# Sequestration

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rodereve, Feb 27, 2013.

1. ### rodereveRegistered Member

Messages:
216
Is this a proper strategy, to force congress' hand to making cuts across the board instead of a partisan stand-off

-Would it be right that some programs are exempt from this sequestration process (parts of Defense budget)

-Will this ever actually pass the deadline

-Is this just a poor choice of words, threatening words like the debt ceiling doomsday clock, ambiguous words like sequestration

3. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,695
No. Because everyone would want "their" programs exempt and thus nothing would change. (And of all our programs, defense spending is the most out of whack with reality.)

I think this time it will happen.

"Sequestration" is a pretty accurate word. We have the media to bring us "debt-pocalypse" and the like, so we have no shortage of scary words.

5. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
I think its sucks that we have gotten to this stage, but $85 billion is not so bad, its only 2.4% of the whole federal budget. Personally I would like to see the military take all the cuts, we were fine on Clinton's ~$250 billion military or 3% GDP, we are at 5% now. Of course deficit is a imaginary issue, we really should have been focused on raising the economy, then we could pay off the huge deficit, but the republicans made it an issue, they did not want to make the economy better during Obama first term because Obama would get the credit and be re-elected, now that they have failed they are just being petty. Once sequestration goes through they should have nothing deficit wise to complain about. They should finally focus on the economy which will mean new spending projects which will require new revenue, and that can only come via new taxes and tax reform, because you can't make budget cuts on spending programs to finance those very same spending programs!

7. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
True, but the Sequester exempts huge portions of the federal budget from the axe like Medicare and Social Security. That accentuates the effect on targeted agencies.

According to a recent study only 6% of Americans know that the deficit has been reduced by 50% since President Obama took office. The US deficit problem is a long term problem, not near term problem, which makes the Sequester even more insane. The sad part is that the Sequester does nothing to fix our long term fiscal issues. It is just more drama for the drama kings and queens. The long term fiscal issue is the cost of US healthcare (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). We need to make some serious decisions. Are we going to throw Granny and Gramps off the cliff when they get ill or are we going to care for them? If we are going to care for them and the less fortunate in our society, we need to find out how to deliver healthcare more efficiently and effectively in this country.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...t-know-the-budget-deficit-is-getting-smaller#

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2...ramatically-but-only-6-know-that-2496802.html

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is anything President Obama and the Democrats can do to make Republicans act like responsible adults. The Republican Party appears to be more driven by the drama kings and queens in the Republican entertainment industry rather than by patriotism and rational discourse. And yeah, Republicans have been and continue to be extraordinarily petty. I mean what is with the unprecedented filibuster of Senator Hagel? What point did that serve? How about the Benghazi show? It was all manufactured drama for the Republican right wing entertainment industry.

And you are right; we cannot cut our way to prosperity. Europe tried the austerity Republicans have and continue to advocate. It didn’t work. Republicans should ask Spain if they like their 25% unemployment rate. We need what President Obama is advocating, some judicious spending cuts and revenue increases and we need to get our long term healthcare costs under control (e.g. single payer system, Obamacare, etc.).

8. ### rodereveRegistered Member

Messages:
216
I actually thought medicare and social security were on the chopping block, and it was some parts of the defense budget that were exempt from sequestration. I may be wrong though. Because if that was the case, then the republicans would love to see that happen and just let the deadline pass lol

The entire Benghazi issue and Hagel filibuster was just to hold onto something they can use to make the democrats look bad, as long as possible. And the longer they withhold from fixing this economy, a worse track record for the Democrats to show for when the 2016 elections come around, and most often a new president will serve for two terms. So maybe they are thinking long term, not in terms of the economy, but for elections.

haha yeah they might not be that low of people, but I wouldn't put it past some class acts in the GOP

9. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
No Medicare is not on the sequestration chopping block. The Budget Sequestration only applies to some military spending (i.e. only civilian payroll and military contracts and contractors are subject to sequestration) and discretionary spending – the smallest part of the budget. That is why these cuts will have a devastating effect on some departments and programs like medical research and Head Start.

Unfortunately this Republican Party is a creation of the Republican entertainment industry. And that industry doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the health and well-being of this nation or its people. Only ignorance and avarice can explain the behaviors of this Republican Party.

Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
10. ### rodereveRegistered Member

Messages:
216
By the sound of Boehner's and Obama's talks, I think you're right.

11. ### Fraggle RockerStaff Member

Messages:
24,690
The Democrats are no better. Every first-year economics student knows that the way out of a deep recession is to increase government spending (which creates government jobs for Americans, not the jobs in China that the corporate sector keeps creating) and reduce taxes (which leaves more money in everybody's pockets to spend). Of course this increases the national debt but the alternative is a ten- or twenty-year depression as we wait for technology and the booming Brazilian economy to rescue us.

Then, when the economy recovers, you cut back on government spending (because prosperous people don't need so much of it) and raise taxes (because prosperous people can afford them). You start paying off the national debt until it's in a comfortable range. (It should not be zero because U.S. bonds are a major currency in the world economy.)

But Reagan (may he rot in hell) presided over one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in recent history, yet he cut taxes and increased spending. As a result, he added a zero to the national debt! His lapdog Bush I did the same thing. Clinton, the Democrat, broke with his party's tradition and actually tried to rein in the debt, but it was hard to check all that momentum and he was only moderately successful. Bush II, the most incompetent president since the 19th century, started a war of opportunity based on lies, without even attempting to pay for it: no war bonds, no war taxes, he just borrowed the money from China. That war has cost us \$3 trillion, yet Obama is blamed for a runaway debt that he inherited from a man with pre-senile dementia.

Nonetheless, although Obama is brighter than Bush (my dog is brighter than Bush), he's not bright enough. He wants to increase government spending, but he does not want to reduce taxes. This won't work.

And of course the Republican leaders are just as stupid. They want to lower taxes, but they also want to reduce government spending. I think this would result in more damage than Obama's way, but neither one is going to solve the problem.

Yes yes, our debt-to-GDP ratio is getting "dangerously" high. But this is the USA, the world's largest economy. No banker on earth is going to downgrade U.S. government bonds because if we go down, they know that the whole bloody planet will go with us. Japan, the world's second-largest economy, has a debt-to-GDP ratio that exceeds 200%, and nobody has downgraded their bonds.

If we can crawl out of this recession and prime the pump, AND we get a president with a 3-digit IQ, then we can raise taxes, reduce spending, and bring the debt back down to a "safe" level.

Unfortunately it's four years until the next president takes over, and by then the Democrats will be so reviled that the Republicans will be able to put just about anybody up as their candidate, and he will win. So we could have a Republican version of Obama: a nice gesture but no experience and no leadership ability. Probably a Latino who knows Washington as well as Obama.

Since I've been old enough to vote, most of the elections have not been won by a strong candidate, but lost by a weak one (or by a disgraced party). Nixon? After LBJ no Democrat could have won. Carter? After Nixon no Republican could have won. Reagan? All we wanted was to get rid of Carter. Clinton? All we wanted was to get rid of Bush. Obama? After Bush II no Republican could have won, but just to make sure they nominated a guy so old that he might very well have died in office and gave him a running mate who thinks North Korea is our ally.

12. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
Some corrections:

- Bush jr. does not have "pre-senile dementia", rather he was always that stupid.

... That is all, oh and I think we are thinking on the same page on who is going to be the next president and why: Marco Rubio.

13. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Democrats are better. They are the ones with a rational economic and fiscal plan. They are the ones who are willing to compromise. And they don’t have an intransigent base which is the product of an entertainment industry more concerned with ratings than the health and well-being of the nation. There is no Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any of the many of Limbaugh wannabes which pollute the airwaves and the minds of Republican minions daily with misinformation. One of the many things history shows us is that Democrats have been fiscally more responsible than Republicans.

Agreed, I have been saying as much since the onset of The Great Recession when the national discussion began. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the recession has ended and the economy has been growing now for more than 3 years. But we are not yet back to full employment. And the recovery is still fragile. What Republicans are doing could easily send the nation back into recession. This government by crisis just isn’t working. After the Republican induced debt ceiling crisis of 2011 we had a year and a half of stability and continued economic growth. This government by crisis could easily send the nation into panic and recession – witness the 2012 Q4 economic slowdown which preceded that Fiscal Cliff and the Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2011.

I have to agree with ElectricFetus, George II was always stupid. George II clearly demonstrates the power of the Gentleman’s C. I agree with you that George II was the most incompetent president we have seen in more than a century and perhaps in the entire history of the nation and I would add to that the most arrogant.

Reagan made people feel good. He was a good actor. And he reappointed Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve. But despite all of his supply side talk; he really wasn’t a supply sider in policy. He was a good old boy crony capitalist. But the worst thing Reagan did was set the stage for the dumbing down of the Republican Party. He set the stage for the radicalization of the Republican Party by not enforcing the Fairness Doctrine and vetoing the Fairness Doctrine. Reagan paved the way and set the stage for Fox and the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Obama has proposed several spending reductions. He has already signed onto 1.2 trillion in spending reductions. Obama wants to invest/spend money on infrastructure and that spending is offset with further spending reductions and taxes. Obama is proposing a “balanced” approach. And we have Obamacare which the CBO says will save over 100 billion dollars by 2019 and will save another trillion dollars in the decade that follows. Since 2009 the current deficit has been reduced by half. That is a good start. And it is important to note our fiscal problems are long term, not near term. Our burgeoning healthcare costs will overwhelm the federal budget if we don’t adopt a more efficient and effective healthcare model as every developed nation has done. Obamacare is our first effort to control those costs. As you and most Americans know, Republicans have done everything within their power to subvert Obamacare. We just cannot continue funding healthcare costs that have been growing 4 to 5 or more times faster than income. At some point that bubble has to burst, it becomes unsustainable.

The economy is now in recovery mode, growing at a modest inflation adjusted rate of 2% per year and has been doing so for the last 3 years. So some modest tax increases on the wealthiest Americans are not going to devastate the economy. Taxes are already at historic lows.

I agree with you that the Republican approach to our fiscal and economic woes would be very damaging.

The big fiscal problem we face as a nation is healthcare expense. As healthcare has become more expensive and unaffordable we have remedied the problem by shifting those costs to the federal government. Now healthcare expenses are becoming too expensive even for government. Obamacare is a first stab at containing healthcare costs. I think Obamacare could be better. But given Republican intransigence and antagonism, I think Obamacare is the best that we can expect under the circumstance . . . unfortunately.

I mostly agree. But we are out of recession and have been for some time. According the National Bureau of Economic Research the recession ended in Q4 of 2009. In any case, it is going to take more than a POTUS to solve our current fiscal and economic woes. The POTUS cannot do the work the Constitution reserves for Congress. We are going to need either a more responsible Republican Party in Congress or Democratic control of both houses to right this ship of state. And we are going to need a more responsible Supreme Court. Unfortunately Republicans are attempting to use their majority on the court to veto legislation duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

While government by crisis is good for the Republican entertainment industry, it is not good for the nation.

As I said, it is going to take more than a POTUS to fix our problems. The root of our problem lies in Congress not in the White House. The next chance to fix our problem with Congress is in 2014. Will Republican gerrymandering continue to protect Republican radicals and dunces in the House? I don’t know. But I don’t think Americans are stupid enough to blame President Obama or the Democrats for Republican mischief and subversion. I just don’t think Americans are that dumb.

Tea Party Rubio, I don’t think so. The problem Republicans face is the Republican entertainment industry. The industry demands and thrives on drama, extremism and ignorance. In order to get the Republican nomination the candidate must be an extremist whacko drama king or queen to satisfy the demands of Limbaugh, Fox and company. But in order to win the presidency you need a moderate. Republicans are currently incapable of moderation; witness the current behavior of Republicans in Congress. I have never before seen a bigger bunch of drama kings and queens. That is why Republicans keep nominating POTUS candidates who flip positions by the hour and as a result have no credibility (e.g. McCain and Romney). They are trying to be two inconsistent things at the same time, an extremist drama king/queen and a rational moderate. It just doesn’t work. In the end it makes the candidate look stupid and that is what happened to McCain and Romney. Unfortunately I don’t see change in the Republican Party happening in the near or distant future.

Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
14. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
That is not true. He does want to reduce taxes as a Keynesian stimulus, and has done so (the SS tax holiday etc). The taxes he wants to raise are on rich people, and that is OK by Keynes - in an economy where the rich are awash in spare cash, like this one, raising taxes on them actually stimulates the economy by getting the cash into circulation. It's not as simple as "low taxes = stimulus".

Obamacare, better named "Romneycare", is a rightwing capitalist approach not designed to contain costs, and does so only by chance.

15. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
It's true that Obamacare originated in a Republican think tank in the 1990's as a response to Hillarycare and Romney implemented it in Massachusetts a few years ago. But Obamacare does have some provisions that are aimed specifically at controlling healthcare costs (e.g. requirement to automate record keeping, regulating health insurance companies like utilities, creating best practices, paying for results rather than services, etc.). The growth of healthcare expenses in the US is already begining to slow.

Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
16. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,695
Uh, he DID reduce taxes.

17. ### joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Obama did decrease taxes for the vast majority of Americans. And almost half of the stimulus package Obama requested was in the form of tax cuts – some 300 billion dollars. And Obama pushed for and received additional tax cuts like the payroll holiday and accelerated depreciation schedules for new equipment.

Now that the economy is in recovery and is growing, and has been growing for 3+ years now, and given the Republican fear mongering and drama over the debt and continued attempts to push austerity, Obama has little choice but to push for some selective increases in taxation in order to mitigate the European style austerity measures Republicans are pushing.

We have all witnessed what European austerity did for Europe. Even Europeans now realize their mistakes, but not our Republican friends. Republicans are Hell bent on taking us down the European austerity path with their 25% unemployment rates.

Obama does want to increase federal tax revenues in aggregate by closing tax loopholes/tax expenditures and selectively increasing the taxes of the wealthiest among us. Some would argue that given the fragile nature of the recovery, we should refrain from increasing taxes until we are closer to full employment. In an ideal world, I would agree. But this is not an ideal world.

Obama has a bunch of Rabid Republicans in Washington trying to send the nation back into recession with unwarranted austerity measures. So given the circumstances and the Republican political pressure and debt drama, selectively increasing taxes on the wealthiest citizens and closing special interest tax expenditures is the only real mitigation option available to Obama.

18. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
37,136

In a larger consideration of the current sequester politicking, Greg Sargent includes the following observation:

Republicans have assumed an air of triumphalism in the sequester fight; today GOP party officials are gleefully pointing to the news that the White House has warned that an Easter Egg Roll could be canceled thanks to the sequester, which is presumably supposed to prove that the White House is playing politics with the cuts.

In reality, though, the sequester is underway, and its effects are severe. While the GOP defends Easter Egg Rolls and White House tours, educational funding for veterans and their families is tumbling by over a third. So let's think about this.

Inherent in the GOP logic is that Easter Egg Rolls and White House tour frequency are so important that their loss to sequester demands is proof that Obama is playing games. Steve Benen considers the point:

Remember, all of this is entirely unnecessary. Congress could just turn the sequester off and allow the deficit to shrink on its own. The Iraq and Afghanistan War Grants may have to cut under the damaging policy, but the policy itself doesn't have to happen.

But congressional Republicans see these cuts as a "victory," so they're inclined to leave them alone.

What's more, let's not forget that it's not just military servicemen and women and their families feeling the pinch. It's the Head Start centers who are having to exclude kids, the furloughs for those who help keep Americans' food supply safe, the hardship on low-income Americans who rely on housing assistance, and on and on.

For all of the Beltway assumptions that sequestration was a dud, that President Obama "cried wolf" when he warned of damaging consequences, and that "no one noticed" the effects of the policy, real people are facing real hardship for no good reason. Much of Washington appears to have largely moved on, but for those feeling the pinch, that's not an option.

Meanwhile, the sequester looks much different outside the Beltway:

So let us give the GOP their way. Let us save the Easter celebration and White House tours.

What should we cut in order to keep those sorts of things around?

I mean, sure, 'tis true that as far as I'm concerned, the F-35 can go straight to hell, but that really doesn't matter. If I have to choose between saving air traffic control and an Easter Egg Roll, it's not hard to figure out what I'm going to do, and it's not hard to figure out why; there really isn't any "political" angle to it.

But given that the whole point of the sequester was to create a Damoclean proposition that would absolutely suck if it came to fruition, it seems rather strange for the Republicans to have worked so hard to make sure the sequester came about, and then complain that the results suck.

Easter Eggs? White House tours? Those are certainly more important than air traffic safety or education. Well, at least for Republicans, it seems.
____________________

Notes:

Sargent, Greg. "The Morning Plum: So who's winning the sequester fight?" The Washington Post. March 19, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. March 19, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing-plum-so-whos-winning-the-sequester-fight/

Benen, Steve. "Sequestration undercuts veterans, students". The Maddow Blog. March 19, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. March 19, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/19/17372837-sequestration-undercuts-veterans-students

19. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
None of those do much to control costs, necessarily.

When Reagan first introduced the practice of Medicare and Medicaid paying for "results" rather than services, for example, the big public hospitals immediately noticed that in practice "results" depended on diagnosis and evaluation codes - and I spent an hour or so in a bar listening to a computer programmer describe the new tack their job had taken: finding the highest paying diagnosis and evaluation consistent with a given set of symptoms and outcomes. The hospital then provided whatever services best helped the real patient (so far, they were honest about that) and kept the difference.

The programmer was unhappy about the ethics of the whole thing. My guess is that such ethical qualms are no longer, if they ever were, any cramp on the style of hospital administrators and insurance company execs looking to milk this system.

20. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,440
actually Reagan raised taxes( by the 2 fairest measures percent of gdp and constant dollars the second highest hike and highest hike respectively) he shift the tax burdan on the lower classes.

and your a libertarian and you think keynsian is the right thing? Guess I can't judge all libertarians on micheal's nuttery.

21. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
Less than he cut them, on the rich.

Reagan initially reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to less than 30%, and the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%. Neither one was fully restored to its former levels during his tenure. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Labortaxes/taxableincome/taxableincome_attach.pdf

Then he doubled up on the Cold War boondoggles and contracting.

The consequences were dramatic - the US went from being the word's largest creditor nation to being the world's largest debtor nation within a couple of years.

22. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
37,136
Is This Really Unexpected?

Is This Really Unexpected?

Let us start with Brian Beutler of TPM DC, earlier this month:

A strange sickness is afflicting congressional Republicans.

Unwilling to team up with Democrats to replace sequestration with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, and unable to pass a cuts-only sequestration measure on their own, Republicans’ official position is that they’ve made their peace with enduring, across-the-board spending cuts in perpetuity.

But now that those cuts are creating real consequences, individual members are experiencing buyer’s remorse. The only problem is, until they change their underlying position on replacing sequestration, the only thing they can do about it is whine.

Call it sequestration NIMBYism.

Greg Sargent, for The Plum Line, last week:

It remains unpredictable how the politics of this will play out — it certainly holds real political peril for Obama, but it still remains possible that it could ultimately force Republicans back to the table to deal. It’s premature to rule out that outcome entirely. Just look at these headlines, which were sent over by a Democrat who is trying to demonstrate that this really could snowball over time:

* Detroit Free Press (Michigan): “State warns workers of potential layoffs as massive federal cuts trickle down”

* Daily Tribune: “Army workers protest pay cuts”

* The Oneida Daily Dispatch (New York): “Sequestration budget cuts hit local area hard”

* Dayton Daily News (Ohio): “Furlough notices to go out Friday”

* Columbus Dispatch: “Sequester hits small airports”

* Sioux City Journal (Iowa): “Iowa inspector says furloughs could lead to bootleg meat”

* The Hawk Eye: “Head Start among groups expecting sequestration cuts”

* The Des Moines Register: “Federal budget cuts creep into Iowa”

* The Shreveport Times (Louisiana): “Budget cuts mean fewer state troopers”

* San Diego Union Tribune (California): “Federal workers rally against furloughs”

* Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico): “Kirkland furlough notices going out”

* Santa Fe New Mexican: “Sequestration cuts force Bandelier to furlough staff”

One wonders if this really could end up getting people to rethink the relationship between government spending and economic well being and recovery.

Despite all this, the focus in Washington remains on the White House tours. Yesterday the Senate actually held a vote on GOP Senator Tom Coburn’s measure to restore funding for them. It seems possible that the GOP strategy of attacking the White House for cancelling tours and egg rolls (which turned out to be bogus) will begin to look out of touch if the damage gets worse. I continue to think this is shaping up as a long game.

Travis Waldron, for Think Progress, yesterday:

The closures have one Texas Republican congressman fuming. Rep. Blake Farenthold (R) wrote a letter to FAA head Michael Huerta this week saying he was “deeply troubled” by the closure of airports that help the Texas economy, the Houston Chronicle reports:

"I am deeply troubled for your public statements and proposed actions regarding the effect of the sequester on smaller, local airports. These airports have long played a vital role in economies across the country,” Farenthold said.​

There’s a small problem with Farenthold’s anger: he voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, the law that instituted caps on federal spending and, eventually, the automatic budget cuts that caused the airport closures. Since then, he has repeatedly blamed Democrats for failing to replace it with smarter cuts, but House Republicans refused to negotiate with President Obama and Democrats over a replacement that included new revenues in addition to cuts.

What is more problematic, however, is that Farenthold has only now realized that budget cuts are harming programs that help the economy. In fact, Republican efforts to cut the budget have held back the country’s recovery from the Great Recession, and Republicans continue to demand more even though spending on domestic programs is now at lower levels than it was before the recession.

Jed Lewison, for Daily Kos, today:

With sequestration spending cuts forcing the FAA to order the closure of air traffic control towers at smaller airports throughout the country, House Republicans are complaining. A sampling:

"Unwise from a budget perspective." — Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)

"A troubling lack of priories." — Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

"A negative economic impact." — Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX)

"The FAA must re-evaluate its decision." — Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

"There are other things they can do to cut their budget." — Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)​

After years of doing nothing but talk about the need to cut spending, Republicans have finally started to get what they want—and it turns out they don't like it. But instead of doing the obvious thing, which would be to change their position on austerity, they're simply issuing press releases and statements about how they don't like the cuts that are taking place in their own back yard.

The problem is that their solution—to make the cuts in somebody else's back yard—isn't really a solution. It's just political spin. There is no magic wand to make spending cuts be painless and for Republicans to pretend otherwise is transparently dishonest and defies common sense.

Is "sequestration nimbyism" really a surprise? Republicans have been playing this game, and clumsily at that, for a while, now. They've tried blaming President Obama for the sequester; the historical record got in their way. So they tried embracing the sequester, though this would undermine their attempts to blame Obama, and the tactic didn't really work, either. And then they tried calling the sequester a victory, and, well, that fell flat, too. So now they're back to complaining about it.

Looking back to Waldron's article, we might note that Rep. Farenthold is hardly the only Republican who voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011 who is now complaining about its effects.

And as Lewison notes, not only are congressional Republicans not on board with the idea of simply killing the sequester—in theory, a simple legislative feat—they also voted for the Ryan budget plan last week: "Not only would the Ryan budget make the sequester spending cuts permanent, but it would cut spending by an additional 10 percent."

So, as it turns out, while the Republicans are complaining about budget cuts, they're calling for even more budget cuts.

At some point, we can't blame people for wondering if this whole thing had nothing to do with budget and finance, and everything to do with superficial politics. Republicans want to do the damage, but they would rather it hurt everyone else.
____________________

Notes:

Beutler, Brian. "Sequestration NIMBYism Grips GOP". Talking Points Memo DC. March 15, 2013. TPMDC.TalkingPointsMemo.com. March 27, 2013. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/sequestration-nimbyism-grips-gop.php

Sargent, Greg. "Welcome to Sequestration Nation". The Plum Line. March 21, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. March 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/21/welcome-to-sequestration-nation/

Lewison, Jed. "House Republicans complain about sequester airport closures while voting for even deeper cuts". The Jed Report. March 27, 2013. DailyKos.com. March 27, 2013. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...rt-closures-while-voting-for-even-deeper-cuts

23. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
I'm not seeing much in the way of Republicans feeling the pain here. What I'm seeing is democrats flooding the media with sob stories about how the cuts are hurting to try to influence public opinion against them. And when you consider just how ridiculously tiny the cuts were, it is really pathetic.

Since government almost never makes cuts, rolls of government workers are bloated with useless people who are hard to fire. For a business - an entity that actually cares about doing a quality, efficient job - an actual cut of, say, 10% would be an opportunity to trim the fat.

That's why most of the whining we've heard is overblown, purposely made more painful than it should be or just plain lies. Here's Obama trying to get us to pity the poor janitors who are getting pay cuts as a result of the sequester....except that they aren't: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/02/Wapo-busts-obama-again-janitor-pay-cut