There's much to criticize in President Obama's plan to cut non-security discretionary spending by five percent (of FY 2011 levels): That by the administration's own estimate, unemployment will be more than eight percent; that discretionary spending funds many important programs like providing nutrition to vulnerable children, protecting the public from lead-tainted toys and e. coli-tainted spinach, and putting police officers on the street; that there's mountains of unnecessary spending on security programs; and that over $1 trillion in IRS-administered spending will remain under the budget radar.

As Congress gears up for its annual budget process, parochial-minded members are drawing their customary battle lines around administration-targeted programs. One of those is the C-17 transport plane, which the Pentagon has been trying to kill for several years because it deems the military to have ample airlift capacity. Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch highlighted a press conference held by four congressional Missourians who, claiming to know better than the Pentagon, declared that they were going to fight the plane's proposed cancellation.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which economist James Galbraith suggested in yesterday's Washington Post should be eliminated because its "projections are indefensible, internally inconsistent and economically impossible," released on Friday one of its more accurate pieces of work, the Monthly Budget Review (MBR) for April.

The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, released a new report yesterday examining the nation's budget outlook over, what TPC describes as, "10-year and long-term horizons." The paper, whose title recalls a famous Yogi Berra quote, examines these horizons under three sets of assumptions: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, an extended policy scenario, and the administration's FY 2011 budget proposal.