Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Sequestration: Another manufactured crisis

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:00 am

With the approval rating of Congress at 12 percent, it is clear that Americans are frustrated with yet another manufactured crisis where the economy is held hostage by right-wing Republicans who would prefer to see chaos rather than work with Democrats and moderate Republicans who prefer to support economic stability.

During the manufactured debt ceiling crisis last year, Republicans like Michelle Bachman were congratulated for voting against the debt ceiling, a vote which caused the U.S. credit rating to fall for the first time in decades, costing the country over a billion dollars in interest alone. The irony is that the debt that the right did not want to pay was already approved by Congress, and the vote against raising the debt ceiling was simply a refusal by Congress to pay bills they had already incurred.

Now we have the latest manufactured crisis, the Sequestration. The Sequestration is the Budget Control Act of 2011. In 2011 a bipartisan Super Committee was formed in Congress to address deficit issues by looking at spending cuts and revenue. After meeting and failing to come to any agreement Congress created the Budget Control Act, which provides for spending cuts to kick in on March 1 — cuts so draconian that this action was supposed to ensure that Congress would come to a more reasonable agreement on spending before the dreaded Sequester would kick in. March 1 is less than a week away.

So what did the Congress do? They decided to adjourn for 10 days.

What are the consequences if the Budget Control Act goes into effect? Here are just a few examples: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the sequester could reduce economic growth by 0.6 percent and reduce job growth by 750,000 positions. Layoffs would include 14,000 teachers and staff. Public safety would be affected by 14-day furloughs for FBI agents, and reduced hours for police officers and the border patrol. National Parks will see reduced hours and services, and there will be increased waits at airports.

Also affected will be food inspections, weather monitoring, medical research, disaster response, educational programs, Meals on Wheels for seniors, as well as Head Start programs, cancer screenings and student loans. So those who want less government will definitely get it.

Acting undersecretary Jessica Wright has stated that effects of sequestration "will be devastating to our military personnel, but on our civilians it will be catastrophic." So much for our national security.

Closer to home, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that "federal cuts could send (the) state reeling." They report that there will be an estimated $3.2 billion cut in military spending, and the loss of $115 million in federal money for job training, afterschool programs, housing assistance and public safety. Cuts in non-defense spending could be as much as $670 million in 2013.

Even though Speaker of the House John Boehner rejected the Grand Bargain offered by President Obama, Boehner has admitted in a CBS interview that he believes that the president has negotiated in good faith. When the Budget Control Act that created the sequestration was passed by two-thirds of the Republicans in Congress — including Speaker Boehner — the Speaker said that he got 98 percent of what he wanted, adding, "I'm pretty happy." However, on Feb. 20, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Speaker Boehner now says that the sequester is an "ugly and dangerous way" to cut spending. Even so, he and the Congress decided to take a vacation rather than address the crisis.

Speaker Boehner has stated that there will be no discussion on revenue, and that only spending cuts are on the table. President Obama has never said that there will be no discussion on spending cuts, or that he will discuss only revenue. The president has consistently offered a balanced approach, which includes spending cuts and, as part of revenue, reduction of subsidies to Big Oil (which they undoubtedly can afford to give up in light of their present gouging of gas prices), and fewer tax breaks on luxury items such as corporate jets. Rather, Republicans would like to reduce Head Start and Meals on Wheels.

It is undeniable that the right wing of the Republican Party has done everything it can to frustrate any policy or potential nominee if either were supported by President Obama. For four years, they have filibustered their way to making the Congress the least-productive and most disliked in decades — perhaps in history. Isn't it time for the Republican Party to stop trying to cause President Obama (and this country) to fail, and think about the citizens who put them in office to govern?

Cynthia Neely of Lodi is a retired city attorney.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

70 comments:

  • Christina Welch posted at 1:53 pm on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Too funny, Pat! I'm totally going to steal that line about the blended drinks in Washington, if you don't mind. Classic.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 11:28 am on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Christina: Glad to see you branching out. As I said to all of the members on all of the school boards I served with..."I don't have all of the answers...but sometimes I have good ones...as you will...and if we blend them I think we can come up with a very good one." The only thing being blended in Washington are the drinks.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 7:19 am on Thu, Mar 7, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Well said, Stan; you definitely understand economics and the idea of crowding out. You pose interesting questions about the motivations of the left in terms of this issue. I think part of it might also be that when you look at the political spectrum, one way of analyzing a person's perspective is to look at their attitude toward change. Left-leaning people tend to embrace change and always think we can do things new and better. More conservative minded people tend to want to maintain the status quo, and moderates want a blend of both. I think a lot of the president's agenda reflects this--change just for the sake of change, even if it doesn't make financial or economic sense. Guilt complex--maybe. Lust for power--well, I think that's typical in politics regardless of what side you're on, so that could be it, too. All I know is that I wish I could promise my almost 4-year old daughter a bright future to look forward to, and right now, I just really doubt it.

     
  • stan taves posted at 9:05 am on Wed, Mar 6, 2013.

    Stan Taves Posts: 309

    Unfortunately the basics are always lost on liberals like Ms Neely. The reason we should favor smaller govt as opposed to Obama's desire to expand bureaucracy is that govt always deploys capital less efficiently than the private sector. It is true that a civil society needs some governance, but when the center's inefficiency begins to crowd out private sector growth then everyone -- except for the center -- gets hurt. Could it be that the left is plagued by a guilt complex that demands pain be felt by the private sector; or, is it merely a lust for power that drives the left to such extremes? Maybe Ms Neely knows...

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Mar 5, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    And after they spend all of our dollar, they go next door to Johnny to borrow another dollar for more candy...

    When will this craziness end?

    I don't understand why everyone is so worried about the future we are leaving to our children in terms of the environment, civil rights, a more tolerant society, etc etc, yet no one seems worried about the massive debt we are leaving to them. Do they not see that a massive debt reduces the funds available for business to invest--the "crowding-out-effect"? Do they not see the difficulty in servicing the debt--those interest payments are dollars that can't be spent on infrastructure, defense, or social services. Even Keynesians realize that running budget deficits can only be an effective tool if it is temporary!

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:13 pm on Mon, Mar 4, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    MsW: Good post. I would only add that the sequestration is a manufactured word by manufactured people (supposed people) who are addicted to spending and gambling...with our money. As you pointed out, they crapped out on our credit rating and now they are drawing to an inside straight against a royal flush (maybe we should do some flushing of our own). Their manufactured crisis didn't cut spending it only lowered the amount they COULD spend...like telling your five-year old not to spend the WHOLE dollar on candy...then they hand you back 2 cents. Same difference, only they spend ALL of our dollar on their candies.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 8:49 am on Mon, Mar 4, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Ms Neely speaks about a "manufactured crisis" over this sequestration, which I agree with, but I lay the blame on both parties, not just the Republicans. She puts the blame on the Republicans for the downgrade in the US credit rating because of the their "manufactured debt ceiling crisis," yet, according to Reuters and other sources, "S&P dropped the ranking one level to AA+, after warning on July 14 that it would reduce the rating in the absence of a ‘credible’ plan to lower deficits even if the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit was lifted." I think she's blinded by her hatred of the Republicans to see the culpability across the aisle.

    Personally, I find this sequestration pretty ironic--government inaction has finally led to some real action in Washington DC toward addressing our national deficits and debt.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:39 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Mr L: I don't copy/paste...what did it say? Probably something about neely. Again, I don't get why they don't just redact what they feel is not germane.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:33 am on Sun, Mar 3, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone..check your paycheck...if you get one...if not..check your status

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:47 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    I read your deleted comment this morning Mr. Maple. [thumbup]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 10:27 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Very well put Ms Bobin.
    And my how conservatives like to ignore their elephant in the room. And look now how the Clinton surplus is now voodoo economics that were the justification for Bush Jrs tax breaks or the rich.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 4:38 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Exellent story about exactly what Clinton did, passed on debt unrevealed by phony voodo accounting.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 4:32 pm on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Good grief, even Obama has quit blaming Bush.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:15 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    tsk, tsk tsk, Mr. Maple. I think you have not learned from previous conversations.

    You conveniently "forget" that Mr. Bush "forgot" to put the cost of two unnecessary wars "on the books" while he was in office.

    By YOUR thinking, I guess, if you purchased a roofing business in good faith that the previous owner had declared solvent, then realized that he had secreted the real books and you found that your newly acquired business was in fact trillions of dollars in debt due to items purchased on credit and not revealed in the transaction, that debt would then be attributed to YOUR mismanagement.

    Failure of due dillegence, perhaps, but not YOUR debt.

    Either way, you and your employees have been bilked, just as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney bilked the American public.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 8:52 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 442

    According to Rick Rydell, who is a radio host who specializes in real estate law and economics, said about 2 months ago, that this new budget proposal is not a spending cut, nor a decrease in revenue. The federal government will get what it got last year plus an increase. The problem is that this increase is 2% less than Obama Inc. wanted and thus calls it a cut which equals about $85 million less than their goal, but still an increase over last year. That would equate to about 85 cents for every 12 dollars. I am assuming that with the new income tax rules,that the average unmarried worker who filed, will only get about half in federal and state returns than he did last year if he worked the same number of hours at the same pay rate. I hope I cheered everybody up.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:12 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    President Pinnocchio's Treasury secretary comes up with the idea - then he - the President demands that the sequester be included in the 2011 Budget Control Act - then HE the President signs it into law...and yet it is the Republican's fault? [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:12 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    [lol]... [thumbup]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:06 am on Sat, Mar 2, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    Mr. Maple, My Maxine comment was in reference to Mr. Chapman's post concerning who balances Mr. Heuer's checkbook.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:40 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Sorry mrt: Your numbers don't match up with the information at the site you reference: Since 2009 the GDP v deficit has averaged 9.2%. Spending has increased each year by over $100B each year since 2009 and the deficit has grown by $6 Trillion. Between 2004 and 2009 the deficit averaged $450B...from 2009 to the end of 2012 the deficit (spending) averaged $1.325 Trillion. Sequestrtion does NOT lower the deficit only the amount of increase in spending. Period. BO and is phony economists can't even get the unemployment rate right. This is what happens when you begin to believe your own lies.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:25 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Your efforts are evident here. Its a pleasure.

    And let me offer my salute to Mrs Gavin

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 12:28 pm on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Add Maxine Waters AND Nancy Pelosi's IQs together and the result would still be in the double digit range.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:42 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2008_2017USp_XXs1li111mcn_G0f

    once again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. the federal defitcit, as a % of GDP, has been declining since its peak in FY2009 (for which GWB was president for 7.5 months since passed in June 2008)

    And for those that mistakenly argue that our debt/deficit is because of a spending problem, look at the historically low revenue, as a % of GDP, over the last few years.

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2017USp_13s1li011mcn_F0f

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 11:28 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    There are lots of golf courses here in the Palm Springs area that take precedence over posting on this site. Trust me, Mr. Heuer, there is plenty wrong with most of your liberal "facts", most of which I have heard on the radical liberal talking heads programs which is why their ratings are in the dumper. Stop parroting what you have heard on TV and find out the difference between reality and what Obama/Soros owned media talking heads tell you. Think for yourself for a changed.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:24 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    Thanks Thomas. I think I could argue that I might read more than just about anyone around here about contemporary American politics. And if I'm unsure about something, I research it. Imagine that.

    Oh, and I also owe a lot to Mrs. Gavin, my English teacher. /shout out!

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Maxine Waters in her own words http://www.isthatbaloney.com/maxine-waters-claims-sequestration-will-cause-the-loss-of-every-job-in-america-plus-35000/

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:15 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2008_2017USp_XXs1li111mcn_G0f

    once again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. the federal defitcit, as a % of GDP, has been declining since its peak in FY2009 (for which GWB was president for 7.5 months since passed in June 2008)

    And for those that mistakenly argue that our debt/deficit is because of a spending problem, look at the historically low revenue, as a % of GDP, over the last few years.

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2017USp_13s1li011mcn_F0f

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:13 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Credibility....Woodward or Obama??? Come out, come out liberals, wherever you are...

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:12 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Andrew: For a good laugh...google the idiot...

    Robert: I think a lot of other stuff escapes the liberals as well...like the lies the empty suit in charge makes, lack of leadership and much more...too busy golfing with a wife cheater...at least SHE had balls enough to call him on them with a golf club!!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:44 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    Maxine Waters? [lol]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:41 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Ah Mr Chapman, you found the single flaw in my otherwise impeccable arguement. Of the three things in that part of my post I did misspeak on the third, ie spending going down. It did fail to convey what I was trying to say. However I must give you credit for due diligence since I made that post over 2 days ago and you just now took note of it. You must have had a good breakfast this morning.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 8:16 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Mr. Heuer posted, " Since the deficit has continued to decline since Obama took office means the economy is improving and/or spending is going down".
    Apparently arithmetic and financal acumen escapes you. Who balances your checkbook?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:29 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    BTW...there is a trap in my last post...beware little liberals.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:26 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Maxine Waters!!! That's who mrs neely and the rest of the chicken littles that post here have been talking to!!!
    MAXINE WATERS!!! The idiot who says a 2.4% cut, ($85B) from the fed budget INCREASE will cost 170,000,000 million people to lose their jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!! There only 134,000,000 million jobs IN America! Our total population is only 315,000,000! That would mean we would have 140% unemployment!!! WOW! AND... You VOTE for these morons! 12% mrs neely...she's a ZERO!

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:10 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    AL: Yep. Especially "precision" cuts. Only place I know where a "buzz" haircut is really a Bosley hair transplant.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:06 am on Fri, Mar 1, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrb: are you trying to say that a president doesn't work with the Congress and v/vs? That the approval ratings aren't reflective upon each? Come now...check your ources.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:24 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    Only in Washington is a spending increase called "a cut" [sleeping]

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:28 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1453

    Wrong 12 % has nothing to do with the members of congress it means that 12 percent of the people polled approve of Congress it is obvious from the last couple of elections that low approval ratings does not mean low re-election percentages I am not arguing that congress sucks it's just that your interpretation of approval ratings is flawed. Congress is not led by the president it is a separate branch of government. Weren’t you like a teacher or something?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:00 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrt: Are you saying the the dems in congress split 50/50 on this bill...you mean they could agree on BO's proposal??? Bob Woodward (hardly a Republican stalwart) is bad because he put the sequestration idea and blame on BO??? Read his book...don't worry it won't hurt you...it doesn't have a forward by Rush or Beck.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:57 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrb: I forgot lefties don't understand sarcasm. 12% approval would mean that only 12% were worthy of re-election. 12% would mean 88% are worthless. 12% is the average under BO. Four years 12% versus eight years 44% and at one point 88%. BO and this congress is the WORST EVER...and it is lead by the Democratic Senate and Democratic President. Case closed.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:51 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Thank you Jeff. I have learned over time the most valued opinion and the most reliably informed poster in this forum is Jeff Tillett. He is also the most able to coherently state his position.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:51 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mrh: Budget? Yes mrh...a budget. Ask IBM if they have a budget, a McDonald's . franchisee, w buffet, a Hollycrap movie dope or a kid with a lemonstand or paper route. Any school district, city, county, state has a budget. The feds....Bubget??? What's a budget???

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:47 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Mr Chapman...Pure hogwash...apocalyptic...phony...all correct observations!!

    As we have all read before...feigned outrage, stunned responses, phony baloney logic and attack the messenger not the message...all political tactics of the Left. If we said the sky was turquoise...they would not agree, rather they would attack. It is when people like you, Mr Kinderman, myself, Mr Jacobs, Mr Ring and others make suggestions that make sense they get nervous and p-- themselves. We just have to keep calling them on their BS and mis-information until they cry. It is time for some tough love.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:40 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    No evidence has been presented by anyone that refutes the statements I made previous. That is because there are none...not from the circus anyway.

    To finish mrs neely: Every local, city, district, county, state and federal agency is required to keep a 5-10% reserve in their budget. Move 50% of the reserve to the general fund, plan on a 2% reduction in costs for 3 years and a return of 50% reserve funding after that time. As your budget shrinks the reserve requirement also shrinks and those funds can be used to maintain programs and people. Live within your means. Their plight reminds me of the thirsty man...who drank so much water he died.

    BTW mrs neely...The Head Start program was founded in 1965 and has failed to make any quantifiable improvement in student performance, graduation rates, poverty levels or other reportable improvements. In other words it was/is a failure...mostly because of mismanagement and the lacking of parental involvement. It was merely a baby sitting service. Read: Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money
    By: Andrew J. Coulson
    New York Post on January 28, 2010.

    Lets see: According to you: More murders will occur, people are going to starve, cops are going to die, fires won't be fought, murderers are going to be released, Chicken Little will have to revise his prediction, Batman will be left without gas, Big Oil will NOT raise the cost of gas...after BO takes more money (who do you think they pass this on to mrs neely...???),

    Next...another asinine statement: "It is undeniable that the right wing of the Republican Party has done everything it can to frustrate any policy or potential nominee if either were supported by President Obama."...I deny it. Besides I though the Republican Party WAS the right wing. Which part are you refering to...can you name names? Give us an example of any policy or nominee...while you are at it name off a few of the presidential "edicts" that you DIDN'T like as you, and many who spew here, sip a bit of tea that is paid for by your government pension. Of course you deserve it...and in all fairness so do millions of others like me who had their's taken away by this idiot in chief.

    Lastly...would you please define and give examples of this morons balanced approach? Domestic, fiscal or political.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 2:24 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    Don't kill the messenger. They just reported findings from the Pew Research Center: "The apparent contradictions on budget cutting were on full display in a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with USA Today."

    Know back to your revisionist history... I refuted your claims by citing wikipedia, which, in turn, cites Woodward, Fox News and the NYTimes.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 12:41 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Huffington Post? Yeah, they aren't the least bit liberal, eh?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:41 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    "Nobody wants to talk about reducing spending."
    Umm... that is a patently false statement. First, that is all the Republicans are offering as far as negotiation. Second, the Obama offer is a mix (50/50-ish) of spending cuts and increasing tax revenue. In fact he is offering some of the same tax revenue (offered by the GOP at various times over the last 2 years.

    So really, the exact opposite is true. Everybody wants to talk about reducing spending.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:36 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    No. An attempt a revising history.

    not "gladly" - President Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate.[14] In doing so, the president said, "Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year."

    "Obama has no intention..." - The intent [of the sequestration] was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.

    By definition, neither Dems or Reps planned on carrying out the sequestration. It was supposed to be supplanted after negotiations, otherwise known as compromise. That did not happen.

    The House passed the Budget Control Act[1] on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

    Finally, exactly what waste are you going to cut? And is there really that much waste?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/budget-polls-spending-cuts_n_2776231.html

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:35 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1453

    A 12 % approval rating does not mean that people like 12% of the House members it means that 12% of the people polled approve of the job of the house.

     
  • John Ring posted at 8:01 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    John Ring Posts: 34

    The dems don't want to get rid of them either. Take away big oil tax breaks and prices at the pump only go up. Raise min wage and consumer prices go up. Nobody wants to talk about reducing spending. Sounds better to blame the rich and big business. Taxing the top 1 percent at 100% doesn't begin to generate enough money to pay for all the govt spending.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Sorry to disappoint you, I don't watch FOX.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 7:52 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Two years ago, Obama gladly agreed to the budget cuts as part of the negotiations with the GOP to avoid the phony "fiscal cliff" situation. These cuts became known as sequester. Here we are two years later and Obama has no intention of keeping his promise and is making the sequestration sound apocalyptic. Pure hogwash. Federal spending will continue to increase and the percentage of cuts involved in the sequestration are pennies in comparison to the spending and could easily be offset by prudent cuts to wasteful programs.

     
  • Robert Jacobs posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    Robert Jacobs Posts: 298

    These law makers in Washington's Capitol Hill (all of them) are arrogant, lying, cheating, self-serving, immoral people...

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:57 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mr Ring said:

    Go ahead and take big oil tax breaks away and while you are at it take away Hollywoods breaks, corporate jets and all the other rich guy tax breaks.

    Amidst all of the hullabaloo you might ask yourself why the fiscally Conservative Republicans refuse to do away with these tax breaks? It is because the people who receive these breaks own the Republican party.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:41 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Robert Chapman telling others to be objective. The Irony of that statement is beautiful.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:35 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Jerome Kinderman said:

    I'm very sorry Ms. Neely, but we share a fundamental difference when it comes to President Obama. It's true that we want his policies to fail.

    I do not blame you Jerome. After all, failure i what being a Republican is all about. The Iraq war, the crash of 2008, failure to get Ben Laden, the massive build up of deficits, the worst terrorist attack in history on their watch etc. I do not know why Republicans hate America. When they are in office they screw up every thing they touch and when out of office they do their best to do the same. I am always amazed that anyone who look with a clear eye at what the Republican party accomplishes would vote for them. They are expert at one thing and that is marketing. In other words they are good at BS.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 8:18 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Budget Mr Chapman?
    Isn't that what all the fuss is about? What are we going to have as a budget? One with cuts and what will be cut and who suffers politically as a result? One with enhanced revenues or one with a bit of both. If a budget inclues cuts to defense does that work for you? If the budget includes cuts to entitlements does that work for you? And whatever works for you there is just as vocal a group who feel just the opposite. Obama can't dictate a budget, woudn't that be special. Of course that is the difference between a president and a CEO. And as I've said before I feel all this bickering is a calculated strategy by both parties. It takes our attemtion away from the economy and jobs for which there are no easy answers. As the economy steadily improves revenues increase and the budget decisions become less painful to decide on. For now its just a tug of war to see who is going to win the PR game. In the meantime all the players in this back and forth are making money. By the way say what you will about CNN or MSNBC but you surely don't feel you are getting any valid information from Fox commentary do you? You don't think you get any truth from Rush Limbaugh do you? If you do then mine is not the head in the sand.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 6:11 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Going on 5 years with Obama at the helm and not ONE budget? I ran a very successful business for years and always had a corporate budget and demanded budgets annually from my facility managers as a condition of their continued employment. How can the sequester wreak havoc on the budget when it is non-existent? Apparently you are not concerned with Obama's ridiculous tax and spend policies that will eventually bring America its financial demise. There is a reason CNN, MSNBC and other liberal spewing "news" channels are in the ratings toilet. I suggest you turn off the TV and do some real objective research. Might open your eyes, that is if you WANT to open them. If not, simply keep your head in the sand and simmer in your sad liberal stew.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:41 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Eh eh opinion not fact. Define spending. Since the deficit has continued to decline since Obama took office means the economy is improving and/or spending is going down. Now if the sequester goes into effect and effects economic growth, states have to shoulder more of the burdon then who is the responsible party. Correct answer is the GOP since they want cuts but when asked what do they want to cut they declined to state. Instead they chose a cowardly way out by passing the sequester giving them a 50-50 chance of dodging some blame. Looks like Obama wins again.The traitor is not in the WH.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:24 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Mr Chapman
    The fact is it was a negotiated settlement and the bill was passed in congress. The hogwash is that somehow Obama enacted the legislation. You know the ole shoved it down your throats. You don't know what Obama proposed only what congress was willing to pass. The GOP is desperatly trying to now find ways to put the blame on Obame since public opinion has fallen so low from all the other GOP obstructive shenanigans. The full impact of sequester if it is enacted will impact the economy adversley to what degree and specificly where is only partially known. There will be scrambling, adjusting and deal making which will change its eventual outcome but regardless it is not going to be good especially for the little guys. And why, to protect the tax deductions of the wealthy. Such a noble cause. Deductins they stole via lobbying in the first place.

    Yes Ms Neely is very correct.

    And PM
    Pick your point in time for polls since they tend to bounce and have been as low as 9%. !5% is not a shoe-in in any popularity poll. Your vain attempts at faulty logic in trying to determine popularity fails to mention ..OBAMA WON his second term. That alone trumps all your machinations.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:56 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1079

    Sigh...

    I miss Darrell.

    [sad]

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:52 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Once again Mrs Neely trots out her liberal garbage/disinformation. Let's take her to task...starting with the 12% rating congress has as she so states (which is wrong...the most recent was 15.8% among the top 10 polls but to be kind we will use he numbes). Who is/was in charge of the country...Democratic Senate...Republican House...Democratic Pres? BO had BOTH houses and did little to move the country forward.

    Under Bush and the Republicans the average congressional rating was at 42% with an '02 high of 88% (which included the two wars) (Real Clear Polical Polls). Under Obama and the Democrats it has averaged 14% with a high of 39% (six months) (same polls). Hmmm.

    Again the 12%...she writes as though the minority has the upper hand and is just being difficult..that's funny...the senate is dem/indp controled by a 51-47-2 margin...at 12% that means people dislike 44 of the democratic senators and only 41 republican senators...(the two independents vote with the democrats most of the time)....mrs neely can you tell me who the four Senators are that the country likes?

    During BO's first three years Dem voters gave Congress a 40% average rating while Reps and Indps gave it an average rating of 14%...what happened there? NOW ALL voters give them a rating of 10% (Gallup Poll 2-8-2013)

    Again the same 12% of the house: 435 Reps...the voters like 52 of them. mrs neely can you name one Representative the people like?

    mrs neely's claims of sequestration: According to NY Post associate editor Bob Woodward who wrote: The book ‘The Price of Politics,’it is made clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts originated in the White House – and not in Congress … Woodward describes the behind-the-scenes haggling last year that laid the groundwork for sequestration.” (“Bob Woodward Book Could Bolster Republican Attack On W.H.,” Politico, 9/7/12) "Minority Report". So NOW you and your hero mr BO you don't want to lie in the bed you made> Typical.

    CONGRESS adjourned mrs neely....it is NOT the Republican Congress..I need no source for that one. This one is just too much...I will finish the reprimand tomorrow.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 1:11 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    TRAITOR, not traiter....

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 1:10 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    The REAL traiter sits in the Oval Office. Spending America out of existence.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 1:02 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Ms. Neely is correct in stating that sequestration is a manufactured crisis. What she doesn't say is that it is the Obama administration that was the manufacturer. Obama is attemptiing to scare Americans by blaming GOP for holding up his spending spree. Claiming everything from firing police, teachers and not paying military to letting criminals out of prison. Pure hogwash scare tactics in an attempt to get his way.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 11:49 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1322

    Great column Ms Neely. Repupblicans might be more amenable to real solutions if it weren't for those desperatly-seeking Americas destruction under the various "tea party" banners. They are the true threats to America. Anybody wanting the president to fail is wanting the country to fail. They are no less than traitors in my book. There are policy differences and there are the needs of the country. Bicker if you will over the policies but don't politic the needs of the people.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:11 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2323

    I'm very sorry Ms. Neely, but we share a fundamental difference when it comes to President Obama. It's true that we want his policies to fail. This has nothing to do with the man personally (although most of you on the far-left find it necessary to accuse anyone of racism who simply disagrees with what he "does" rather than who he "is"), and has everything to do with where he wants to take our country.

    It could be that with his re-election in 2012 we've run out of time and options - but that doesn't mean we're not at least going to try. But at least attempt to be honest Ms. Neely - if the tables were turned (as they have been in the past), you would be celebrating any minority Democrat Congress that would be able to foil a conservative Republican to the extent that they've been able to do.

    Where we got hood-winked was with Chief Justice Roberts and his abysmal opinion regarding the so-called "ObamaCare" appeals. I gotta admit I didn't see that coming. Most of us were laying odds on Kennedy being the wild card. So now we have to wait and see just how bad this is going to be - and so far it seems to be adding up to quite a disaster.

    Now while I understand that when playing with other people's money the tendency is to spend as if there's no tomorrow. Well, with all that Obama has already spent and what he hopes to spend in the future, we may very well have no tomorrow. Republicans and other conservatives understand the concept of spending more than what's in the bank - when it comes to reconciling the account, it just doesn't work out quite right. I’ll admit that as I was getting used to being an adult it did take some time to realize that just because I had the money on hand, that didn’t mean I had to go out and spend it frivolously.

    So hang on Ms. Neely - as long as Republicans have a toe-hold in the House, count on them doing whatever they can to derail this Obama Spending Express! Call it what you want - I really don't care - but at least try to be honest about it.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:15 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    What stuff, specifically, did she make up?

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 9:56 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 239

    I have a friend who occasionally says to me "I swear John, you cant make this stuff up !" After reading this column, you apparently can.

     
  • John Ring posted at 7:48 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    John Ring Posts: 34

    People forget we had this situation in 1986 where automatic cuts took place. Life as we know it did not end. This so called cut in spending is no such thing as Andrew points out. Federal Spending would still be 15 Bil over last year and 30% over 2007 levels. Not even all the "cuts" would come into play this year, only 1.2% in 2013. The reality is we have to deal with the white elephant in the room, entitlement spending. A majority of americans, even Cynthia knows you can't spend more than you take in. Go ahead and take big oil tax breaks away and while you are at it take away Hollywoods breaks, corporate jets and all the other rich guy tax breaks. After all that we will still spend more money by the federal government than we take in tax revenue. The best thing we could do is let the automatic spending cuts take place. We will then all see the world as we know it will continue on. Perhaps both sides then can come together and cut some of the enormous waste in govt spending and start to deal with the out of control entitlement programs.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:53 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2972

    Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.
    [sleeping]

     

Recent Comments

Posted 4 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Excellent points Treacy, Christina, Thomas. Conspiracy theorists have a bottomless pit of intrigues and stories of mythical events perpetr…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Many states allow guns in schoo…

Thomas, More hyperbole......"proposed firearm seizure warrant". How riduculous. I don't know if you remember, but one conspiracy…

More...

Posted 5 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Many states allow guns in schoo…

How long have you been alive? You've been reading something for 25 years (by your own admission). You're not a member of the NRA, but ev…

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings against President Obama are not a "bogus insinuation" Mr. Heuer. Ignoring these 13 rulings si…

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by stan taves.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

...Interesting indeed. I guess that if there is one word that sums-up liberalism then it is "fairness". In other words, the lefti…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists