Obama exposes Bush's accounting gimmicks, $2.7 trillion in additional spending

[Mokele]

So does that mean that you feel that the exposure of the NSF funding to a reporter was a bad thing? That I should have known that funding was there and stated my objection before it was headlined?

 

I think the public had every right to know, and easily could have known simply by looking up the bill, even without anyone making an issue of it. I think it should have been funded, but I also think it should have been more widely known, as I think it would have been kept if it was - it was a comparatively tiny sum and the public is generally supportive of the sciences.

 

So, to summarize: I support transparency regardless of whether the item is something I agree with or not, and I fail to see any evidence of trickery or concealment with regards to NSF funding in the stimulus bill.

[Pangloss]

I am about one thousand percent more engaged than the average American, and I didn't know it was in there until a reporter reported on it. And nobody else here knew about it either. How do I know to "look it up in the bill" if the bill is directly stated to be about something else entirely in the first place?

 

I don't think that taking advantage of a massive spending bill to sneak in a little of this or that just because they know it'd be a huge fight when the real budget comes around is detrimental and certainly in opposition with at least the concept of transparency. Direct opposition.

 

And I think that's not the kind of "change" we were promised. I'm not really interested in swapping out one form of trickery for another.

[Mokele]

Yeah, if only we had people whose sole job was to read and debate these bills, while representing our interests.

 

Also, I strongly disagree with "sneaking" it in - it's no more a 'sneak' than the sections of the bill giving tax cuts or funding roads and bridges. It's within the purpose and purview of the bill, namely providing economic stimulus, albeit via an unusual route.

[bascule]

Wow.

 

This thread went an entirely different direction that what I was expecting.

 

I guess I'm starting to agree with iNow that too many threads are turning into a bitchfest about the stimulus. Not that I'm against bitching about the stimulus, except I don't think that's particularly relevant here.

 

So perhaps we can make discussion about the stimulus relevant as part of this thread. Do you think Obama is actually funding the stimulus bill transparently, or do you expect accounting gimmickry similar to what Bush used to fund the stimulus or any other bills?

[iNow]

or do you expect accounting gimmickry similar to what Bush used to fund the stimulus or any other bills?

No, I don't. I think there may be parts where visibility is more limited, but I really don't expect the same accounting gimmickry (which this thread was intended to discuss) from the current administration.

[iNow]

Budget passed the House today.

 

 

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0291

For the first time in years, we will have an honest budget that:

 

Creates jobs with investments in health care, clean energy, and education

 

Cuts taxes for middle income families by $1.5 trillion

 

Cuts the deficit by two-thirds

(links for each bullet

at link

- iNow)

* House Budget Committee charts on the Chairman’s Mark>>

* Key Features of the Chairman’s Mark>>

* Legislative Text of the Chairman’s Mark>>

* Summary Tables of the Chairman’s Mark>

* Read the Latest Budget Fact Checks>>

 

The 2010 Budget Resolution incorporates the four key priorities of the President’s budget. It makes strategic investments in education, health care reform, and energy independence that are necessary to restore our crumbling economy and put the country in a position to remain globally competitive. It also takes the needed steps to restore fiscal sustainability by cutting the federal budget deficit by more than half by 2013. The budget provides the fiscal blueprint that will allow Congress to debate and adopt legislation that will reach these goals, but, by its nature, the Budget Resolution does not dictate the specifics of the legislation.

[bascule]

I'm glad the hundreds of billions we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan actually count in the Budget now, instead of being magic numbers we subtract for no apparent reason.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think transparency is a good thing, even if the motive is simply to make a political opponent look bad (not that I'm saying that is the motive). Maybe we could get someone who will add up all spending so that people can see where money goes and how said spending was approved, to prevent future accounting magic.

[Pangloss]

Interesting use of the word "honest", in a budget that's 50% funded by debt. (sigh) I do get the point, though, and agree with putting that stuff in the budget.

 

The question is whether Mrs. Pelosi and her colleagues will stick with the plan to remove these additional, short-term expenditures once the economy is repaired. That may become the most interesting budgetary battle in the history of this country.