Should Congress let the federal sequester budget cuts take effect March 1?
Related Stories
Facing an end of the week deadline, President Barack Obama said Monday that Congress can avert sweeping across-the-board cuts with “just a little bit of compromise,” as he sought to stick lawmakers with the blame if the budget ax falls.
Speaking to the nation’s governors, Obama acknowledged that the impact of the $85 billion in cuts may not be felt immediately. But he also said the uncertainty already is impacting the economy, as the Pentagon and other agencies get ready to furlough employees.
“At some point we’ve got to do some governing,” Obama said. “And certainly what we can’t do is keep careening from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.”
Despite Obama’s urgent rhetoric, there is no indication that the White House and Congress were negotiating a deal to avoid cuts by Friday’s deadline. White House press secretary Jay Carney said he had no new telephone calls to announce since the president’s conversations with Republican congressional leaders last week. “We will continue to engage with Congress this week,” Carney said.
Obama wants to offset the so-called sequester through a combination of targeted spending cuts and revenue increases, but Republicans oppose any plan that would include tax hikes.
Emerging from a closed-door meeting with Obama, governors said the president had assured the administration is pursuing solutions, but didn’t offer assurances that officials would find a way ahead out ahead of the deadline.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Absolutely! Let the cuts begin.
I’m with Roger. Let the cuts begin. I have to balance my checkbook at home, it’s time they started doing the same in Washington, and elsewhere around this country for that matter on all levels of government.
If on March 1 it was mandatory that your family expenditures had to be cut would you cut equally “across the board” or would you carefully look at your household expenses and determine what could be cut in a way that would cause the least “pain” ?
Can you name one crisis in the last 30 years that was not caused by either the president, congress, or the Supreme Court? Then, just before the world ends, they come to an agreement and save the day from the problem they caused.
The people fall for it every time. If a 2.5% cut will really cause the economy to collapse, we have a h*** of a lot more problems then this.
The cuts are 80 billion if I recall. The sandy relief bill almost wiped that out in it’s self at 60 billion. We are all fools to think that this is truly a crisis.
What comment are you responding to ? It’s in the position to be responding to mine but I can’t see anything that is related to my comments — a response to Phelps.
The sequester was the brain child of Obama and as usual, he is now trying to blame Congress, no surprise there. Obama has gotten his tax increases, additional spending bills, debt limit increases on the promise of spending cuts down the road. We are now at the end of that road. To quote Roger, “let the cuts begin.”
Sue, Both Obama and the House agreed to the sequester. It was one of the few bipartisan agreements on record. In fact, John Boehnor said “they” got 98% of what “they” wanted. And the House Republicans wrote the legislation. Sounds like it was a mutual agreement to me.
Bill, after the POTUS came up with the sequester, they all voted for it, you are correct. No one anticpated the super commitee would not reach an agreement. However, at this point, the president is the only one with the surgical authority to target these cuts. Repubs have offered suggestions but Obama seems to prefer political gamesmanship.
We are talking about cutting less than 2.5% of the budget here. IMHO we need many more cuts.
Republicans have passed 2 different bills to target these cuts vs going straight across the board with them, Obama threatened to veto those bills.
Democrats have not passed a single bill to replace these cuts, not to mention it was their idea in the first place. Whatever harm comes from these (and it won’t be much) will lie squarely at the feet of Obama.
That 2.5% figure is incredibly misleading. Yes, it is 2.5% if the total budget, but much of the budget is exempted from any cuts, including interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare and even Pell Grants. With respect to the portions of the budget that are subject to the cuts the cuts represent a much higher percentage of their budgets.
Rich do you realize that we will be spending more in 2013 vs 2012 even if these cuts happen?
Yes these are not even cuts, they are cuts in the rate of growth.
Yes, the cost of interest on the debt, social security and medicare will continue to rise, causing total spending to go up. But the sequester is all about discretionary spending and defense spending. Spending in those areas will go down. Those will be real cuts and they will have significant impact on the programs they affected.
Why do you try to confuse the issue by repeated references to total spending?
And we spend to much so we need to cut, listen I agree sequester is not the best way to go about cutting. Which is why Republicans in the house have passed 2 different bills to focus the cuts in a more reasonable manner.
While at the same time Senate Democrats have not passed a single bill.
If this is how cuts have to happen so be it.
Lucore,
Did a google search and the only thing I could find was Paul Ryans proposed DOA budgets and a reference to a threat of no budget no pay (which would be unconstitutional so what would be the point?)
My question to you is what are you talking about?
It’s hard for the democrats to pass anything in the Republican House.
Are you not aware on how congress is supposed to work? I will give you a little run down….
House passes a bill and sends it to the senate for debate.
Senate passes their version of a bill and sends it back to the House
This goes on back and forth till both chambers pass the same bill then it heads to the president to be signed.
The Republican controlled house has passed 2 different bills to change sequester, while the senate has passed zero.
It is time for the Senate to get off their asses and at least pass something even if they don’t agree with the house.
Which means, Lucore, that your initial complaint is invalid.
Bills don’t necessarily originate in the House. What you are talking about are bills for raising revenue. Also, there’s no mention of budgets in the Constitution. It seems that the men who wrote that document were assuming a pay as you go system.
And what would be the point of the Senate passing an appropriations bill (which they can’t in any case) if it doesn’t even come close to agreeing with what the House has produced. What you are proposing is a massive waste of time
This is Obama’s brain child. Obama has refused to negotiate. Obama has offered Zero spending cuts. Obama has not taken a single recomendation from his own elite commission to address the budget issues.
Obama bluffed that Republicans would raise taxes before they would allow cuts to defense. Guess what? Defense has already taken cuts.
When is Obama going to be held accountable for his own words?
Low information voters eat the sequester lie up like popcorn. As has already been noted, this is less than 2.5% cut. With that the federal govt will still spend more than in the previous budget cycle.
Can you find the budget cuts???
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/earth-to-new-york-times-please-show-us-these-deep-spending-cuts-you-keep-writing-about/
The sequester can be claimed to be owned by Obama but both parties in Congress endorsed it. The sequester was a “good” idea but unfortunately “good” ideas don’t always work out. The idea was that the consequences of a sequester would be so dire that the Congress and the Administration would work out a compromise before the sequester implementation. Obviously numerous people from both parties were overly optimistic. The sequester will result in budget cuts with a dull axe versus a scalpel. Cuts need to be made thoughtfully for where they will do the least damage — and be coupled with revenue increases. But with the polarized and dysfunctional climate in Washington it doesn’t appear it will happen soon. Can you say “austerity”? Think there won’t be painful consequences and a lot of resultant anger ( look to the European experience )? Good luck.
The cuts will happen, then they will compromise on a short term basis.
That way the Republicans can say they pushed for and got “cuts” and the Democrats can say they fought against it but ultimately got the cuts lessened.
As for blame, this is an interesting argument.
Lets assume this is Obama’s idea. You can’t have it both ways. Blame him for not cutting, but blame him for cutting.
The simple truth is, if you have already fallen into the debatable notion that “its Obama’s idea” then you will have to give him “credit” for cutting and not the Republicans. I doubt that those on the right will give credit to Obama for pushing cuts yet they say its his idea.
Lets not be so easily led by the corporate media. Common sense and logic trump party and media driven false truthes and diversions.
One opinion piece on the origin of “the sequester” said that “The Obama administration is guilty of bad negotiating in pursuit of sensible policy. Congressional Republicans are guilty of exploiting the president’s bad negotiating in pursuit of terrible policy.”
Read more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-republicans-rewrite-history-on-the-sequester/2013/02/21/3581d05c-7c61-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html?tid=pm_pop
I agree with the above WP editorial assessment regarding the GOP’s attempts to rewrite the history of The Sequester. And I think that Jason is dead-on correct with his evaluation of “where the chips will fall”. The GOP’s frantic rush to avoid being tarred with the sequester brush, blame-wise, indicates that it fears its results more than it welcomes them, and they wish to “inoculate” themselves against the dire effects that it see that it may precipitate. Won’t work: this is the 21st century and history can no longer be rewritten by those with a loud voice and a dimbulb set of followers.
We don’t have to assume anything, Jason and Cedric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNBhue9OMTY
Good comments. Your first sentence, ” compromise on a short-term basis ” is what some people are calling “governing crises to crisis” and I think it fits.
Both right and left have an unrealistic ideological positions, one side “don’t cut entitlements, period” and the other “don’t increase taxes, period”. I’ve listened to interviews with several noted economists recently and they are convinced that in either case the “math doesn’t work”. The middle and more moderate recognize that but are there enough of them while the rest cling to their mantras and try to make political advantage from the crisis ( over and over ) while avoiding compromise.
Jason, some how the Republicans have gotten suckered into negotiating with the President. The Republican leadership should refuse any contact with the President period. Negotiate with the Dems in the Senate and House, send the legislation to Obama and force him to veto a bipartisian agreement.
The House has passed at least two budgets that the Senate refused to act on. Obama has known for a long time that sequester was looming. I wouldn’t expect Obama to know where all the waist, fraud and abuse is in the Federal Budget, but his Cabinet Secretaries and tzars surely should have been able to come up with some cuts after being on the job this long. Instead, they couldn’t even propose a cut to the GSA’s party budget.
So, by all means, let the cuts begin. The worst possible outcome, as far as Democrats are concerned, is that the sequester goes into effect and nothing bad happens.
By the way, what are Obama’s tzars doing?
During our sequester brief were were given the number 3.5 trillion, what we need to pay our bills this year, and 85 billion, what we have to cut. Now to break those numbers down, here is the example we were given, it is like giving someone $35,000 to pay their bills and then asking them to make sure and save $85. These cuts are really nothing, we need more, but we need to target areas that need cutting and reform as the Congress is suggesting.
There are many places in the defense budget to cut this money but they would rather layoff its employees one day a week for 22 weeks. Why not scrap the overbudget F35, how about the newly designed destoyer that has already been identified as a disaster.
If we didn’t threaten jobs and programs people need, voters wouldn’t care who wins.
It is unfortunate that the current administration is engaged in political point scoring in this debate. The President has had ample opportunity to work with both parties to find a solution. Yet he continues with the broken record of wanting compromise from the Republicans. The President did get agreement on tax hikes but some how he fails to understand that he is there to serve the people and not his own personal vendetta against all those who do not agree with him.
Sadly the President does not reflect the Christian values he professes but is working towards destroying the very foundations that created this great nation. To act above the Constitution as a dictatorial leader, though it can be said he has yet to lead this nation with courage and dignity, is symbolic of the leftist teachings he received from his student days and from the Chicago Revolutionaries.
LOL. Which “Christian values” are reflected by trying to avoid cuts to defense by cutting more social programs that help the poor? Trying to say that one side has a monopoly on Christian values is a horrible argument. Neither side is perfect. And, seriously, if you think he’s trying to be a dictator, then you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well said, R. J., although the rhetoric in his last paragraph is so eccentric that it pretty much makes the post just a rant, making a response rather pointless.
RJ and Cedric. Check the constitution, defense is an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. Social spending???Nope not there.
But why let the constitution get in the way of low information voters at a mutual admiration gathering?
What are you talking about ? Defense cuts are part of the across-the-board sequester requirements. ( And as far as anyone “checking the Constitution” the courts interpret the Constitution — individual interpretations carry zero weight. )
Williamson,
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty . . .
Now how do you propose all that be done? Hustle up an army and shoot people? Your assumptions about “enumerated powers” doesn’t leave much room to wiggle does it.
The pre amble is nice and all…just not binding
How about this?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Your lack of study and absence of historical education leaves you at a disadvantage.
They states functioned for more than three generations without a federal govt, because state and local govts filled the needs of the people. Thats why they feared a tyranical federal govt and strictly limited its powers, by writing a constitution.
Williamson,
It’s “Preamble” and it’s every bit as binding as every other part of the Constitution.
Point #1, the word “enumerate” does not appear in the Tenth Amendment. It’s in the Ninth and it has to do with rights retained by the people. The Ninth is fairly explicit in stating that a “right” does not have to be “enumerated” to be valid. Further, the Tenth Amendment refers to “powers”. It is clear that the function and purpose of the federal government is to “insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” as well as “provide for the common defense.” Any government that cannot or will not ensure that the people for which that government is responsible do have the basics of adequate food, clothing, and shelter is a government that is going to be out of a job fairly soon. On the off chance that the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution were so stupid that they did not know this, they sure as hell did by the time the French Revolution burned itself out.
Point #2. if we had run our country the way you want it run, that is, on a strict, narrow, and literal interpretation of the Constitution, we would not have survived as a nation. And if we had, we would be a very different sort of country. Our western border would have stopped at the Mississippi because Jefferson overstepped his authority in negotiating the Louisiana Purchase. There would have been no exploratory expedition by Lewis and Clark, no Erie Canal, no Transcontinental Railway, no interstate highway system, no national parks, no Homestead Act, no land grant colleges. Defense of our borders would have been virtually impossible because without the economic development made possible by federal investment, there would have been hardly any people able to settle and thus defend those frontier regions. We would have been stuck with a volunteer militia as our primary defense against foreign invasion. We managed to survive the War of 1812 but only because the British were all tangled up with the Napoleonic Wars and hadn’t the resources to waste on us.
As for your statement “the states functioned for more than three generations without a federal govt”, that is complete and utter nonsense. Your time line makes no sense. Further, you seem to have no understanding of why we ditched the Articles of Confederation (1777) and replaced those Articles with the Constitution (1787) which established a much stronger federal government. Your argument that in those halcyon days of yesteryear we didn’t even have a federal government because our friendly local governments took care of us is cuckoo. That America never existed
And even if it had at some point in the misty past, that is not an America the rest of us want. And if you don’t believe me just ask Governor Christie
Like I said your lack of historical knowledge and a seemingly inability to comprehend simple terms leaves you at a disadvantage.
“insure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” – Thats dicta, in means nothing, for if it had true binding power it renders the whole of the constitution moot. That means that the govt has the power to come into your home, search with out warrant, take what they want and after that imprison you with out charges or trial. all under the meaningless and highly subjective power of ‘insuring the domestic tranquility’ Which is basically your position on taking away guns……while the constitution explicitly assures a persons right to keep and bear arms, you advocate eliminating that right…….for the children.
Couldn’t defend our own boarders???? Thats what the ‘provide for the national Defense’ means.
The Louisiana Purchase? No historian of any merit claims the buy on land by the federal govt is extra constitution. Its a treaty. Please stop reading leftist talking points and start doing some real education. here’s a hint. Read anything written before 1900.
The Erie Canal? that was initiated by the private sector and then fell under the power of the state of New York. More ignorance more talking points that dont mean what you think they mean.
Mr Williamson,
Just out of curiosity, given your repeated claims to expertise in the area of American history, constitutional law, and philology, where did you get your degrees and what was your area of study.
Oh and FYI, the Erie Canal (proposed 1807, completed 1825) was financed, built, owned and operated by the State of New York. The private sector had very little to do with it.
Virtually all work done in connection with waterways since 1812 has been done by the Army Corps of Engineers . That’s federal.
As for the Louisiana Purchase, the Constitution does not grant the President the power to acquire territory. This was a sticking point in 1803 and one which you should, given your insistence on enumerated powers, know about
As for your truly bizarre reading of the Preamble to the Constitution, you can have it I don’t want it it’s too weird for me
And while we’re at it, Williamson, might as well deal with this statement that you made—-” Couldn’t defend our own boarders[sic] ???? Thats [sic] what the ‘provide for the national Defense’ means”
As of 1800 we had a standing army of under a thousand. We were heavily dependent on volunteer militia to provide for the national Defense. How that worked out in 1812 was that the British burned down Washington DC
The system we had originally set up—a miniscle standing army combined with an ill trained and ill prepared volunteer millitia drawn from the local population–could in no way defend our frontier borders if no one is living out there because there is no way to call up the local militia if a local population doesn’t exist.
Oh and by the way, for years West Point was not only our best school for engineering, it was our only school. That’s federal and last time I checked, creating and supporting a school for engineers was not among the enurmerated powers or obligations of the federal government. But how do we build a nation without engineers?
No, it’s time John Boehner and the rest of the Republicans in Congress stop playing politics with the economy. Their efforts to make President Obama a one term President failed and it is time to do what is right for the country, even if it doesn’t benefit their political party.
Really, it’s all the Republicans fault? Thats all you have. OK lets raise taxes that won’t hurt the economy. Lets not reform, lets keep adding to the deficit, republicans are not trying to help, they are bad and only want to hurt us. Long live the Democrats they are so great. (Sarcastic).
Congress holds the cards here, the President is just one person with veto power and he cannot do anything without the blessing of Congress.
Both Republican leaders, Boehner and McConnell, have not made a secret of their objective to oppose every policy initiative of President Obama’s and make his Presidency a failure.
It’s time Boehner and McConnell stop.
Mr Ellickson.. you do realize that the House has passed 4 STRAIGHT budgets the past four years. Every single one of those budgets–has not seen a DAY of consideration by the Democrat controlled Senate or by the President.
For over 4 straight years, the Democrat controlled Senate has refused to put out a budget proposal of their own.
So tell us all Mr. Ellickson…just how can you have “compromise” when one side is making proposals…and the other side refuses to even put their own out there?
Seems to me that the people “playing politics” with the economy are Obama and the Democrats. They want to do everything in their power to blame everything on the GOP. They want the GOP to give them everything they want with no concessions on their end.
That’s not compromise, Mr. Ellickson.
When the proposals made by the Republicans are simply their way or no way, and face it, that’s all the House has been doing for the past four years on every issue. You cannot call that negotiations.
To suggest that President Obama hasn’t made good faith efforts and made compromises with Congress for the past four years is ludicrous. That’s why we have the sequester problem in the first place.
Joel you have that a little backwards, it is the Democrat proposals that are their way or no way.
Lets look at the facts outside of sequester have Democrats passed a bill that would reduce spending? No
Have the house Republicans passed a bill that would increase taxes? Yes
If the Democrats in charge were willing to cut some spending there would not be anywhere near the resistance from Republicans. Even their proposal (not passed) to end sequester did not include any new spending cuts.
If I remember correctly, the entire sequester agreement was put in place such that the “super committee” consisting of an equal numer of republicans and democrats would sit at a table and hammer out a legislation that would pass Congress in a bi-partisan manner. The committee members were chosen and they couldn’t come to an agreeable legislation. So it is irrelevant to say it was thye republicans fault or Obama’s fault. Sounds to me it was the “super committee” fault. Why can’t we use the elimination of tax loopholes as PART of debt reduction. I think that is an agreeable issue from a bi-partisan standpoint. So let’s do it. And let’s plan budget cuts in a smart way, not a political way. And while we plan these cuts carefull thought should be taken regarding full employment and let’s time them accordingly. By the way, if we would focus a lot more on job creation and a lot less on the debt, we would find as the economy gets stronger the expenditures will be reduced naturally.
Mr Duffy;
Lets see cuts, any cuts first. Democrats keep saying a balenced approach must be the method, yet not a single cut is visible.
The House has passed bipartiasian budgets. Those budgets have not seen any discussion in any committees in the Senate. The Senate refuses to even bring the budgetr up for vote. Have the Senate vote down the House budget, then submit their own. The Senate is the branch of govt holding up the process.
Williamson,
Did a google search and the House has not passed any bipartisan budgets. Or any budgets at all for that matter.
Paul Ryan’s budget proposals were DOA and definitely not bipartisan. Simpson/Bowles had a couple of attempts but they never got past the proposal stage. And the House overwhelmingly voted down an attempt by Cooper LaTorette a year ago
So what, specifically, are you talking about?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals_iv/sections/louisiana_purchase_treaty.html
Hmmm,,,Housed passed budget…….wonder why the Senate never debated it????????
Read through all these posts and what is really obvious, both from the discussion here and the discussion on Capital Hill, nobody likes the Sequester.
Terrible idea. Apocalyptic End of the World Road Warrior Walking Dead Buy More Guns They’re Coming to Take Our Stuff terrible idea
And it’s all [fill in the blank] fault
For what it’s worth, twice as many people blame Republicans in Congress as blame the President. Except Republicans seem to be banking on the rest of us taking it out on the President (and what? unelect him?) if it actually happens. Seems they tried this before in 1996 and it didn’t work. Meanwhile, Democrats are doing a deer in the headlights and the President is not blinking.
It’s like that drag race in “Rebel Without a Cause”
But there is a solution. It’s a one line bill ending the Sequester. If nobody likes it and nobody wants it then pitch it.
It’s that simple
Still unable to comprehend? The Erie canal? STATE of New York I said that, remember? Those powers not enumerated Belong to the STATE or the PEOPLE and yes the Corps of Engineers has commandeered ALL navigable waters in the United States, and navigable has been defined by the courts as being able to float the smallest of craft at even once for a few minutes ever, Dry creek beds that have not seen water in 50 years fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps
Louisiana Purchase…….is a treaty. Check out the constitution There is a whole section about treaties
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals_iv/sections/louisiana_purchase_treaty.html
I did not interpret the preamble. You are the one attempting to give the weight of constitutional control over to words that are wholly subjective with the meanings and deffinitions limitless and ambigous, being able to meld them into anything a tyrannical govt desires. with the words the constitution in toto and the Bill of Rights specifically affording no protections for the people.
My education? Obviously more than yours.