Spent

A study of spending under President Obama:

The math isn’t particularly complicated. So far, the Obama administration has pushed for six major, immediate spending increases that aren’t offset elsewhere in the budget: the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (aka “the stimulus package”), which had a 2009-10 price tag of $340 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office; the GM/Chrysler bailout and other portions of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which have largely been paid back ($25 billion); unemployment-insurance extensions ($67 billion); COBRA extensions ($9 billion); Cash for Clunkers ($3 billion); and loans to automakers for energy-efficiency improvements ($8 billion). That’s $452 billion. Factor in $296 billion in stimulus funds that have yet to be spent and $136 billion in refundable tax credits that passed in December as part of Congress’ bipartisan tax compromise, and you wind up with $884 billion on the spending side of the equation...

And here's the concluding paragraph:

.... during an accounting argument, it’s useful to have real, live numbers to battle over. On the rare occasion Republicans do allude to real stats, they tend to shout about the growing short-term deficit, a problem that has a lot more to do with declining recession-era tax revenues and increasing safety-net outlays than anything Obama has done, or not done. Instead, Republicans should be referring to the amount the president has decided to spend so far: $884 billion. They can say it’s too much, and that a thriftier approach would’ve been better for the country. Democrats can reply that rescuing the U.S. economy from a second Great Depression for less than the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was a relative bargain. Both sides, meanwhile, can debate the wisdom of cutting more than $900 billion in taxes while spending is going up. At least they’ll be arguing about facts, not fantasies.

Precisely. That's exactly the sort of discussions we (by "we" I mean teabaggers and our politicians, and the talking heads) should be having. Fair questions, tough ones, based on reality. Will they wake up and do so, before it's too late?

Anyone Surprised?

Americans have no idea what they're talking about when discussing the federal budget. Stop the presses.

If the media -- particularly that most-trusted network -- were doing their job instead of deliberately spreading lies, people would know better, and we'd be able to have meaningful conversations. It's what President Obama said to Bill O'Reilly, off of whom the words bounced as if they were balls in a cage. Teabaggerism will, as I've said many times, be the death of us.

I'm referring to a recent poll which shows how woeful is the general understanding of what we spend as a nation. Delusional data drives dumb decisions. Duh.

.... when it comes time to get specific, the cuts that Americans are by and large in agreement on don't add up to much. While they want Congress to drastically reduce spending overall, they overwhelmingly oppose doing so by scaling back some of the budget's biggest pieces.

Essentially, Americans want to have their budget cake and eat it too.

For instance, foreign aid is one of the only areas that most Americans are willing to squeeze for savings....

.... So how much money do Americans think could be slashed from international aid?

In a World Public Opinion poll conducted last November, respondents guessed, on average, that foreign aid spending represented 27% of the federal budget. To trim spending, the same respondents suggested that, on average, foreign should make up a slimmer 13% of the total budget, surely delivering massive savings.

The problem? Foreign aid is actually a minuscule 1% of the total budget. Even eliminating it altogether would do little to balance the budget or reduce the deficit...

.... When it comes to defense spending, Americans generally oppose cuts and wildly underestimating how much is already being spent.

In the previously-cited Gallup poll, nearly six in ten respondents opposed cutting defense spending. Meanwhile, a Rasmussen poll released last week found that 37% of Americans thought defense outlays were fine at their current levels, while 32% thought defense spending was too high, and 27% thought it was too low.

Yet the Rasmussen survey also asked this question:

To ensure its safety, should the United States always spend at least three times as much on defense as any other nation?

Only 25% of respondents agreed with that statement, compared to 40% who disagreed.

In reality, though, the U.S. spends more than that -- much, much more...

...In effect, that meant that the poll's participants contradicted themselves in the span of a few questions, both opposing cuts to defense spending, while also -- unknowingly -- saying the U.S. already spends too much on its military.

Simplistic and fact-free bloviations of the teabagger variety -- the idea that balancing the budget requires no more than eliminating PBS and aid to Israel, that it can be done without raising taxes -- go largely unchallenged by the legitimate media (and actively promoted by the illegitimate ones). And the result is an uninformed public, easily lied to and led into fantasy beliefs. It's no way to elect people willing and able to get things done.

I'm not suggesting that ignorance about government is entirely new. There was a time, however, when it didn't include -- to such a degree as now, anyway -- most of the legislators in one of the governing parties. We had Dirksens, and Javits', and Doles, Fords, Eisenhowers, and, yes, even Goldwaters to lend seriousness to the debate. There was a time, too, when we had Cronkites and Murrows and Huntleys and Brinkleys to produce actual information, on the basis of which it was possible to make thoughtful decisions. There were even -- you'll have to take my word for it -- voters interested in making that kind of decision.

The harder things get, the easier the imaginary solutions. The more vital it is to be informed, the less people want to be. The more we need the sort of press the founding fathers envisioned as central to the workings of a democracy, the more people instead turn to Fox "news," a blatant and unapologetic propaganda organ of the right wing, whose business model is actively to misinform....

.... Sorry. I've been told to lighten up. Completely out of context, then, but to honor the request, I'll end with a joke I used to tell at college parties:

At opposite ends of a town square were two Romanesque statues, a nearly-nude young man and beautiful young woman. For decades they graced the park as people enjoyed the peaceful place. One day an angel appeared and said to the statues, "For the joy you've brought you've been granted the gift of humanity: for one hour you'll be allowed to take human form." And so it was. The two stepped down from their pedestals, walked tentatively toward each other, feeling the warmth and passions of their bodies. Faster and faster they moved until they fell into each other's arms and disappeared into the bushes, from which, for the next forty-five minutes, was heard thrashing and grunting and moans of pleasure. Hand in hand, glowing and smiling, they emerged from the brush. The boy looked at the girl and said, "It seems we have a little time left. Do you want to do it again?"

"I'd love to," she said. "But this time you hold the pigeon and I'll shit on it."

Penny Foolish

Okay, okay, I'll say it in advance: bad metaphor. Still, I find it more than mildly ironic that the party and its various surrogates and propagandists who find the killing of Jesus such a motivating force for everything they believe are symbolically crucifying Barack Obama at every opportunity they get. The one man in the political arena who seems to have clear vision of what this country needs, who can see beyond the present tense, is being thwarted at every turn. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? Psychiatrically speaking.

It's Tom Friedman's recent column that stupefies me yet again, over the idiocy of our congresspeople and the voices to whom they seem to be listening. In it, Friedman writes about discussing, with an academic from Singapore, Obama's plan...

... to set up eight innovation hubs to solve the eight biggest energy problems in the world. But ... the program has not been fully funded yet because Congress, concerned about every dime we spend these days, is reluctant to appropriate the full $25 million for each center, let alone for all eight at once, so only three are moving ahead.

“You mean billion,” he asks? “No,” I say. “We’re talking about $25 million.” “Billion,” he repeats. “No. Million,” I insist....

Welcome to Tea Party America. Think small and carry a big ego...

...So let’s start with the good news: a shout-out for Obama’s energy, science and technology team for thinking big. Soon after taking office, they proposed what Energy Secretary Steven Chu calls “a series of mini-Manhattan projects.” In the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Department of Energy requested financing for “Energy Innovation Hubs” in eight areas: smart grid, solar electricity, carbon capture and storage, extreme materials, batteries and energy storage, energy efficient buildings, nuclear energy, and fuels from sunlight.

In each area, universities, national labs and private industry were invited to put together teams of their best scientists and research ideas to win $25 million a year for five years, to, as Chu put it, “accelerate the normal progress of science and technology for energy research” and thereby “discover and commercialize the energy breakthroughs we need” and thereby spawn new jobs and industries.

So far Congress has appropriated partial funding — “up to $22 million” but probably less — for three of these hubs for one year. ... Chu is now trying to persuade Congress to finance those three again for 2011, as well as at least one more: batteries...

...“We don’t want incremental improvements,” said Chu. “We want real leaps — game-changing” breakthroughs — like a 75 percent reduction in energy used in a commercial building through affordable design and software improvements. “America has shown we can do this,” concluded Chu. “The scientists and engineers see the problem; they see the opportunity; they see what is at stake, and they want to help.” That is why we should fully fund all eight now.

Isn't this exactly the sort of thinking we need and ought to want from our president? (And, incidentally, ought this not incinerate the still-heard cries of Obama as America-hater?) Isn't this the sort of thinking that might still save us from ourselves? Yet discussion of such policies -- discussion? Hell, even mention by our fair and balanced media -- is virtually unheard in the din of campaign season. In the deluge of anonymous and opaque money funding the most dishonest and self-interested ads, successfully deluding teabaggers into acting against their own (and their country's) needs by convincing them of what is not, such thoughtful and far-sighted policy is drowned.

Irony abounds. Those whose world-view is centered in the mythology of a savior killed for his ideas, who weep at his sacrifice and would exclude from our country all who fail to see it, are figuratively killing the first person in a long time actually trying to implement policy that might be our salvation. (Yeah, yeah, I already admitted it's a stretch.)

The difference: ain't gonna be a resurrection. And a second coming will be way too late.

Along those lines, President Obama -- thoughtful as usual -- had this to say in a recent interview (which I'd highly recommend to everyone, especially those who continue to see him as some sort of incarnate devil):

Something that I have learned over the last couple of years is that I have to make decisions based on the long view. And I have to suppress my own desire for a short-term fix if I’m going to be able to lead the country effectively over the long term... I will keep on making that case, and I think that to point — to quote my vice president — I believe that voters are going to stop comparing me to the Almighty and compare me to the alternative.

Would that it were so.