Share

Obama Taps Spending Watchdog, Eyes Social Security

by: Jennifer Loven  |  The Associated Press

photo
Nancy Killefer has been appointed to be the first White House chief performance officer. (Photo: Reuters)

    Washington - Pointing with concern to "red ink as far as the eye can see," President-elect Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to tackle out-of-control Social Security and Medicare spending and named a special watchdog to clamp down on other federal programs - even as he campaigned anew to spend the largest pile of taxpayer money in history to revive the sinking economy.

    The steepness of the fiscal mountain he'll face beginning Jan. 20 was underscored by stunning new figures: an estimate that the federal budget deficit will reach $1.2 trillion this year, by far the biggest ever, even without the new stimulus spending.

    The incoming president has walked this same tightrope each day this week - advocating fiscal discipline and taxpayer largesse together at nearly every turn, though in every case with little detail to back it up. With less than two weeks to go before taking the helm at the White House, he'll make the same pitch on Thursday, delivering a speech laying out why he wants Congress to quickly pass his still-evolving economic plan.

    Last year's U.S. deficit set its own record, but that $455 billion will be dwarfed by this year's. The new estimate, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, represents more than 8 percent of the entire national economy.

    Still, Obama said "an economic situation that is dire" requires immediate and bold action with unprecedented tax cuts and federal programs. More bad news is expected Thursday and Friday on U.S. layoffs, and stocks plummeted anew on Wednesday, wiping out gains from the first week of the new year.

    Obama gave his first ballpark estimate of the total amount of the stimulus package expected to emerge from negotiations between his team and Capitol Hill, saying it is likely to hover around $775 billion over two years. That's about $400 billion less than outside economists have said might be needed to jolt the economy but at the top of the range that Obama aides and congressional leaders have discussed publicly.

    "We're going to have to jump-start this economy," Obama said. "That's going to cost some money."

    The president-elect said concerns about increasing the deficit to unmanageable levels swayed him against the higher figures advocated by some.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also pressed for passage of a recovery bill, though the mid-February timeline she offered represented another slip in the date by which the package would be ready for Obama's signature. Initially, the goal was to have it finished by the time he takes office a week from next Tuesday.

    Obama's repeated emphasis amid the stimulus talk on a need for spending control is aimed in part at attracting more support from deficit hawks in Congress.

    He said Wednesday, without details, that his initial budget proposal next month will include "some very specific outlines" of how he plans to tackle spending. That extends to the ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem presented by the Social Security and Medicare programs, which Obama promised would be "a central part" of his deficit-reduction plan.

    The stimulus package is expected to easily pass Congress, now controlled by solid Democratic majorities in both houses. But since it is the first major legislative test of an administration that promised to usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation, and a measure of such enormous scope and import, Obama doesn't want to see it approved on a merely party-line vote.

    On Wednesday, he made good on a campaign promise and introduced his choice for a new White House post he is creating: chief performance officer. Nancy Killefer, a professional efficiency expert, is charged with scouring the federal budget to eliminate programs that don't work and improve those that do. Obama called her appointment "among the most important that I will make."

    "We committed to changing the way our government in Washington does business so that we're no longer squandering billions of tax dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of a lobbyist or an interest group,"

    Killefer, the director of a management consulting firm and a former assistant treasury secretary will be Obama's hatchet woman, with power to recommend directly to him the slashing of programs and projects government-wide. She'll help agencies set performance standards and hold managers accountable.

    But she also will run up against a long history of other chief executives' similar promises under different titles that have fallen short.

    She said the bureaucracy's entrenched problems have taken decades to develop and will take time to fix. But she said it would be different this time. "I have seen it done," Killefer said at Obama's side.

    Obama has to give Congress in early February a budget request - at least the bare bones of one - covering spending for the next fiscal year. Because that's so soon after he takes over the executive branch of government, his submission won't be anything like the usual one that fills several volumes and hundreds of pages.

    Pelosi, speaking before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, offered her own assurance that the stimulus plan would be responsible and that Democrats are committed to long-term fiscal discipline.

    Economist Martin Feldstein joined others talking to the congressional panel to endorse the need for a big short-term spending package. But he also warned against anything that could create a spending habit and swell the deficit even further. "There should be an exit strategy," he said.

    For all the talk of belt-tightening, minority Republican leaders sounded only cautiously optimistic.

    "We cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity when we're already running an annual deficit of more than one trillion dollars," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said. "I was pleased to hear the president-elect say yesterday that we need to stop just talking about our national debt and actively confront it."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The Baby Boom retirement is

The Baby Boom retirement is a temporary bulge in the Social Security system. Workers have been pre-paying for this bulge for the last 26 years, via an increase in payroll taxes instituted in 1983. Unfortunately, that money has been spent to fund wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. The real question should be who will repay the funds borrowed from Social Security. Charging the workers through higher Social Security taxes would be like forcing a lender to repay a loan and letting the borrower off the hook. The funds should be returned to the Trust Fund through a tax surcharge on those who did not pay the tax originally - investors and high income individuals.

None of this will do any

None of this will do any good unless Americans can get out of debt and pay off their credit cards. Then, there must be some balance between saving and responsible spending. Americans can no longer support the global economy by charging up purchases with the hopes that they will be able to refinance their homes to eradicate that debt. The bankruptcy laws must be amended to allow for American debtors to eliminate their credit card debt in a reasonable way. The credit card companies have made huge profits while charing usurious iterest rates under South Dakota law, which allows it. Congress must control these interest rates, which it can do under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Americans are totally stressed out, going into debt to pay for college tuition, medical insurance and bills, and other necessities. Unless this burden is lifted, Americans will simply stop shopping and no amout of stilulous will resurrect the economy.

Please, please, please, stop

Please, please, please, stop conflating SS and Medicare. SS, even taking into account the unconscionable raids on its fund by both parties over the years, is solid until about 2050. Medicare, on the other hand, largely due to medical costs increasing at three or more times the rate of inflation is in deep doo-doo tomorrow or the next day. The Rethuglicans have consistently conflated the two in order to fool us into thinking both are in immediate jeopardy, presumably so they can persuade us to privatize the last bits of the already shredded safety net for the not-rich so Wall Street will have even more money to play with. We spend about twice as much per capita on medical care as other "developed" nations. Since Medicare covers the less healthy older folks, it must cover even higher per capita costs. The increase in medical costs is largely due not to better patient care but to privatization and "consolidation" of hospitals, labs and diagnostics, Big Pharma's price gouging (and government's refusal to let Medicare do anything about it), and hugely wasteful and avaricious medical insurance providers (for the well only, whenever possible). Much of the huge increase in costs must be laid at the door of called-but-never-close-to-being-free market corporatist Rethug “initiatives” during their 30 year reign of terror. Now, the big O was elected largely because folks were sick of being mugged by the rich and righteous. But it bodes dire ill to have our hope—tenuous though it may have been—spat on by his, and presumably his watchdog’s—repetition of one of the biggest of the Rethug’s Big Lies.

I could not agree with the

I could not agree with the first poster more. Social Security is good until something like 2036 and I'd like to know which private or state pension fund is in better shape? According to the LA Times, most are in much much worse shape, in part because Congress has always given in to corporate requests that they be allowed to decrease their contributions (because the stock market returns were soooooo good and of course would just keep going up!) and because too many of them, even CALPERS, bought AAA mortgage backed securities that just happened to have some of those subprime mortgages. The trustees of the Social Security trust fund have never done that--they are forbidden to invest in anything but US Treasuries. That's the financial instrument that so many people have "fled to safety" by buying that the yield is pathetic. Mr. Bush's privatization scheme would've shifted money into the hands of those who have created this financial mess. Medicare is a different story entirely. If we had universal health care, we'd be less in a hole, because everyone would be insured by a single entity, thus the healthy as well as the ill or needing meds to stay well folks would be covered. The way things are now, the private isnurers skim off the "cream" and leave the costly people to be insured by no one or by the gov't. You insure everyone your per capital expenses go way down as do your overall costs in comparison to the inflow (in this case, it would be payment of premiums by taxes). Less paperwork duplication as well, less hassle for MDs as there'd only be one set of forms that had to be filled out, not as many as there are insurers/HMOs, etc. If Obama is truly saying all that crap, then I'd say I'm seeing fewer & fewer differences between his future administration & Bush's. And of course, if we left Iraq & Afghanistan now, and cut back our military/defense budget to what it was in the Clinton years, then we'd be able to afford Medicare for everyone. But it seems the military-defense complex is a sacred cow for Obama too. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The only change is that he can make good speeches.

Anonymous 15:55, you have

Anonymous 15:55, you have correctly put your finger on the Social Security shell game. Despite convoluted government accounting practices, the truth is that there is no surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. The surplus of collected payroll taxes every year since 1990 has been spent on other government programs. Oh, yes: the federal budget shows this money as borrowed -- owed to the Trust Fund by the US Treasury. But the plain fact of the matter is: when outlays for Social Security benefits begin to exceed current payroll tax revenues -- estimated at 2018 or thereabouts -- the excess will have to be made up from general revenues and the Trust Fund will become not the boon it is currently, to the tune of some $200 billion per year or so contributed to general government expenses, but an expense, growing each year as more baby boomers retire and the number of workers per retiree declines. That is the real cause for concern -- just eight or nine years hence, and not all at once, but inching toward zero each year before the excess in payroll tax revenues disappears. How will we pay for the excess of benefits over payroll taxes starting in 2018? Will there be a push to increase the payroll tax, which, as you point out, would be like forcing the lender to repay the loan -- albeit, a different set of lenders from a new working generation? Or will we recognize that the distinction between payroll taxes and income taxes is really non-existent, and the payroll tax has really been just a tricky way of socking lower income workers with higher taxes while we pretended to have a highly progressive federal tax system? Stay tuned on this one. Although, really, in relation to the trillion dollar annual deficits we are now contemplating, I suppose a couple hundred billion dollars a year seems paltry.

I have NEVER understood why

I have NEVER understood why people with huge amounts of assets and post-retirement incomes from those assets are still receiving social security and medicare benefits. A lot of us Baby Boomers who retire have worked very hard, made huge sacrifices to get a decent education for our children which is still free in Europe and are fiscally exhausted at a time when they ought to be financially stable, yet one of the first items being considered to cut is social security/medicare? WW HAVE paid our dues in a socially responsible manner and yet the military industrial complex is gobbling money like there is no tomorrow (for what?) and members of the Senate and Congress, no matter how long they served, receive their salaries and the best free medical care available in the United States. I WANT WHAT THEY GET - I PUT THEM THERE!!!!!!!!!!!(well not always for sure - my candidade lost). Does that make anyone wonder why Americans have become cynical about their government? Those funds paid into the Social Security system were supposed to STAY there and be invested wisely plus just TRY and find a Dr. who is willing to accept a person on Medicare............good luck!!!!!!!!!! Is that the "thanks" for a life of hard work and being a good tax-paying citizen versus a lying, stealing politician who spent his/her life fleecing the public????????? Somehow this just does not seem the right way to start off a new administration - at the WRONG END. If anything, reign in the Industrial Military Complex. After all, how many weapons do we need to destroy this world several times over????????????? And where do all the other nations get their weapons from? Take a GUESS. The USA is the largest weapons dealer in the world - lot's of money to be made and Eisenhower knew it.

Much needs to be done

Much needs to be done regarding reforming Medicare and the first step is for Congress to do away with "Medicare Advantage" programs. These were Bush's subtle way of privitizing the Medicare program, and ultimately destroying it. He failed to privitize Social Security; however, has gotten away with this emasculization of Medicare thus far. Of course the entire U.S. health system needs revised; hence, one must support HR 676, the bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers several years ago. Tho this has 90 sponsors it has been held up in committee by the Democratic House Leadership. See my recent essay on The RagBlog re health care and hypocracy.