Who is this Nameless "Senior Administration Official" who Dropped Spending Cuts Bomb on Us?

UPDATE! EDITING POST after reading this from "THINK PROGRESS" by another reporter on the call:
-------------------
Matt Yglesias from "Think Progress" says it was deliberatly leaked to Progressive Reporters

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)&utm_content=Google+Reader


The official emphasized that there’s more to the administration’s plans that this freeze proposal, though what that might be will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I’m very skeptical of this approach. I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive
bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.

--------------------------





I want to know who the F**k it was! Why are we not being told? This is the article from Sam Stein over at HuffPost where this "Senior Administration Official" had a conference call with reporters announcing the Bomb that Obama is cutting Govt. Agencies that deal with the "Peoples Welfare Domestically" but leaving Defense and HS intact. Sam posts it at 8:58pm on a Monday night???

Why would Obama leave it up to some "Nameless Official" to drop something like that out there before his SOU Speech? Doesn't make sense. :banghead: Why can't Sam Stein tell us WHO this "NAMELESS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL" really is? Does Obama have a Mole in his WH talking to reporters on conference calls? How important is this person that they can demand SECRECY?

-----

Obama To Propose Major Spending Freeze Saving $250 Billion
Sam Stein

First Posted: 01-25-10 08:58 PM

President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze in discretionary, "non-security" spending as part of a budget he will unveil one week from now, a senior administration official told the Huffington Post and other reporters Monday evening.

The president will unveil the proposal during the State of the Union address on Monday, pledging that it will save $250 billion over ten years relative to where spending on those programs would have been had these freezes not been put in place. The goal is to keep the budget at or below the $447 billion that was spent on these agencies this past year.

"We face the dual challenges of a massive GDP gap and also very substantial budget deficits out over time," said the administration official. "As we move forward to FY2011 that's a transition year in which we need to be shifting our focus, making sure we're getting as much as we can from each dollar that the federal government has. And this is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important category of restoring discipline to an important component of the budget."

The spending freeze is almost assuredly to be met with tepid support among the president's fellow Democrats who view self-imposed limitations as risky politics and policy at a time of deep economic recession. Last week, House lawmakers -- who will essentially have a larger role than the president in assuring that the spending freeze is implemented -- rejected the proposal after it was initially floated. One Democratic strategist jokingly quipped that the president was taking a page out of the Republican playbook for the sole purpose of placating his Republican critics.

-snip-

The senior administration official did not address these concerns directly. But in a 15-minute conference call with half-a-dozen reporters from online outlets, he did state that the White House "may well" pursue additional "jobs-related" legislation in 2010. As for the agencies that would now have to deal with spending limits - the EPA, Commerce Department, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Interior to name a few - the administration official noted that there would be some budgetary flexibility should emergencies arise. If more money is needed at one agency it can go there, but only at the expense of another.

"This is not a blunt across the board freeze," said the senior administration official. "Some agencies will go up, others will go down; but in aggregate for those non-security agencies the total will remain constant."

more of this curious article at....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/obama-to-propose-major-sp_n_436285.html

Usually Presidents leak to reporters and ask to be "off the record." They don't have a "Senior WH Official" to a conference call that is then reported all over the fu**ing INTERNET!

If this is the way he's operating ...then he needs some internal controls in the WH for Messinging or he's got a Mole in there working against him. I've been around through quite a few elections and never seen anything like this.

who are selected to launch trial balloons. If it rises, then it's good, if it gets shot down, then there's plausible deniability.

I shouldn't get so wrapped up in politics. I really try not to, but the last couple of weeks have just been really really tough. I know many people feel the same. Posting on DU has helped, but it's a bandaid on a pretty severe wound. I think many of us just need some "wins" by our side. For the people.

If the President can set the stage for positive change, it might happen. I'm certainly hoping that he can challenge the Democratic Congress to get 100% on board with a Constitutional amendment to keep corporate money out of Federal politics again. If the Repukes kill it by voting for business megabucks, it will be easy to show which side they're on.

It's just too weird right now, tonight. But this "revelation" sure has so much hair on fire. My own hair might burst into flames before it's over. Just not tonight.

Why would they do that...knowing that many of us are already very confused.

I think we just need to see how it works out.

Progressive reporter Matt Yglesias was on the call...and see his comment below. He doesn't "want to give them the satisfaction of "freaking out." His article is interesting. Different from the Sam Stein one I posted originally.

Here's link and Matt's comment:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)&utm_content=Google+Reader


The official emphasized that there’s more to the administration’s plans that this freeze proposal, though what that might be will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I’m very skeptical of this approach. I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.

I wouldn't mind some Republican pork to get a slicing.

I've seen DU go bat guano insane only to settle down with a quiet "Nevermind". On the face of it, the news tonight is horrible. I've no interest in living through a Depression like my mother did. Even if she taught me well the many skills needed to make it through. But I can wait till Wednesday night to react full speed.

What's interesting tonight is to see some of the faithful start peeling away from Obama.

On at least one occasion GW Bush himself was anonymously sourced as "a high ranking administration official." (Technically true, but funny.)

For policy pre-announcements like this someone is authorized to disseminate a message to major news outlets on condition of anonymity.

Could be anyone.

Dumb practice, but it is how its done.

that it was a conference call. Usually the reporters do an article saying..."According to Senior WH Official...blah, blah, blah.

Sam Stein is talking about an OPEN with REPORTERS conference call where he can't identify the Official but was able to report it was a conference call.

Sam's article is interesting in how many times he mentions SWO...btw. I think he found it as low as I did.

Unfortunately this IS the administration's plan.

Rachel pretty much cut him to shreds over this "stupid Hooverism," as she termed it.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)&utm_content=Google+Reader


The official emphasized that there’s more to the administration’s plans that this freeze proposal, though what that might be will have to wait. Suffice it to say that I’m very skeptical of this approach. I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.


(Matt's article is a little different from Sam Stein's article at HuffPost which I quoted. It's worth a read at the link.) If Center for American Progress Reporter is upset...then I guess maybe there is some reason to be...:-(

Honestly, I don't know why the GOP is upset with the administration about anything.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hilary would have been the same

I smell shit-stirring of a spectacularly high order.

It's surreal. But I'm not even shocked anymore. K&R.

and sophomoric politics.