at this time of crisis.....wouldn't you agree ? we are broke and that money could be better spent domestically, when things improve, we can continue to support our allies.......but sending money to terrorists ? (Gaza/Hamas) ??? now you wonder why we called him a terrorists appeaser during the campaign....very strange to claim we can give only $13.bucks a week to American, but send millions to Gaza run by terrorists....make no sense.
Posted by Joe-NY-3


??? We've been sending money to terrorists - Israel. No different sending money to Gaza.

But yes, I do agree that we should keep more money at home, including all of the war $$.

[ioweign]

So the bottom line is [[[ this lib supports funding terrorists ]]]]......thanks, for the confirmation of what we already suspected.
Posted by Joe-NY-3 at 10:00 AM : Mar 4, 2009


And Bush and Rice made legitimate by calling for elections...