$17 Billion. That's the amount of waste in government Obama identified to cut last year.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Those savings were identified while conducting a detailed review of all government spending while preparing the current year’s budget proposal. That time Obama used a scalpel:

Weeding the budget of $17 billion
Obama administration proposes cuts in funding for more than 100 federal programs in latest salvo in 2010 budget fight.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com
May 7, 2009: 4:05 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama on Thursday offered a more detailed look at his 2010 budget proposal, which includes recommendations to cut funding for 121 federal programs and save $17 billion in 2010.

"There is a lot of money being spent inefficiently, ineffectively, and -- in some cases -- in ways that are actually pretty stunning," Obama said.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/07/news/economy/obama_budget_details/index.htm?postversion=2009050710

It is interesting to note that over half of those proposed savings came from the Defense Budget, which will be off limits from the new Budget Freeze Obama is now proposing. That freeze by necessity will include some significant further cuts to parts of the discretionary non Defense related budget, since Obama intends to allow spending growth in other targeted areas, which will then need to be offset by those cuts.

A spokesperson for the Administration explained it this way on the Rachel Maddow Show:

"We are NOT talking an across the board freeze!"

"This will entitle the President to comb through the budget and find policies that will help the middle class LIKE the policies that we announced today."

"It will allow him to pull back on wasteful spending that Congress has a hard time pulling back on, that lobbyists love."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35069615

Which begs the question, where would those cuts be made now that the obvious fat was already trimmed from the Federal Budget last year? A small portion might come from the same list that Obama submitted last year. A story in the New York Times sheds some light on this matter:

Obama to Seek Spending Freeze to Trim Deficits
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: January 25, 2010

“…The administration officials did not identify which programs Mr. Obama would cut or eliminate, but said that information would be in the budget he submits next week. For the coming fiscal year, the reductions would be $10 billion to $15 billion, they said. Last year Mr. Obama proposed to cut a similar amount — $11.5 billion — and Congress approved about three-fifths of that, the officials said.

The federal government’s discretionary domestic spending has grown about 5 percent on average since 1993, according to the administration. It spiked to about 27 percent from 2008 to 2009, however, because of the recession. The sudden increase reflected both the first outlays from the $787 billion stimulus package as well as automatic spending for unemployment compensation and food stamps that is triggered during an economic downturn.

The freeze that Mr. Obama will propose for the fiscal years 2011 through 2013 actually means a cut in real terms, since the affected spending would not keep pace with inflation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html

The New York Times story explains how even a simple across the board freeze would mean a real cut in funding for government programs in real terms, but with funding increases approved for some budget items under Obama’s flexible freeze, the full impact of those cuts will have to fall on those programs that were not singled out for funding increases, so they will suffer a double whammy. And this time that pain will not be shared by the Pentagon the way last year’s cuts were.

In arguing for a $17 Billion dollar cut last year, Obama made an interesting point:
"To put this in perspective, this is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks," he said.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/07/news/economy/obama_budget_details/index.htm?postversion=2009050710

Anyone suggesting that the modified Budget Freeze that Obama is proposing for this year will be virtually free of pain if implemented might want to consider that observation carefully. Last year Obama used a scalpel when he proposed his budget cuts. What tool will he use this time, where will it’s blade be aimed, and who will fall on the cutting edge during this continuing recession? A small cut in government support can mean a great deal to someone who is already living on the edge.

[RC]

1. Why is the Defense Budget off limits when it is still greater than the rest of the world combined?

It needs to be cut back till we can not afford to bomb any more wedding parties or destroy any more residential neighborhoods to kill another #2 "Terrorist".

[mmonk]

3. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. An obvious question, isn't it?

That jumped out for me especially when I looked back and remembered that the Obama Administration did not spare the military from the cost saving process the last time they showed this type of concern for the budget. That was just a year ago and over half the cost savings were found in the military budget, and few if any had a big problem with that.

One of two things now are true. Either it is easy to squeeze waste out of the budget without significantly harming our priorities as a nation, which is what Obama seemed to imply about the freeze process in non military discretionary spending, in which case savings should be relatively painless to find from the military also. Or the opposite, the scapel now has made the easy cuts and can no longer safely distinguish between fat and bone, which is why military spending must be off limits. If that is the case the meat cleaver being proposed would soon start hitting the bone of some significant non military discretionary budget items. One way or another a falsehood is being propagated. And either way the needs of the military are being prioritized above the economic needs of the public.

[Obamanaut]

2. When one looks at the whole picture, $17 billion is pocket change,

a mere distraction, a way of saying to those not paying attention "Look what I'm doing for you."

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. The same can be said about Eastman Kodak saying it is eliminating another 3,500 to 4,500 jobs

In the big picture that's just a drop in the bucket. In the small picture it hurts.

[Statistical]

5. Got to start somewhere.

For decades we routinely spent more money each year then we had in revenue and transfered the difference to debt.

We are reaching an inflection point. We must got at least close to a balance budget soon.

Not today (we are still in a recession) but soon.

You can't continually spend more than you make forever with no repayment.

If we could then we could solve poverty tomorrow. Give every American a $1 mil credit card and let them spend more money then they have.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Several points

One, the same basic reality held true when Obama introduced his stimulus plan; it was all essentially red ink spending but it was deemed essential to stabilize our economy to keep it from falling into a deep depression which would have been far more destructive, and to reverse the tide of job losses. As you said, we are still in a recession (whether or not it technically still qualifies as that) and things could still get worse. So is the timing right?

Two, equal relatively easy savings were found in the Pentagon budget last year as were found in discretionary non military spending. There is no logical reason to believe that the same would not hold true now, so why is military spending off limits this time? Two reasons I think, the first is pure political, Obama does not want to be vulnerable to charges that he isn't strong on National Security. The second reason is that there will be no scalpel used this time. This time when the Obama Administration decides on a new program to introduce, or an old program to expand, they will dictate that cuts be made elsewhere. I predict the return of across the board percentage cut backs within different departments. And that is something they are willing to do to domestic social programs but not to the military. I disagree, what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander - it is all important and it all ultimately effects our national security and ultimately what it is that we are so busy securing.

Three, this is being sold as relatively painless fiscal restraint, because it is a flexible freeze and good programs can still get more funding. Only the relatively "bad programs" will face cuts, you know, all that fat and waste. Except the Administration already went looking for those last year and made those cuts. If there were any under performing Trade Missions to Mongolia around to axe they already got cut last year. It wasn't like there was a target number of 17 Billion last year that was reached, the goal was to cut as much waste as could be found. That's what they found. So there will be burdens placed on Americans due to this proposal and that is not sufficiently upfront.

Four, since there will be burdens placed on Americans due to this proposal (if implemented) why is sound fiscal policy in regards to budget cuts not being coupled with sound fiscal policy in regards to increased revenues, and I don't mean just recouping the TARP loans. If there is pain that pain should be shared and Democrats should make sure that those in the best position to take it get most of it, rather than the ones who further cuts could drive under.