Axelrod Struggles To Explain Why Obama’s Spending Freeze Doesn’t Include Defense Funding
Axelrod Struggles To Explain Why Obama’s Spending Freeze Doesn’t Include Defense Funding
Yesterday, ThinkProgress joined a handful of journalists for a wide-ranging discussion with David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to President Obama. In his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Obama announced a discretionary spending freeze that excluded the massive budgets of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
“Can you tell the American people that there aren’t any savings to be found in the Defense and Homeland Security budgets?” ThinkProgress asked Axelrod. The President’s Senior Adviser acknowledged, no, “I can’t tell you that” there aren’t savings which can be found there.
Axelrod highlighted prior efforts by the administration to rein in defense spending and insisted that further cuts could still be made. Yet the Pentagon budget — which is expected to exceed $700 billion when Obama unveils his budget on Feb. 1st — remains inexplicably exempt from the spending freeze.
“We live in a dangerous world,” Axelrod said in trying to justify the special exclusion for the defense budget. “What we can’t do at a time when we’re in two wars and we have a very determined enemy in Al Qaeda, we can’t stand down,” he added in an interview with Fox News. Yet, rather than carve out an exclusion to fund troops in the field, the administration opted for a more expansive exclusion. And while cuts might indeed be made to certain programs, the overall Pentagon budget will be allowed to increase without having to face the difficult tradeoffs that other departments will.
Asked whether politics played any part in the decision to carve out a special exclusion for national security-related budgets, Axelrod denied that it did. “There weren’t any meetings that I was in where that was talked about,” he told us.
As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb has argued, “If President Obama is serious about controlling spending, he can’t exempt the Pentagon.” And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) concurs, telling reporters yesterday that the entire defense budget “should not be exempted” from the freeze.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7072427/Watch-Tony-Blair-live-at-Iraq-war-inquiry.html
Blair live at the Iraq inquiry
January 29th, 2010 at 9:58 amOther than the fact that Obama lacks the fortitude to take on the Pentagon, I can’t figure out a reason either.
C’mon, Mr. President. You fought to eliminate the F-22 and saved the country billions. Surely there are other programs in the defense budget sinking our country further into debt.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:59 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Obama’s spending freeze is just politics. He is essentially trying to co-opt the idiotic Repug “spending freeze” rhetoric so they can’t use it as an excuse to vote against his priorities.
Of course, the Repugs will vote against EVERYTHING Obama proposes, so when they do, Obama will us it against them.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:04 amSpending to create jobs to create more and useless ways to blow people and buildings up is good for the economy. Spending to create jobs to create new and re-usable sources of energy or to improve infrastructure is bad for the ecomony – of the ruling class, that is…
R & D doesn’t stand for Research and Development – it stands for the brands owned by Corporations and marketed to the American people.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:05 amI asked the same thing on the White House’s official Twitter thread but, of curse, as usual, I was ignored. I also asked why that doesn’t include the outsourcing orgy at the Pentagon, State Dept., NASA or elsewhere.
Here’s the SOTU that We the People deserved. (Warning: Incredibly not work-safe.)
January 29th, 2010 at 10:05 amEnn@2, Agreed. The Top Brass at the Pentagon are his stumbling block. But Lord knows how Big Business relies on the War Machine.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:07 amThe based on lies invasion of Iraq has been such a success when it comes to burying this country with inconceivable debt that there’s just no reason to cut back on the flow of borrowed money now.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:09 amShark@1, Funny how MSM isn’t airing isn’t it? And I thought Blair was Bush’s beloved ‘Poodle’.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:09 amIt’s obvious why it doesn’t include defense spending. They’e scared of Republicans.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:15 amSince Axelrod is being dense…
Dammit, the President put the wars in the baseline. He can’t freeze the baseline, it’ll tie his hands.
If you want to President to go back on his promise to bring back “honesty to the budget process,” if you want to go back to funding the wars through supplementals and having those fights in Congress (which will once more distract Congress from our long-ignored domestic agenda), then by all means, fight for your precious little freeze on defense spending.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:16 amWell in a way i will give you this non slashing of the defense bugdget this year seeing we do have two wars and one going to be over by Aug. how every i will not let you get away with it next year as we will only have one war.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:16 amtheres lots of waste you can cut.
“We live in a dangerous world,” Axelrod said.
Brought to you by the C.I.A. When you need chaos, we make sure it’s available!
Also by, the Pentagon. Because there’s five sides to every lie!
And by Homeland Security. Only a huge sacred cash cow can keep you safe like Homeland Security!
January 29th, 2010 at 10:21 amElBruce, owned and operated by NewsCorp, Inc. says:
It’s obvious why it doesn’t include defense spending. They’e scared of Republicans.
Indeed. It’s a stupid question with an obvious answer. “He’s weak!” they’ll shriek. “He’s trying to do destroy America!”
The Defense budget is enormous for a reason: defense contractors in every state. Even the Democrats have their hands in that pocket. Eisenhower was right.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:25 am“It’s obvious why it doesn’t include defense spending. They’e scared of Republicans.”
Yup…the donkeys have no balls and the elephants have serious anger issues and a very selective memory.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:28 am“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”
President Eisenhower – Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961
January 29th, 2010 at 10:28 amgummitch — this space for rent says:
The Defense budget is enormous for a reason: defense contractors in every state. Even the Democrats have their hands in that pocket. Eisenhower was right.
and one of the worst parts is that they are some of our most higher paying jobs as well, so cut the budget hurts the economic,
can not tell me that this was not though out long ago buy the war industry.
well in this year of not cutting the budget they (administration) should be using this time to fine wasteful projects and such to be vetoed or axed. IMO
January 29th, 2010 at 10:32 amA Patriot Acting-would like to welcome his new Corporate Overlords says:
President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Pt. 1
President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Pt. 2
January 29th, 2010 at 10:32 amToday’s Republic threat level = Red
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
January 29th, 2010 at 10:38 amWell maybe we need the defense industry pay our troops some money from there profits.
person making the M-4 rifle gets around 20 a hour
soldier caring the M-4 into harms way makes about .78 cents a hour
just dont seem right to me!!!!
January 29th, 2010 at 10:39 amAs much as I know the Pentagon acts like a rich kid on an unlimited allowance from Daddy.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:39 amAs much as I want defense spending scrutinized and cut;
As much as I want our troops to come home this year from Iraq and Afghanistan, I can see it now.
Headlines:
Democrats Endanger America and Cut Defense Spending.
Obama Ignores Security of Americans.
Democrats are Soft on Terror.
Osama Bin Laden Gets Gift from Democrats.
A Pat@16, LOL! Damn, I have been trying to come up with ‘Military Industrial Complex’ for awhile. I just didn’t know how it was phrased.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:41 amuupinko opines: Obama must think the SHeeple are really that STUPID.
It’s hard to say exactly what Obama is thinking, but it’s obvious that the Repugs think the people are that stupid. Else how could anyone explain why the GOP thinks the people will vote for them back into power after they
a) caused the current economic crisis,
b) voted against EVERY proposal to fix the problem THEY caused, and
c) promise to go right back to the same policies that caused the economic crisis in the first place.
Only an idiot would vote for that. Therefore, the GOP thinks the people ARE idiots. God help us if they’re right.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:46 amShould defense spending be cut – and it certainly should be - the dems would face an unprecedented headwind from repugs, from the media, and from the corporate whiners who make their obscene profits on war and killing — jobs will be threatened and the market will sink, and the dems we have in congress today will fall like a line of dominoes.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:47 amI don’t know the answer – I know that defense spending is helping to bankrupt us – but I question the wisdom of cutting the defense budget this year. I’d like to see it happen, but sadly, regrettably, not now.
Marie,
January 29th, 2010 at 10:47 amIf we were to actually even just regulate our military spending the Fox crowd would shit their pants in anger! And once they’ve exhausted that topic…Beck and his ilk will rant about where the money went without doing any research. Because helping your fellow un-American to get out of trouble is un-American to them….they’d rather just lie about it.
wow like 20 plus post and only a spammer, no trolls you though they be all giddy and pissing in there wheaties and all.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:47 amAs much as I hate to say it, the most likely reason why Obama hasn’t included the military in the spending freeze is purely political. He knows he’s in a rather delicate position right now, because his first year as president has in many respects failed to be to what most people hoped it would (even though it was only partly his fault). Like it or not, if Obama had included the military in the spending freeze, his opponents would be coming out in force accusing him of “not supporting the troops” which is still a resonant meme in this country. Yes, yes…I know as well as anyone how hypocritical it would be for the GOP to use this meme given the way in which George W. Bush often chose to treat the troops (with budget cuts to the VA and so forth) — but we all know they won’t hesitate to use it in their efforts to foment further opposition to Obama’s proposals and perhaps the Democratic Party generally.
It’s also possible that Obama still hasn’t quite learned his lesson and is still — although heaven knows why — making an effort to reach across the aisle in the hopes of convincing Republicans to cooperate with him, since the Republicans tend to favor defense (perhaps more so than ever before, due to the heavy neoconservative faction within the party). There’s no question that the man is extremely intelligent, but even very intelligent people can have their blind spots.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:52 amI think a 50% reduction in DOD would be an excellent start.
We simply can’t afford to be warlords to the world anymore.
Our best defense is a strong economy and strong moral leadership.
Anything less is a waste of money – why have the world’s largest military backing up a crappy economy and immoral leadership???
January 29th, 2010 at 10:55 amThe United States has a permanent war economy supported by defense spending. It is right-wing corporate welfare. Just about the only thing that the rest of the world wants form the US is Avatar and weaponry. It’s the US military/CIA’s job to kick the bee’s nests enough to ensure customers for US military output.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:56 amWell said.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:00 amThat is not the way that centrists roll.
Other answer: starts with a “C” ends an “e” and has “owardic” in the middle.
The DoD budget is massively bloated and corrupted – a welfare system for the MI complex. Rational discussion is not possible on this subject so long as the Dems refuse to shift it from the right wing’s framework.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:01 amO/T, but hilarious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/bush-clinton-have-a-littl_n_440433.html
Only 2 minutes long.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:25 amThere has been little seen of Dumbya since the initial announcement in Haiti.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:35 amThere must still be a lot of brush to cut in Crawford.
LOL
January 29th, 2010 at 11:40 amscottsdalian
I don’t agree with Krugman that this peacock strut will hurt Obama. Look how Krugman and the left reacted when it was announced? Then some of you said it was the same as McCain’s proposal during the campaign. So thanks to your overreaction, Americans who are not paying very much attention think he is actually making major cuts. Your reaction made him look like a deficit hawk.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:43 amThe defense spigot will never be turned off. It just keeps going up and up. Who the hell are Americans so deathly afraid of? This runaway militarism will be the downfall of our country. Defense is a holy cow, untouchable. Pathetic really watching these right wing morons caw about health care but never, i mean never, consider defense spending bleeding us dry.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:44 amBluestocking says:
As much as I hate to say it, the most likely reason why Obama hasn’t included the military in the spending freeze is purely political.
That is partially true. What most people are forgetting is that we have expended a lot of resources in the two wars and it is going to be very costly to replace those resources. That does not mean there is no room to cut waste in the DOD. Obama and Gates need to closely examine the use of private contractors who are costing a lot of money when people in the military could replace those contractors. The GAO is already finding billions of dollars in fraud by those contractors which the government will recoup. Still, it does change the fact that our military resources have been drawn down and need to be replaced.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:48 am“We need to make this truck with a load of elephants in it lighter!”
“Hmm… take that book out of the glove compartment.”
“It’s still too heavy!”
“Hmm… take the knob off the gear shift.”
“It’s still too heavy!”
“Hmm… take the beaded seat cover off.”
“It’s still too heavy!”
“Hmm… empty some water from the windshield washer reservoir.”
“*sigh*”
January 29th, 2010 at 11:56 amAnyone who has been in the service or worked in defense knows that it is the BIGGEST OLD BOY NETWORK in the world…
…and that is why it will never change…
…they protect each others interests, projects and contracts…
…it is probably the most corrupt also.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:39 pmPaul, “the banks are gonna fail and the economy is doomed”, Krugman speaks again.
Can’t think of much he has been right about. Hard to believe someone who can be so wrong about so many things can win a nobel prize.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pmContort yourself as you might like Mr. President trying to please everyone, but back-bending like you’re doing is only good for sucking someone ELSE’S dick.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:10 pmSee even when the President mentions bs repug policies they refuse to side with the President. repugs will seat on their hands, snicker, mouth off, disrespect and obstruct the President.
President Obama will do what the people want, not what the repugs want.
btw dnfp, go suck a big fat, scabby, purple dic, you f0ucking clown.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:49 pmIntellectual consistency forces us to acknowledge that exemption from a spending freeze is not the same thing as immunity from cuts for waste, fraud and abuse. Indeed, being a part of the budget that is subject to the freeze does not mean that no individual program can be increased. They can as long as cuts are made elsewhere to keep the overall level of spending frozen.
It is also instructive to note that the spending subject to the freeze is only seventeen percent of the budget. Keep that in mind. The preponderant bulk of the federal budget is in military spending, Social Security and interest on the national debt. Those are the largest three areas of spending.
There are a few other entitlement programs that are exempt from the spending freeze, notably Medicare and Medicaid, which will continue to grow unless some form of the health care reform legislation is passed to rein it in.
The best way to trim our military spending, is to stop subsidizing the defense needs of so much of the rest of the world. Regarding western Europe, it’s not 1946 any more. Regarding eastern Asia, it’s not 1953 any more, and regarding NATO, it is, in the main, cover for our own military adventurism that doesn’t really help. Look to Afghanistan for confirmation of that statement.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:49 pmeyesopen says:
Intellectual consistency forces us to acknowledge that exemption from a spending freeze is not the same thing as immunity from cuts for waste, fraud and abuse. Indeed, being a part of the budget that is subject to the freeze does not mean that no individual program can be increased. They can as long as cuts are made elsewhere to keep the overall level of spending frozen.
That is correct. There is a lot of fraud in all areas of the federal budget and the worst is in the DOD because of the significant number of private contractors. Obama and the Dems can turn loose a group of special auditors whose sole job is to weed out waste and fraud. They can be a subdivision of the GAO. That would go a long way in the election campaigns to show the Dems are serious about reducing the deficit. Reforming the command structure and the contractors as they relate to the DOD, would free up money that is wasted and can be put into programs that need the money. This allows the DOD to effectively use the money that is appropriated.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:01 pmCut the US Dept of Offense and Imperial Aggression (”defense”) in half. This would save several hundred billion dollars per year, and would free up money for real human needs in this country. Just say no to our endless imperial corporate occupations of Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:08 pmObama’s Spending Freeze …
As phony as a $3.00 bill.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:35 pmWhat is the difference between Hitler during WWII and George W. Bush during the decade from hell?
And when are we going to stop murdering defenseless men, women, and children in the Middle East for Israel and Exxon?
January 30th, 2010 at 12:44 am