As you've probably heard, tomorrow is the deadline for automatic sequestration cuts, and it's extraordinarily unlikely that a bipartisan deal will come together, receive votes in both chambers, and be signed into law in the next 36 hours.
And while there aren't any meaningful talks or negotiations underway to stop this self-inflicted wound, there is a relatively new effort drawing attention that's intended to kinda sorta help, at least according to GOP proponents.
Congressional Republicans are preparing to counter increasingly dire warnings from President Obama about the impact of automatic budget cuts with a plan to give the administration more flexibility in instituting $85 billion in cuts, a proposal they say could protect the most vital programs while shifting more of the political fallout to the White House. [...]
Seeking to shift responsibility for the cuts to Mr. Obama and to defang attacks by the White House, Republicans were expected to unveil legislation on Tuesday that they said would mitigate some of the biggest concerns. The measure would let agencies and departments cull programs that were long ago proved to be ineffective, and would make sure critical federal functions like air traffic control and meat inspection were spared.
The rough outline of the GOP plan is pretty straightforward. If nothing changes between now and tomorrow night, there will be automatic, across-the-board cuts totaling $85 billion this year. The Republican proposal would eliminate the indiscriminate qualities of sequestration, and effectively give the White House the power of a small purse: the administration would still have to cut $85 billion, but it would be up to Obama and his team, not the existing sequester policy, to decide what would get cut and what wouldn't.
To put it mildly, the White House is not fond of the idea. The president doesn't want the flexibility to pick and choose where he has to cut $85 billion this year; he wants to replace the dangerous policy with a more sensible one. Obama also realizes that if he, and he alone, is making the calls as to where the ax falls, he's more likely to get blamed for unpopular cuts.
As a consequence, even if Republicans rallied behind this plan in earnest, and it somehow passed both chambers, a presidential veto would be inevitable. And at this point, it probably won't come to that -- GOP leaders hoped to unveil something last night, but that didn't happen when several Republican lawmakers balked at handing congressional spending powers over to the White House.
So, what happens now?
The Senate will probably vote tomorrow on a Democratic compromise that replaces the sequester with a balanced deal -- some cuts, some revenue. It will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster, at which point, there will be nothing more to consider. House Republicans continue to refuse to bring a sequester alternative to the floor for consideration, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) conceded yesterday that he doesn't intend to do anything on the subject before the deadline.
With failure inevitable, the White House is already planning the next round of talks -- the day after the deadline.
After weeks of argument over the sequester, bipartisan congressional leaders will meet with the president at the White House on Friday -- the same day that automatic federal spending cuts are scheduled to go into effect.
President Barack Obama will meet with House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to discuss the across-the-board budget reductions to federal agencies, aides told NBC News.
So long as the Republican position is that they'll only tolerate 100% of what they want, I'm not sure how productive the discussions will be, but I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
Leave a Comment:
And now the campaign against the wingnuts begins in earnest, hopefully with the committment to proceed regardless that General Grant brought to the Wilderness Campaign that finally broke the traitor Army of Northern Virginia.
the jerk boehner steal $274,000 a year from america + the salaries of all the jerks that work with him.
This is a political game from both parties so that neither side is liable politically. Shell game of words and positions so that we are fooled. I am a Democrat but frustrated with comments like:
"The president doesn't want the flexibility to pick and choose where he has to cut $85 billion this year; he wants to replace the dangerous policy with a more sensible one. Obama also realizes that if he, and he alone, is making the calls as to where the ax falls, he's more likely to get blamed for unpopular cuts."
Think about that statement in the above article a minute. Our President is willing to make cuts as long as he can blame someone else for it. Politicians are our issue doesn't matter which side they are on.
"both parties so that neither side is liable politically."
WRONG.
all bills are supposed to originate in the legislative branch.
but the pimped out boehner is so drunk, simple minded, HE WONT DO HIS JOB.
he just wants to steal from people and abuse them.
re: #1.2 - No, he wants to work within the system to make the cuts as they should be: bipartisan and cooperative. Congress made the mess (since the executive doesn't control the purse, the legislature does), but the effective controlling party (dominance of the House, filibuster of anything they don't like in the Senate) wants to absolve themselves of the responsibility of fixing the mess they made. Congress makes the rules, the president is just the enforcer. This is akin to letting your pets crap all over the house, and then having your spouse clean up while you tell your child it's your spouse's fault that the spouse is throwing out the now-ruined stuffed animal the child treasured.
Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, is responsible for the budget and all revenue bills. This is a revenue bill. The House is trying to pass off their constitutional duties to avoid blame for cutting programs that the majority of Americans like and want to keep. But that's their job. To date, they have proposed absolutely nothing (including the last Congress) with any kind of specifics.
This is not a matter of political gamesmanship except on the part of House Republicans who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. The President is not allowed, under the Constitution, to determine where the cuts will take place.
PL, other than you being a troll, I also believe that you connot read very well. The President wants balanced between cuts and revenue increases. Your friends the Republicans want to cut everything. We are in this situation because Republicans cut taxes without offsets in spending. Got us into wars and put it on the credit card and bribed seniors with Medicare Part D that was also put on the credit card.
After the Republican's great deregulation screwup we are in a deep hole and the President is trying to get us out while dragging the Republican party behind him.
To put it mildly, you are a fool to even pretend what you say here is remotely true.
Yes, it is all about who gets blamed, but in the end the lack of compromise comes down to the GOP refusing to cut out loopholes for the wealthy. The proposed tax plan of the Dems just seeks to return the balance of the tax burden to what it was in Clinton years, when we had a balanced budget. And the majority of voters support this plan- we've had 20 years of proof that the tax breaks on the top earners has ruined our economy for the working class. The hypocrisy in the GOP wanting to put the budget cuts in the President's hand is in how they howl about overreach whenever he tries by executive order to get something done to break a stalemate.
No not a Troll and can read. Think about it for a minute. This was in fact a compromise set forth months ago to avoid dealing with this issue. Compromise means that both side get a portion of what they want, right. The text in the article is clear and I believe that both sides know we need to cut somewhere but neither is willing to take the blame.
We are being fooled here by both sides. Just another scare tactic to sell us something we don't need or want just this time it is from both sides. Why can't the government cut 2% of it's expenses and then again why can't we close loopholes, both? Has not the price of a gallon of gas or milk gone up over 2%? We adjust our budgets why shouldn't they? We pay taxes and have limited loopholes so why shouldn't everyone with the means?
All of the team support is great and I love it but at the end of the day, WE NEED A PRESIDENT CARTER right now from all of our government officials. Someone selfless enough to put his political future on the line to do the right thing.
PL - did you not understand anything that anyone said above? IT IS the job of the CONGRESS to write legislation and to control the purse. The reason that WE are now under this sequester is because many of the GOTP walked out on Simpson/Bowles deficit committee preening and whining for the cameras. The sequester was written deliberately the way that it was to force the GOTP back to the negotiating table - yes it passed with both sides of Congress voting because each thought that the elections in November would get them more of a majority (course the GOTP thought Robme would be in charge so they'd really get their way)! And yet the GOTP have been on vacation for most of Jan/Feb and they have written NO LEGISLATION to counter-offer the sequestration.
My question to you is there has already been cuts to the budget of about 1.5 trillion in cuts, not to mention that the DEFICIT IS SHRINKING - so how much more and where do you want more cuts? And why is closing tax loopholes that only affect the rich & corporate off the table?
Yes did you read the statement in the first post? It's from he article above. Reconcile you post against what was said in the article. Yes it is easy to hide behind the branches of the government but I expect the guy I voted for to lead not shelter behind the blame me and politics.
If we are at $16TN in deficit how is it shrinking? Explain that one to me please. That is just more stuff they are trying to sell us. Wait a minute as far as the tax loopholes are concerned, these have always been on the table and don't believe that the current approach was not discussed.
You do realize that the most revenue generating corporation in the WORLD is the government of the United States? Tell me who in all of Congress is living below the poverty line and is not mking more than the median income? What role does the corporate "executive" branch of our government play? Why do we let both parties keep flling us? They are ruling us by fear and distraction and all of this is just another scare tactic
Zora,
I'm sorry I just get a little excited when I think about all of this political posturing and in my heart I believe that both sides, Repubs and Dems have already potitioned themselves to get what they want. They are just building up the fear each side needs for the next election which means they have once again polarized the American people into camps using the same old fear tactics they used election after election. They (all of them) have shrugged off thier responsibility once again to play political games. See while we are discussing whch branch of government does what to protect our political leanings theare doing nothing and getting away with it - all of them. I thought unemployment numbers were getting better just before the election, no still at 7.9% that magic disputed number from the election. I thought increasing taxes would drive us over he economic cliff, no still churning along. I thought not getting the highway stimulus would ruin the country and bridges would be falling down all around us, haven't seen one. These are all scare tactics that both use to disract us and make us do one thing or another. None of this is true. They simply get some rusty old college economics proffessor who is in fear of leaving this world without ever being in the lime light to sign on to a new series of theories designed to scare the mess out of us.
I can't hardly imagine a President who has Leadership as one of his styles not jumping on the offer to dictate where the cuts go. It that option was givin to Harry Truman, JFK, RR, even GWB- They would have taken it and ran. As opposed to run away from it, which is the style prevalent with the current President. Pretty sure "The Buck Stops Here" sign has been removed.
PL, by your definition of compromise, this was not a compromise. Obama wanted to have equal parts cuts and revenue. Boehner wanted all cuts and threatened to destroy the economy if he didn't get it. Therefore, Obama had no more to say about it than you do when a mugger steals your purse at gunpoint.
Rusty, since there has been so much cut already from an already thin budget, just where do you expect the money to come from? Can you think of any program besides the DOD that has an excess of money? I can't. Government funded research (NIH, USDA, and many others) is hurting which affects our ability to advance in the future. The unemployment insurance fund will need more money. Our food inspection services need more money already. Where do you cut?
The only place I can see to cut would be anymore aid to banks and to the fossil energy industries. That would get the right wing bent out of shape, but it might not be enough.
So much cut from an already thin budget???? I guess "so much" and "already thin budget" are subjective terms!
I'm not for sure how much aid is being sent to banks right now- maybe you could show how much is to be spent the rest of this year iin that manner. I would very much support cutting it. Whatever aid you are sending to the energy industry- I would support cutting it as well. How much is that?
I've got the President's next talking point : The Republicans got what they wanted.
It's not hurting the 1% but it is hurting you.
He can then prove them liars point by point and he can keep doing it while they scramble for cover.
Point by point rebuttals don't work with people who find facts and truth that doesn't agree with their worldview.
I think you have a good point. I'm a Big Pharma Exec for nearly 30 years now. High level but not a boardroom material. Crafted a lot of carefully scripted deals over the years that take money from you pocket and place it into someone else's. One thing I know is a statement or series of postures designed to mislead the public and this whole series of events is as crafted by both sides as it comes.
What else I have learned over the years is that Corporations (which our government is structured to look like, act like and and is) can only misdirect you if you take your focus off of the key objectives supporting your position. These guys (both parties) are carefully crafting storylines to misdirect us from what we really need by making the issues as complex as humanly possible and convincing you of this.
While you are watching them play these games you eyes are off of these items and the possible common sense solutions to them:
All of these are critical issues that they have effectively shifted our focus from by focusing on a deal that actually benefits both parties but neither wants the blame for. How do you think we get you to buy a product that has only a 10% success rate and spend 5% of your annual income to get it. WE SCARE YOU and our government is using the same method here.
Sadly the Republican leadership has gone Galt, and has forgotten how to govern! -Kevo
It's been a long time since the GOP could govern. Dem's governed throughout the GW Bush years, to the point of angering many Americans who are Democrats. The GOP won't compromise at all, because their wingnut base won't allow it without offering up a further right wingnut in the primary, so the GOP caves to the craziest of the crazy. Seriously, think about the last time the GOP governed. You need the Way Back Machine on that one.
recall this..... they do not govern, never did. they oppress and take hostages. they extort from their victims. remember what dickless "che"ney said to frank "gaff"ney, "WHEN WE RULED......"
Kevo,
Well they're causing me to go "tharn"! It's just one lie after another. I am so damn sick of Republicans I can barely stand it. They won't rest until everything is gone but defence. They actually believe that is all the government we need.
Yeah, poverty for everyone! Yay!! Poverty for us all!!! Whooppee!
That is the day they will find real happiness. Until then, they will keep us in crises that damage the country. One crisis after another, self-imposed. Wow, what a great way to govern a country!
You can tell they are people people; people who love people. That's our T-Party!! (OK, Rich, white people!) Everyone else, you're on your own!
I think President Obama would be delighted to choose which programs get cut as long as he has a free hand. He was already willing to add another 1.2T in cuts over 10 yrs. He should counter with $85B in cuts, $40B in new revenue in the form of eliminating oil and farm subsidies. But I totally doubt they would give him a free hand - he might do to much good.
You make a good point: why is cancelling a subsidy considered revenue? A subsidy is an expenditure, surely? Deciding to no longer subsidize a product or an industry is therefore a budget cut... So if Obama gets the authority to cut where he pleases (not going to happen, but let's imagine), he can cut the oil subsidies, thank you and good night.
It's considered a revenue because it is part of the tax code in the form of an allowable deduction. It operates as tax spending, but is technically a revenue item since it falls under the tax code.
Since Alaska more or less seceded the other day: Do the Republicans still hold the majority in congress? Has anyone checked?
hilarious! perhaps all repubers would next move to alaska and the continent would finally be rid of the pimped out paranoid gun crazed nutjobs
Alaska has only one rep, so they've still got the house, but they lost two Senators which means that to beak a filibuster takes 58.8 votes, not 60. Looks like it didn't do much good.
How are they going to convince tea party activists who don't think Obama was born here to give him insane power... this won't fly...
That'll be what will kill the proposal in Congress.
I see, Obama doesn't want to be the decider in chief. That would take time away from the campaign trail and the golf course. Make it the evil rich repubicans fault at all cost.
Go clear some brush at the Bush family farm in Texas and leave us alone, alright? Trolls...
you speak "moronish". what country is that? repoopliconoza?
Oh no we want to hear from his inspectorness, authority on all things Republican He is such a brilliant representative of the current crop of Republican legislative body , I am surprised they haven't tracked him down to replace Bohner , or McConnel or Cantor or ....Louis Ghomert.
Republicans are only capable of bitching moaning and blaming Obama or anyone other than themselves. They lack the mental capability to do anything constructive and that's why they would give Obama the ability to decide on the cuts. Then after Obama made the cuts they can go back to the only thing they know how to do and that is to moan and bitch about the cuts Obama made.
Why are these republicans being paid, they are just as worthless as trash.
This takes the "hatchet" approach that President Obama has said was the problem and gives him the "scalpe"l to eliminate spending in travel expenses, not filling vacant positions, and other areas so no one is laid off, education is not kicking kids out of school as he says, and we are not at risk...I would think they were lining up to do this on both sides.
And, why is this just happening?
This might work, as long as 50% of the cuts still have to come from the Defense Department budget. Otherwise, it's a non-starter. If anyone other than Harry Reid were Senate Majority Leader, this would never even be assigned to a committee, let alone be put to a vote when it came over to that chamber.
I don't think the Defense cuts will change. I think it is a good deal.
As long as the defense cuts stay, all else should be negotiable. The Pentagon is the largest source of fraud, corruption and waste in the US government. Even the GAO and IG have no idea where the money is and who is getting it. The money we do know about is being wasted on programs that are so badly mismanaged and technically flawed that we will undoubtedly come to regret ever putting our troops in danger by operating them. Sadly, Congress refuses to do a thing about it because defense contractors are some of their biggest political donors. Congress could save literally hundreds of billions in one fell swoop by cancelling the F-35 program, as well as the LCS Littoral Combat Ship, as well as the DDX1000 Zumwalt destroyer. The F-35, which had once again resumed flying after having one of its variants grounded due to fuselage cracks, is now grounded again because of serious engine cracks that could cause the plane to explode in mid-air. Nice work, LockMart, great value for the $369 billion spent on the project so far, with no operation capability yet in sight. The LCS is another multi-billion dollar project that has had "minor" problems like major hull leaks, engine replacements and more. Now the Navy is finally ready to figure out what to do with the ships. That's right, they didn't define the mission, then design to the mission. They went at it backwards, and built the ships, and now they'll figure out what they can do. And the Zumwalt will cost at least a billion dollars per copy, making it the most expensive combatant in the navy other than an aircraft carrier. Defense contractors get rich, and we, the taxpayer, get the shaft and the bill for garbage that is overpriced and doesn't work.
Wow, really did not the President just say that these cuts would affect national security? Love it when people jump to thier teams support. Just like a college football game. Right or wrong, good or bad, we support them. Real change would be:
Let's stop lettings both parties move us from our objectives and stay focused on what we need not who we support.
By the way, I am for building US manufactured ships that cost a billion dollars a piece using US labor instead of paying a lease for a post in some country that hates us. Pull all the troops back from everywhere and put drones on ships to do the dirty work. It's for effective and cheaper.
Ever think about that Germany, Japan and South Korea are the next three largest economies and they can do that because they have no military expenses to speak of. We pay and provide troops so they can provide a better living to thier people. Build ships and planes here so we don't have to pay and protect them there.
I thought I saw a ppicture of Obama in a Defense Industry Factory saying it would be cut due to the sequester? Not for sure if the Administration agrees with Defense cuts?
Why isn't the story being portrayed in the MSM that instead of trying to stop the sequester, the GOP is actively trying to legislate in the post-sequester world? Not that I'm surprised, but this is truly bizarre.
MSM in the biz of pushing crap on the american public. MSM reps "owner thievers" who live solely on interest money and the fools that buy their overpriced wallstreet products which they will print the money for to loan to you to buy - the, you have to give it nback with interest.
if that sounds like a CON GAME, IT IS.
I wouldn't call what Ellison did a "tirade" since he wasn't angry or yelling. But this is great: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ellison-hannity-tirade-video-145809949--politics.html
Ellison called Hannity the "worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen" and a "shill for the Republican Party." Yeaaaa! The only thing I wish Keith had done was not talk over Hannity's questions because he appeared rude and could have easily knocked down those questions.
To Ellison's claim that Hannity was a "shill for the Republican party," Hannity replied, no, he wasn't a registered Republican, he was a registered conservative. Huh? Where do I register for the Conservative Party outside of Great Britain?
If it goes through the Senate, the proposal to give the president a scalpel for cuts would be subject to Senate rules. Since the Democrats control the Senate, they could add amendments that would make increased revenue a reality. Then the repubs would have to filibuster the whole thing or send a bill to the House that contained revenue along with cuts.
Can you filibuster an amendment to a bill without filibustering the bill under consideration?
I would think you would have to make an up or down vote on an amendment that was presented properly BEFORE you would take an up or down on the bill itself. But, yes, you can filibuster an amendment according to this professor from the University of Oklahoma.
When the enemy can only bounce around like a ping pong ball with no coherent strategy, and no effective tactics, defeat is surely the inevitable outcome. And make no mistake , the Republicans are the enemy!.
lmao! they are thieves who have to steal from populations and make it look like they earn their money - that they deserve it - that they are entitled to it. you know how these thieves like entitlements. really, they are simple criminal minded extortionists who would otherwise be hijacking trucks if it werent for their ability to con the public to get elected to get paid.
THEY ARE THIEVES.
How is this even constitutional? And, aside from that, Congress giving up power? To the Executive Branch? I will believe it when I see it. And if I see it, that means that the GOP (held House, where all spending is supposed to originate) is giving up even the appearance that they are governing.
The GOP is an absolute @!$%#ing joke. All politics all the time. And to US? They shoot us the bird. Unbelievable.
"where all spending is supposed to originate".
right. but the lazy SFB boehner does not want to do his job and he demands to be paid $274,000 a year for conning the public and abusing his office and the people. he really is just a thief.
does this mean that the pandering lazy drunk pimped out johnny b is actually going to do some work for his $274,000 a year that americans are wasting on this jerk as he rips off the population and abuses america?
Joseph getting personal by calling anyone a drunk and lazy is a little over the top to me. I don't agree with him but I really don't see any of your posts that actually suggest a solution just rant and BULLY others. Tell me how you would actually repair anything in the government, our society, the world. It's quite east for you and the others to complain and thr out personal slanders but where is your actual opinion, resolution or new idea? Help me find it, point me to it so that I can discuss yur points of view with you. See, I may not agree with JB but I'm not going to bully him or slander him in public without an opinion of my own.
It was said years ago, "if two men agree on everything then one is not thinking". So, you agree 100% with what the Presidents position is? If not tell me where you differ
sounds a bit like the eve of the Civil War
"If nothing changes between now and tomorrow night, there will be automatic, across-the-board cuts totaling $85 billion this year."
Nothing's automatic. Higher-ups in each government agency will still have to decide where and how to apply their cuts. If Federal employees are to be furloughed, notices must be sent them 30 days ahead of time.
My prediction: few of the cuts will actually happen until after the deadline for the new Continuing Resolution on March 27, and those that happen before then will happen because the Administration wanted them to happen.
The CR is where the real action is; the sequester is largely an illusion. If a new CR isn't passed, then the government will shut down, rather than have cuts imposed on it. If a new CR is passed by March 27, then it, rather than the sequester, will set spending levels between then and September 30, when the current fiscal year ends.
Isn't this sort of thing illegal because it would amount to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional?
I suspect Obama is going to fight this delegation of power from the legislature right up to the point where he needs to sign a veto, and then he will say for the good of the country I will accept this burden. Remember he is term limited. He is on record saying he wants to cut a lot of deadend programs. This give him a chance to do just that. I bet Chuck Hagel could find at least 50 billion in the defense department budget alone nobody outside some 3 stars at the Pentagon and a few defense contractors will notice.
This is a really, really bad idea for the legislative branch. That it is being proposed by the legislature tells us just how disfunctional and disorganized the House Republicans really are. I am very progressive and a strong supporter of the President, but this is just stupid Constitutionally. I oppose it.
By the way this proposal was floated and quickly shotdown just last week. It isn't new.
The problem that I see in this is that the republicans will be able to use this against the democrats in the next election cycle. Even though Obama is term limited, any and everything he does as far as picking and choosing programs will be twisted into lies and repeated until the uniformed voters are brain washed into thinking the lies are truth. This is a republican and a legislative mess and the republicans in congress need to solve it not the president.
Cogent, sir, to the max!
This would effectively give the President a line item veto, which the Supreme Court has already ruled is illegal.
If Obama was given this power, he should simply cut ever expenditure that benefits every House Republican district and then go from there.
Beat me to it. No more federal dollars, no more farm subsidies, no more block grants, close the FBI and agriculture offices in districts in Alabama, Mississipi, Kentucky.........
Very simple Mr. President take the deal and cut the salaries of every congressman and senator until they fix this. All perks cut etc. Do this as the very first cut and see how quickly they fix the problem.
Heck, I'd say he could simply de-fund Congress and the Senate entirely. No staff salaries, no travel, no office, no supplies, no support, no benefits. If they don't like it, they can quit. Buh bye.
(Can you tell I'm irritated?)
Unfortunately any cut to Congressional salaries cannot take effect until the next Congress sets.
What about money to run their offices?
Obama and the Dems are doing political theater to increase public pressure on Republicans. So long as the public perceives the Dems as willing to negotiate and compromise, Republicans will continue to drop in the polls since the public sees them as the obstruction. We watched Republican theater for the last two weeks while Republicans tried to unsuccessfully blame the president. The Republicans are holding a lot of press conferences to continue to shift the blame, but establishment Republicans including Boehner know that public opinion is running against them. Once bad things start to happen and people get angry, it is going to get far worse for Republicans so they are making their last stand. Boehner and others have been around long enough to remember what happened in 1995. If public opinion really turns on Republicans, they will have to go to Obama for a deal. But before that happens, Republicans in the Senate are going to pass some compromise bill to shift attention to the House. It makes no sense to allow the worse possibility to happen and be in a weaker position of negotiating, but the Tea Party is forcing this. Boehner gets to sit back and wait for the Tea Party to come to him to make a deal with Obama. If the Tea Party does not, then pressure will mount on establishment Republicans to cut the deal and force a House vote. And that will deepen divisions in the Republican party as well as open more challenges in primaries. While all of this is happening, Republican party campaign contributors are going to hold on to their money. When the reelection campaigns start, the Tea Party members are going to have difficulty raising cash and will not be able to get money from the national party. Reince Preibus is going to preside over a cash starved party.
Take the deal, Mr. President! Then proceed to use your Republican-given " discretion" to eliminate Federal jobs and facilities in Boehner's district, and all those of the other Tea-Party idiots. Too bad Kentucky would be too big to hurt McConnell, but as they say, "You reap what you sow."
It is seems that most governmental departments will suffer - apparently in a pretty major way - with a 2% budget cut. So it seems that any cuts of substance (is 2% substantial?) cannot happen now or in the future. Even if they "rearrange" the cuts to cause less pain, it is obvious that only more revenue is the answer to reducing the deficits and maybe someday knocking down the debt any.
I am all for distributing the cuts to "non-essential" programs, but then what about the next round of cuts next year or whenever? The way the discussion is going in DC and elsewhere, NO cuts can ever be made to the large programs - only incoming revenue. Seems like we are headed towards a one way street (more cash in ONLY) on the bulk of the federal government.
Maddow Blog definition:
Troll - anyone with a different opinion than 99% of the others. Any differing thought - regardless of merit - will result in said title. :)
The cuts are for only the current fiscal year. Any future cuts will be dealt with in the appropriations for the next fiscal year. The Republicans are going to face the revenue question, if not now, then later which is just before the midterm elections. Sure sounds like Republicans are intent on committing suicide. Obama and the Dems are not going to agree to any further cuts without revenue. Public opinion polls and lack of options will push the Republicans to do what they refuse to do now.
Mike,
I understand that this is for the current year, but if the major departments cannot take a small cut (2%) now, why would they be able to in future years? Obviously they are operating at the max of their funding....so no cuts can happen without relatively dire consequences (as the President has pointed out more than a few times at nicely "framed" locations). Listening to the speeches I get the impression that they need every dime. If you can explain to me how these programs and departments can take a cut in future years without the same supposedly damaging consequences I would like to know.
Current and past experience in Europe, South America, Asia and the US shows that austerity actually puts an economy into far worse shape, as the confidence fairy never shows up to magically make the economy better after the cuts happen. I think you are maybe a little pessimistic in your assessment that the only way we get out of this is to increase revenue. Healthcare is one of the biggest of all government expenses, so there needs to be a fundamental change in how we deliver and pay for it. Insurance companies are a non-value added part of the equation, as they are middlemen that neither improve the patient's health or provide better medical care from the provider's point of view. There is also no reason that doctors need to make exorbitant amounts of money by being incentivized to do procedures simply because they are paid by the procedure. The Mayo Clinic provides some of the finest healthcare in the world, with some of the finest doctors, and those physicians are paid a fixed salary. This is what needs to be done nationally. Doing so would cut healthcare costs for everyone, including government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And of course, by going to the Pentagon, there is more waste, fraud and corruption that eats tens, if not hundreds of billions of tax money each year.
Point taken Uffdaguy. Maybe I am a little pessimistic, but it just seems that nothing $$ wise ever goes down in government.
One relatively large part of our skyrocketing healtcare costs is the condition of the patients. A LOT of the costs can be avoided entirely if the average American took care themselves, even a little bit more. Obesity rates are going up as well as prescription costs for medications like Lipitor, which can be avoided for most people by watching what they eat and exercising. If people just took some preventative steps - without some govenment funded program to tell them to - that would save a decent amount off the top.
And to be fair, there is waste and fraud in every major government program. Anyone that denies that is naive.
All government agencies claim they need more money than they get. It is up to Congress to make hard decisions on what programs should be killed. Robert Gates who was the head of defense before Pannetta tried to kill some projects in the defense department which Congress refused to do. In addition, he recommended reductions in Europe since our large presence has outlived it need. Congress does not want to make the hard decisions because it means some members are going to lose federal funds and their campaign contributors in the defense department lobby will insure that funds are not cut. The same issues are present in domestic spending. The lame duck Congress in 2006 passed the no bidding on drugs provision in Medicare which benefits Big Pharma. There are a lot of powerful lobbies, except for the middle class and poor who get a pipe to the head when the time comes to cut.
It is up to Congress to make hard decisions on what programs should be killed.
That will never happen which is exactly my point - government programs only go up $$ wise. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of what you posted. Maybe the only was for programs to shrink dollar wise is something like the sequester.
Skip, I don't know of a way to get people to take better care of their health. If I did, I'd be running the country! If everyone had free preventive care, like I and many others do with their insurance plans, I think you would see a big reduction in total healthcare costs. If I recall correctly, a dollar spent on preventive care saves ten dollars on care needed when someone actually gets sick and needs treatment. We do face an aging population, (I'm a boomer myself), so we need to make sure that preventive care is available to all, and the only way I see that working effectively is a single payer system like every other advanced nation on earth already has. Is it perfect? No, but it is better and far more cost-effective and affordable than what we have right now. The current system is unsustainable, but simply cutting Medicare and Medicaid doesn't eliminate the problem. Rather, it is simply the US throwing up its hands and saying that it simply cares more for insurance companies, Big Pharma and Big Medicine and their profits than it does for its own citizens. Tens of millions will continue to get sick and need treatment, but we will say that in order to keep costs down, we simply have to let those folks slip through the cracks. THAT is a true death panel, not the one the far right fearmongered about during the healthcare debate.
What was that, 2%? Well, how about the single Mom in Alabama manufacturing tanks taking a 20% pay cut? That does sound like a "pipe to the head", not a trivial pittance.
So where is the suffering for the Big Oil Subsides and taking out some loopholes like writing off the corporate jet or the yachts?
That is the problem I have with this. The least well off lose the most- again. TPubs do protect the haves and if the have nots suffer, they call them lazy not to go get another job. Remember, Bush II said it was "uniquely American" for a single Mom to work 3 jobs.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50980824#50980824
The Alabama story. With the loss of the temp jobs, the rest take 20% cuts.
Why do you keep saying "without revenue'? He already got his tax increases. He got what he wanted and will not compromise on any cuts. He is absolutely out in left field in thinking we don't need to cut spending. HE... GOT... HIS... INCREASED... REVENUE!!! How pig headed and ignorant can he be to think we don't need to cut spending? Who in their right mind thinks that our current levels of spending are sustainable? The Republicans were sent to Washington to hold the line on spending. Very close to half the Americans want spending cuts. Only those who do not contribute can't see the need. Sadly half of the country doesn't contribute. America spends Too much money, PERIOD! Republicans were stupid to believe that if they gave in to him on the 11th hour of the fiscal cliff that he would address spending cuts later. He has proven that he has no intentions of cutting spending. Now he is spewing untruths to try and scare the American people. The cut is miniscule and won't affect much; it is just a smaller increase, not a cut.
OK, let's cut spending starting with you. You certainly won't need food inspection services, air traffic controllers, social security or medicare now or in the future. Just think how much we can save by not having to provide for your ignorant behind.
Are you saying that there is no way to reduce the federal budget? Are you saying that there is no fraud and waste? Are you saying that you can keep spending and spending and borrowing and borrowing with no consequences? Is that the way you run your household? Are you saying that you are willing to send our country into bankruptcy and place our children and grandchildren into debt up to their eyeballs? Are you saying that you are so selfish that you are willing to have today and take from future generations? That our generation is more deserving than tomorrow's generations? Selfish view of the situation.
Apparently you have substandard reading comprehension, as my previous posts in this very thread say just the opposite of what you are claiming. I said there was plenty of waste, fraud and corruption in the Pentagon, and I gave concrete examples. I also noted that there needed to be reform in the healthcare system and how we pay for it. When you learn to read, get back to me.
Uffdaguy: There is plenty of waste in the Pentagon, and if you have seen the article in this week's Time, there is plenty of waste in health care, even though the article makes it very clear that Medicare is the most efficient payment system out there.
There was a good story on the CBS Evening News last week about what will happen when the meat inspectors get furloughed. I am beginning to believe that this problem will get fixed only when meat and chicken, etc. disappear from the supermarket shelves. Then the PEOPLE will see that government is not so bad after all. Only when the people begin to feel the heat will something happen. Only when the people see that the austerity ideology is really bad for them will they make enough noise so that the Republicans will give up their ideology.
Consensus in the checkout line in the Safeway in Cortez, Colorado yesterday (I was buying meat and chicken just in case): stop pointing fingers and trying to say who is to blame and FIX THE PROBLEM.
jes, If you are going to count the recent tax increase ($600 billion) on people with incomes over $400,000 as "he got his tax increase" then you will have to count the previous round when Boehner got $1.2 trillion in cuts as "he got his cuts." Boehner still owes us another $600 billion in revenue before we even start to discuss cuts.