Skip to comments.America, let's call President Obama's sequester bluff
Posted on 02/07/2013 7:15:56 PM PST by haffastEdited on 02/07/2013 7:26:53 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON For the first time since Election Day, President Obama is on the defensive. That's because on March 1, automatic spending cuts ("sequestration") go into effect -- $1.2 trillion over 10 years, half from domestic (discretionary) programs, half from defense.
The idea had been proposed and promoted by the White House during the July 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. The political calculation was that such draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to offer concessions.
It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.
So Tuesday, Obama urgently called on Congress to head off the sequester with a short-term fix. But instead of offering an alternative $1.2 trillion in cuts, Obama demanded a "balanced approach," coupling any cuts with new tax increases.
What should the Republicans do? Nothing.
Some in GOP want sequester deal
Politico ^ | 6 Feb 13 | JAKE SHERMAN
2013 budget $1.8 trillion
my mama had 4 kids the first was 8.5 and the last was 10.5 and the doc said the next one will kill ya.
I have one sister and 2 brothers....
Bring on the sequester. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.
Agreed. This is a no brainer. We are going down anyway. Might as well take the enemy down with you and hope to salvage something.
Vichy GOPe seems to want to surrender AGAIN
But his entire premise is: "OK, the criminal is holding a gun to our hostage's head....quick, get our snipers to kill the hostage first so the criminal won't get the satisfaction."
If you let the Sequester take place, you gut the military and break faith with our men and women in uniform. It wasn't the Dept of Defense that came up with this jack assery formula whereas 17% of the budget (Defense) takes 50% of the Sequester cuts.
The GOP singed up to that, and during the 2012 campaign told us all the cuts would be "devastating." And they will.
Now it is 2013 and the same GOP is walking around the Sunday shows telling everyone the cuts are really wonderful things, because Obama and Reid treated them bad during the Dec/Jan negotiations, and they want their mommies.
Look, if the cuts were horrible to Defense last year, they are horrible this year. The GOP should stop with it's own spin.
Our military leaders are screaming to anyone who will listen what these cuts will do.
No one is listening.
Not with this bunch in power, and I mean the R’s, will they let sequestration out of the shute. They are scared to assume
an upper hand, to have the ONE in a corner, finally, and beside that, everyone already knows that military s& defense spending is trumped by ObamaCare spending, and even Oahu weekends & Michelle’s wardrobe. The priorities around the joint have been well known, since November 6, 2012.
I’m for going ahead with the sequestration cuts. We can fix and build up the military 2-4 years from now, but this is the ONLY chance we have on God’s green earth of ever getting spending cuts on the social programs. This is it, our one chance. Go for it. We’ll fix the military after Obama’s regime is over, if not before, because Obama doesn’t really want the military to turn on him, and they will, bigtime.
” Our military leaders are screaming to anyone who will listen what these cuts will do. Our military leaders are screaming to anyone who will listen what these cuts will do. No one is listening.”
B.S. Bring on the cuts... Start by closing our foreign bases. And stop buying $800 toilet seats.
They will cut the defense budget and increase spending to buy Democrat votes.
The politicians are more afraid of losing elections than they are of losing American lives. Look at Benghazi.
Remember that it was Obama who put out he terms in that budget process that ended in the sequester. It was HE who said that if no agreement was reached that the sequester would go into action. WE ALL know exactly why he wanted this...to put pressure on the GOP to give him what he wanted. Was it even constitutional for him to put such a binder on it? He HAD to know that the democrats were not going to budge. The GOP should have refused to enter ANY kind of budget talks that were so set to fail. Seems as if they could have refused to enter talks with any such terrible end result. I’ve heard so many people say that these are our brightest, or they’d never be elected. PHOOEY! That is absurd! I think many of us are a lot more capable, simply because we can see and understand common sense ideas and don’t feel the need to pander to any lobbyists to get the job done.
I concur. The Senate may not have a role in March 1st Sequestration, to stop it. The House seems to be sitting on GO, for sequestration. It must happen.
Obama and the Democrats have to come up with an alternative solution. With more tax hikes the public will go nuts.
If the GOPe was smart(but they’re not) Boehner would hold a press conference saying that on January 1, we gave Obama his take hikes. Now it is time for the spending cuts.
Put a lot of kids in the shot and talk about how more tax hikes will hurt the middle class. Tell the media how Obama’s tax hikes hurt working families where they have to choose between buying gasoline at its highest prices or buy food.
Offer a trade. Since Obamacare is going to drive up insurance rates, in some cases 190%, kill Obamacre and that will pay for the sequester.
That my friends is how you win wars.
How does cutting $50B from a $700B budget “gut” the military. Enough with the lib demagoguery.
“$800 toilet seats? so now we are repeating mainstream media lies and hyperbole from the 1980s?”
Perhaps... But I was in the Navy and I recall dumping hundreds of pieces of VERY expensive electronic equipment over the side of the ship... Hundreds of thousands of dollars of stuff. Just because we had excess.
Maybe that ended when I got out. I doubt it.
This is what I was wanting to scream all day yesterday listening to Rush Limbaugh!
The FACT is that Obama signed this deal into law...HE was the one who wanted this deal....backfire this entire DAMN deal on HIM--because HE promoted it.
So when Barbara Lee goes on to the floor of the House and claims the budget will kill people with HIV, the designated Republican to speak in the debate ought to say, "The bill was signed by Barack HUSSEIN Obama, mmm mmm mmm."
This is Obama's tar baby, so you ought to make it stick to HIM.
The DoD does spend money - sometimes better than others. During war and hell breaking loose, it sometimes is not an efficient enterprise. My father told me of aircraft being dumped off the side of the aircraft carrier because of minor damage during battle.
The DoD acquisition process is hamstrung sometimes by too many wish list "requirements" that cause weapon systems to be too expensive and to take too long to field.
But that does not mean the military is cry wolf regarding Sequestration. I have never seen uniformed flag officers sounding the alarm as boldly as this. Ever. We are in real trouble.
However, the military has already been cut deeply. Obama started these cuts during Obama I, and they are now getting much worse, to the point where our military is literally going to be degraded.
We can't let this happen. Ronald Reagan would not have let it happen.
It is not possible to determine if the Sequestration military cuts are bad or good until we define the mission of the military. If the mission is consistent with the Constitution, i.e. defense of the homeland itself, there may be room for even more cuts. If the mission is to be able to fight in any part of the globe whenever the president has a whim to do so as we have since WWII, the Sequestration cuts may be too much.
The current problem is we never have a national debate about the proper role of the military or any program of the government. We assume the department heads are correct when they say they don’t have enough.
For what it is worth, my personal opinion is:
1) We cannot afford to project forces around the world at the whim of the president. We also cannot continue to fund the defense of Europe, Japan, Korea, and other “allies” who benefit greatly by not having to fund their own defense while the American taxpayer is crushed under the burden of a military that can project overwhelming power across the planet at any time. We need a military to defend the homeland from attack, not to occupy countries for decades in order to force our version of democracy on people whose culture is hostile to the concept.
2) If we do not use Sequestration to force cuts to government spending, it won’t matter in 2-3 years how much we spend on the military today. When the dollar collapses and our economy is completely destroyed not only will we not be able to afford the military the generals want to preserve, we won’t have anything to defend.
3) The current general staff has permitted the destruction of the military by failing to speak out against the current administration’s social engineering experiments. In fact they have celebrated homosexuality and the introduction of women into combat roles. Why should I believe a flag officer’s protests against cuts to budgets when she/he claims social engineering is good for the military?
4) What are the real external threats to the homeland and is our current military investment protecting us? EMP attack from Iran or North Korea. We are defenseless yet that is a real possibility in the next 2-3 years and it would be devastating. Millions of illegals crossing our borders every year. The military is not involved in defending us from this very real situation at all. What is really the difference between a million man army crossing the border and occupying part of our country and a million illegal immigrants taking up residence and utilizing billions of dollars of social services? What about daily cyberattacks from China, India, Russia and eastern Europe? Is the real threat to our nation’s security a shooting war with the Chinese army or is the the destruction of our electrical grid and banking system via a massive cyberattack? If the latter, we are currently spending too much on traditional weapons and not enough to defend ourselves against 21st century warfare.
Saying that cutting the military is dangerous without first defining the threat and the mission is no different that a liberal Democrat Congresswoman claiming this week the reason we need to save billions in domestic spending programs from Sequestration is that 6000 AIDS patients won’t receive taxpayer funded treatment. No consideration as to whether or not these patients can afford to pay for their own treatment or if charities can pay. No discussion as to whether or not it is the mission of government to pay for treatment for a disease contracted through people choosing voluntarily to engage in risky behavior. Once again, no definition of the role of government (i.e. the mission).
Our profligate spending has gotten us to the point where the nation’s future is in jeopardy. This is the 11th hour and if we do nothing there will be nothing to defend. Better to cut defense and social programs than cut nothing and watch the dollar and the economic system collapse. With respect to where to start on defense cuts, how about the number of uniformed flag officers which at 7 per 10,000 men is way beyond the 2 per 10,000 men required to fight WWII. In fact, the Navy today has over 2/3 of the number of flag officers as it has ships.
I just left the Defense industry after more than three decades. Contractors worth their salt have been preparing for this. Yes, it will have an impact...but many are getting ahead of the curve. Democrats are waking up to the facts...there are suppliers and employers in THEIR districts, too...and now they’re squealing. Not to mention that the other side of the coin, their sacred cows, are going to get cut, too.
And our side..and any media worth their salt should be highlighting that it ISN’T just Defense. And don’t fall for the typical scare tactic about military checks and elderly Ss payments being the first on the block.
He wanted, he signed it, let him freaking own it.
Very well said!
We might, but the congress critters won’t.
Congress is slime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.