Thursday, February 28, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Come on, Sequester!
Plane traffic snarled! Beef uninspected! ATM machines spewing cash into the streets! Cats living with dogs! The hyperbole over the sequester is getting pretty intense. The sequester, of course, is a set of automatic federal spending cuts if Congress does not take proactive measures by tomorrow.
There is a part of me that would love to see the sequester kick in, and here is why: This is probably our best shot at getting some serious cuts to the defense budget (8%). I've expressed here before that any responsible cuts need to address both entitlements and defense, and I fear that defense will end up being exempted.
Where are the Razorites on this? Need we fear the sequester?
Comments:
<< Home
The Sequester is bad, but I agree, its going to force some hard choices. Obama's complete lack of leadership here continues to demonstrate his weakness as a leader.
He could have vetoed by original legislation calling for a sequester in the first place, but did not.
He wants more revenue, i.e. higher taxes, but refuses to talk about actual spending cuts.
Of course, the GOP has been just as bad in failing to be specific.
Short term, Congress looks bad, but long term, he will be remembered as the President who let this happen.
A deal will get cut... by the end of March when the pain actually starts to be felt.
He could have vetoed by original legislation calling for a sequester in the first place, but did not.
He wants more revenue, i.e. higher taxes, but refuses to talk about actual spending cuts.
Of course, the GOP has been just as bad in failing to be specific.
Short term, Congress looks bad, but long term, he will be remembered as the President who let this happen.
A deal will get cut... by the end of March when the pain actually starts to be felt.
To expand upon this,
the GOP did give ground and break principle with a $600 billion tax hike two months ago. What did it get in return? Nothing, so far.
Some commentatators say that it was the administration which proposed sequestration in the first place. Even if it did not, the President went along with the idea. Why is anyone surprised?
And, if the sequester does go through, it's not the worst deal for those who believe government is the caretaker of society, as it hits defense disproportionately, and leaves entitlements (the virtual entirety of the cause of our financial instability) untouched.
I have not independently verified, but I've read that with sequestration, we will still spend more in 2013 than we did in 2012.
It was a good bet by Democrats that the GOP would blink at the prospect of the damage the sequester will do to defense and agree to even more tax hikes-- but so far the Republicans are holding firm.
--Not that tax hikes are such a bad idea, but the point is, Obama is being unrealistic if he thinks he will get any.
For 2013, we are looking at a reduction in the growth of spending of about $45 billion out of $3,700 billion, or just over one percent of the whole entire percent
The GOP alternatives are admittedly weak, but they do include (unlike the Democratic Senate) a budget that at least tries to get to balance.
Time for Obama to act like the President and propose his own cuts.
The GOP will agree to closing loopholes, but tax hikes are just not going to happen at this point.
I would think that in the fifth year of his Presidency, Obama would get smarter about how politics works. Clinton and his people did. Reagan, despite Iran Contra and a Democratic Congress, got a lot done in his second term.
the GOP did give ground and break principle with a $600 billion tax hike two months ago. What did it get in return? Nothing, so far.
Some commentatators say that it was the administration which proposed sequestration in the first place. Even if it did not, the President went along with the idea. Why is anyone surprised?
And, if the sequester does go through, it's not the worst deal for those who believe government is the caretaker of society, as it hits defense disproportionately, and leaves entitlements (the virtual entirety of the cause of our financial instability) untouched.
I have not independently verified, but I've read that with sequestration, we will still spend more in 2013 than we did in 2012.
It was a good bet by Democrats that the GOP would blink at the prospect of the damage the sequester will do to defense and agree to even more tax hikes-- but so far the Republicans are holding firm.
--Not that tax hikes are such a bad idea, but the point is, Obama is being unrealistic if he thinks he will get any.
For 2013, we are looking at a reduction in the growth of spending of about $45 billion out of $3,700 billion, or just over one percent of the whole entire percent
The GOP alternatives are admittedly weak, but they do include (unlike the Democratic Senate) a budget that at least tries to get to balance.
Time for Obama to act like the President and propose his own cuts.
The GOP will agree to closing loopholes, but tax hikes are just not going to happen at this point.
I would think that in the fifth year of his Presidency, Obama would get smarter about how politics works. Clinton and his people did. Reagan, despite Iran Contra and a Democratic Congress, got a lot done in his second term.
President Obama's stance on the sequester reinforces the basic tenant of his second inaugural--he wants a legacy of ideology over pragmatism. The trick for him will be actually achieving any of his ideological goals--gun control, expanded entitlements, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc.--with a divided Congress.
If you believe Bob Woodward (who now claims to have been threatened by the White House), the President is "moving the goal posts" by demanding revenue alongside spending cuts. I can get behind closing corporate jet loopholes and Big Oil subsidies--one of Obama's favorite refrains--but those things do so little to reduce debt and deficits that it seems like a back burner issue.
The obvious, chronic problem is entitlements, followed distantly by a bloated defense "budget." It is obvious that serious entitlement reform (restructuring and cuts) and additional revenue are the only way to make a dent in the budgetary juggernaut. My generation is somewhat befuddled by the approach Washington is taking to the debt crisis--kicking the can--because it's hard to see entitlements like Medicare as anything but a bill we will have to pay...without receiving the benefits.
I'd like to see leadership from Obama and some courage, compromise and common sense from Congress. In lieu of that, let's have sequestration. If the threat isn't enough to force some action, maybe the follow through will. Still, I'm expecting another lame copout (like a continuing resolution). But hey, at least the next president will get to say, "this isn't my fault, I inherited this mess from my predecessor."
If you believe Bob Woodward (who now claims to have been threatened by the White House), the President is "moving the goal posts" by demanding revenue alongside spending cuts. I can get behind closing corporate jet loopholes and Big Oil subsidies--one of Obama's favorite refrains--but those things do so little to reduce debt and deficits that it seems like a back burner issue.
The obvious, chronic problem is entitlements, followed distantly by a bloated defense "budget." It is obvious that serious entitlement reform (restructuring and cuts) and additional revenue are the only way to make a dent in the budgetary juggernaut. My generation is somewhat befuddled by the approach Washington is taking to the debt crisis--kicking the can--because it's hard to see entitlements like Medicare as anything but a bill we will have to pay...without receiving the benefits.
I'd like to see leadership from Obama and some courage, compromise and common sense from Congress. In lieu of that, let's have sequestration. If the threat isn't enough to force some action, maybe the follow through will. Still, I'm expecting another lame copout (like a continuing resolution). But hey, at least the next president will get to say, "this isn't my fault, I inherited this mess from my predecessor."
HellifIknow Osler! But whatsay we all write limericks about it,to allieve all stress? In a few secs I gotta go coldcock that Mustang Boy for making a pass at Marta.
There once was a Man from Hawaii
With congress who wouldn't even tryii
He looked in their eyes,tried not to despise,
Those folks who would not compromise.
Love and Smoochies,Sally
There once was a Man from Hawaii
With congress who wouldn't even tryii
He looked in their eyes,tried not to despise,
Those folks who would not compromise.
Love and Smoochies,Sally
# posted by 
: 11:06 AM
: 11:06 AM
"Those folks who would not compromise"
The sequester came out of the debt ceiling negotiations. The "compromise" deal on the debt ceiling required cuts in the budget that were supposed to come from the so-called "super committee." That was the grand bargain Obama made with Republicans, "raise the debt ceiling and we'll cut the budget, just not now, and the way you know we will is that if we don't there will be automatic cuts...we'll call it...sequestration!"
The so-called "super committee" failed to do...anything. Which led to the so-called "fiscal cliff," which was narrowly averted when the Republicans agreed to tax increases, though we now call them "revenue measures." (see what Obama did there). But, the sequestration was delayed, but not abandoned.
Now, Obama says he wants more tax increases...my bad, "revenue measures"...to go along with budget cuts to avoid sequestration. And he says Republicans refuse to compromise with him on that issue. Seems to me we compromised on the debt ceiling and on the fiscal cliff and that is what got us here.
By the way, this isn't the first time. Democrats did the same thing to Reagan when he agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for budget cuts. Reagan did his part, the Democrats backed out.
At this point, what liberals mean by "compromise" is that the GOP should just let Obama continue mugging them every chance he gets, and they should like it. Screw that. I vote that we put forward a plan for budget cuts that will avoid the sequester. Obama can veto it if he wants. He can tell the American people that we need additonal "revenue" to get a deal. the GOP should then tell the American people that isn't the deal that Obama made, and the GOP is going to hold him to his word. Then shut down the government. And leave it shut down.
At this point, anybody that believes the GOP refuses to compromise with Obama is just a shill for Democrat talking points. GOP compromise with Obama is what got us here. The GOP should stop, should call him dishonest, and should stand their ground.
That is how you treat a bully.
The sequester came out of the debt ceiling negotiations. The "compromise" deal on the debt ceiling required cuts in the budget that were supposed to come from the so-called "super committee." That was the grand bargain Obama made with Republicans, "raise the debt ceiling and we'll cut the budget, just not now, and the way you know we will is that if we don't there will be automatic cuts...we'll call it...sequestration!"
The so-called "super committee" failed to do...anything. Which led to the so-called "fiscal cliff," which was narrowly averted when the Republicans agreed to tax increases, though we now call them "revenue measures." (see what Obama did there). But, the sequestration was delayed, but not abandoned.
Now, Obama says he wants more tax increases...my bad, "revenue measures"...to go along with budget cuts to avoid sequestration. And he says Republicans refuse to compromise with him on that issue. Seems to me we compromised on the debt ceiling and on the fiscal cliff and that is what got us here.
By the way, this isn't the first time. Democrats did the same thing to Reagan when he agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for budget cuts. Reagan did his part, the Democrats backed out.
At this point, what liberals mean by "compromise" is that the GOP should just let Obama continue mugging them every chance he gets, and they should like it. Screw that. I vote that we put forward a plan for budget cuts that will avoid the sequester. Obama can veto it if he wants. He can tell the American people that we need additonal "revenue" to get a deal. the GOP should then tell the American people that isn't the deal that Obama made, and the GOP is going to hold him to his word. Then shut down the government. And leave it shut down.
At this point, anybody that believes the GOP refuses to compromise with Obama is just a shill for Democrat talking points. GOP compromise with Obama is what got us here. The GOP should stop, should call him dishonest, and should stand their ground.
That is how you treat a bully.
# posted by : 12:26 PM
: 12:26 PM
IPLawguy; Here are some things we know.
1)Any spending cuts in government spending at this time of slow recovery and high unemployment will add to our long term debt. Spending cuts now are a supremely dumb idea, at a time when government stimulus is still needed to get us back on track to reducing our debt. The U.S. has the luxury to have our own healthy currency allowing us to treat short term debt as a friend and avoid austerity measures that have doomed others' recovery.
2)As of today no one of either party has recommended any specific cuts, with good reason. We are too lean right now in many critical areas. When polled, both Republicans and Democrats favor smaller government but reject cutting most programs.
3) Entitlements absolutely were not the cause of our financial instability. We know better. We do not have a Medicare or Medicaid problem, we have a health care problem. Social Security should not be part of this discussion as I am dependent on it.
4)We know that Michigan receives 50% of their revenues from the Federal Government. When we discuss the sequester cuts, the cities and the states will be hurt the most. They do not want Federal austerity at this time
5) Moving working Gov employees, in a job tight marketplace, into dependency is not smart policy.
6)Come on IPLaw, the GOP will not agree to tax reforms like closing loopholes ( increasing revenue and reducing debt ) without an equal amount of tax cuts (reducing revenue and increasing debt). This is their hard line. Our president knows that further knee jerk cuts to Government spending now will cause irreparable harm to our economy.
7)The GOP is not in the game . They handed their cards off to the Tea party and their financial backers in 2010. This may explain their ill timed and disastrous fixation on the short term debt.
8)The sequester is a political act. It was meant to provoke some positive direction going forward by being so inappropriate and distasteful that sane people would avoid it. It could be avoided by a one sentence statement passed by both houses revoking the act. That should be post haste.
9)America's economy is healthier than those countries who depended on short term debt reduction rather than government stimulus and has fallen behind countries who have continued stimulus packages.
If smalling our government, slowing our economy and driving our country deeper into debt is your goal, sequester is a good start. Then you might push for more cuts and lower taxes... or you could start thinking bigger. We need less talk about shared sacrifice and more talk about shared opportunities. Dad
1)Any spending cuts in government spending at this time of slow recovery and high unemployment will add to our long term debt. Spending cuts now are a supremely dumb idea, at a time when government stimulus is still needed to get us back on track to reducing our debt. The U.S. has the luxury to have our own healthy currency allowing us to treat short term debt as a friend and avoid austerity measures that have doomed others' recovery.
2)As of today no one of either party has recommended any specific cuts, with good reason. We are too lean right now in many critical areas. When polled, both Republicans and Democrats favor smaller government but reject cutting most programs.
3) Entitlements absolutely were not the cause of our financial instability. We know better. We do not have a Medicare or Medicaid problem, we have a health care problem. Social Security should not be part of this discussion as I am dependent on it.
4)We know that Michigan receives 50% of their revenues from the Federal Government. When we discuss the sequester cuts, the cities and the states will be hurt the most. They do not want Federal austerity at this time
5) Moving working Gov employees, in a job tight marketplace, into dependency is not smart policy.
6)Come on IPLaw, the GOP will not agree to tax reforms like closing loopholes ( increasing revenue and reducing debt ) without an equal amount of tax cuts (reducing revenue and increasing debt). This is their hard line. Our president knows that further knee jerk cuts to Government spending now will cause irreparable harm to our economy.
7)The GOP is not in the game . They handed their cards off to the Tea party and their financial backers in 2010. This may explain their ill timed and disastrous fixation on the short term debt.
8)The sequester is a political act. It was meant to provoke some positive direction going forward by being so inappropriate and distasteful that sane people would avoid it. It could be avoided by a one sentence statement passed by both houses revoking the act. That should be post haste.
9)America's economy is healthier than those countries who depended on short term debt reduction rather than government stimulus and has fallen behind countries who have continued stimulus packages.
If smalling our government, slowing our economy and driving our country deeper into debt is your goal, sequester is a good start. Then you might push for more cuts and lower taxes... or you could start thinking bigger. We need less talk about shared sacrifice and more talk about shared opportunities. Dad
Earlier this week, David Brooks had to write an entire column apologizing for his earlier claim that Obama is not offering spending cuts. He’s done so in detail. Surprising to hear such false claims repeated here.
Sequestration will mean less prosecution of non-violent crimes and less detention of non-violent immigrants. It will put pressure on BOP (and hopefully Congress) to reduce ghastly levels of incarceration. From my perspective, those good things.
Sequestration will mean less prosecution of non-violent crimes and less detention of non-violent immigrants. It will put pressure on BOP (and hopefully Congress) to reduce ghastly levels of incarceration. From my perspective, those good things.
Well, between CTL and Dad - I think my thoughts have been covered.
I think entitlements is a large umbrella and some of the programs under this umbrella can afford to take a hit and some can't. Problem is our elected officials can't agree on what is really under this umbrella.
The fact is more people are aging into retirement (Social Security and Medicaire) so you can try to reduce it but the level of reduction won't be sufficient for those numbers entering the program. Even if you change the retirement age that impacts people who are 50 or less today and we are not considered the baby-boom generation.
I have also read about a lot of military contractors (businesses) that will be out of work when their projects conclude. Seriously - these people do not have a business plan or enough foresight to plan beyond eating at the defense dept. food trough?
What I find terribly sad is that the members of Congress are too stubborn to come to the table with an open mind. AS CTL said - sequester should have brought "sane" people to the table to figure this out. Instead we are left with the "ME" first attitude. They are acting like a bunch of two year olds.
I think entitlements is a large umbrella and some of the programs under this umbrella can afford to take a hit and some can't. Problem is our elected officials can't agree on what is really under this umbrella.
The fact is more people are aging into retirement (Social Security and Medicaire) so you can try to reduce it but the level of reduction won't be sufficient for those numbers entering the program. Even if you change the retirement age that impacts people who are 50 or less today and we are not considered the baby-boom generation.
I have also read about a lot of military contractors (businesses) that will be out of work when their projects conclude. Seriously - these people do not have a business plan or enough foresight to plan beyond eating at the defense dept. food trough?
What I find terribly sad is that the members of Congress are too stubborn to come to the table with an open mind. AS CTL said - sequester should have brought "sane" people to the table to figure this out. Instead we are left with the "ME" first attitude. They are acting like a bunch of two year olds.
Caro Roberto:Scuzi,but you need to eat! Have some cannoloni.Caprese.Mangia,mangia.A+b does not always equal C. Especially where the human beasts are concerned.One can endure a little privation when one has felt the judicious love,eh? A collective cleverness is needed.But you must listen as well as talk. Papa Osler: Ti adoro.
# posted by : 3:40 PM
: 3:40 PM
so... as of 4pm today (perhaps a bit earlier) Congress adjourned for a long weekend. Apparently they aren't taking the sequester very seriously.
At least we can print more dollars, unlike Greeks who cannot print more drachmas, the Italians more liras or the Spanish more pesetas. Osler dad articulated this one best for me.
One thing that breaks my heart more than almost anything is seeing people of all walks of life coming together in moments of need (large and small) whether family, friend, communtiy or national set-back or disaster - knowing that often those the least financially secure contribute by performing the most physical, difficult and distasteful of tasks - they give of the only'surplus' they have - of their hands, their shoulders, their backs - the sweat of their brow. . .
As we continue to slowly pull ourselves and our nation out of the 'Great Recession' can anyone ease my concern that there are possibly never again going to be an abundance of jobs that provide a 'living wage' for the majority of our population?
Cutting back on early childhood education, education and training of almost any form and failing to invest in our deficient infra-structure will continue adding more and more individuals and families to those one paycheck away from financial ruin and the roles of government assisstance.
Until we once again begin to 'honor' the dignity of work and invest in those individuals that seek to contribute (through employment) instead of praising their volunteering after our next disaster - there is no solution to the exponential strain our entiltlement programs (created and promised) are facing
I can only reflect upon the Parable of the widow who offered a couple of coins in the temple - offered all she had. We have too many among us who have 'given' all 'they have' during their years employed, and given back much more than they have recieved into their communities - paying off the mortages on their modest homes and now being forced to use the little savings they have to struggle with property taxes that continue to rise and health care costs continually rising as well - Many, their promise to give their 'shoulders and back' for a few retirement days blessed with a day at the fishing hole our in the flower garden.
What more can we ask of them? What will we soon be asking of our children if we don't return to being their parents and find solutions to the mess we have made?
Committed to only investing in ourselves is not the answer - we must return to investing in each other. . .
As we continue to slowly pull ourselves and our nation out of the 'Great Recession' can anyone ease my concern that there are possibly never again going to be an abundance of jobs that provide a 'living wage' for the majority of our population?
Cutting back on early childhood education, education and training of almost any form and failing to invest in our deficient infra-structure will continue adding more and more individuals and families to those one paycheck away from financial ruin and the roles of government assisstance.
Until we once again begin to 'honor' the dignity of work and invest in those individuals that seek to contribute (through employment) instead of praising their volunteering after our next disaster - there is no solution to the exponential strain our entiltlement programs (created and promised) are facing
I can only reflect upon the Parable of the widow who offered a couple of coins in the temple - offered all she had. We have too many among us who have 'given' all 'they have' during their years employed, and given back much more than they have recieved into their communities - paying off the mortages on their modest homes and now being forced to use the little savings they have to struggle with property taxes that continue to rise and health care costs continually rising as well - Many, their promise to give their 'shoulders and back' for a few retirement days blessed with a day at the fishing hole our in the flower garden.
What more can we ask of them? What will we soon be asking of our children if we don't return to being their parents and find solutions to the mess we have made?
Committed to only investing in ourselves is not the answer - we must return to investing in each other. . .
the immortal words,
"Can't We All Just Get Along?"
no? well then we're screwed.
oops, i guess i was a day early on that one, but it's exactly how i feel about all things political in this day and age. every politician, with very, very few exceptions, care little about the populace and care greatly about re-election, saving face, and being able to say they got the better end of the deal. thus, no deal.
Post a Comment
"Can't We All Just Get Along?"
no? well then we're screwed.
oops, i guess i was a day early on that one, but it's exactly how i feel about all things political in this day and age. every politician, with very, very few exceptions, care little about the populace and care greatly about re-election, saving face, and being able to say they got the better end of the deal. thus, no deal.
# posted by : 9:23 PM
: 9:23 PM << Home
