As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama: I’m involved in the Budget. No, Really.

President Obama today called both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner to discuss the budget negotiations, the White House MADE SURE to announce today.

The President made clear that we all understand the need to cut spending, and highlighted the progress that has been made to agree to all work off the same number – $73 billion in spending cuts in this year alone.

He also made clear that we continue to oppose efforts to use this process to further an ideological agenda on issues that have nothing at all to do with reducing spending or reducing the deficit.

The President highlighted the progress that has been made but made clear that this process is running short on time, and he urged both sides to reach a final solution and avoid a government shutdown that would be harmful to our economic recovery.

Two messages here:

For the public: Contrary to what you hear, I’m deeply involved, working even on a Saturday!

For Boehner: I know $73 billion isn’t satisfactory to your conservatives, but you better keep them in line or I might just shut down the government, and you know how that worked out for you guys last time.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Obama: I’m involved in the Budget. No, Really.

  1. Things are different this time. The Dems will take the heat for not agreeing to the spending cuts.
    The Dems still don’t understand the message of Nov2010 that the voters sent to Washington; no more spending, no mas, nada, nil, nyet, and forget it.

  2. This is the first time in my life that I have seen a “President” plan his agenda on political polls and newspaper editorials. (this is my 13th by the way). This one is truly the worst and I know that Carter is thankful.

    • Wondered the same thing myself. From what I recall, only $10 billion in cuts have been passed so far. My guess is the WH embellishes their figures to meet their needs. After all, who is going to ask them to explain their estimates? Certainly not the compliant press.

  3. I know this is not the place–but out here in the Enlightened State of AZ, they are now trying to charge people if they won’t diet.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/us/02arizona.html?_r=1&ref=health
    Do they have to pay if they need a hip replacement brought on by all that running?

    Read the NYT Well blog sometime to gauge the hatred of overweight people… So now we have Dem vs Rep, fat vs thin, rich vs poor, Ivy vs bliue collar, black vs white, white vs Hispanic, black vs Hispanic, hawk vs dove, receive a govt check vs don’t, uion vs nonunion, on and on.

    • So true, Star.
      The establishment’s favorite whipping post; the stinky smoker and the obese are easy targets because their ‘sins’ are visible. Exclude them, fine them, ridicule and isolate them seems to be outside the lofty non-bullying theme of the enlightened.
      So, where is the outrage and sneering distain for the alcohol drinker who destroys their own brain cells and major organs and causes the deaths of thousands of innocent people by driving drunk. When it’s time to raise ‘sin’ taxes why isn’t the onus on alcohol, the destroyer of families, the cause of unintended death and mutilation of strangers and the reason for millions of arrests by the police? because the passers of laws drink alcohol.