Critics Say Obama's Budget Cuts Laughable

Washington Post: Pledge To Slash $100 Million From $3.6 Trillion Budget Symbolic, Or Just "Silly"?

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writer Philip Rucker.

---

These tough times call for sacrifice. So the Obama administration has embarked on a belt-tightening plan that sounds, to some veteran federal budget watchers, like fodder for a Jay Leno monologue.

The Education Department will eliminate a Bush-era "education policy attaché" based in Paris -- the one in France -- whose annual salary, housing allowance and business expenses exceed $630,000. Employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs will forgo their training junkets to hot spots such as Nashville and satisfy themselves with videoconferencing.

The Department of Homeland Security has started buying its supplies in bulk and -- to the surprise and delight of bureaucrats -- discovered it's much cheaper that way.

This is not exactly the revolution in government efficiency that President Obama has promised. Nonetheless, he and the agencies trumpeted the changes, staples of any money-conscious organization, this week as examples of how they intend to cut $100 million over the next 90 days to try to trim a budget deficit projected to reach $1.4 trillion next year.

Experts said the cost-cutting measures will do little to restore fiscal responsibility and are at best a symbolic early move. At worst, they said, the savings, which amount to a fraction of 1 percent of Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, are so obvious and picayune that by making them a major focus of his first Cabinet meeting, the president may have given the impression that he is not serious about controlling spending.

"You're cherry-picking the base of the tree on stuff that is not innovative," said Paul C. Light, a scholar of federal bureaucracy at New York University. "Purchasing in bulk? Wow, that's a bold idea! Teleconferencing? Holy moly! None of this stuff is the kind of bold sweep you're hoping Obama will bring to the management of government."

Isabel V. Sawhill, a Clinton administration budget official who directs the Budgeting for National Priorities project at the Brookings Institution, said she feared the cuts would be "lampooned" on late-night talk shows.

"I'm not sure I thought it was a good step towards convincing people that he cares about fiscal responsibility," she said.

The cost-cutting measures are just one part of the administration's actions to curtail spending. The full federal budget that will be released next month may eliminate programs across many agencies that are deemed inefficient or wasteful, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

"They're not just looking for savings, but also looking for the larger game that's out there in the wild: the programs that aren't operating effectively or are no longer fulfilling the goal that's set for them," he said. The $100 million cuts, he added, are "by no means the entire approach to making an efficient and effective government. It's just a small part, but it's an important part."

Asked at Monday's Cabinet meeting whether $100 million is merely a drop in the bucket, Obama said the savings add up.

"None of these things alone are going to make a difference," he said. "But cumulatively they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone. And so what we're going to do is line by line, page by page, $100 million there, $100 million here, pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money."

Light countered: "I think it's more like $100 billion here and $100 billion there adds up to real money."

The new efficiency savings raise questions about why such measures were not taken earlier. At Homeland Security, for example, procurement officials spent about $100 million on office supplies in 2007 but didn't use a department-wide purchase agreement about 94 percent of the time, Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the agency neglected to buy supplies in bulk because when it was created in 2003, "the focus was ensuring the department had the tools it needed -- quickly -- to carry out its vital mission."

By buying supplies in larger volumes, the agency says it can save up to $52 million over five years. At the outset, the department also spent $3 million on "branding" to create logos for its agencies. But Napolitano is eliminating that spending.

At other agencies, cost-cutting measures include switching from paper to electronic correspondence for immigrant visa processing and for publishing judicial forfeiture notices. The State Department will begin buying cellphones, PDAs, furniture and medical supplies through one vendor to receive volume discounts.

At the Agriculture Department, officials recently took several steps, including using tax data to ensure that ineligible farmers do not receive subsidy payments, saving a projected $16 million.

The Education Department, meanwhile, will eliminate about 1,400 desktop computers and will ask employees to share printers, saving about $8.7 million, spokeswoman Sandra Abrevaya said. The Bush-era position in Paris -- the only overseas slot in the department -- is an attaché to the U.S. Mission to UNESCO, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, a job most recently held by Sally Lovejoy, a former House staff member. Lovejoy, who left the job Jan. 15, had responsibilities including working with former first lady Laura Bush in her role as the honorary ambassador for the U.N. Decade of Literacy.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, called the cost-cutting measures "silly."

"It just seems like such a low bar that it may actually send a signal opposite of what they intend," he said. "It's like if you're going to go on a diet and you announce that you're going to give up carrot sticks and water, people might question how serious you are about the diet."

---

Staff writers Spencer S. Hsu and Maria Glod contributed to this report.

[dixxson]

PAUL C LIGHT>(Scholar of Federal Bureaucracy at NY University!
Says purchasing in "BULK "WOW"!!
ROBERT BIXBY) Executive director of the (NONPARTISAN) CONCORD COALITION called the cost cutting "Silly".
Who are these people?
Do they believe in cost cutting?
What were they doing while all of this "Debt" was being accrued?
Are they like the people that were supposed to be providing oversight over the "MADOFFS, CITIBANKS, and ENRONS, That Didn't Even Believe in "Oversight?
For even a Lay Person, Buying in "Bulk" Looks like "Huge Savings", even on your groceries!
And (VIDEO CONFERENCING) for the cost of Electricity!
As opposed to sticking Taxpayers with Luxury Hotel, and Jets to the Riviera, Hawaii!
And that's just to start,
Listening to them is tantamount to listening to RUSH LIMBAUGH!

[craftycandi]

Every long journey is made of small steps.

[yeswecan23]

"They hate success"-Joe NY 4

" I want the President to fail!"- Rush Limbaugh

Where's the success in your version of the free enterprize system Republicans? Is it hiding?

[yeswecan23]

These "symbolic" cuts aren't the only cuts he's proposed or the last. Would the critics like to defend not making these cuts and continuing the waste of these Bush policies?

It might not amount to a large percentage of the total fed budget but $100 million not wasted isn't chump change and certainly isn't a bad thing to do.

[johndevinejr]

just for the record, who do you guys think we're fighting? And why?
Posted by jgg00000008 at 9:27 AM : Apr 24, 2009

Right now we are fighting in Iraq because George Bush and Cheney lied to start a war with the wrong country to make money.

President Obama has changed the focus to Afaghanistan because that is where Al Queda is and has always been. We are fighting to stop Osama Bin Laden from perpetrating attacks on this country because Bush and the republicans let him go.

Just for the record.

[johndevinejr]

They praise and honor failure, and are jealous and show hate towards success.....it's obvious

Posted by Joe-NY-4
*********************

Aren't you a supporter of Bush and the republicans?
The very people who's failures have created this mess.

Name ONE thing that Bush and the republicans did right!
.
Posted by johndevinejr
*********************

They got low-ranking grunts to take the blame and do time for all their illegal torture, that they approved of despite it being immoral and against international law.
Posted by evilbusheviks at 9:06 AM : Apr 24, 2009


Oh, I forgot that they have that situational morality. Very handy!

[johndevinejr]

Goto heritage.org and get familiar with conservatism before making a fool of your self.

Posted by aceshigh333-2009


Go to heritage.org!!!!

That's like saying go to NAZI's.org.


I

[johndevinejr]

When Bush threw billions of dollars down a rathole in Iraq, all on borrowed money, not one repug had a problem with that.

Now when Obama is spending American money in America on Americans they have a problem with that!


How is that patriotic?

[johndevinejr]

They praise and honor failure, and are jealous and show hate towards success.....it's obvious

Posted by Joe-NY-4

Aren't you a supporter of Bush and the republicans?
The very people who's failures have created this mess.

Name ONE thing that Bush and the republicans did right!


.

[johndevinejr]

Since it's so offensive to you idiots, we'll also keep Old Glory and wave it,.....

Posted by Rowdy106

I have been to Texas, they are not really Americans. They are just a bunch of stupid goons, who should be wearing Swastikas and Jackboots.