Say WHAT?

What is wrong with this title:
Obama seeks $17 billion in U.S. budget savings (Reuters)

It is not "savings" any more than it is a "cut". What we are talking about here is a reduction in the increases. True "savings" and "cuts" would be below previous outlay levels, not below projected increased outlay levels.

(Example: If you are currently spending $100 on X but want to increase that to $125, have second thoughts, and "reduce" your new payout to a mere $120, it is NOT a 20% cut or savings.)

Even so, how is $17 billion such a big deal when the projected deficits from stimuli and budget proposals are in the neighborhood of $4 Trillion

And for a person who has just signed on to quadruple the deficit (from $1 Trillion to $4 Trillion) this is just jaw droppingly ironic:

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," Obama told reporters. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."

I only wish there was some real believe in that statement, but it is clearly all for show. (Then again, perhaps those tea parties are beginning to have some effect.)

The proposals to trim 121 programs identified by the White House as wasteful or unnecessary amounted to only a half of 1 percent of the $3.55 trillion budget that Obama has submitted for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Just "only a half of 1 percent", a dust mote in the sea of red ink.

Of the $17 billion in budget savings the White House identified, about half were in the defense budget.

Yet fully half of the "wasteful" spending is in the defense budget? Why am I not surprised that this is the focus of the "cuts" the Won has found necessary to make?

How much was that group ACORN supposed to be getting? $5 Billion? $6 Billion? Almost as much as the defense "cuts", no?

Related:

Obama touts $17 billion 'lot of money' budget cuts (Associated Press)

Obama budget to slash 'stunning' waste in US (AFP)