Honestly I can't decide if Mr Obama in "campaign mode" sounds more
like the "little boy who cried wolf", or "chicken little"
running around yelling the sky is falling, For heavens sake we are talking
about spending an aggregate 2% less than planned for the coming fiscal year -
but which is still a slight increase over last year, and 14% more than the year
before that. And hearing cabinet secretaries run around forecasting the
"end of the world" in their departments seems to me to be the height of
gross mismanagement. If any non-governmental manager at any level reported to
their superiors that they could not run their organization on 98% of their
projected budget, and still 14% more than they had 2 years prior, they would be
out on the street so fast it would make their head spin. We really need new
leadership starting at the top.
Put on your big boy pants Republicans because you wanted reduced spending, enjoy
your own medicine. Republicans have been howling at the moon over the National
Debt and now complain that the cuts will hurt? Please, spare me.ALl
the unfunded mandates the past 3 Republican presidents ran up and now all of a
sudden Republicans care about spending. The cuts are coming and the pain will
"...no shortage of voices can be heard warning of the dire impacts, while
political blame is being cast literally left and right."A
seemingly fair assessment if it were not for the fact that the president's
picture is the one featured prominently in this article and that his name or
office is mentioned 6 or 7 times with hardly a peep about the Republican
Congress. And did you really try to make S&P sound like a credible
organization after their complicit behavior in the 2008 meltdown?So
let's state some facts - The president and the Congress agreed to the
sequester as a draconian measure that would surely motivate the "Super
Committee" to come to a reasonable deal with regard to spending and revenue.
But alas, they did not. You can decide for yourself who it was that scuttled
that deal. Last week Republicans said the president should just
butt out of legislative negotiations relating to gun control and any attempts on
his part would be dead on arrival. But this week they, and their surrogates,
want his leadership to solve this fiscal problem. If you're
going to claim to be objective, DN, please follow through on that claim.
Let’s talk the truth here! We TeaPublicans know that these sequester
cuts ARE the direct result of Republican demand in 2011 to shrink the government
at any cost, under threat of a default on the nation’s debt! Yes,
that’s how the sequester came about and we TeaPublicans ARE darn proud of
how we forced all Republicans to make those demands! Now you can sugarcoat
this however you want to, but the bottom line is we TeaPublicans got what we
wanted in 2011….and now we ARE going to get the sequestration cuts that
America needs and demands! And come the next elections Americans will say
“Thank you very much”!
TeaPublican..I doubt seriously anyone is going to be saying thank you..it's
more likely they will be saying are you kidding, & what were you thinking.
Reasons.. 85 billion won't in and of itself do anything to turn the
trajectory of spending..however 85 billion from programs that cause lay offs,
literly takes food out of old peoples mouths, and grounds war ships, will have a
devastating public image. In addition this will all be contrasted to
obstruction of the Presidents point of tax reform that eliminates corporate
welfare for billionaires. Once again Republicans context matters..a lot.
I agreed completely with this editorial. After WW2 ended the Federal Budget was
cut by 40% and the private sector went gangbusters. Yes, there were a number of
reasons for that but the reduction of Federal spending to GDP was one of the
primary reasons. At this point, we should be talking about eliminating entire
departments. Would the world come to an end if we got rid of the Dept of
Agriculture? Do we really need the TSA? Can't private airlines handle their
own security? It's actually pretty frightening that a piddling cut in
a projected increase is so difficult. And the President has turned into
fear-monger in chief. What a sad example of poor leadership. Maybe he could
start traveling in 39 car motorcades instead of 40.
Bottom line is this was the Kings idea. Sequestration came out of the White
House. The King was dodging until after the election. He is on record saying
that he would veto any attempt to circumvent the bill. The House has sent two
seperate bills to the Senate and Harry Reid has not done one thing including any
bills out of the Senate. Now the King is crying about all the damage his own
plan will do but as usual compromise is something that he knows nothing about.
He is always my way or the Hiway. Rememmber Y2K. This is the same sell job. Oh
but thats right the lefties all say the Country does not have a spending
problem. Ya right!
Boehner has said Obama got his tax increases, no more tax increases. But Obama
could reply, Boehner got spending cuts--nearly 1 trillion in the 2011 Budget
Control Act, therefore, no more spending cuts. More revenue is needed and more
spending cuts before employment has recovered is irresponsible. How is
austerity working in the EU? It isn't. When Hill Air Force Base employees
are laid off or have their pay cut--how is that going to help UT's
economy? In fact:The federal deficit will drop to less than $1
trillion for the first time in five years, but massive spending cuts that have
improved the budget outlook are also slowing the economy, according to a report
released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget office.(LA Times Feb 2013)The fact remains, the Republicans trying to absolve themselves of blame
for the sequestration is comical because many/most Republicans in Congress favor
Bring it on. If the American dream of government by the people for the people
is to be thrown down and destroyed, let it be that we all go together. Cheers for Obama for showing some backbone in his second term after
allowing the republicans and businessmen to walk all over him in his first. The
republicans want to reduce our federal spending, we should give the what they
want. I suggest that the Federal Government take a vacation. Close
up, shut down, mothball facilities for a week or so. Make no payments to non
federal government employees, states, cities or other non federal sponsored
groups. Close and mothball all national parks and federal lands. Inform farmers
to remove their livestock from Federal land, pay a high fee or lose their
livestock. When the republicans say “When government
spending declines, more money is available for the private sector”, what
they are actually saying is “more money will be left to workers for
private business to steal. If some of us must feel the pain, lets
make sure that the pain is felt by all.
According to a new, Washington Post/ABC poll 26% of Americans approve and 67%
disapprove of the GOP's approach to spending. Obama's numbers are 43%
and 52%. Both parties give their rivals low marks, but troublingly
for the GOP, its approval rating among its own is only nominally higher than
Obama's overall rating. Just 44 percent of Republicans said they approved
of their party's approach, compared to 51 percent who disapproved, and
Republicans were more likely than Democrats or independents to say they
disapproved of both sides of the debate.The results are in line with
other recent polls, which have found that most Americans disapprove of
congressional Republicans' plans, and are more willing to blame them for a
scuttled sequester deal.
ECR - You hit it right on the head. DN, the Utah voice of the GOP. Easy to
carry out that mission is Utah. However, there are a growing number of us
Utahns who are becoming weary of this shallow minded thinking. Any objective
analysis can demonstrate that a balanced approach is needed (including, but not
limited to spending cuts). More revenue will be required to do the job - and
yes that will cause some pain.
According to this editorial, "When government spending declines, more money
is available for the private sector." This is a silly statement. As things
now stand, when government spending declines, Uncle Sam simply has to borrow
less. The money you're talking about is debt. This will not be available
for the private sector. (Actually, it already is, but the private sector
doesn't need to borrow more.)If the editorial had said,
"When government taxes less, more money is available for the private
sector," it may have been more correct. But the private sector already has
plenty of cash. It has been stockpiling it, earning miserly returns on it, and
in some cases effectively paying the government to hold it safe. Corporations
claims to have been waiting to invest when demand justifies increased
investment.Oh yes, the "D" word. Demand. Now, why has demand
been so low? Because the consumer classes have been getting underpaid for 30
years and the recession hit them hard. The investors already have plenty of
money. It's the consumers who don't. This is a pretty simple puzzle to
solve, and the answer isn't to slash government spending.
Blame Game + Crisis Management = Washington D.C. Politics
@Tturbo 99 - "For heavens sake we are talking about spending an aggregate 2%
less than planned for the coming fiscal year"It's 2% of the
entire federal budget, but since non-discretionary budget is unaffected, the
cuts must come out of the remaing discretionary budget, which is only 1/3 of the
total budget. That pushes up the cuts significantly when the reach they agency
level. I'm among close to a million DOD employees looking at a 20% loss in
pay. I assure you, that 2% of the aggregate budget looks a lot scarier from my
vantage point. Furloughs and layoffs will NOT strengthen this economy. The direct impact to me could be mitigated if there was more flexibility
in where the cuts are to be taken. That's a private sector luxury.@red state pride - "After WW2 ended the Federal Budget was cut by
40% and the private sector went gangbusters."No, GDP plummeted
after the war by more than twice the percentage we just experienced in the
recent recession as government spending went down and the economy transitioned
@Kent C. DeForrest "The money you're talking about is debt. This will
not be available for the private sector."Whenever the government
spends money, the private sector has to pay for it eventually. The money has to
come from somewhere. It comes out of the taxpayer's pocket, either now or
in the future. The taxpayer knows this, and behaves accordingly.@ECR
"this week they...want his leadership to solve this fiscal problem."Mostly I want him to cut the demagoguery and tell the truth. Maybe
that's too much to ask. Remember when he said this would be not red
America, not blue America, but the United States of America? I remember that.
Re: Res Novae, Ashburn, VA - So you are "among close to a million DOD
employees looking at a 20% loss in pay." Interesting - and no doubt scary.
No doubt rumors are flying - our leaders are making sure of that. Let's
look at the numbers though. 1,000,000 employees at average loaded comp of
$100,000 means a total outlay of $100,000,000,000, of which 20% would be
$20,000,000,000. So far might hold water. Looking further. The whole DOD
budget for 2013 is $614,000,000,000. The total reduction from that budget
("cuts") is $44,000,000,000, or about 7%. That means that if roughly
half of the reduction is coming out of your compensation, the remaining
$28,000,000,000 is a reduction of about 5% from the balance of the DOD budget.
So who's making the decision to stick employees with 20% cuts and limit the
reductions to the balance of the department to 5%? Really causes me to question
For all those paying even casual attention to Barack and his antics over the
past 4 years this Sequestration side show is nothing new - actually very
predictable. Invent a crisis and then attempt to take advantage of it. That is
Barack Obama in a nutshell. The surprising thing I think to most people - even
democrat's - is the depth that Barack will stoop to in order to achieve his
political ends. The man will stoop to any level no matter how low. The welfare
of the country doesn't even factor in to the man's thinking. Barack is
all about revolution and communist ideology - it was how he was raised and how
he was tutored by all of his mentors. Let thousands of dangerous criminals go
onto the street - you bet! Hurt the vital parts of our military - why not.
Layoff as many as possible - might as well. Yes if Obama is anything at all
anymore he is predictable ... sadly predictable. This sequestration is
Barack's ugly child but try to get him to own up to that. The real goal -
hurt the GOP in the next election. Collateral damage to the innocent - who
cares. OBama - a man without honor.
Tturbo99 - These are not rumors. Official notifications must wait until
sequestration is formally ordered, but paycuts and furloughs are imminent.
I'm certainly not going to get down into the weeds of internal DOD budget
allocations in an anonymous internet forum, but the figures are a little more
complicated than what you have. There is no "hysteria" here,
only the grim reality that we'll do what we must -- and that a country that
asked us to support two major conflicts has suddenly decided to place the burden
of decades of questionable spending decisions on the backs of those of us who
wanted to do something more to serve than stick a "Support Our Troops"
bumper sticker on our cars.
Again the glaring truth is His Highness brought this to the table and now he
can't deal with it. Although I believe this is his way of getting to the
Military. Have you noticed there has never been so many crisis's as there
has been since his first Coronation. He is a crisis!!
can you imagine having Obama as the CEO of your company? Holy smokes you would
be out of business in 3 months. This man is an embarrassment...and completely
dishonest and clueless.
Every working American just had their personal ability to spend cut by 2%. The
wealthy have had their personal ability to spend cut by more than that. It is
time for equity, for the government to spend less as well. 2% is a start.@ Truthseeker (sarcastic)"Boehner has said Obama got his
tax increases, no more tax increases. But Obama could reply, Boehner got
spending cuts--nearly 1 trillion in the 2011 Budget Control Act..."This is not truth!!! The sequestration is the same as the Budget Control Act,
and the cut is 85 billion, no where close to a trillion. Compare
that to the January tax increase of 600 billion. We still need to cut another
515 billion to have a balanced approach with the tax hike we just had!
Re:Copy CatThe Budget Control Act includes the sequestration AND it
directly specified $917 billion of cuts over 10 years in exchange for the
initial debt limit increase of $900 billion. As part of the Budget
Control Act, a Super Committee was supposed to come up with an ADDITIONAL $1.2
trillion in deficit reduction (in addition to the $917 billion) to avoid
triggering the sequestration. The $917 billion is not affected by
the sequester.Your source?
Neat to see a fair amount of voices saying the Sequester might be what we need,
and perhaps we should go through with it. When we had the national credit rating
reduction and the debt ceiling crisis, it was obvious to us we need to do
something about our deficit. This Sequester is what came out of all that
concern. And, the Sequester is not much, a small offering, is all. If we cannot
go ahead and swallow this small pill, what hope to we have of ever facing up to
the national deficit?
All government spending constitutes a jobs program.We hear very
little about how the DOD spending cuts will affect our military.What we
hear is how many JOBS will be affected.Slowly, we need to start
cutting all government programs. Start with Defense, SS and
Medicare. Those are the biggies. They will have the greatest impact.The
rest is peanuts.With a reduction in defense spending, the pentagon
will be forced to prioritize. They will start reducing based on Military
reasoning, rather than political reasoning.Bases should be closed
based on the value they bring to the military, not the number of jobs they bring
to a state with a powerful senator.ALL cuts in Govt spending will
hurt someone. FACT.How many of you want to reduce spending but
don't want Hill AFB touched?
" If we cannot go ahead and swallow this small pill, what hope to we have of
ever facing up to the national deficit?"It seems to me that
history should have taught us that cutting spending is only part of the answer
to balancing our budget. In the 1990's Bill Clinton got a tax increase
just barely passed in Congress and that was the start of the larget economic
expansion in the nation's history. Despite the rhetoric from Wall Street,
that tax hike proved that the government was being responsible about meeting
it's financial obligations. The private sector flourished and the economy
grew like never before. That produced record revenues for the government and
for the first time in decades, a balanced budget was passed - even a surplus
budget. Our natioinal debt was about $5 trillion at that time and the CBO
estimated that if the same conditions continued the nation would be debt free in
10 years.Look at what has happended since then. Now that our
economy is on a fragile recovery from the world wide downturn of 2008, killing
jobs and stopping government spending is not the way to get the economy back on
@JoeBlow"We hear very little about how the DOD spending cuts will
affect our military.What we hear is how many JOBS will be
affected."There's been plenty of screaming from the
Pentagon on the impact to the military, mainly in terms of equipment
maintenance, training, and driving up inefficiencies in acquisition.
There'll be a hit, but let's be honest -- we'll still be spending
far more on defense than any other country. I agree with your general point
that we need a serious look at our spending priorities. Ever try cutting a
program that's in Representative Y's district and that General Z needs
to get his third star? I wish we could be more efficient by trimming real waste
instead of taking a meat cleaver to the entire budget appropriation through
sequestration. The focus on jobs is because I believe that's
the real impact of sequestration - reduce people's paychecks on a massive
scale, consumption slumps, and the economy begins contracting again. This entire
discussion would be much different if the economy was humming along, but right
now I don't believe it can sustain the impact of fewer dollars going
I guess after taking a 15% cut in pay for 2 years ('09,'10) by
furloughs, I don't think it is so far fetched to ask government workers to
take their turn too. We have to realize that DOD is not a producer
of anything as far as contributing to the economic growth of the country. It is
a necessary cost to protect our country. It needs to be as lean and well
conditioned as those who come out of our boot camps. Those guys are fit!! That
is what we need from the whole DOD, financially and equipment wise, total lean
fitness. We should not view it as a jobs program. That is not what it is for.Truthseeker and Copy Cat, You are mixing 10 year figures with one
year figures, which is part of the reason you have a disconnect.
@Christian 24-7So the leftwing thinks that DOD is an instrument of
rapcious capitalism because wars drive massive funding for private sector
contractors, and our wars are the result of conspiracies of CEOs. Now the
rightwing apparently thinks DOD "is not a producer of anything as far as
contributing to the economic growth of the country." I can't win!
:)Look, DOD is the largest employer in the world (which should cause
discussion about priorities). It is not a corporation, but it is a big actor in
economic terms because of the money it injects into the economy by buying
things, paying for services, and the trickle-down results of R&D. Boeing,
Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman are big name beneficiaries of this. They will
cut thousands of employees. There are 3000 small business that rely on DOD.
About a third of those are in jeopardy of bankruptcy thanks to sequestration.I'm not saying "Wo is me" because of furloughs. It is what
it is. I'm trying to warn those who chant "CUT CUT CUT" that there
are consequences in this economic environment. Cut the deficit or improve the
economy. You can't have both right now.
This is a drop in the bucket. If this is the only way spending can be cut, then
so be it.
How many 85 billion equals to be one trillion, how many trillions of dollars is
spent a year, how many billions did the prez spend on vacations, in a year. I
can't do the math, and I doubt that they think about it.
Res"...DOD is the largest employer in the world..." True, but all the wages are paid by taxes, which means the people who
paid the taxes could have used it to buy goods, or to produce some products,
employ people, and sell those goods. They would have put the money/goods in the
economy either way. The government taking that money does not contribute to
growth. It just transferred (redistributed) the money.Without
selling defense product on the open market, it is not an economy grower. (I
don't think we should sell our military secrets, nor our excess nuclear
bombs, even though there are those who would pay big for them, and we need the
money.) The DOD is about defense, not economic growth."...trickle-down results of R&D." Liberals scoff at
trickle down economics. Either it works or it doesn't. Which is it?"Cut the deficit or improve the economy. You can't have
both..."To quote your favorite president, "Yes we can!"
have both.Obama told us the recession ended June 2009. The remaining
uncertainty, due to huge deficits, is suppressing the economy. Spending less
WILL help the economy by raising confidence, which spurs growth.
Christian 24-7 -Did you really just conflate the effects of military
research and development with Reaganomics just because someone used the phrase
"trickle down"? I don't think you ought to give economics lectures
to anyone, friend!BTW, military technology has given Joe Public
things like jet engines, better prosthetics, superior materials to build ships
and planes, radar (and the microwave as a spin off of that!), digital
photography, GPS, satellite communications, and, oh yeah, the INTERNET! None of
those things have benefitted the economy or the American people, have they?