I'm sure you all already read all of the Congressional Budget Office's 2010 Budget Outlook since I blogged about it the other day, but in case you missed it, the outlook also included a special section on the Recovery Act. The main take away from this section is that the CBO predicts that the overall cost of the Act will be higher than initially estimated, thanks to a couple of factors.

With the recent passage of President Obama's first anniversary in office, journalists, bloggers, and commentators have been sizing up the administration's accomplishments and failures thus far. In that spirit, Fox News, in an article examining a contract recently awarded under the Obama administration, concluded that the president has failed to keep his campaign promise of ending no-bid "sweetheart deals" in government contracting. To say that this verdict – which manipulated OMB Watch data – is misleading and a bit premature is an understatement.

Following up on Craig's post earlier this evening, I wanted to point out some of the really good points that Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent and Matt Yglesias over at Think Progress have been making all day about President Obama's recently announced spending freeze. Ackerman asks why in the world defense spending should go unaffected and Yglesias adds that, while there are reasons to treat various kinds of spending and taxes differently, "the security / non-security distinction doesn’t hold up ... at all."

At a hearing before the House Budget Committee last week, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff and current President of the Center for American Progress John Podesta advocated for a long-term approach to reducing deficits and bringing back a balanced budget. For all the hyperventilating over the debt and deficits currently going on in Washington and around the country, Podesta's approach is the closest thing I've seen to a sane plan.