CBS's Bob Schieffer ended "Face the Nation" the other day with a brief commentary on dangerous automatic spending cuts due to kick in next week.
For those who can't watch clips online, Schieffer had this to say on the sequester:
"[T]hese automatic cuts in spending that go into effect March 1 are Washington`s own doing. The law cut spending programs to the bone. It ends Head Start, reduces the number of food inspectors, ensures longer lines at airports because of massive furloughs of federal workers, not to mention layoffs at shipyards and on and on and on. All of which would probably cause a recession.
"The idea was that no sane person would allow such cuts to happen, which was theorized, would force Congress and the White House to take responsible steps to slow down deficit spending.
"Well, guess what? Even Washington managed to underestimate its own ineptitude. The sequester and the draconian cuts are about to happen because the White House and Congress cannot close the partisan divide and figure out what to do about them."
Now, my point is not to pick on Bob Schieffer. I share his concerns about the severe damage the sequester is likely to do, and I, too, would like to see a bipartisan compromise resolve the issue before it's too late.
But the trouble with his commentary is the assumption that "Washington" is to blame for the "ineptitude" on display.
There are certain facts that are not in dispute. We know that both sides agree the sequestration cuts would undermine the nation's economy, military, and domestic priorities. We know that Democrats have offered a balanced compromise as a sequester alternative, featuring spending cuts and new revenue. We know the White House has said it's ready for additional negotiations -- and that President Obama will speak in D.C. this morning on the need for a bipartisan resolution.
We also know congressional Republicans have ruled out the possibility of a balanced compromise. We know congressional Republicans expect that any potential agreement give them 100% of what they want. We know that in this Congress, Republicans have not been willing to propose a sequester alternative, and have no plans to do so. And we know that congressional Republicans thought it'd be a good idea to take this entire week off.
None of these facts are in dispute. So why is it, exactly, that we should blame "Washington" for this mess?
Again, I'm not singling out Bob Schieffer because his commentary was egregious. On the contrary, his assessment is entirely common -- the political establishment reflexively blames "both sides" for literally everything, even when one side doesn't deserve it. There can be no doubt that if next week's deadline comes and goes without a resolution, as now seems likely, most pundits will be saying exactly what Schieffer said, lamenting the lack of compromise, despite one side's desire for compromise.
But I hope at least some of these commentators not only pause to consider the facts, but also keep the thesis from Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein in mind.
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
Our advice to the press: Don't seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
Leave a Comment:
At the very least they could simply void the sequester. To sit back and do nothing is asinine.
It's as if the Republicans are Somali pirates, holding American economic progress hostage. They're ruthless cutthroats, and they don't care a whit about who gets hurt in the process. If the Dems won on the fiscal cliff stand-off, they figure it's their turn now. The GOP rationale is that threatening economic disaster will cause their opponents to blink.
All I can say is that the sequestration cuts will be the fault of the republicans in both the House and Senate. They have made no effort to compromise when the democrats have.
At this point, it is a deliberate attempt by certain factions to make President Obama a failure. Throw the country into utter chaos, hope that financial chaos leads to chaos on the streets, and blame the president. Then the opposition gets to take over. Doesn't matter who gets hurt in the process. That's how those factions figure it. If you can't win with honest votes, then start a revolution.
Rather a terrifying scenario, especially for those of us who are just getting by financially these days.
Many people have felt that for the last 10 years or so, but don't talk about it seriously... because that sounds like crazy talk. And the only party comfortable with crazy talk is the GOP.
Since the day after the 2008 election, certain Republican loudmouths have stated their main goal is to see Obama fail. Below all that hot air, they are serious.
The problem with the sequester logic is that it ignores the political reality that it is always easier to blame the other guy/party for something bad than to make a positive case for oneself. As long as both sides believe the other can be blamed, they are more likely to allow the hit to the country and the economy and use it as political ammunition. We've seen Republicans setting this case up for a while, so it's no surprise that they are actually willing to go through with the sequester.
The stalemate will continue until public opinion coalesces against one party or the other, at which point that party will largely capitulate in exchange for token concessions. The problem there is that the Republican party may not have much more room to drop in their approval ratings. Taking a hard line stance on spending may even give them a bump if it invigorates their base, currently frustrated over them raising taxes and talking about immigration reform and not talking so much about rape.
This is exactly the kind of "both sides do it" BS that this post is about. There is absolutely no evidence that "both sides" are okay with the sequester as long as the other side gets blamed. Democrats are offering compromises and negotiations. Republicans are saying that unless the replacement is everything they want and nothing the Democrats want, it's insulting to them to even propose it.
"Today on "Face the Nation", Republicans raise new debate on an old topic -- is the Earth round of flat? We'll hear discussion from both sides of the issue."
Of course the answer is "both". The earth is a circular disk - remarkably like a poker chip with the United States at the center of the "heads" side. See the benefits of compromise?
I assume Marco Rubio will be in on it.
Right . . . like republicans would debate anything having to do with science. Is the earth round or flat? It's however God wants it to be, dammit!
Head Start? Shipyard Workers? None of this has any effect on members of Congress!
Perhaps eliminating ALL their staff, and cutting their pay to minimum wage might get them to focus on the problem.
There's an expression that is apropos: "Depends upon whose ox is gored."
I think there is a better expression for most of this: "Mine is bigger than yours"
Is not.
Not blame Schieffer? Why not? He's been guilty of this non analysis for years.
Agreed. No matter how much the MSM tries to be nonpartisan, the Republicans continue to assail the MSM as "the liberal media." This ridiculous assertion started with Nixon and continues to the present day. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. Schieffer as well as Gregory and others are doing a disservice to the public when being nonpartisan takes precedence over the truth.
Sunday morning is now a permanent joke, and McCain and Graham are the proof. Only willfully ignorant people play the both sides game, there is nothing more offensive than continuing that charade.
I, for one, would be happy to pick a fight with Bob Schieffer. He is a toady for the corporately owned media who engage in 'both sides do it' and repukes are never solely to blame (even when they are 100% to blame); except when they are engaged in being echo chambers and message amplifiers for whatever the repuke message of the day is. Of course, outside of Faux News the worst offender is David Gregory of NBC and I would also be happy to pick a fight with him as well.
I'll hold your coat.
While I am usually with you Steve, I have to say that this entire sequester nonsense is a reflection of the unwillingness of our elected officials, Democrats included, to address our out of control defense budget. Reducing our defense budget to something less than world wide war levels would go a long way to solve our financial problems. We also need to reduce loopholes, but that isn't nearly as important as cutting defense to a rational level.
Ron, you are so right.
If we cut back the Europe will have to pick up the slack and do their fair share.
Of course it would have to be done slowly so as not to under cut the economy.
But, I know [yes I mean "know"] that many of you reading this will live to see the paradigm shift in economic thinking that will come soon. Around 1980 was the last economic paradigm shift, from Keynesian to supply side/Austrian school.
The next one will be to MMT. Then all this talk about balancing the budget [on the road to running a surplus for 20 years to pay off the total debt] will seem quaint.
Who is the enemy we are arming against? N. Korea? Iran? They know what reality is. Hit the button and suicide.
We have no need for a huge military. Or even a standing army.
Our only enemies are the ones we make for ourselves.
The sequester is already having an impact on the economy. Living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., I can tell you that in this region a very high percentage of people who live here work for the federal government. I have family that are federal workers, and everyone that I've talked to isn't spending money right now because they don't know if they're going to get furloughed or not. How can you spend money when you don't know if you'll be able to make next month's mortgage payment?
Good point. But, let's take that argument to the federal government. How can they continue to spend trillions of dollars when they don't have any to spend?
@ #11.1
Please answer your own question. How?
.
My answer is apparently the US Gov. does have money to spend.
Not only that but, interest rates are near zero and inflation is very low.
All the bad things that deficit spending will cause, it hasn't caused yet. And after $2 trillion in excess deficit spending and still no horrible effects, my question to you is -- why? Why no horrible effects?
This sequester may hurt a lot, but in the end it may be the surest way to get rid of the republican extremists in our government. I say this because showing a bit of the actual results of the sequester would I think once and for all prove that the republican ideas of how to run a country are so extremely unsatisfactory that the mid-term elections would mostly likely wipe out the republican majority in congress. I definitely believe the defense budget needs to be slashed quite deeply -- in a sensible way of course and I want to see Chuck Hagel confirmed as Defense Secretary, especially since I saw the clip Rachel played the other day where he was saying something about that we have to be damned sure that the sacrifices of lives are worth the goals of the engagement.
The idea that republicans think the people will blame the president for this will most likely not fly. They think they're sly but they're becoming more and more transparent as the days go on, in part because of Rachel and the team.
Lets hope that you are right that the sequester will prove to the country that this whole austerity bit is not a good way to run a government. Lets also hope that the price is not some old, poor people literally dying because they have lost their food stamps. If only the pain would go to those who have millions in the bank. Lets hope that enough of the pain will go to the rich and powerful and that they will have a few words with those intransigent Republicans so that the sequester does not last more than a few weeks.
I expect that when the big defense contractors do not get their progess payments, something will get done.
The GOP has no idea how the internet works. None.
They are the Polish cavalry in WWI. Flashy, but doomed.
The Democrats have compromised far too much with the Republicans, and that has brought us to this impasse. The Democrats need to pick up the banner and fight for the 99%. When the Democrats start fighting back, they will win.
Since 2008 and and even worse after the 2010 election, the GOP has REFUSED to participate or even try to govern. The say NO to everything and anything that would help the country (Jobs Bills, cap and trade, Dream act, cutting tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas, veterans job training) even if it was there own ideas. They just refuse to negotiate or compromise in any way shape or form and want a country of religious bigots with unlimited guns to make sure that women stay at home barefoot and pregnant or if they work, stay permanently underpaid and able to be beaten at will by the employers and men in their lives. And for the "Job Creators" to keep putting their outrageous profits in foreign banks accounts to keep the American economy strong and the American worker poor and in poverty and not able to afford healthcare. That is the extent of the Washington GOP. (We actually have some decent GOP reps in NY.) I hate to think they left their sanity at the door when they went to DC, but they would rather crash the country than actually do something that would help the country and make Obama look good! What is more important than making sure the people of this country are safe, secure, working and healthy? Oh yeah, raising enough money for the next election!
I am glad to hear that there are a few reasonable Republicans in the State House in New York. Some other states are not so lucky.
I watched "Zeitgeist Addendum" again last night for some reason on Netflix. I must say the argument of the international banking cartel and the multinational corporatocracy essentially owning the world seems to be pretty much on target.
They own the media, so all we hear is how spending will have to be cut, that "Washington" will have to get it's act together. This is what they want and this is what they'll get sadly enough.
As far as I'm concerned the end of society as we know it can't some soon enough. Only when it crashes, completely and unequivocally, will we be able to break this stranglehold.
Then you must appreciate MSNBC, right? Countless times their on air talent disparages GE for not paying corporate taxes, and they let Obama have it over drones and transparency.
If you believe every extremist spin on reality that your given by the Maddow Brotherhood than i understand why you think that liberalism is the only way. I feel sorry for you, but i understand.
Problem is, we go bankrupt in the process.
We go bankrupt by cutting spending and raising revenue to slash the deficit? Hi, welcome to math class; you should go back to first grade and learn how to add and subtract. Or, maybe a remedial 7th grade accounting class would be more up your alley instead?
Really: You do not know what a liberal is. Liberals may want the spend, but they also want to tax, which means paying for the spending. The Republicans/conservatives want to spend but they do not want to tax so they borrow. Thus, the deficit and the debt.
And Liberals want to spend on things that actually help most of the people and not just those who already have a lot and do not need more.
And don't tell me I do not know what a liberal is. I have been one all my life, and my parents were liberals before me.
Baby, Maddow is a lesbian. Sisterhood, maybe. Brotherhood, no way. Eyeroll....
The fallacy of your argument is that government can raise revenue, through taxes. History shows that high taxes on the wealthy grow the whole economy.
Once you stop waging unfunded wars, and cut contractors off the government teat, real taxpayers can start seeing a return on their tax dollar investment.
How many times have former Sunday Show regs Mann and Ornstein been on, say, Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, since they uttered those dreadful heresies? How many times have the Republican legislators who are the authors of the serial manufactured crises of the last three years been on since then?
Yeah, case closed.
No one on this forum seems to remember that the mess we are in was originally proposed by Obama and his group. Now he wants to blame Republicans? He proposed the sequester. It is time that the government takes a long hard look at its spending and do something about it. The only solution the dems have is to tax the rich. I think it is sad when a person wants to work hard to become rich that he needs to feel ashamed. The democrats have made it a great shame to be wealthy. They demonize anyone who has any ambition to become wealthy. They punish those who become wealthy. They want to take more and more from anyone who is wealthy. They don't want the children of those who have worked hard to be wealthy to benefit from their parent's hard work. I would like to become wealthy. Should I be ashamed for thinking that way? Should I be satisfied to make a median income if I could do better? Should I forget that endeavor because the government will tax me to keep me in my place? Should I forget about leaving my children a little better off than I was? Should I forget the American Dream? Obama and his crony democrats want to make sure that everyone is the same. They claim that they want everyone to have the same opportunities. Lie. They want everyone to be the same. They want to take from those that 'have' to give to those that 'don't have'. If we are all going to be equal, I am not going to do a bit more to carry those that don't want to work that way. When countries make it shameful and demonize those that are movers and shakers, the country loses.
Jes: You lie. Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling bill like the last twenty Presidents had. The real question is why do you lie like this...
I'd like to point out that cutting corporate subsidies for jets and oil profits is NOT, I REPEAT NOT, "taxing the rich." Corporations are not people and therefore cannot be either rich or poor; they are a form of business structure for shareholders to avoid personal liability for the actions of their business.
Since nobody is talking about replacing the sequester with increased marginal tax rates on personal income, there is no "taxing of the rich." Stated another way, eliminating corporate tax deductions in order to increase revenue is not "increasing taxes on the rich" but rather taking away spending for things that we can no longer afford. Taking away tax deductions is not increasing taxes, its reducing tax spending.
When you actually understand what is being proposed, come back and talk to the adults.
Liebowsky, thats all you got? "Uh, uh, uh you lie"?
I'm lower to middle class and yet still a Conservative. Why do think that is? You think that because someone votes Republican that means they must be rich. So by that low information thought process then their are no rich liberals, let alone any that would cheat on their share of the tax burden. Get a clue. Your president and his extremist agenda is going to bankrupt this country.
Really: Sorry to have to be factual, I know thats annoying to you, but Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling bill, it's an easy fact to find. Now as far as using you as an example, I am not able to draw rational conclusions from anecdotal tidbits you provide that are linked by your physical self.
Jes33 - Paragraphs are your friend.
Help us to understand your point of view by making your posts more readable.
Just because Steve Benen says that Obama wanted a clean bill doesn't make it fact. The fact is that Obama wants to have total control over debt limits so he can have un-feddered spending on social programs for the rest of his term. If Obama and the Senate wanted to reduce the amount of money we owe then we would not have a question about raising the debt limit. Democrats should ask the question, when the producers are taxed into the poor house, who will be left to pick up the tab?
18.6 Oh! I love this game!
Just because inspector12 says that "Obama wants to have total control over debt limits so he can have un-feddered (sic) spending on social programs for the rest of his term" doesn't make it a fact.
@ 18.6
When Bush took office, Repub economists testified that surpluses were terrible for an economy. They suck the savings out of it. It can't be helped. It is a consequence of the definitions and the "Sector Equation". All of which are agreed to by all economists.
Now, all I hear is talk of paying off the debt. The only way is with "surpluses" that they all agreed were a terrible idea.
Just as a nation can't cut its way to prosperity with austerity, surpluses are economy killers. If you don't agree then you need to review Economics 102.
Quick and to the point - non-thinkers like jes33 - and god - are the reason the county is on the wrong end of it's political existence. There are so many ignorant people that cannot think rationally; they believe the b.s. their preachers tell them each Sunday and they vote that way - read tea party.
When the senate minority leader announces that his top job is to the cause the President to fail, then you know democracy has failed and the country is in decline. End of story for the U.S.A.
See you at the polls. Of course we could just sit back and let right winged fanatics take over. It would be funny for a while watching as they sudduenly realize what they were asking for in the first place.
Then again they are certifiable , fear the government and ran to buy guns and ammo every time the NRA convinced them Obama was going to take those guns away.
I have to laugh when I hear people complain that this is "a deliberate attempt by certain factions to make President Obama a failure" -- and that those factions want to throw the country into chaos.
The President and the Democrats PUT THEMSELVES IN THE POSITION THEY'RE IN.
This is a President that seems to operate by trying to incite an aura of crisis. The huge "stimulus" bill that was passed in the first months of his presidency were pressed as a crisis that couldn't wait even one more day for passage. Senate Democrats vote down all budget proposals, opting instead to string things along from one crisis debt deal or avoid government shut-down deal to another. The budget is perpetually in crisis mode approaching some other deadline it seems.
What is the purpose of operating in crisis mode? To create an environment where your political opponents can be demonized. Judging from the way most MaddowBlog responders have tried to demonize only the Republicans in this, I'd say the Dems have played you pretty well.
Also, take note of the phraseology used in this article (and used by the President) to sell you on this point of view. Raising taxes, or rather "raising revenue" is the key to what is termed the "balanced approach." To borrow from Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein: "...a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality."
If, for example, I have a child who is being quite profligate when it comes to spending his allowance -- he may approach me for a bigger allowance, to which I may respond he needs to exercise more spending control. What if, at that point, he tries to convince me we must have a BALANCED approach. I'll cut back on a little of my frivolous expenditures but you must provide me with more money -- it's the BALANCED approach, after all. Just claiming something is balanced doesn't add one whit to his argument. My decision to increase his allowance would be based on factors completely unrelated to the "balance" of negotiational (political) compromise.
'This is a President that seems to operate by trying to incite an aura of crisis'
On the eve of his election in 2008 a group of Republicans held a "crisis meeting"
Obama did nothing to incite a crisis which was proclaimed before he had been in office for a single day.
Crisis is the only tool Republicans have because their policy agendas have been firmly rejected by the American people. The Republicans would throw gasoline on a fire if that was all that was in the fire buckets.
Since before the sequestration was formulated and VOTED into reality by the GOP led congress they have dug in their heels and refused to offer ANY balanced budget or any real budget at all. in the 112 congress they had the DEM greatly outnumbered they could have put a budget out had all the GOP vote yes on it then dumped it on the DEM to deal with it. or if they had enough votes in congress to pass it there dumped it on the senate and Obama to deal with it. But they didnt do that they offered no budget at all demanding it was up to Obama to make a budget and they offered no specifics to what they wanted. Alot was hope that Obama would loose relection and they would have romney push thru what they wanted. they have publically refused to look at a balanced budget which does mean cuts and increases in revenue they only want cuts and those cuts hurt the majority of americans and greatly benefit the top 2%. this current thing is no different now they take off 10 days so basically leave town so are not here in DC to work on this basically saying "its not our problem, Obama can deal with it" does this really say they have the american population in mind I mean all 100% of them? NO
If the sequester is going to be so bad for the country, why are the Republicans so willing to allow it to go forward?
Answer: Republicans are bad for the country.
I think maybe torch and pitchfork time is almost here again! Ware and ward "Republicans", teatards and genuinely stupid corporate mouthpieces, your time is counting down to oblivion.
I think sequester is exactly what will get the ball rolling and exactly what DC needs..
This is slightly off topic, but may I thank you for providing text? Articles that provide only a video clip, or a link to one, drive me nuts. The reason is that I have been losing my hearing over the past couple or so years, and the only way I can watch TV is with closed captioning. As a general rule, online clips don't have that, so I am left staring at people mouthing silently, wondering what the heck this person is talking about that the writer of the article wanted me to know. So thank you for providing readable text.
And, to the point of the article, why should we blame "Washington" for the sequester? Both parties have, over time, contributed to the climate which led to it, even though the immediate fault is the Republicans'. I agree, though, that to reflexively blame both sides for everything that goes wrong, as opining pundits are wont to do, is pretty silly.