In a post this morning on his Beat the Press blog, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) economist Dean Baker makes an interesting point when he laments the one-sided economic reporting on President Obama's recent request for quick action on several economic stimulus measures languishing in Congress. While the president's demand would add nearly $80 billion to budget deficits over the next decade, inaction on these aid measures will likely reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by $120 billion and eliminate 800,000 jobs.

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.

President Obama has proposed to Congress "a new, expedited tool to reduce unnecessary or wasteful spending," lining up on the side of so-called fiscal conservatives to enhance the Executive's ability to force Congress to vote on measures that cut federal spending.