Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Obama's "tough budget cuts" in pictures

President Obama's 2012 budget will be roughly $3,800,000 million ($3.8 trillion).

The anticipated 2012 budget deficit will be $1,500,000 million ($1.5 trillion). This means we are borrowing that amount from our children to fund all of the Democrats' Utopian spending programs.

Finally, the president has proposed "tough budget cuts" that total $775 million. No, that's not a joke.

Let's illustrate the magnitude of Obama's cuts.

Obama's cuts aren't even visible in this chart. Let's zoom in.

Blowing it up about ten times allows us to see a tiny little sliver: those are the cuts.

Blowing the chart up a further ten times still barely exposes Obama's proposed cuts.

President Obama's budget director Jack Lew in a Sunday opinion piece outlined some off the "tough choices" Obama is willing to make to cut spending in his 2012 budget request due out on Feb. 14... The cuts are relatively small, however, in the larger scheme of things. In total, the $775 million in detailed cuts fall far short of demands by congressional Republicans and will do little toward tackling the deficit, which is estimated to be $1.5 trillion this year by the Congressional Budget Office...

...Lew said that the Valentine's Day budget will proposed cutting in half community service block grants to grassroots groups in poor communities... He said "this cut is not easy for" Obama.

Not easy.

Our country's going bankrupt and he can't find anything to cut.

These Democrats are so far off the reservation that there's really no hope left for them as a political party. You need to expose this irresponsible President and his sycophants to everyone you know. We must begin laying the groundwork for 2012.

If we are to salvage this Republic, we must eradicate every Democrat -- for there are no moderate Democrats left -- at the ballot box in 2012. At every level of government. Because this degree of dishonesty and wanton fiscal destruction must be rewarded with political obliteration.


Hat tip: Memeorandum. Linked by: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Small Dead Animals, The Blaze, Moonbattery, and Weasel Zippers. Thanks!

52 comments:

Eddie Baby said...

It's hard to wrap my mind around a 40% budget deficit. People that think its cool to spend 40% more than they are going to receive in revenues should not be allowed near the levers of power. Really this might be a good campaign issue.

LibertyAtStake said...

And the kleptomaniac made the heroic decision to only steal stuff on days not ending in 'y'.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

Anonymous said...

I think you mean the 2011 budget and deficit, not the 2012...unless I'm misreading the Congressional Budget Office's publication: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/BudgetTables[1].pdf

notebuyer said...

My problem is that the Republicans are in the House, where ALL REVENUE BILLS must originate. And they can't cut enough to bring the deficit under the Trillion mark.

Anonymous said...

I think people just need to face the fact that the USA is going to default on the debt when the time comes. Countries, Funds & people that buy bonds right now are buying into a Ponzi scheme. @ $14T the national debt is not payable unless there are huge tax increases that the American public will never accept.
Investors in USA debt are throwing their money away.

BR said...

Quote:"If we are to salvage this Republic, we must eradicate every Democrat -- for there are no moderate Democrats left -- at the ballot box in 2012."

The only problem with that is, what's the alternative?

DINORightMarie said...

I just did this with the proposed $35B cuts Rep. Ryan and the House announced. The green slice is barely any larger. Keep cutting guys!! We're nowhere close. Try using Rand Paul's suggested cuts. Hello! Heeellllloooo!! Anyone listening? *crickets*

Dandapani said...

They should start with the 3 and 4 letter federal departments at a high level. Constitutional? No, cut it. Until there is only a handful such as Defense. No more EPA, OSHA, DOE, ED, etc.

Anonymous said...

the math and numbers matter here. at some point we need to face the facts. stop both wars? 150 bil. deficit 1500 bil. so ok, thats 10% (150/1500). raise taxes on the rich? 40-50 bil, 50/1500, so thats 3%. end the DOE, EPA, OSHA, and 10 others, about 150 being nice and you go draconian maybe 200. so 200/1500 is 14%. folks, if we do ALL of what both sides are TALKING about, we get maybe 40%. we havent even started. even if we haircut DOD by HALF (which wont happen), we get 350 or 23%. its going to be a trainwreck. and it will be the end of the dems. we dont need to obliterate them at the polls tho. they are doing to themselves. and you need to wacth closely. they are sensing the existential threat. they survive by expanding leviathan. and when it swallows us all up, they will be the only ones to blame. the smart ones know they are done. over. gone. the crazy ones go mouth frothing and chip diller. the smart ones will just slither away. dems = whigs. year 2100 trivia question: what do the know-nothings, the whigs, and the democrats have in common?

The Crawfish said...

Linking this one in my column later today.

Anonymous said...

Nice scalpel, Barack. Where is the hatchet?

Anonymous said...

I agree we must begin laying the ground work. Here is a list of Democratic and Independent Senators that are part of the problem and who recently voted Not to repeal Obama Care

Akaka, HI Kohl, WI
Bingaman, NM Manchin, WV
Brown, OH McCaskill, MO
Cantwell, WA Menendez, NJ
Cardin, MD Nelson, FL
Carper, DE Nelson, NE
Casey, PA Sanders, I-VT
Conrad, ND Stabenow, MI
Feinstein, CA Webb, VA
Gillibrand, NY Whitehouse, RI
Klobuchar, MN
Not Voting
Liberman, I-CT Warner , VA

Karl said...

Slight nit: The chart should be titled "Obama's 2011 Budget." The blue area is revenue, not his budget. The red area is deficit. I can't see the savings.

Pontius Pilate said...

It is called "two wars in Asia." Neither party is doing f***-all to put a halt to those little money pits.

Anonymous said...

Pontius, we've been at war for years. If this is all war spending, why didn't we have this big of a deficit before?

What is the .gov spending so much more on now, than 3 years ago?

kotamundi said...

It is much worse than 1.5 trillion the CBO shows. Karl Denninger's Market Ticker yesterday pointed out that the increase in the deficit in January, 2011 alone was a record $105.8 billion dollars. ...I did not believe it so I looked it up on Treasury Direct. Sure enough, the total outstanding debt as of December31, 2010 was 14.025 trillion http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2010/opds122010.pdf At the end of January, 2011 it was 14.131 trillion http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds012011.pdf
And January is a month that traditionally has a surplus because quarterly estimated payments come in. We are well on the way to a $2 trillion+ dollar deficit for this fiscal year.

Our dear federal government is spending 43% more than it takes in. The interest rates are being kept artificially low to mask the real problem. You can't defy gravity forever. And you are beginning to see cracks in the Federal Reserve and Treasury's management of the problem. The ten year bond rate has increased from 2.5% to over 3.5% since November.

Some day, and I don't have a clue when, the Federal Government's American Express card will be denied any more charging. When that happens either our currency collapses, or the economy does, or both.

Travis said...

what are the numbers for the 3 sections?

Anonymous said...

You should cut all the Zars! Obama should not be able to appoint people that don't have to answer to congress and we can save a bundle on their salaries!

EdWatters said...

There's no state like no st@te!

cettin said...

At 9:40 AM , Anonymous said...
Pontius, we've been at war for years. If this is all war spending, why didn't we have this big of a deficit before?

What is the .gov spending so much more on now, than 3 years ago?

Prior to Obama taking office, defense spending was not included in budget numbers

Anonymous said...

I'm no fan of Obama, but I have to ask - did you post anything like this or about the budget at any point during the time Bush was adding FIVE TRILLION to the deficit and trampling civil liberties?

Or did this only recently become a 'free speech zone'?

Anonymous said...

This post is wonderfully stupid. I'm not against real and painful budget cuts, but you think getting rid of Democrats will accomplish that?
What utter bilge.
Take a look at which presidents oversaw the highest expenditures over the last 50 years. You'll note all the R's at the top of that list, genius.
The bottom line is that D's want to cut defense spending down to the range of general sanity and R's want to cut social programs (you know, "we've stolen from social security for decades and now you'll all need to tighten your belts"). Both are politically toxic and neither will be accomplished.
There are reasoned debates to be had from "conservative" and "progressive" points of view when it comes to the economy, but please stop carrying water for the GOP and try doing some thinking...it's embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing From Nothing's Still Nothing, You've Got To Have Something, If You Want To Be With Me."
The remembered and not forgotten - Billy Preston
Apparently Obama can't even listen to the good advice given in song, from one of his own brothers. Obama has nothing to offer anyone but debt deficits and an ever deepening depression of lost jobs, lost homes and soon to be hyper inflationary prices on all goods that are needed to sustain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A real pathetic President is living for himself and his family the good life in the White House, while the country is starving to death and sinking further into the abyss.

Anonymous said...

Your post ignores the fact that a great deal of the current deficit was created between 2000 and 2006, under a Republican administration and a Republican Congress. Both parties are equally guilty of deficit spending, and filling the federal government with Republicans will not result in any difference in the federal budget.

Anonymous said...

While the Republicans have made quite a bit of noise about cutting the deficit, I think it's important that they haven't actually proposed any serious (realistic or sensible) ideas to do so, where as Obama has actually pushed for these specific cuts (as small as they might be). Even if you cut all the government agencies and programs that the GOP like to see cut (DEA, DOE, Etc), you can't fix the deficit without implementing major reforms and/or cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military. And that's something that nobody on EITHER side of the aisle is willing to do. At least the Democrats are honest and not just exploiting the fears of fiscal conservatives for political support without a plan to actually implement the changes they promise.

GM Roper said...

Great visuals Doug. If the Obama administration really can't find areas to cut drastically, they aren't looking hard enough. Start with the EPA, Dept of Ed., Homeland (in)Security, NPR, Congressional Income, congressional staffing, Obamacare etc. Better yet, promise me that they will enact the budget that I propose.

Noah Bawdy™ said...

(golf clap)

Anonymous said...

If you Americans really want to have a balanced budget, then forget trimming all sorts of little government agencies: try cutting social security and medicare. That's where most of your tax dollars go. Little snips in other areas really won't make that much of a difference -- unless you want to get rid of your entire military.

Anonymous said...

What's the point. Let the country crash and burn. That's the only fix.

Steve said...

If the budget is an 8 hr day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks - he's just given taxpayers a 25 minute vacation. Gee thanks.

Glad to see the house is at $100 billion in cuts but really how hard would have a 5% to 10% across the board cut have been? 2.7% is a start but in the end probably to little to late.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms hmmmm

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, eliminate all the Democrats and forget the most recent (back to 1901) President who balanced the budget and even produced a modest surplus. Hmmm, who was that? Did you guess Bill Clinton--four times? DING DING DING, you win! Before that? Other Democratic Presidents did it also: Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson, also Democrats as you may recall. To be fair, some Republicans have done it also in that time period: McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Eisenhower. You will note that if you correlate the years with wars, the Democrats were responsible for the budgets during WWI, WWII, Korea, and part of Vietnam. Those numbers ARE included in the chart below, when we ran deficits to finance the wars.

When was the last time the budget was balanced AND we had no national debt? Yes, that famous Democratic President Andrew Jackson did it in the 1830s. See a trend here? Yes, of course, you, will see, contrary to the evidence, that Republicans are *always* fiscally responsible and Democrats just don't seem to care. We only have to look at history to know that we can trust the country to Republicans according to you.

Here's a little summary you should probably study carefully using that data from 1901 through 2009 budgets (millions of dollars, and the colums probably won't line up properly):


Rep Dem Total
# Budgets 61 48 109
$ Budgets -$6,273,670 -$487,539 -$6,761,209
Avg Budget -$102,847 -$10,157 -$62,029
# Defecits 42 36 78
$ Defecits -$6,289,204 -$1,073,482 -$7,362,686
Avg Defecit -$149,743 -$29,819 -$94,393
# Surpluses 19 12 31
$ Surpluses $15,534 $585,943 $601,477
Avg Surplus $818 $48,829 $19,402


You may notice that the average Dem surplus is about 2 1/2 times the average, and over 50 times the Rep average surpluses. Similarly, in looking at the other side of the coin and examining deficits, Dems about 1/7 of average and about 1/6 the average of the Reps. These numbers all come from an official US Government website, so you can't say I'm skewing the numbers to present "my" side of this.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01z1.xls


You will probably "poo-poo" this data. I don't care if you're blind, just don't try to put out the eyes of those who can see facts when they are presented.

Datou said...

Funny how most of the brave commenters defending Democrats do so anonymously... Bill Clinton had a balanced budget because he had to deal with a Republican led Congress. To his credit he knew how to deal. Newsflash: Congress is where the budgets are written. As we speak 80% of the Republicans in Congress are total slime mouthing the words and lining their pockets. 100% of the Democrats have proven they are worse. The Dems in Congress during Clinton look like Tea Partiers compared to the anti-American marxists in power now. Liberals only care about placing blame and pointing fingers. The problem is that we need to wipe the board clean and smack some new thinking into the DC beltway mindset. YES eliminate all the alphabet agencies unless absolutely necessary, let States go bankrupt and start wiping out and outlawing government unions and the unfunded liabilities that come with them.

Anonymous said...

2/3 of the federal budget is transfer payments. That's where they take the money out of your wallet, and GIVE it to some person or business that they think deserves it more than you, and you GET NOTHING in return. You don't get a new road, bridge, tank, fighter jet, etc. You worked, someone else got paid. This is done because it buys votes.

The budget will not be balanced, and the debt retired, until this practice is recognized as being unconstitutional (in addition to being immoral).

Anonymous said...

Your chart is actually wrong - it's much worse.

You've separated the "total budget"(blue) and the "deficit"(red). The "deficit" should be a fraction of the whole - meaning the blue part should only be the portion of the budget NOT requiring debt.

So in fact, your chart numbers should be: "budget" ($3.8 trillion - whole pie) = "normal spending" ($2.3 trillion - blue) + "deficit spending" ($1.5 trillion - red) + "obama's cuts" ($775 million - green).

It actually is much worse than your graph shows.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of sad we have a HUGE problem like this, yet House Republicans are trying to ram through the liberty killing PATRIOT act again. Give me a break GOP.

marisman said...

They distort the situation for political gain - both parties. It's not about what programs to stop or cut. EVERYTHING must be cut. Cut every departmental budget by 10% as a start across the board. Each dept can decide how to do it. That is what private sector has to do!

Chris Wysocki said...

Here we see again the standard Democrat budget cut strategy. Cut something which will immediately elicit howls of outrage. Jon Corzine was a master at it here in NJ. Each fiscal year the first thing he'd "cut" on July 1 was state parks. Yup, he'd close the beaches on the Fourth of July. And presto!, the outrage was unanimous, and his "cuts" were restored.

Let's not fall for Obama pulling the same trick.

Carl R - Grand Rapids said...

For a clearer understanding, move the decimal point to remove a lot of zeros. It's rather like deciding that your food budget for the year will be $3,800. But, in order to buy that much food, you have to put $1,500 on your credit card. So, you decide to NOT buy ONE 78 cent candy bar, in order to save money. That Obama is a genius!

Anonymous said...

To be fair, if you zoomed even more, those cuts would appear to be a lot larger.

DF Hobbs said...

Simple solution: No county should get in tax support greater than it gives up in taxes rendered. That should clear the budget deficit in no time. With the added bonus of all those who gripe about being over taxed shutting up.

Anonymous said...

I liked this illustration better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE

Anonymous said...

For Datou, who complained about Democrats replying anonymously: it's probably because we don't want to end up on some database because we registered with Google, just in case the Republicans take over again and start pulling more of our rights away from us. Bush 43 did more to destroy fundamental American rights than all the Presidents before him with the possible exception of A. Lincoln.

Anonymous said...

You have made a mistake with your numbers. In the US, a trillion is 1000 million (not 1000000 million) , so the budget cuts are a little over 50% of the annual deficit (according to your figures).

Generic Viagra said...

I feel so relaxed and surely much updated after reading the articles that you keep updating on the website. It relieves me a lot and at the same time informs me because there according to me isn’t anything that is much informed as you are.such bright things coming from your post....

Anonymous said...

@Anon 2:33 : "the most recent President who balanced the budget and even produced a modest surplus. Hmmm, who was that? Did you guess Bill Clinton"

Ummm, that's nice, but last I checked, Bill Clinton hasn't been in power for quite some, isn't running in the next election, and it is the current Democrats running the biggest deficit ever, so how does that help us?

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:18 "You have made a mistake with your numbers. In the US, a trillion is 1000 million"

Sigh .. if this represents the level of education of the voting public then there is no hope.

Anonymous said...

"Cut every departmental budget by 10% as a start across the board. Each dept can decide how to do it."

The fun part of that is state departments are so bound up in obligations to things like state unions that they won't be able to make cuts and will instead go bankrupt. It will be a case of departments telling their employees "sorry we can't pay you because there is no money". It's already happening.

It has to happen, it'll happen anyway, and it'll ultimately be a healthy process, because the reason we're in this mess is that every one of these managers all the way up from the tiniest department right up to Obama himself, got us into this mess because they don't have the first clue what "money" is or how to manage it.

The Republic is set to have one huge ugly learning experience. We all have to learn again from scratch what it means to "manage money".

Anonymous said...

He wants to break us. He wants us to NEED the global community, so we will no longer have the protection of the Constitution, or any vestiges of what gives us the freedom to be independent states and independent individuals.

AND I couldn't agree more, there is no longer a moderate Dem.

Minorcan Maven

Anonymous said...

Ush - I was embarrassed to realise that my comment about getting the numbers wrong was mistaken. I'd confused trillions with billions.

Glen said...

So if my math is right, that's like saying,

"I make $60,000 a year, but I'm spending $100,000 a year. I'll just cut $20 from my expenses and everything will be cool."

Is that correct?

Anonymous said...

@anon 8:04 You do realize that the wars are now included in the deficit, where they weren't under Bush's watch, right?

Do all right-wing extremists really believe that Obama created this deficit on his own? Last time I checked, Presidents inherit deficits. I'm amazed by some of the stupidity on here. Makes it embarrassing to admit that I'm a Republican. There's reality and fantasy. All the mumbo jumbo being thrown by both parties serves one interest and one interest only: I do and say so I can get re-elected. End of story. Throw enough mud, the nut jobs on either side will get riled up. Reality is always much different, and this isn't a good reality no matter which side you're on.