Obama Asks for $60B without PAYGO

[Pangloss]

President Obama broke a promise yesterday, asking Congress to authorize emergency spending for the wars outside of the budget. In the process he also circumvents the legal requirement to specify how the spending will be paid for, allowing the spending to go straight into the deficit.

 

"For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," he said in his February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

 

Adding fuel to the fire, only a little over half the money in the bill goes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rest goes to various places including aid for Haiti and other recent disasters. Certainly a worthy cause, but shouldn't the government indicate how it's going to PAY for such things?

 

And by the way, this popped up on my Google News page, but I think it's pretty revealing that the ONLY news organization reporting this story, with these particular angles, is Fox News Channel. There was a lot of chatter late last week about the larger appropriations bill, but nothing on this emergency war spending and nothing on these angles. Sure, the fact that FNC is reporting those angles is indicative of their bias, but it's revealing that no other outlets are reporting these facts at all, focusing instead today on the repeal of DADT. According to Google News, this story has been solo on the FNC Web site for 13 hours.

[iNow]

President Obama broke a promise yesterday, asking Congress to authorize emergency spending for the wars outside of the budget. In the process he also circumvents the legal requirement to specify how the spending will be paid for, allowing the spending to go straight into the deficit.

 

I'm gonna pick on you a bit for the way you've phrased this. In our past threads discussing Paygo, you've openly acknowledged the "emergency spending" provision of the Paygo implementation.

 

If Congress designates supplemental spending as "emergency spending," it is exempt from budget allocations and a number of other budget enforcement provisions of Paygo.

 

While we can argue about whether or not that is appropriate to have and whether or not it breaks the spirit of Paygo, having the emergency spending provisions there means explicitly that no legal requirements have been circumvented, nor have any promises been broken.

[ecoli]

how does this budget stuff work? Are we allocating money already approved or letting the tresury sort it out with the Fed later?

[swansont]

If Congress designates supplemental spending as "emergency spending," it is exempt from budget allocations and a number of other budget enforcement provisions of Paygo.

 

That was the first thing I noticed. If Fox is the only MSM organization promoting this "angle" it's not because of liberal bias elsewhere.

Edited May 25, 2010 by swansont
add "elsewhere"

[bascule]

President Obama broke a promise yesterday

 

Which campaign promise is that? Can you find it in the Obameter?

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

 

And by the way, this popped up on my Google News page, but I think it's pretty revealing that the ONLY news organization reporting this story, with these particular angles, is Fox News Channel

 

You know, there's a reason for that...

 

But for the record, here's a non-Newscorp source asking how this bill would be funded. The Oklahoman, from which this article comes, is apparently owned by "The Gaylord Family" and not by any other major syndicate.

 

All that said, does anyone else find the Johnny-come-lately Republican and News Corp/Fox concern over how an emergency war spending bill will be funded sadly pathetic? Hey guys, why weren't you doing that 7 years ago? Oh right, because the Republicans were in power, and when a Republican spends money they don't have on a war it's OK.

Edited May 25, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

While we can argue about whether or not that is appropriate to have and whether or not it breaks the spirit of Paygo, having the emergency spending provisions there means explicitly that no legal requirements have been circumvented, nor have any promises been broken.

 

Circumvented is the correct word. I wasn't trying to suggest that he broke the law, simply that he found a way that he doesn't have to honor that regulation.

 

And it's a specific broken promise because he said he would not do that with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. I provided the exact quote of him saying so:

 

"For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," he said in his February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

 

Which campaign promise is that? Can you find it in the Obameter?

 

It wasn't a campaign promise. See quote above. The administration made a specific point about how all Iraq/Afghanistan spending would be budgeted from now on and subject to PAYGO. This was due to a specific concern that many had regarding ongoing expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan being made frequently outside of the budget. We've discussed the matter here before.

 

I did see the NewsOK article, but it seemed to be following the Fox story. It's a regional newspaper, but perhaps they have a reporter in DC and reported it independently, true. The question is why the New York Times and CNN aren't covering this angle.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Pangloss

[iNow]

And it's a specific broken promise because he said he would not do that with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. I provided the exact quote of him saying so:

"For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," he said in his February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

Identifying something as emergency spending so it is not mandated to abide by PAYGO [math]\ne[/math] "hiding the price."

[bascule]

It wasn't a campaign promise. See quote above.

 

Looking for it, not seeing it.

 

The administration made a specific point about how all Iraq/Afghanistan spending would be budgeted from now on and subject to PAYGO.

 

He did? When?

 

This was due to a specific concern that many had regarding ongoing expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan being made frequently outside of the budget. We've discussed the matter here before.

 

That's discussing omission of spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the total national budget figures, not anything to do with PAYGO.

 

I did see the NewsOK article, but it seemed to be following the Fox story. It's a regional newspaper, but perhaps they have a reporter in DC and reported it independently, true. The question is why the New York Times and CNN aren't covering this angle.

 

They're giving voice to Congressional Republicans who are in turn grumbling about the deficit. So they are covering it, just not spinning it the way Fox is, which you appear to find desirable. I prefer the less biased approach personally, and hey, I'm neither a fan of emergency spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or spending money we don't have. That doesn't excuse Fox, and the rampant hypocrisy deserves one of these:

 

 

Remember half a decade ago when Democrats were complaining about emergency spending bills for the war and Fox was chastising them for preventing our troops from getting the money they desperately need? I do. This is the same amount of spin, just in the opposite direction now that they party they favor is out of power.

 

I could turn around and ask why the Fox and the Republicans hate the troops so much and it'd be no different.

[Pangloss]

Identifying something as emergency spending so it is not mandated to abide by PAYGO [math]\ne[/math] "hiding the price."

 

So Bush wasn't hiding the price either, then? Okay, your call. (shrug) I didn't call it "hiding the price".

 

 

That's discussing omission of spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the total national budget figures

 

Exactly. He promised not to do that anymore.

 

 

Looking for it, not seeing it.

The administration made a specific point about how all Iraq/Afghanistan spending would be budgeted from now on and subject to PAYGO.

He did? When?

 

If you're having trouble seeing things that I place inside quote tags please let me know. I'll put it in an Indent tag since you've apparently been unable to see it.

 

"For seven years' date=' we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," he said in his February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

[/indent']

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is the same amount of spin, just in the opposite direction now that they party they favor is out of power.

 

I wasn't trying to make an ideological statement, but it doesn't surprise me that you found one. Frankly if simply

pointing out

that a promise has been broken is "spin" then we're a lot farther gone than I thought we were. But I think you're just overreacting. One broken promise isn't the end of the world, and I doubt it will even influence the next election. But if we're going to believe in transparency in government then we should also believe in accountability, don't you think?

[bascule]

If you're having trouble seeing things that I place inside quote tags please let me know. I'll put it in an Indent tag since you've apparently been unable to see it.

"For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," he said in his February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.

 

I'm not sure if you're legitimately ignorant here or what, so I'll spell it out for you. When the Bush Administration reported their figures for the national budget, they specifically omitted spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This figure was reported separately.

 

Obama decided to forego that approach and include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan in their budget figures.

 

None of that has anything to do with PAYGO.

 

Frankly if simply pointing out[/i'] that a promise has been broken is "spin" then we're a lot farther gone than I thought we were.

 

I'm just going to assume for the moment that you were legitimately ignorant and you are not attempting to maliciously spin this story or slander Obama. Unless you're accusing Obama of deliberately underbudgeting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to deliberately lower the national budget, then calling for emergency spending to make up the difference...

 

So, are you willing to admit you were wrong/ignorant/whatever and recant your claim that Obama broke a promise here?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure if you're legitimately ignorant here or what, so I'll spell it out for you. When the Bush Administration reported their figures for the national budget, they specifically omitted spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This figure was reported separately.

 

So when the Bush administration makes an emergency war spending request it's a "specific omission" from the budget, but when the Obama administration makes an emergency war spending request it's "legitimate". I see.

 

You're certainly entitled to see it that way. I intend to take a different approach: I'm going to holding both administrations to the same standard.

 

 

None of that has anything to do with PAYGO.

 

Right, because they're submitting it now instead of in the budget.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Word came today that apparently the administration even wanted to include $23 billion to rescue teachers from layoffs as part of this "emergency wartime spending bill" but ended up sending it to the Senate without the provision.

 

Politico has an article up commenting that the administration seems conflicted over spending procedures.

 

But the administration appears internally conflicted and has adopted the practice of urging lawmakers to add new spending for its priorities without having President Barack Obama sign a real request.

 

The story goes on to say that some Democrats are frustrated because the uncertainty is causing failure. Well gee, I wonder why -- they're acting against conscience and a specific promise not to submit unbudgeted expenses.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37778.html

 

There are ALWAYS "emergencies" that the government can find to spend money on. There's a budget for a reason, and we are DEEP IN THE RED. It's time for Democrats to wake up and stop finding excuses to raid the money tree.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Can we please not get into the personal fighting here? I have not liked the tone of the past four or five posts here. We can be more civil than this.

[bascule]

So when the Bush administration makes an emergency war spending request it's a "specific omission" from the budget

 

In Bush's case, it wasn't an "emergency" request, but was specifically omitted from the annual national budget as far as the figure reported to the press goes... it specifically omitted spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on an annual basis. I don't know exactly how the Bush Administration justified that, but Obama changed it so they included spending on Iraq and Afghanistan in their "total" annual budget figure.

 

I guess you really were ignorant of this. Obama essentially undid some Bush Administration spin as far as the true national budget figures go.

 

This particular instance of emergency spending is entirely different from the Bush Administration's preallocated annual spending on the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan which they deliberately subtracted from their annual total budget and somehow convinced the press was a separate item entirely.

[iNow]

So Bush wasn't hiding the price either, then? Okay, your call. (shrug) I didn't call it "hiding the price"

How is that at all relevant to this discussion about the emergency spending exception within PAYGO?

[Pangloss]

I raised more than one subject in my opening post, iNow.

 

In Bush's case, it wasn't an "emergency" request, but was specifically omitted from the annual national budget as far as the figure reported to the press goes... it specifically omitted spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on an annual basis. I don't know exactly how the Bush Administration justified that, but Obama changed it so they included spending on Iraq and Afghanistan in their "total" annual budget figure.

 

Correct, the Obama administration has tried to include (as much as possible) the expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2010 budget, as promised, which is something that the Bush administration (not subject to PAYGO) did not feel compelled to do, seeing it as an inherently unpredictable expense (as the Obama administration has now discovered). For the most part they've lived up to the spirit of that promise.

 

But it's not just about predicting wartime expenses, it's also about whether ideological preferences will influence "emergency" spending proposals. We can't afford to toss around a few dozen billion dollars every time there's a flood in the midwest (yes, part of this funding was for recent floods in the midwest). There are always emergencies, and almost half of this bill (far MORE than half if the teacher rescue had been included) would have been based on a grab-bag of convenient "emergencies" that were in fact tactical choices strongly influenced by ideological preferences.

 

As I see it, PAYGO was to stop that sort of "oh my god THROW MONEY AT IT QUICK" reactionism. It's purpose is to force spending to be balanced by income. This is a good purpose, especially when our budget is more than fifty percent in the red. But as the Politico article I linked earlier clearly supports, Democrats are finding that easier in theory than in practice.

 

Such is the mantle of power.

[iNow]

As I see it, PAYGO was to stop that sort of "oh my god THROW MONEY AT IT QUICK" reactionism.

That's a very interesting take considering PAYGO had an explicit emergency spending exception.

[bascule]

That's a very interesting take considering PAYGO had an explicit emergency spending exception.

 

Yes, PAYGO is about having a means of financing spending in normal, everyday bills that Congress passes, something the Republicans weren't doing under Bush, as they spent large amounts of money while at the same time cutting taxes with no plan for how they were going to pay for anything, adding trillions to the national debt. And of course, the old PAYGO legislation lapsed under their watch.

 

Emergency spending is specifically exempted. But perhaps you feel Obama is abusing "emergency" spending for non-emergencies. Even if that were the case, it still has nothing to do with PAYGO, unless you're accusing Obama of creating artificial emergencies for the specific purpose of circumventing PAYGO.

[swansont]

I think the PAYGO angle is moot. But Obama did say he was going to put all of the war costs in the budget. Here's the whole paragraph, which gives it context

 

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

 

So he was telling us the budget he submitted included the whole cost of the war. But the pentagon told Congress last spring that the $130 billion in his budget would be enough.

 

In March, [the Pentagon Comptroller] told the House Budget Committee that $130 billion would be enough for the year and that he did not expect to ask for more. But he did caution that “there may be significant unforeseen developments or changes in wartime strategy or tactics that cannot be addressed with existing resources.”

 

Mr. Obama did include the $130 billion for the wars as part of his regular $668 billion defense budget this year, the first time that has happened since 2001.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/05military.html