KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

Sequester 2013

joan1984 · 7612

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #40 on: February 26, 2013, 01:35:35 AM
Myth number 3 is at least partly true. The states receive a lot of educational funding, which will be reduced.

Much will be exposed, where States have abdicated their duties, and Feds do not belong at all. Those States will get to decide, with the voters, about spending State funds, and raising State funds, as Federal funding of non-federal items is withheld, and eliminated.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1721/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #41 on: February 26, 2013, 03:23:45 AM





So true, MissB.  So true. Yet we keep voting these people into office.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Bonenanza

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 267
    • Woos/Boos: +41/-6
    • Gender: Male
Reply #42 on: February 26, 2013, 11:26:15 AM
Miss B's cartoon hits the nail on the head. Too much trying to hoodwink, outsmart, backtrack, blame, lie, be stubborn etc.. instead of working together. I think this is close to the real story on how we got here.

Bob Woodward: Obama Made Big Mistake on Sequester

Several inside 1600 Pennsylvania have tangled with the legendary journalist Bob Woodward. Few emerged unscathed.

The Obama administration is now fighting back against the best-selling author who made his name and reputation in reporting the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. And it's revealing what they're not challenging—the miasma of bad faith with Republicans over the budget and the $85 billion in sequestered budget cuts expected to begin on Friday.


Woodward documents in his 2012 book The Price of Politics that team Obama first proposed the idea of the sequester. Expanding on his work in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed, he noted—as he has before—that both President Obama and his would-be Treasury Secretary Jack Lew lied on the campaign trail by saying the sequester originated with House Republicans. The White House has now ceded that fact.

They blasted Woodward, however, for writing that Obama "is moving the goal posts" by requiring that additional revenues be part of a sequester substitute. The sequester was about spending. Failure by a bi-partisan "super committee" to identify alternative reductions in November, 2011 caused the budgetary hacking that Obama now seeks to avoid to be triggered.

White House officials protested the notion of moving the goal posts, since—regardless of the terms of the agreement—revenue increases have always been part of Obama's negotiating position on budget issues.

But what they're not crying foul about is Woodward's far more damning revelation—that the White House underestimated the GOP on the sequester, and the administration's actions since have created a vacuum of trust.

Here's what Woodward wrote in the op-ed that didn't get them hot and bothered on Twitter, even though it should have: "[Months] of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)"

This is the far more disturbing conclusion than any debates about goal posts.

The sequester was a risky gambit by the president. It succeeded in preventing a government default with a debt ceiling deal right before he sought re-election. But it failed to work as advertised on deficit reduction because people assumed it wouldn't happen.

Obama now stares down another debt ceiling deal—after the sequester is slated to start—with negotiations polluted by the recent past.

Full disclosure: I was Woodward's researcher and reporter for his 2010 book, Obama's Wars. Besides some personal allegiances, I have an understanding of his process. Woodward organizes his books with meticulous attention to chronology and that allows him to hold politicians accountable for conflicting statements. His prose also hews closely to the exact words of his sources.

What Woodward shows is that the White House mistakenly thought that Republicans could never stomach cuts to the Defense Department, which constitute half of the reductions in the sequester.

This was a terrible misreading of the Tea Party-infused GOP. They care about shrinking the government, even if that means taking the cleaver to cherished parts of the budget. "The only thing worse than Defense spending cuts are no spending cuts at all," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Oh., the former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, told The Fiscal Times two months ago. Others routinely make similar remarks, if not parrot the line verbatim.

The first mention of "sequester"—according to the index for The Price of Politics—occurred at a July 12 meeting that included Obama and Boehner. Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, talked about it as a trigger if they didn't reduce the long-term deficit by a sum equal to the proposed debt ceiling increase.

"If this is a trigger for tax reform," Boehner is quoted as saying, "this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it's too complicated. I'm very nervous about this."

"This would be an enforcement mechanism," Obama said.

Of course, the idea outlived its enforcement mechanism status to become current policy. The White House officially introduced the idea of a sequester into the deal—which became the Budget Control Act of 2011—on July 27, 2011. "There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense," the book has Obama's team as reasoning.

Jump to page 345 as the deal is coming together and Democrats are stunned that Republicans would even put the Pentagon on the bargaining table as part of the deal,

"[Obama adviser David] Plouffe couldn't believe it. These guys are so afraid of increasing revenues that they're willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans' revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.

"'This is a deal we can probably live with,' Obama said, willing to do almost something to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.'"

Now, the president says—as his administration churns out reports about job losses and economic doom—the country cannot abide by this arrangement.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491803



.



Janus

  • Guest
Reply #43 on: February 26, 2013, 02:52:21 PM
It's SOOOOOO funny...............They bought their tickets, They boarded the plane.....I say, Let it crash.....

It's Not THAT big of a deal......Very survivable.

Basically what I get out of this is that the spending cuts are going to happen and Obama wants to use the media to point the finger of blame acting like this is a bad thing. Haven't the Dem's wanted to cut military spending anyway?

We need more cuts....We need less spending all across the board.

Janus






Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #44 on: February 26, 2013, 03:31:10 PM
The Budget Act of 2011 (Sequester of 2013) seeks to reduce discretionary spending only, in the INCREASES between the 2012 actual discretionary spending level, and baseline budget authority for 2013, of 5%.

5% of the INCREASE in 2013 over 2012 discretionary budget authority. One estimate of how this affects the budget is a reduction of 2.3% total spending. 97.7% of the 2013 baseline budget remains untouched. The 2013 budget, after the sequester, is higher than the 2012 budget. Half the Sequester applies to Defense Spending.

Were the activities and services and employees and Navy Ships and flu shots funded in 2012 and performed satisfactorily in 2012, and YTD in 2013 so far?

The 2013 baseline budget authority is larger in 2013 than it was in 2012 or 2011. 95% of the 2013 baseline budget authority for discretionary spending is unaffected by the Sequester of 2013.

Why then would one expect that the tales of total chaos and hurting children, and the rest of the claptrap the President and his minions are hand wringing about are true?
This manufactured "crisis" is being painted as the reason thousand of criminal illegal aliens were released this week... does that square with the facts, to you, as necessary?

Hopefully the House holds to the law, and this minimal budget authority decrease goes forward as is from now, until 2023 as planned.  In addition, about 6 Trillion dollars in spending reductions remains necessary to bring the budget and spending into balance, or approaching good balance.

Decisions on funding reductions, going line by line through the Budget, as proposed by Candidate Obama in 2008, needs to be done now/next, with March 27, 2013 the next marker to be satisfied, the Debt Ceiling; and end of May 2013 the next, and so on.

Maybe by then, the President will propose his budget details for 2014. This document was due in October 2012, so Congress can get busy writing the 2014 budget.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 03:33:09 PM by joan1984 »

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1721/-57
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #45 on: February 26, 2013, 03:31:45 PM
A 3 to 5% cut in discretionary spending and Obama is making like the economy will collapse. If the government cannot scale back by that amount, then we have bigger problems.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #46 on: February 26, 2013, 03:56:52 PM
A 3 to 5% cut in discretionary spending and Obama is making like the economy will collapse. If the government cannot scale back by that amount, then we have bigger problems.

A 5% cut in the increase over 2012 in discretionary spending. 2.3% of total budget.
1.15% of total budget (near 3.7 Trillion) for non-defense discretionary spending.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Partner

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 478
    • Woos/Boos: +90/-1
    • Gender: Male
Reply #47 on: February 26, 2013, 08:01:48 PM
It's SOOOOOO funny...............They bought their tickets, They boarded the plane.....I say, Let it crash.....

It's Not THAT big of a deal......Very survivable.

Basically what I get out of this is that the spending cuts are going to happen and Obama wants to use the media to point the finger of blame acting like this is a bad thing. Haven't the Dem's wanted to cut military spending anyway?

We need more cuts....We need less spending all across the board.

Janus


I'm with you.  A fair amount of our work is gov't contract, but it's worth the risk just to get a bit of sanity in the federal budget.  And in all gov't work I've done, I've estimated at least a 20% overhead that wouldn't exist in the private sector simply because of the need to stay competitive.  I'm pretty sure we could find room for up to 10% in overall cuts without actually impacting anything of importance.



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #48 on: February 27, 2013, 03:16:09 AM
Myth number 3 is at least partly true. The states receive a lot of educational funding, which will be reduced.

Much will be exposed, where States have abdicated their duties, and Feds do not belong at all. Those States will get to decide, with the voters, about spending State funds, and raising State funds, as Federal funding of non-federal items is withheld, and eliminated.

getting funding from a smaller pool doesn't work so well. That's why insurance and Federal funding works so well, they draw from large pools.

And considering that about 10 red states want to try eliminating income taxes and/or reducing taxes shows just how ignorant the Republican Party elected officials are at the state level. Incompetent to run a business, much less a government.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,158
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #49 on: February 27, 2013, 05:48:39 AM
By one of my favorite pundits.

Why Ultra-Conservatives Like the Sequester
by George Lakoff

Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Robert Reich and other major economists have pointed out that the deficit is not an urgent economic problem and that, to the contrary, the economy would be helped by an increase in public investment and harmed by drastic cuts. The Sequester would hurt the economy, millions of people, and the country as a whole.

President Obama has detailed the vast range of harms that the sequester would bring. They are well-known. And they are not necessary. The president sees the sequester, if it happens, as an enormous self-inflicted wound, inflicted on America by a Republican-dominated House elected by Americans.

But pointing out Republican-caused harms to millions of people -- many of them Republicans -- does not sway the ultra-right. Why? Democratic pundits say that Republicans want to hurt the president, to show government doesn't work by making it not work, and to protect "special interests" from higher taxes. All true. But there is an additional and deeper reason. Ultra-conservatives believe that the sequester is moral, that it is the right thing to do.

Progressives tend to believe that democracy is based on citizens caring for their fellow citizens through what the government provides for all citizens -- public infrastructure, public safety, public education, public health, publicly-sponsored research, public forms of recreation and culture, publicly-guaranteed safety nets for those who need them, and so on. In short, progressives believe that the private depends on the public, that without those public provisions Americans cannot be free to live reasonable lives and to thrive in private business. They believe that those who make more from public provisions should pay more to maintain them.

Ultra-conservatives don't believe this. They believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them. They take this as a matter of morality. They see the social responsibility to provide for the common good as an immoral imposition on their liberty.

Their moral sense requires that they do all they can to make the government fail in providing for the common good. Their idea of liberty is maximal personal responsibility, which they see as maximal privatization -- and profitization -- of all that we do for each other together, jointly as a unified nation.

They also believe that if people are hurt by government failure, it is their own fault for being "on the take" instead of providing for themselves. People who depend on public provisions should suffer. They should have rely on themselves alone -- learn personal responsibility, just as Romney said in his 47 percent speech. In the long run, they believe, the country will be better off if everyone has to depend on personal responsibility alone.

Moreover, ultra-conservatives do not see all the ways in which they, and other ultra-conservatives, rely all day every day on what other Americans have supplied for them. They actually believe that they built it all by themselves.

So for them the sequester is not a "self-inflicted wound." It is justice. The sequester is not merely about protecting "special interests." It is about the good people who pursued their self-interest successfully, got rich, and have acted "morally" in avoiding taxes that pay for public provisions by the government.

They are not merely trying to harm their own constituents just to hurt the president politically. Yes, they think hurting the president politically is moral, and they believe that any constituents they are hurting need to become more personally responsible. They see the sequester as serving that purpose.

In short, the sequester is not just about money and political power for the Republicans in the House. It is mostly about what they see as the right direction for the country: maximal elimination of the public sphere.

In short, they have an ideology that partially, but only partially, fits what half of our population believes. Overall, it actually fits what about 20 to 30 percent of the population totally believes. Both total progressives and partial progressives don't want to see millions of folks hurt and the economy hurt as well. But thanks to Republican gerrymandering at the state level, progressives and partial progressives do not control Congress.

This is the real picture and few people in public life dare to tell it. It is more convenient, and less scary, to think that all that is involved is money and politics as usual. That's what current Democratic messaging says. Democratic messaging hasn't gotten to the heart of the problem: the real moral divide in America. Democratic messaging, in blaming Republicans in Congress for the harm to come, just offends Republicans and fails to speak to moral divide at the heart of our public life.

Would addressing it help? I think so, if it is done with the appropriate sensitivity.



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #50 on: February 28, 2013, 12:22:01 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/24/arne-duncan-thousands-of-teachers-could-lose-thei-jobs-as-result-of-sequester/
Sequester Hype:
Teacher Pink-Slips Edition

By Veronique de Rugy
February 27, 2013 4:06 P.M.

The Washington Post reports on some of the alarmist description of the impact of sequestration by the Obama administration:

    “There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can’t come back this fall,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

    When he was pressed in a White House briefing Wednesday to come up with an example, Duncan named a single county in West Virginia and acknowledged, “whether it’s all sequester-related, I don’t know.”

    And, as it turns out, it isn’t.

    Officials in Kanawha County, West Virginia say that the “transfer notices” sent to at least 104 educators had more to do with a separate matter that involves a change in the way West Virginia allocates federal dollars designated for poor children.

    The transfer notices are required by state law and give teachers a warning that they may be moved to a different position next school year. They don’t necessarily mean a teacher has been laid off, said Pam Padon, director of federal programs and Title 1 for the Kanawha County public schools. “It’s not like we’re cutting people’s jobs at this point.”

    She said those 104 notices will ultimately result in the elimination of about five to six teaching jobs, which were likely to be cut regardless of the sequester.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 12:25:21 AM by joan1984 »

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Athos131

  • Guest
Reply #51 on: February 28, 2013, 12:31:06 AM
Non tenured teachers get RIFed all the time.  Usually it has to do with enrollment in the district.



Offline Partner

  • Deviant
  • ****
    • Posts: 478
    • Woos/Boos: +90/-1
    • Gender: Male
Reply #52 on: February 28, 2013, 12:31:23 AM
getting funding from a smaller pool doesn't work so well. That's why insurance and Federal funding works so well, they draw from large pools.

And considering that about 10 red states want to try eliminating income taxes and/or reducing taxes shows just how ignorant the Republican Party elected officials are at the state level. Incompetent to run a business, much less a government.

There are a lot of instances where money goes to the federal gov't and is then allocated to states, where it would be more efficient to just let the states raise the funds.  On the surface, it cuts out one notable link in the chain where a lot of that allocated money is siphoned off (to keep it simple, let's just acknowledge that there are expenses involved in federal allocation and leave it at that).  Not just in education, but in many sectors, letting the states handle that level of governance would streamline the process and, for many states, would result in more efficient spending.  (Some states would still dork it up.)

As for the red states: are you referring to eliminating income tax at the state level or federal level?  At the state level, many have operated that way for years and have gone along just fine.  At the federal level, there are intriguing ideas about things like killing income tax and just charging sales tax (Boortz used to rail on this a lot), but now seems to be an awkward time to try that transition.



snowm

  • Guest
Reply #53 on: February 28, 2013, 01:02:29 AM
done
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 02:28:40 AM by snowm »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,158
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #54 on: February 28, 2013, 01:48:37 AM
Ahh, okay.  I guess you and the GOP do not understand the separation of powers.  However, the President has offered a plan to Congress, they simply have not acted on it.




Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #55 on: February 28, 2013, 03:31:10 AM
Ahh, okay.  I guess you and the GOP do not understand the separation of powers.  However, the President has offered a plan to Congress, they simply have not acted on it.


In 2011, the Senate voted 99-0 I believe, to reject the budget proposal of he President

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #56 on: February 28, 2013, 03:37:35 AM
BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior'
White House Person Warned Me
 I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing

Brett LoGiurato   | Feb. 27, 2013, 6:53 PM

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.

"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.

Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.

The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"

Woodward began stirring controversy last weekend, when he called out Obama for what he said was "moving the goal posts" on the sequester by requesting that revenue be part of a deal to avert it.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2#ixzz2M9nOthlX

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #57 on: February 28, 2013, 04:01:43 AM
getting funding from a smaller pool doesn't work so well. That's why insurance and Federal funding works so well, they draw from large pools.

And considering that about 10 red states want to try eliminating income taxes and/or reducing taxes shows just how ignorant the Republican Party elected officials are at the state level. Incompetent to run a business, much less a government.

There are a lot of instances where money goes to the federal gov't and is then allocated to states, where it would be more efficient to just let the states raise the funds.  On the surface, it cuts out one notable link in the chain where a lot of that allocated money is siphoned off (to keep it simple, let's just acknowledge that there are expenses involved in federal allocation and leave it at that).  Not just in education, but in many sectors, letting the states handle that level of governance would streamline the process and, for many states, would result in more efficient spending.  (Some states would still dork it up.)

As for the red states: are you referring to eliminating income tax at the state level or federal level?  At the state level, many have operated that way for years and have gone along just fine.  At the federal level, there are intriguing ideas about things like killing income tax and just charging sales tax (Boortz used to rail on this a lot), but now seems to be an awkward time to try that transition.
Most of the Red states don't send to the Federal coffers what they get back from the Feds. So no, just leaving it in the states is a net loss for them.

As for state income taxes, Texas doesn't have any, primarily because of oil revenues. Guess what, they aren't what they used to be. As a result, Texas has been running a deficit that equals California's. Reducing revenue means you can't support your infrastructure. When the roads, water and power go, you don't want to live there. Appalachia comes to mind for that scenario.

As for putting it all on sales taxes, which is the fall back plan after getting rid of income taxes, consider this. The rich will pay a proportionately smaller amount, than the poor. Sales taxes are regressive. They fall upon those who can least afford it, and those who spend the most. Which is normally not the wealthy.

Lets step back and look at this. What the conservative view is saying is that they don't believe in the Christian ethic. But they heartily support that ethic, publically and castigate any who want to separate church from public or government life. Additionally this view is closely allied with a Darwinist theory of Christianity. The transactional Christians believe that you are rewarded by God for working hard. That isn't so. Religion is not transactional, especially not Christianity. Christian dogma cites taking care of others, not being greedy, not the "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude of the conservative, self-responsible right-wing. No, Christianity does advocate that you are your brother's keeper.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,270
    • Woos/Boos: +616/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #58 on: February 28, 2013, 04:39:38 AM

Interesting while CNN had this on air interview, it is not mentioned on the CNN website at this hour. Will be interesting to see whether other reporters feel free to "come out" with their own White House threat stories tomorrow, or maybe some freak storm will move this to below the fold, again...

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


snowm

  • Guest
Reply #59 on: February 28, 2013, 04:42:45 AM
Ahh, okay.  I guess you and the GOP do not understand the separation of powers.  However, the President has offered a plan to Congress, they simply have not acted on it.

So wait foxnews is biased but we can link to msnbc to prove points? Lol. No one sidedness there.:)

You're right Obama did offer a plan to congress, one that could not even be passed by his own party. If democrats wouldn't vote for it how can you sit there and vilify republicans for not voting for it either?