Obama’s Team Stages Insane Looking Cabinet Meeting: Arms Them With Squirt Guns To Put Out Forest Fire in Economy, Fed Spending

Obama Already Signed Into Law $8 Billion In “Doughnut Hole” Earmarks; Today “Challenges Cabinet” To Save $100 Million

The president said today in a cabinet meeting that he worries about “a confidence gap” with the public.

But his budget actions so far, including the cabinet publicity stunt today, looked more like insanity.

Last March 12, 2009, while up a tree trying to explain $8 Billion in earmarks in the budget President Barack Obama had just signed into law while hidden from cameras, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said, “I am tired of talking about doughnut holes.”  With that reference to $8 Billion as “doughnut holes,” Obey fled from the media still trying to ask him questions.

Today the President of the United States hosted his first cabinet meeting since he became president last January, which shows how important he thinks the cabinet is. 

Then he proudly announced that he was “challenging the cabinet” to find $100 million in savings from their share of the federal budget.

After he allowed the congress to blow $8 billion in earmarks — earmarks he said during his campaign for the White House he’d eliminate — the president gave his cabinet trying to fight an economic fire the size of hell a squirt gun — then wondered about the public’s “confidence gap.”

It’s a reality gap Mister President, or maybe an insanity gap.

Alice in Wonderland?  Is he on drugs?  Does he think we aren’t watching?

Obama’s Publicity Stunt Today: At First Cabinet Meeting Announced 1/35,000 Spending Cut!


I’m starting to wonder who is dreming up the Obama photo ops, stagecraft and publicity stunts….

At the White House “$100 milion is a big deal” event today the president went out of his way to say that Joe Biden is watching the spending….

Biden’s Best Political Blunders (So Far)

The fact that American “lawmakers” are busy passing bills that they haven’t read seems to go hand in glove with a White House that hasn’t thought through the implications of many things.  The Obama Bow to the Saudi King smacks of obeisance; defined as “bending the head or body or knee as a sign of reverence or submission or shame;” or “the act of obeying; dutiful or submissive behavior with respect to another person.”

The Brit Prime Minister got movies on CD from the President of the United States: not a very symbolic gift.  One was “Star Wars.”  And nobody in the White House even checked to see if these CDs can be watched in the UK (they use different digital formatting: the CDs given by Obama are “blank” on UK machines).

Don’t forget, many Presidents of the United States do their work in the Oval Office on the “Resolute Desk” which is made from the timbers of a Royal Navy Warship.  That’s symbolism.

JFK among otheres used the “Resolute Desk” — a gift from the UK.  Obama returned one gift from the UK: A Statue of Sir Winston Churchill.

The president gave the Queen of England an IPod — made in China.

The Secretary of State in this Obama Administration gave her Russian counterpart a giant red button which was supposed to be marked “reset.”  But the word was not spelled correctly or was just flat out the wrong word.  Besides:  to most Russians a giant red button is for launching nuclear weapons…..

So what are we resetting to with Russia?  Ask Joe Biden: it was his idea apparently to make the ‘reset” button.  Joe “Advisor to Many Presidents” Biden should have asked the staff to discuss with him how Vladimir Putin might reset — back to his KGB roots?

Was it Joe Biden, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton that thought it was a good idea to encourage Russia to just hit the “reset” button?  Well, whoever…..

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button marked "reset" in English and "overload" in Russian.

Barack, Hillary: Moronic “Reset” Idea for Relations With Russia

Let’s Talk: Pirate Episode Hurt Obama’s Negotiating Cred

 Obama Loses Photo Op War To Chavez (and the Saudi King, and….): Call Oprah!


President Barack Obama, flanked by Secretary of State Hillary ... 
President Barack Obama, flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Roberts Gates talks to reporters at the conclusion of his Cabinet meeting, Monday, April 20, 2009, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington.(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Andrew Taylor and Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writers

Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you’ve just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital’s attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

–Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.

–4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.

–Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.

–7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.

–1/10,000th of the government’s operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.


“He will challenge his Cabinet to cut a collective $100 million in the next 90 days,” said a White House news release. “Agencies will be required to report back with their savings at the end of 90 days.”

“I’m asking for all of them to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets,” Obama told reporters afterward. “None of these things alone are going to make a difference, but cumulatively, they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone.”


Obama’s marching orders to the Cabinet on Monday were less than meets the eye. Many of the savings he asked them to achieve are already under way and are included in the calculation.

To be sure, this is an extra effort, on top of an agency-by-agency review of programs and proposed multibillion-dollar cuts in weapons programs. But it is decidedly marginal.

“It’s always a good sign when the president is talking about savings,” said Marc Goldwein, policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates fiscal discipline.

“It’s valuable as a symbol,” he said, “but $100 million is just not going to cut it.”

Republicans were quick to point out that borrowing costs for February’s stimulus package will on average cost almost $100 million a day over the next decade.

In large measure, the examples of economizing given by the White House were of the painless, seemingly commonsensical variety. They were not the program cuts that people feel and that budget-watchers say are essential to make a meaningful difference in the exploding deficit.

Some of them will take many years to play out.

The Agriculture Department, for one, will move 1,500 employees from seven leased locations into one place in early 2011, saving $62 million over 15 years.

Some are hard to quantify.

Will buying multipurpose office equipment, such as a combined copier, printer, fax and scanner all in a single unit instead of separate units, really save the Homeland Security Department $2 million a year over five years?

Some are microscopic. The White House estimates savings of tens of thousands of dollars from freeing up warehouse space stashed with obsolete equipment that had been used by a federal entity few people have heard of, the Bureau of Information Resource Management.

And some raise eyebrows at wasteful practices of the former administration.

The White House says Homeland Security, the third largest federal department, has not been buying most of its $100 million a year in office supplies in bulk.

The administration thinks it can save $52 million over five years with bulk-buying bargains at the department.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: