Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sequestration: Cuts are already threatening House seats
Politico ^ | 19 Mar 13 | DARREN SAMUELSOHN

Posted on 03/19/2013 6:53:32 AM PDT by SkyPilot

Rep. Bill Enyart might be a Democrat and Rep. Rodney Davis a Republican, but the two rookie lawmakers in Southern Illinois share one fear.

Sequestration could cost them their seats.

Enyart and Davis are three months into their new jobs — representing next-door districts — and constituents already are blaming them for not doing enough to stop the automatic spending cuts.

This week, 4,500 civilian workers at nearby Scott Air Force Base will receive furlough notices — a troubling reminder for Davis, who won his seat last fall by just 1,002 votes.

Enyart’s no better off: He pledged to protect Scott during his 2012 campaign, but at last weekend’s St. Patrick’s Day parade in his hometown of Belleville, several people shouted, “Stop the sequester!” as he walked by tossing green beads to children.

“Certainly, in my district, we’re in crisis stage,” Enyart told POLITICO after marching in the parade.

This tale of two districts is a reminder for some in Washington who still think about sequester as an abstract political fight. On the ground, the cuts are real — and so are the political consequences.

(PHOTOS: How sequestration could affect you)

Davis, who holds a part of Abraham Lincoln’s old district and the state capital of Springfield — is considered one of the best pickup opportunities in 2014 for Democrats. After all, he had the narrowest margin of victory last cycle for any successful Republican.

To Democrats, the thinking is that Davis’s constituents in rural Illinois and the college towns of Champaign, Normal and Springfield will be so upset with Republican leadership over the spending cuts that they will send him packing next November.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 113th; 2014midterms; congress; house; military; sequestration
The military is 18% of the budget, and it is enduring 50% of the Sequestration cuts, which exempt Entitlement spending that is the largest driver of our debt and deficits.

Anyone who spews rhetoric about the cuts being "only" 2.4% are preaching falsehoods. The cuts are not across the board. The cut to the DoD is 13%, and since military pay is exempt, the cut to Operations and Maintenance for the US military is massive (up to 50% for some services).

The GOP has "embraced" Sequestration, and is now going about crowing about what a "victory" it is.

Besides the betrayal to our military, the Republicans have tied their leaky rubber boat to a 2 ton anchor.

The GOP now wants to launch "hearings" as to why Tuition Assistance for our heroes is being cut. Ummmmm...because THEY cut military by $46 Billion in the middle of a Fiscal Year.

The military isn't posturing. These cuts are real, destructive, and deep - and the Republicans do not want to lift a finger to stop them.

The GOP will lose the House in 2014 because of their stance on Sequestration.

Mark my words.

1 posted on 03/19/2013 6:53:32 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“The GOP will lose the House in 2014 because of their stance on Sequestration”

Bullcrap


2 posted on 03/19/2013 6:56:24 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz is my adoptive Senator, Rand Paul for President in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The way the GOP has been ‘fighting’ on the sequestration is what’s the problem. As long as you have imbeciles like Boehner never challenging 0, you will lose the PR fight. All the cuts are because the President did not want to tackle true waste. That should be the message.


3 posted on 03/19/2013 6:57:12 AM PDT by ABQHispConservative (Only fake Christians are Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The GOP will lose the house with or without sequestration. Until and unless we have nationwide voter id, the repubs won’t win any more elections. JMO


4 posted on 03/19/2013 6:59:01 AM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
The GOP will lose the House in 2014 because of their stance on Sequestration.

No they won't.

You are blaming the wrong party.


5 posted on 03/19/2013 7:01:05 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hattie

“nationwide voter ID” and not “national ID”

just to be clear


6 posted on 03/19/2013 7:01:40 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

What nobody is discussing here is (why) we need sequestration:

Our jobs are being outsourced to China, and elsewhere. That is what is not being discussed.

BRING. THEM. BACK.

We are nuts, if we believe sending US industry to China will solve anything.

China is a communist nation, and is cannibalizing US growth and safety.

Bring back US industry now.


7 posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:06 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“Furloughed”

The furloughed workers should be thankful they still have a job. Everyone should be able to get by for quite a while on 80% of their take-home pay.

Remember that the sequenteration isn’t reducing government expenditures — it’s just reducing their rate of increase, at least that’s what Hannity says.


8 posted on 03/19/2013 7:09:18 AM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Politicians who throw their constituents out of work can start polishing off their resume. The voters could pink slip them.


9 posted on 03/19/2013 7:09:37 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
You are blaming the wrong party.

Correct, but ask anyone on the street and they will tell you otherwise. Many people seem to know that 0bama is a liar, but listen to him anyway, because the media reinforces him.

10 posted on 03/19/2013 7:27:54 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (It's not "GUN CONTROL"! It's "PEOPLE CONTROL"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline
Remember that the sequenteration isn’t reducing government expenditures — it’s just reducing their rate of increase. . . . . . .

__________________________________________________________

This is a true statement but terribly misleading. Sequestration takes half of its cuts out of the military. 18% of the budget has to take half of the cuts. For the military it is an actual “cut” not a reduction of growth. The reduction of growth is only to the budget overall. The budget over all does not have cuts, in fact wekfare and entitlement spending increases at the same rate or more than in previous years. Sequestration is an awful deal that was made in bad faith by the democrats who always think that the military gets too much of the budget.

In the 50’s when I was a kid the military was 67% of the budget. Our congress need to grow a set of gonads and cut welfare spending. We will never get a handle on deficit spending until we get a handle on entitlements.

The Democrats are acting like they are crying about the sequestration but they are really laughing it up pretty good.

Democrats, they are the most ill-informed people I have ever met. I have friends that are Democrats, they are stupid. They only know about MSM sound bites that paint Republicans as old people death wishers, queer haters and single mother haters.

Over 70% of our prison population were raised in single mother homes. Queers have a normal life expectancy of 42 years, old people in this country will be required to go home and just die under Obama care. Somehow, with all the above Republicans still get the blame for what is wrong in society. Like I said, Democrats are idiots.

11 posted on 03/19/2013 7:35:55 AM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
There is no sequestration causing any loss of jobs or political threatening seats. This problem in our Country is the result of the communists take over of government and destroying capitalism and the Constitution. It is getting close and we may never recover. Their purpose, with King Obama at its head, is to turn our Country into a dictatorship and like a third world Country.
12 posted on 03/19/2013 7:42:12 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

The problem is that too many of those dependent upon the military coffers think and act like Democrats.


13 posted on 03/19/2013 7:45:38 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; SkyPilot

IMO the GOP will lose the House in 2014 but not because of
Sequestration. There may very well be 20 million new Democrat voters with the passage of amnesty and Obamacare will be fully funded and operational.


14 posted on 03/19/2013 7:52:34 AM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

So Davis is sitting on his hands wimpering?

Davis should be at every event in his state making three things clear:

1. Sequestration was Obama’s idea/brainchild/solution and

2. Obama played political games instead of leading.

3. Obama personally ordered these particularl cuts, the type that hurt the most.

Just say this over and over again and the sequester goes away, along with the Democrats that brought it.


15 posted on 03/19/2013 7:53:04 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Yes, but more importantly, the MEDIA is blaming the ‘Pubbies. That means that LIVs are probably going to take it out on the Republicans, in which case, SkyPilot is right.


16 posted on 03/19/2013 7:59:22 AM PDT by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

The media always blames the pubbies.

The LIVs always vote for Democrats.

So what’s new about that???

The military should quit their whining and cut the fat and while they are doing it demand that the fat in the DOE, DOE, DOJ, DOL, and other departments do the same.


17 posted on 03/19/2013 8:05:03 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Many people seem to know that 0bama is a liar, but listen to him anyway, because the media reinforces him.

I say this over and over again and probably sound like a broken record but our problem is the stranglehold the liberal media has on the information received by a majority of the citizens and voters in this country. It does not matter what your "message" is if it doesn't get out there through media channels. Yes, you can spend oodles of money to buy media time but by spending that money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul meaning you are not able to spend it on other activities needed to help win elections. This isn't even taking into consideration the natural bias in news organizations that run contrary to conservative principles.

Many will say how Reagan bypassed the media. That was then, this is now. The media has completely sold out to the democRAT party the past 15 or so years.

Until conservatives make larger inroads to the large media outlets, it will continue to be a struggle to get out any "message". Just my two cents worth which is probably overpriced...lol.
18 posted on 03/19/2013 8:11:00 AM PDT by copaliscrossing (Comparison is the beginning of discontent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
let me make sure I clearly understand your meaning.

Are you suggesting the DOD budget is 13% LESS this year than last year?

simple question. No hidden meaning or agenda.

19 posted on 03/19/2013 8:14:48 AM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saywhatagain
Are you suggesting the DOD budget is 13% LESS this year than last year?

Absolutely.

I have discovered that most Freepers do not understand how deep or devastating these cuts really are. I can only imagine what that translates to for the general population of low information Americans, but I guarantee it is in the single digits.

The cuts were originally slated for $109 billion this year, but after the fiscal-cliff deal postponed the sequester for two months by finding alternate savings, the sequester will amount to $85 billion over the next 10 months. In 2013, nondefense programs will be cut by nine percent, and defense programs will be cut by 13 percent. If carried out over 10 years (as designed), the sequester will amount to $1.2 trillion in total.

___________________________________________________________________

The first installment of the sequester — $85 billion worth — affects the remaining 7 months of fiscal 2013, when ends September 30. Spending will decrease during this time by roughly 9% for domestic programs and 13% for defense programs. Social Security, Medicare benefits, and Medicaid are spared this budget axe."> I can even post for you the actual OMB letter in PDF format that re-states this.

The military has been under a triple fiscal assault.

1. The $487 Billion in real cuts that began in 2011

2. The Continuing Resolution that froze funding and has left the services short Billions in funds

3. The final knife across the the throat - the Sequester, which cuts so deeply into Operations and Maintenance because other funding lines are exempt or off limits (i.e. military pay).

Look at these slides. Look at them well.

This is a factual presentation that only highlights the devastation to the Navy. I guarantee you that all the services are in the same or worse shape.

http://www.navyleague.org/files/sequestration_presentation.pdf

The problem I see is that too many Freepers and Conservatives are listening to people like this regarding the Sequester.

He knows less about Sequestration than my house cat.

And that is saying something.

This is one of the best articles I have encountered that spells out, in very direct terms, the evisceration of the military caused by the triple fiscal assault.

In sequestration, president and Congress undermining military

20 posted on 03/19/2013 9:05:23 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I never click on links when I can’t see the url. Just a thought, as I would guess that I am not alone.


21 posted on 03/19/2013 9:07:40 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
It was proposed by Obama's people, specifically, Jack Lew.

That does not change the fact that:

A. The Republicans agreed to this Faustian bargain known as the 2011 Budget Control Act that devastates the US military

B. The Republicans have refused to stop Sequestration; on the contrary, they believe it is a "victory" and have embraced this betrayal of our military

22 posted on 03/19/2013 9:07:58 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline
The furloughed workers should be thankful they still have a job. Everyone should be able to get by for quite a while on 80% of their take-home pay.

Let me ask you something, and I want you to give me an honest answer.

If I took 20% of your income by tomorrow, would you have a problem with that? If the Government announced that Social Security recipients were to suddenly have their checks reduced by 20%, do you think they would be satisfied by telling them they still have a check?

We can do whatever semantic dances you want to regarding whether those checks are "deserved" or "already paid for" - the bottom line is when you cut income by that deep an amount that quickly, it is almost financially unsustainable for some families.

I have posted this here before but I will repeat the story. I know a single mother who is a low paid GS worker. She has a child with severe medical issues. She works hard - she does not take Food Stamps or hand outs. She pays her Federal, State, and property taxes.

She works, and for a Constitutional, worthy agency (Dept of Defense).

She, and thousands of others is going to be cut off at the knees.

This is not moral, it is not right.

When I posted that, I got a lot of Freeper hate posts and hate mail. Everyone has a hard luck story that they think is worse, or....the hatred for anyone getting a Federal paycheck runs so deep that the wombats come out of the woodwork.

People like that cannot make the moral distinction between someone working to better themselves and the fine institution of the US military, and an obese TSA agent feeling up your wife in Atlanta airport.

I cannot help people like that. If they do not have any discernment, I cannot give it to them through keyboard osmosis.

23 posted on 03/19/2013 9:15:26 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline

“Furloughed”

Furl’O’d


24 posted on 03/19/2013 9:48:46 AM PDT by antidisestablishment (Our people perish through lack of wisdom, but they are content in their ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
WE ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY

We are going to crash if we don't stop. :(
25 posted on 03/19/2013 10:55:05 AM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I’d be happy if the sequestration cut ALL of congress’ salaries to zero. Then maybe they’d go home and stop bothering us. Nah, wouldn’t happen. Plenty of lobbyists would pay them.


26 posted on 03/19/2013 12:04:07 PM PDT by Terry Mross (This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
About your first link, Chris Good who wrote the article is either being purposefully deceitful or knows nothing about the way the federal Government budgets. What he wrote was AFTER the baseline has been increased; THERE ARE NO CUTS!
27 posted on 03/19/2013 12:11:16 PM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

AS i recall the sequestration was suppose to be across the board, not spesfic to the military. If Obama has put it all on the military that is his doing not ours.

Either way the Sequestration needs to stand forever.


28 posted on 03/19/2013 4:45:24 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“If I took 20% of your income by tomorrow, would you have a problem with that? If the Government announced that Social Security recipients were to suddenly have their checks reduced by 20%, do you think they would be satisfied by telling them they still have a check?’

Of course I would have a problem, but as all of your income comes from my pocket, and I nether require nor desire your services I think the scam is that your still getting 80%.

That being said were it up to me I would much prefer to get rid of other programs and personals whom i find far more costly and undesirable to me. Starting with the ATF, DEA, FBI, Department of Education, ect..

The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agency’s are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.

Droping them from the pay roll would return to us much, much more than a mere salary.


29 posted on 03/19/2013 4:52:01 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
I wish. I am a veteran but I am on my 3rd job in 5 years.

However, I agree with you concerning the alphabet soup agencies and our precarious freedoms.

30 posted on 03/19/2013 5:15:20 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Im glad to hear you have been able to find 3 jobs in 5 years, Under Obama’s rules there are many that cannot reach his new bar so offend.


31 posted on 03/19/2013 5:19:05 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
AS i recall the sequestration was suppose to be across the board, not spesfic to the military. If Obama has put it all on the military that is his doing not ours.

I am sorry but that is not correct.

The Republicans overwhelmingly supported and voted for the 2011 Budget Control Act, which brougth us Sequestration. Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, and all of the other GOP heroes knew the language burdened the military with 50% of the cuts, and they also knew they had already cut the military by $487 Billion before Sequestration.

Boehner bragged that he got "89% of what I wanted" with the 2011 "deal."

I have no illusions of what and who Obama is. However, it is my own party that allowed the military to be screwed over and who will not lift a finger to stop this madness.

32 posted on 03/19/2013 5:22:50 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Well if that is true, I can’t say i care all that much. As I mentioned before the Federal military is a long term threat to our liberty.

Particularly if we are to take any serous efforts to halt the progress of this evil the Federal Military will be used by said tyrant against us.


33 posted on 03/19/2013 5:27:07 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Thank you for your answer. Gotta have a little time to absorb. Some of the info is in conflict with .gov sites, but thats ok because most of the .gov sites are in conflict with each other.

Been around a long time, and I have learned when data comes out this way, mish mash, upside down etc . . . a whole bunch a people have different agendas and most lie to further that agenda.

Undoubtedly, as was forewarned, the DOD has a more proportional hit than other departments.

However, the issue is actual dollars being spent. And "initially" I see possible apples and oranges being mixed here in the numbers being presented.

It appears some presenters are using "cuts" in sequester that was already budgeted in 2011. Typical double counting that we see all the time.

Allow me some time to digest your point of view.

34 posted on 03/19/2013 5:37:44 PM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: saywhatagain
No worries, and thanks for a civil reply.

Here is the OMB letter.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf

The difference between the 9% and the 13% when discussing Defense across the board cuts (and why it is really worse at 13%) is as the letter states: these cuts are now crammed into only 7 months for this fiscal year. Then the madness starts all over again....for another 9 years.

One last article explains why all of this is so destructive:

Sequester Insanity: Why the Pentagon budget cuts are far worse than you think

Both Rush, but to a greater extent Hannity (who is really not that bright) think they have discovered the secret to Nirvana because some Congressman explained to them once that in Baseline Budgets there is a projected increase per year to year.

Well, I hate to break it to them, but most budgets work that way, including company's budgets. There is this thingy called inflation, and many other factors involved.

I could throw the entire Navy and Air Force O&M budgets into reverse for an entire fiscal quarter simply by increasing the cost of oil per barrel by 15%.

I once asked an expert at the Defense Logistics Agency why the Dept of Defense simply build more storage facilities, buy massive quantities of fuel when prices were low, and then sell the excess as needed.

He said that would amount to hedging, and it was prohibited by Congress.

I pressed further, and he explained to me that the the Government does not run the government - K Street lobbyist do.

It was a bit of an oversimplification, but he had a point.

By the way, love your screen name.

35 posted on 03/19/2013 6:14:36 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise; shibumi; Old Sarge; TheGunny; SkyPilot; Travis McGee; Jim Robinson; Allegra; ...

“The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agency’s are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.”

@Monorprise Excuse you ?

The very fact that you have the Freedom to say something as ludicrous as this came from the sacrifices of our veterans.

Keep that in mind.


36 posted on 03/19/2013 6:47:57 PM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (The Doomsday Clock is at 11:59:00......tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Wow . . . Just finished reading the OMB letter only. (not the numbers, yet) No wonder America is in trouble. Gee no radical prejudice or bias agenda in those words, are there, eh?

Zients writes . . .

The Joint Committee sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It was never intended to be implemented and does not represent a responsible way for our Nation to achieve deficit reduction.

Wow, you lay cards on the table, you better be ready to play. If not resign and leave town. Further proof of this administration immaturity

Zients continues to write . . .

On multiple occasions, the President has proposed comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plans to avoid sequestration.

REALLY? What might that be . . . oh yeah, more tax increases. Very disingenuous. Again not serious minded.

Seriously, If I presented that tone of letter to my CEO in a crucial board meeting, thinking I would have to explain why I still work there.

Again Zients "appears" and I will check to see, he "appears" to be double counting non exempt and non exempt non defense spending. I hate when smart ass bureaucrats do that. Thats why they would never last in the private sector.

Yes, I will keep an open mind and look for the truth. Thank you for sharing

37 posted on 03/19/2013 7:26:35 PM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama

““The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agency’s are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.”

@Monorprise Excuse you ?

The very fact that you have the Freedom to say something as ludicrous as this came from the sacrifices of our veterans.

Keep that in mind.

I have no dispute with the sacrifices of current or past veterans.

I simply believe that the day will come when future “veterans” will levy war upon our States & people in the interest of securing & extending the power of Washington.

Then they will not be sacrifing for my freedom of speech or any freedom at all for that matter. Merely Washington’s power to rule without the consent of the governed.


38 posted on 03/19/2013 7:42:42 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Correct me if I am wrong, but right away I read that there are NO cuts to OCO/GWOT.

Zients or his staff writes . . .(page 1, Basis of Calculations)

As provided by section 101(b) of the CR,

whenever an amount designated for OCO/GWOT (Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)/Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)pursuant to section 251(b) (2)(A) of BBEDCA in either the Department of Defense Apropriations Act, 2012 (division A of Pub. L. 112-74) or in the Military onstruction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (division H of Pub. L. 112-74) differs from the amount in the President’s FY 2013 Budget request, the annualized level equals the amount in the President’s FY 2013 Budget request. The CR levels are also adjusted for any transfers mandated by law.

39 posted on 03/19/2013 7:52:25 PM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

You know your article is from slate?


40 posted on 03/19/2013 8:02:14 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The 50% “cut means the military wont have as much $ as it thought, but it will still be more than last year

If the military had to, could it survive next year on what it spent this year?

I sure as hell could


41 posted on 03/19/2013 8:11:18 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Utter nonsense. The folks who join our all volunteer military would never do so, since they are, for the most part, Conservatives.

That doesn’t hold true for the thugs who join BATFE, nor would I put it past Chairman Obama to create his own army, the way Hitler did with the SS.

He did promise to do so, right ?


42 posted on 03/19/2013 8:39:58 PM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (The Doomsday Clock is at 11:59:00......tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
First, want to thank you for posting in that it finally forced me to dig deeper to really understand this mess.

I went to many sites, mostly .gov, but of course they were full of double speak. Found a site that explained it in plain english. Of course you will not accept it since it is a "K Street source. LOL.

Be careful making broad generalizations like the person you talked to. As you know, there are two sides to every sword.

Anyways I found this source.

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Analysis-of-the-FY-2013-Defese-Budget.pdf

An excellent, non BS plain english explanation. Start at page 9

I will not tell you what to conclude, but for me I walk away with 2 items.

1. There will be a "real" dollar cut to the DOD

2. Considering OCO, mandatory expenditures, outlays, and awarded contracts . . . the total cut over 9 years is less than 5 percent.

Who is to blame is all thats left to argue about. I dont waste my time on that crap. changes nothing

43 posted on 03/19/2013 11:28:57 PM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
She works, and for a Constitutional, worthy agency (Dept of Defense).

The Dept of Defense is not necessarily a Constitutional agency -- in fact, it could be easily argued that it is not: the Constitution only allows for the Army and Navy (Marines are a sub-department of the Navy), which means that the Air Force is extra-constitutional. Thus the DoD cannot be said to be wholly constitutional.

It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular, which is much of what the DOT does (though it could be pruned very much, but that is like most government agencies in general); the Post Office is another agency, being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, which is more Constitutional than the DoD.

44 posted on 03/20/2013 8:16:20 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular

I think that is a bit of a stretch.

The founders clearly intended for the nation's common Defense - so much so that it is in the preamble.

The argument you advanced regarding commerce has been utilized by every tyrant-wannabe, Socialist, and Communist in US Congressional history as an excuse to impinge on American freedoms, from everything from gun ownership to health care.

45 posted on 03/20/2013 10:57:04 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
>> It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular
>
> I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Which is why I said that it could be argued, rather than actually arguing it.

The founders clearly intended for the nation's common Defense - so much so that it is in the preamble.

Danger lies that way -- the preamble also mentions providing for [general] welfare.
The purpose of a preamble is to provide a rationale/reason that such a document is being written; it is therefore an explanatory/clarification section rather than a mandate. (Besides, if there's a preamble that everyone needs to know it's that of the Bill of Rights rather than that of the Constitution: if more people read the Bill of Rights with the clarifying statement of its preamble fixed firmly in their minds then things like gun control or TSA or no-knock raids wouldn't exist or even "be on the table".)

The argument you advanced regarding commerce has been utilized by every tyrant-wannabe, Socialist, and Communist in US Congressional history as an excuse to impinge on American freedoms, from everything from gun ownership to health care.

And the only reason that is the case is because the government has undermined itself: the only way they establish such 'precedent'* (spit) is to violate all sound reasoning. In Wickard v Filburn, the case they use to justify such expansion, their reasoning can be summed up as: even things that are never entered into the general market could impact their owner/producer's consumption and thereby impact the market, the subsequent impact on the market of his [non]participation is therefore reason that his activities can be regulated and prescribed by congress. -- This faulty reasoning is further expanded in Raich where they went so far as to say that someone growing a crop of marijuana for their own use could be regulated despite there being no [interstate] market for it because such market is banned by the Congress's own anti-drug laws. This makes the Congress both immune from undermining themselves AND from any restraint imposed on them by the Constitution.

BTW -- The Bill of Rights, amending the Constitution, should be viewed as lawfully superior to the rest of the Constitution [and prior amendments] (this is the effect of altering the Constitution); with this view, the Government cannot lawfully regulate commerce to the detriment of arms as the Second Amendment does indeed say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: being written in the passive voice the actor, and the method thereof, are irrelevant.

* - "Precedent" is nothing less than the judiciary playing the children's game "Telephone" with your liberties and [legal-]rights. The judicial system has elevated 'precedent' to the level of the Constitution, and in so doing have devalued the Constitution and, indeed, made it less than the 'historic ruling' which they use to interpret it.

46 posted on 03/21/2013 8:28:00 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
Absolutely.

No ID to vote! The only purpose this serves is to foster oter fraud.

Then there's the machines that we use. . . .

47 posted on 03/21/2013 2:17:30 PM PDT by doberville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson