Firedoglake: Rachel Maddow Shames White House Economist Bernstein on Obama’s Phony “Spending Freeze”

By: Scarecrow Monday January 25, 2010 6:56 pm

The White House "floated" a lead balloon Monday by telling everyone that Obama’s next budget proposal, due February 1, will include a "spending freeze" on several categories of discrectionary spending. It’s a complete head fake: there’s no freeze, and all they’re doing is playing to the unrelenting stupidity of those, like Sen. Evan Bayh, who think the way to put people to work is to spend less money.

Someone please give Bayh the Washington Post’s unread copy of any economic text book on what happened during the Great Depression when FDR’s economic advisers foolishly convinced him the Depression was over and that he needed to worry about balancing the budget — or just send him http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/opinion/04krugman.html">this from Krugman or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo">watch this. The result of cutting spending was to send the economy back into deep depression. Fool me once . . .

But the President’s economic and political advisers are being too clever by half; they’re not really planning anything remotely approaching a spending freeze. Most of the budget — including the military/defense, Veterans, the massive bureaucracies at Homeland Security, and lots of other stuff will be entirely exempt. The remaining items, which constitute about $447 billion out of a $2 trillion plus budget, will not be frozen either.

What the Administration will do is what all administrations do: reallocate spending priorities, increasing some items and reducing or eliminating others. And even then the net change in the aggregate budget will be about $25 billion per year, less than mere pocket change in the massive US economy.

Full piece (with Rachel's interview embedded): http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/26492

.

I just want progress. Pony-shaped progress and a year or two to catch my breath. Motherfucking politicians.

Rachel was hyperventilating about a policy she heard about, maybe 5 minutes ago, and she talked over the guy, talking twice as much as he was.

I didn't see no shamin'. I saw Maddow losing her cool.

and the advisor having a hard time answering them.

She went over the top, and he stumbled.

It wasn't an enlightening conversation at all. She attacked, he scrambled.

Not like Rachel at all. If she keeps this up, her guests will be only those who are recycled on Keith.

No one who opposes the Dems will be on her show and she'll lose one of the reasons people watch her, including the Repubs.

I like Rachel, but she didn't have enough facts in front of her to really nail him on anything. Instead, she relied upon "reports coming out of Washington," which may or may not be correct.

Some are experts because of their education from good colleges or universities.
Some are experts because of their years of experience in the field.

Somehow I don't think Bayh's Business Economics and Public Policy degree from Indiana University Kelley School of Business back in '78 amounted to much. If his daddy paid for his tuition it was a waste of money.

After 2 years as Secretary of State, 8 years as Governor and finishing 12 years as Senator his years of experience is about as much experience that Palin had as Alaska's Governor. And she doesn't know that North and South Korea are two separate countries.

Unfortunately, his main challenger looks to be Mike Pence.

Last week after the Massachusetts election Bayh was starting to distance himself from the Democratic Party. trying to have it both ways is a quick way to lose your seat.

he is going to lose. And start behaving more like a Democrat. He should also learn some things from Lugar. Number 1 would be to have district offices that are responsive to the constituents. Number 2 have faster response to letters. Number 3 respond to letters. Number 4 have the proper response to the letters that pertain to the topic. Number 5 limit 1 response to each letter. Not 3.