Palin and admin wrangle over budget (Again, she's on the same level as the potus)

The Politico ^ | February 14, 2011 | Ben Smith

[2ndDivisionVet]

A Democratic official points out that Sarah Palin's latest attack on the Obama administration's budget cuts is not quite accurate.

On Twitter, Palin writes "Here's how minuscule the White House's $775 million a year cuts are: less than 1/10 of 1% of this year's budget deficit," responding to an op-ed by Obama budget director Jacob Lew...

[Louis Foxwell]

So what we know in fact is that Obama is proposing 775 million in real cuts to programs that should be slashed 100%. We know nothing more than that. We are told that they looked beyone the obvious. What is the obvious? Sounds like their proposals are extremely obvious and ought to have been at the top of the list. Instead they are touting these paltry cuts as though they are significant. They are not significant and they do represent the only real cuts we know about in this budget. All the rest is folderol.

[free me]

She never said it was the “total of all cuts”.

Nice how an “anonymous democrat strategist” says Palin was wrong and you immediately jump on their bandwagon, just as politico did.

Of course we expect that from Politico, now I guess we can expect it from a certain cadre of Freepers.

[rob777]

This is the exact quote from her Facebook page:

"If you want to know how minuscule their proposed $775 million-a-year budget “cuts” really are, please look at this chart."

i did not get the impression she was wrong from an “anonymous democrat strategist”, or from Politico, but from her own Facebook page. She most certainly is implying that the $775 Million figure represents the proposed "cuts" for a year.

She goes on to argue that:

"The proposed cuts are so insignificant – less than 1/10 of 1% of this year’s $1.65 trillion budget deficit – that they are essentially invisible on the pie chart. That speaks volumes about today’s budget."

She is using the $775 Million figure the suggest the magnitude of the proposed cuts in relationship to the total budget. Nowhere does she indicate that this number is merely a sum of three cuts mentioned in a New York Times article and does not come from the actual budget proposal. This is clearly an example of failure to do her homework.

[9YearLurker]

Here is her full post, including her correction. Clearly she originally implied that $775M was the totality of the cuts in the budget that Obama proposed today. She’s my candidate for president, but she needs to be more careful and should have a more fully vetting PR staff by now. Also,I posted my concern over the post earlier, on another thread, before the press pointed out the discrepancy:

The Truth Behind the White House’s Budget Spin
by Sarah Palin on Monday, February 14, 2011 at 12:12pm
Today the White House finally produced its proposal for the 2012 budget. Beware of the left’s attempt to sell this as “getting tough on the deficit,” because as an analysis from Americans for Tax Reform shows, the White House’s plans are more about raising taxes and growing more government than reducing budget shortfalls.

The fine print reveals a White House proposal to increase taxes by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade. If you want to know how minuscule their proposed $775 million-a-year budget “cuts” really are, please look at this chart. The proposed cuts are so insignificant – less than 1/10 of 1% of this year’s $1.65 trillion budget deficit – that they are essentially invisible on the pie chart. That speaks volumes about today’s budget.

- Sarah Palin

UPDATE: As J.D. Foster of the Heritage Foundation points out: “...the President proposes a budget that keeps the federal government on a thoroughly irresponsible and unsustainable course.” Please read the Heritage Foundation article and understand the $775 million in proposed cuts noted above are what the White House’s budget director Jacob Lew identified as reflecting what they perceive as some “tough calls.” Yet, as noted, they are a drop in the bucket; and the White House’s total proposed cuts for this year are still not at all enough to make us solvent.

[free me]

Thanks, I read her post. She in no way says or implies that 775 million is the totality of the proposed “cuts”.

[rob777]

"Here is her full post, including her correction."


It is good that she made that correction, but the horse is already out of the barn. The left is using this gaffe as an excuse to change the subject on a matter that Obama is weak on. The current battle over the budget is more important than the horse race for the nomination. We can argue the pros and cons of each candidate at a later date. Right now we need to focus on winning this argument and such gaffes do not help us.




"She’s my candidate for president, but she needs to be more careful and should have a more fully vetting PR staff by now."


She needs a research staff that will take the time to get the facts straight before putting something out there. Jumping into such an important debate without doing the proper homework is going to kill the cause.

[Leader_Of_The _Conservatives]

I read this whole issue and you are getting something different than everyone else- either makes you smart or nuts. I agree with most here and I state Palin was correct in the issue if you truly look at it objectively. I know I am not nuts so...

[dforest]

You see, the person who posted this was correct. Her response does put her on the same level as Obama. LOL

[Cen-Tejas]

Bray............I think you miss most freepers point, it’s all about “TRUST”. Sarah is the ONLY conservative in the race we “TRUST” to not play chameleon 30 minutes after being sworn in! Therefore,whether she got 775 million right or wrong tonight most of us don’t give a d___ about because we know she get’s the big pictures like the 2nd Ammendment and Balanced Budget and lower taxes and not bowing to foreign dictators, just to name a few. Thanks.

[FreeReign]

If Lew has real additional spending cuts above and beyond 775 million why doesn’t he give us the total of these “real” spending cuts???

That is not the point. The point is that the number 775 million is not a solid number representing to total proposed cuts.

Not a solid number? The sum of $775 million is the only evidence Obama budget director Jacob Lew provided in his NY Times Op-Ed piece.

If $775 million isn't a solid number, then the fault lies with Obama budget direct Jacob Lew who for some unknown reason wasn't able to give us a "solid figure", on what should be the most important piece of information in his Op-Ed.

You don't think there is something wrong about that?

[FreeReign]

So what we know in fact is that Obama is proposing 775 million in real cuts... They are not significant and they do represent the only real cuts we know about in this budget. All the rest is folderol.

Exactly.

[FreeReign]

Lew:These three examples alone, of course, represent only a small fraction of the scores of cuts the president had to choose.

Gee, "scores" of cuts.

I believe word "score" can mean a quantity of 20.

Which would mean that more than one score, or "scores" is equal to 40.

And the three cuts that Lew mentions is indeed a small fraction out of 40, in quantity and NOT in dollar value.

Folks, all we know is that Obama is offering 775 million in cuts, with the total value of the remaining 37 or more cuts, for some unknown and mysterous reason, not mentioned by Lew.

Seems reasonable to me, and I would be most, that one should only address what has been documented.

[jla]

You two are correct. Mrs Palin screwed up. I say "Mrs Palin" because it is her Facebook post; she owns it.
Any honest person reading it comes away with the impression that 775m is the sum of all cuts offered by the Obama admin., rather than the sum of some "tough calls", or rather, an encamped sum.

Would have been better if she had just come right back and said, 'Sorry, previous post incorrect, here are the facts...'.

Hey, she's human. She'll learn from this and grow even stronger. It is hardly anything to get excited about. Not like she's the first to ever rush and misstate the facts. (Obama does it ALL THE TIME, and purposely!)

[rob777]

"Obama does it ALL THE TIME, and purposely!"


True, but the media gives him a pass when he does. Our side does not have the luxury of a compliant media watching our backs.

[jla]

True. But I remain convinced this incident is nothing at all that will hurt. Her premise was dead on the money, that the Obama budget cuts were woefully inadequate and minuscule compared to the deficit.

As for the unfriendly, oft savage, way the media treats her, we had this same problem with Reagan. And the Left made a good argument, i.e., if they had such a bad influence on the electorate how did RR win two landslide elections?
It will be very interesting to see what path she takes if indeed she does run. To be honest, in the not too distant past, I had doubts if she could beat Obama. But she always comes back, reasserts herself, and wins me over even more than she had previously had.

I find Bachmann's maneuvering also interesting. I do not believe both ladies would run, and I do believe both ladies communicate oft.

Then again, I could be wrong.

[rob777]

"I find Bachmann's maneuvering also interesting."


Bachmann appears to be more skillful in handling the inevitable media assault without needlessly providing them with yet more ammunition. Very few have Reagan's ability to turn than assault around and have it work in their favor.