White House to release midsession budget review this week

posted at 4:05 pm on August 31, 2011 by Tina Korbe

By law, every year by the middle of the year, the administration has to provide an update of the president’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. This midsession review — technically due July 16, by the way — gives the president the chance to reexamine and revise his budget one last time before Congress finalizes appropriations.

Ordinarily, the release of the review is a ho-hum affair, confirming that the president stands by the budget he submitted in the spring or indicating slight changes to the president’s plan. But, this year, at least three important budget-related developments have occurred since February, when the president released his original (failed) budget (a 97-to-nothing defeat in the Senate!).

In the first place, the president released a different “budget framework” in April (i.e. he made a speech), in which he called for $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Secondly, Congress imposed spending caps as a part of the debt ceiling deal — caps that were not a part of the president’s original proposed budget. And finally, the president has repeatedly called for increased infrastructure spending.

The administration has obviously already missed the July 16 deadline, but the White House has said the midsession review will come out sometime this week (likely as near to Labor Day as possible, to ensure it slides under the radar). How will the president reconcile all of his mixed messages into one coherent vision for the federal budget? The release of the review will be an important indicator of whether the president’s April “budget framework” speech was sincere — or just empty rhetoric.

What to look for and what it will mean:

  • How many revisions does it contain? Few revisions will signal that the president stands by his original failed budget — a budget that blatantly increased the debt and deficit.
  • Does it put forward a plan that Congress can actually act on? If it reiterates the president’s call for $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, but doesn’t specify a way to get there, it’s a repeat of the president’s game plan thus far, which has been, “Talk tough, but provide no real leadership.” Keep in mind that the Budget Control Act (i.e. the debt ceiling deal) provides for just $2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years (and that includes the still-ahead work of the Super Committee). If the president is serious about his $4 trillion figure, his review should reflect his ideas for an additional $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
  • Does it offset the increases in spending that the Democrat base has been clamoring for and that the president looks prepared to propose as a part of his jobs plan? The president can’t have it both ways — purporting to cut the deficit with his proposed budget while simultaneously proposing to increase spending to create jobs. His cuts will have to be even deeper than an additional $2 trillion if he wants to increase infrastructure spending, extend the payroll tax cut, etc.

Obviously, it’s wishful thinking to suggest the president might actually put forward a concrete plan for additional deficit reduction in this midyear review. It seems safe to say the president’s April budget speech was empty rhetoric, aimed to pacify cut-craving Republicans in advance of the debt ceiling debate. But it’s more important now than ever, as Congress enters the appropriations season, to remind GOP leadership that the president himself once called for $4 trillion in deficit reduction — twice as much as was achieved with the debt ceiling deal — because some rumblings suggest top Republicans are budget-weary and unwilling to fight for deeper cuts during the upcoming funding round.

And with the president pushing for increased spending, it’s important for deficit-conscious voters to remind the president, too, that we haven’t forgotten the less-than-satisfactory deficit-reduction deal and we won’t appreciate it if he turns around and immediately spends the slight gains we made. What was it all the leaders on Capitol Hill said the day after the deal passed? It was an important first step — but by no means the end of the push to reduce the deficit.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2