E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Athena Jones
In a bid to show voters his administration is concerned with reducing wasteful government spending, President Obama signed a bill aimed at cutting improper payments to individuals, organizations, and contractors.
The White House says payments made in the wrong amount, to the wrong person, or for the wrong reason totaled nearly $110 billion in 2009, the highest amount to date. The president noted that the $110 billion figure was more than the budgets of the Department of Education and the Small Business Administration combined, calling that "unacceptable."
The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) is aimed at cutting such payments by $50 billion between now at 2012, through increased recapture auditing and other payment monitoring.
"We have to challenge a status quo that accepts billions of dollars in waste as a cost of doing business and enables obsolete or under-performing programs to survive year after year simply because that's the way things have always been done," Obama said during brief remarks in the State Dining Room. "When we continue to spend as if deficits don't matter that means our kids and our grand kids may wind up saddled with debts that they'll never be able to repay."
Even as the slow pace of the economic recovery has raised concerns among businesses, investors and consumers, many in the halls of Congress and the White House have been engaged in a debate about whether more federal stimulus is needed or whether the government should instead focus on deficit reduction. The discussion has even gone global, with European governments -- notably the coalition government in the United Kingdom -- determined to slash spending and Obama arguing that too much focus on deficit reduction could hurt the global recovery.
The president has argued for more help for states facing budget shortfalls and to boost lending for small businesses, while also showing a commitment to getting the nation's fiscal house in order by establishing a bipartisan debt commission to look at ways to reduce the deficit and by calling for a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending. Obama said the freeze would reduce such spending to its lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 50 years -- or, as he put it, to the "lowest level since JFK."
In naming Jacob Lew as his choice to replace outgoing budget chief Peter Orszag -- who sat in the front row at today's event, the president made a point of noting that Lew was the only head of the Office of Management and Budget in history to have presided over a budget surplus for three consecutive years, a comment he repeated today.
Among examples of the kinds of payments the new law aims to stop are the $180 million in benefits paid out over the past three years to some 20,000 dead Americans and more than $230 million in benefits paid out in the same period to roughly 14,000 fugitive felons or people in jail who were not eligible for benefits.
Also on hand for the remarks where Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Tom Carper (D-DE), as well as Reps. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Dina Titus (D-NV).
Leave a Comment:
So what was Ms. Sherrod's salary at the Ag. Dept.? I've seen it listed as high as $300,000.
If accurate (and given that it's the feds I'm guessing it is) what is being done about that? Here in Ca., in a little place called Bell (LA area) the city manager makes nearly $1 mill a year.
What about all the waste in inflated government salaries? Let's start there, it'd be real easy.
Give me that chain saw. I'll cut some costs.
Didn't this time frame coincide greatly with the stimulus, at least for the second half of the year?
On the other hand, he says some good words about freezing non-defense discretionary spending. Just try getting anything meaningful on that front through this congress, though.
Richard-didn't the fuzzy math bother you?
Let's see-Obama admits that, since he took office in 2009, he had improperly paid out $110billion. His solution? By 2012, he will cut that amount to $50billion.
Who gets the extra $60billion? If not more.
Oh, yeah, that's our president-Mr. cool, calm, collected, competent. . .
in some other, alternate universe I don't happen to inhabit.
Yeah, the math is always fun. Actually he said he would cut it BY $50 billion by 2012, which is two years or $25 billion per year. That would also imply that the reduction is applicable to an annual baseline of $110 billion per year minus $25 billion, or the continuation of $85 billion in improper payments per year, average.
Actually since it would include 2010, it could mean that he could cut it BY $50 billion at a rate of $16.67 billion per year, leaving the baseline even higher.
Cutting it TO $50 billion is a different story.
You said something about "fuzzy" math?
Obama said during brief remarks in the State Dining Room. "When we continue to spend as if deficits don't matter that means our kids and our grand kids may wind up saddled with debts that they'll never be able to repay."
In this quote did obama become a conservative republican???
It was conservative Republican Ronald Reagan who said deficits don't matter. Obama knows that deficits DO matter. That is why he is pushing for this kind of legislation. It is called SENSIBLE deficit reduction.
Ron:
One does not have to be a conservative republican to believe that a huge deficit that our kids will have to pay for is not a good thing. Obama has known this all along even though being criticized by many on the right as being a big runaway spending socialist. The fact is Obama is more conservative or middle of the road on many issues than people may think. We hear mostly the criticism he gets from those on the right but there is a good number of people on the far left who are criticizing Obama for not being progressive enough. So you have folks on the right calling Obama a far left wing, socialist, commie and some on the far left calling Obama too conservative. Seems to me these folks can't have it both ways.
Why don't we start with the 10 billion we send to Israel every year...why do we do that? is it a blackmail check? they certainly are not an impoverished country!
What puzzles me is why you would need to pass an "act" to do something that already should have been done.
You would think so, but common sense isn't common. This is another one of those cans kicked forward for decades. No one wanted to wade into the weeds.
Speaking of "common sense" every Republican campaign ad I have heard around here (Missouri) as of late has had the phrase "common sense policies", but there is never any description of any of these "common sense policies" that according to these candidates is sure to right the ship for all of us, then comes the part about taking our country back followed by various rants about how evil Obama is, the ads this year are unbelievably ridiculous and empty.
Just watching CNN, I caught a segment about 3,200,000 Job opening's across America. Maybe these job's are'nt in your neighborhood, but their there. Some, looking for job's may consider moving, if your circumstances permit. We all know some can't, but that does'nt mean you can't commute back & forth to these job's.
Alotta folk's want that 9-5, where they can be with thier kid's, family,etc. However these days, some will havta take what's out there & if that mean's leaving the confines of your comfortable surroundings for the sake of saving what your family Enjoy's now, so be it.
Business is picking up folk's!
You Betcha!
Yes, it is. I've been seeing more and more job ads.
I am glad you noticed. Where I live we have had construction of new houses going on for a couple of years. As soon as a house is completed someone moves right into it. We see the signs everywhere announcing stimulus projects and people working on them. We have companies expanding. One who makes solar collectors will double in size to well over 500 people within a few months. Silicon Valley is booming again. Yes, the recovery isn't happening over night but it IS happening.
Since Jan of this year my company has hired 5 full time employees and are looking to add 2-3 more positions before the end of the year!
PS: Off topic but did anyone else see the clip of Prime Minister Cameron complimenting President Obama on the tidiness of Malia & Sasha's bedrooms?
If that doesn't make you smile...
Rickey that is positive news, but there is no good reason that good paying jobs are not available where people have already settled, greed is the only reason they are gone in my area, that coupled with tax policies that promotes and rewards outsourcing overseas. My point is why should someone be forced to move or forgo enjoying their family so some wealthy bastard can get wealthier? Why is it in this recovery have the wealthy been allowed to maintain their lifestyles at the expense of the less fortunate? Says a lot about what this country has became.
Oh, yay-employment is picking up!
Only in those non-existent congressional districts to which we, the taxpayers, donated so many 'stimulous' funds.
I'll be sure the DNC knows you got the talking points out, but I have to ask: does it never occur to you that spewing this nonsense goes even further toward convincing the electorate that you think that they are idiots?
Yes NJALLBLOW,all one has to do is read Anything You post, to know that YOU are an IDIOT !
But since you're so gr8 with the Crystal Ball, Magic 8 Ball & all other Magical notions, such as Obama will resign in Disgrace, we expect as much from You!
Here's an idea "no joe blow", we should greatly reduce taxes on the wealthy but keep spending like drunken sailors, put enough loopholes in our corporate tax code so as to allow them to pay absolutely no taxes, deregulate everything because everyone knows that all the banking/Wall Street types can be trusted to "do the right thing" without any supervision, start a couple of un-funded nation building efforts (we can keep them off the books) pass a trillion dollar un-funded prescription drug program, and for sure we need to pass legislation that promotes sending all the well paying middle class jobs out of the country, then just kick back and see what happens, how does that sound no joe?
Oh wait a minute, after doing some research it would seem this plan was already implemented by the Republican party several years back, sorry for my oversight. How did it work out for you guys blow joe? Maybe it will work better next time.
The Democrats can run on that this year. "Unemployment is 10%, but look at all the job ads!"
All for temporary government jobs probably.
We all work temporarily for the government each year to pay our taxes. Temporary jobs , 3.2 million of them, should increase demand for products and services.
I wonder what has taken so long. It would seem to me that if the Republicans were so bent on cutting, cutting, cutting more and more that this would have already been done years ago. Yes, Repubs. we were paying entitlements to people who didn't deserve them like dead people or prisoners who are housed, clothed and fed by us in another way. And to think we did it without hurting regular hard working people who are just trying to obey our laws and to support their families.
Adler-did you miss the sentence that stated that this was the 'highest amount to date'?
The Obama administration has raised this level of incompetence to an art form.
No worries, though-They improperly paid out 'historic unprecedented' amounts, but they will cut it in less than half-in two years or so.
When he gets around to it. After those who are the 'truly needy', despite being dead or in jail, get theirs.
Not to mention those who will continue to receive unwarranted taxpayer funds.
Wonder how he'll find a way to blame Bush for it?
You go Joe!! And who is the mindless twit that is signing the checks that are being issued to the wrong people, in the wrong amount, etc????????? Obama (or someone else) needs to find that idiot immediately and shoot him/her/them!!!!
This idea was originated on the REPUBLICAN web site that asks all Amercians for ideas to save money and then vote on them and was probably stolen by the DEMOCRATS... but lo and behold all the people on the podium today when the President signed it into law were DEMOCRATS. Is not there a penalty for thief in the US or was this a smple slide of hand by the DEMOCRATS? If the DEMOCRATS would allow more of these money saving REPUBLICAN ideas to be voted on, then we would begin to see how much money savings the Republicans could introduce into Congress when they take back power. Great idea that was 100% voted on by House and Senate, but let's be honest about where it came from!
I guess Susan Collins (R) ME does not count as a Republician?
Why is it whenever deficit reduction is mentioned the disclaimer "except defense spending" always is in there? When they say "defense spending" does that include the two nation building programs we have already wasted over a trillion on? It's ok to cut Social Security, Medicare, education, infrastructure, taxes on the wealthy anything "except defense spending", looks like a person needs to get into the defense business due to the apparent endless amount of money that can be spent on it, we will be spending hog wild on defense until there is nothing left to defend.
You'd think this would already be the standard operating procedure for government. But no, no it is not.
Next up on the bill signing docket, a bill that says everyone should be happy!
Because we've all been SNOOKERED for longer than we know.
These elected Democrats are truely at work. Leaders are elected to work on behalf of those who elected them and not just to go and sit down in Washington and read the polls while waiting for another election time to arrive. For so long, Republicans have been used to going to Washington only to spend most of their time reading the polls.
The Democrat leaders have to work round the clock as they are doing to ensure that they fixed the mess left behind by Republicans. It takes time to clear a mess and we Americans should give these leaders more time to enable them complete the process of fixing the mess by electing them in November.
I think there are indeed jobs available, but it's a mixed bag. Some employment sectors are growing, while others are still stagnant. For example, the institute where I teach is experiencing record levels of enrollment (of international students--I teach ESL to college-bound students); thus, we are desperately looking for qualified teachers. It's hard, though, to find people with the right mix of education (master's in linguistics) and experience. I would encourage those who find themselves unemployed and are able to possibly take on a loan--consider getting training or education in a field that has a shortage of workers. It seems we never have enough nurses, for instance. Perhaps they could finish that master's or associate's or teaching certification or whatever they've been putting off. Or maybe someone could take an entry-level job in a field that has always interested them. My husband is loathe to change jobs, but he hates his (in IT--he hates the uncertainty of losing his job as his organization may change the way they do tech support). He'd love to be a librarian or a teacher. We've been exploring ways that we could afford for him to take some classes. We are in our mid-forties, so it's a little scary to think of changing careers right now, but we may be working for another 20 years....that's too long to stay in a job that one hates or feels constantly stressed by.
More on topic--I hope that this initiative is successful in identifying and eliminating most if not all of the improper payments.
"When we continue to spend as if deficits don't matter that means our kids and our grand kids may wind up saddled with debts that they'll never be able to repay."
Although I'm all in favor of not paying out billions that shouldn't be paid, wouldn't it be better to not keep increasing the deficit? How about reducing spending...
Hows that big goverment thing working out,Barry. Think maybe a few community organizers and communist radicals running the big show might not be a good idea?like maybe cons could vote and get tarp money for a jail cell .opps I meant house?Or illegal aliens who make 14000 a year could get a $300,000 housing loan with no paper work,no ss# !gee I wonder where they are now?I guess that Harvard Law thing did'nt include commonsence! No wonder you hid your grades! According to NSNBC your IQ was 125 which would barely get you in to Officers Canidate School!I guess working at Baskin Robbins when you were a kid and giving other peoples money away and being a"AVERAGE Lawyer" and a lousy state sen. who voted present 90% of the time and being buds with Resko and the other Chi. Town Crooks is just not the same as being above your paygrade.Did'nt George tell you destroying country was going to be hard?Well enjoy your vacation!
Had it been that the previous generations decided not to borrow and spend in fear of leaving us their children and grand children (the present generation) with debts, we the children and grand children would not be having the kind of things that we have at present. They had to spend heavily on research and development projects, construction of roads, railway lines, schools, hospitals, education, economic recovery, fighting wars, etc. Even though they left us with debts that we have always continued to pay, we were privileged to inherit all that they made available for us through spending.
The government has to spend because by spending, we are preparing the country for the future generation (the children and grand children) so that they may inherit from us better things and better standard of living than what we have at present. We have to borrow and spend so that we are able to continue making lots of things available for our children and grand children which they will not have to struggle to make themselves from the beginning.
This mess has been created in our generation and we are obliged to fix it without leaving it for our children and grand children. We may have to spend in order for us to fix it. If we do not spend now to save the economy for our children and grand children and just leave everything to collapse, what kind of America do we want these children and grand children to inherit.
What Republicans are saying is this; 'we Republicans created this huge mess, yes we did, but you know it will be very expensive for this mess to be fixed. It can never be fixed for free. Fixing it definitely requires borrowing and spending but if we leave our opponents (Democrats) to borrow and spend, they will succeed in fixing it and we do not want that to happen. We can not let them fix it because that will make people to like them and make it difficult for us to win again. Because spending is what will help fix the mess, we republicans must tell them to stop spending. So let us all shout together---stop spending, stop spending, because spending will make you fix the mess, stop spendiiiiiiing.'
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
Neal O - You are either a liar or seriously misinformed. Which is it?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/fdrs-voluntary-social-security/
Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong.