Posted on 02/16/2013 5:38:32 AM PST by SkyPilot
epublican leaders in Congress predicted Wednesday that painful automatic spending cuts — the sequester, in Washington lingo — will hit at the end of the month, as scheduled. "I think the sequester’s gonna happen," Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership, said at a Politico post-State-of-the-Union event. Indeed, Democrats and Republicans have made little or no progress on a compromise deficit reduction deal that would head off the across-the-board budget cuts, which would hit the Pentagon and social programs especially hard.
President Obama warned in his address that allowing the sequester to hit would be disastrous, and called for a "balanced" deal reducing the deficit with both new revenue and spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the sequester is bad policy but House Republicans had already submitted their proposal to avert it, so it's up to the Democrat-controlled Senate to act now to avoid cuts designed to save $85 billion this year and $1.2 trillion over a decade. Should Americans brace for the worst, or is there still a chance for a compromise to head off the potentially damaging sequester?
Unless Obama changes his tune, Anneke E. Green argues at U.S. News & World Report, the sequester is going to happen, as long as Republicans don't lose their nerve. The president is warning "with a straight face" about the danger ahead, Green says, but "the impending spending cuts package was his idea from the start." During the 2011 debt talks, the White House praised the arrangement as a win-win, and Obama clearly "counted on Republicans in Congress to choose defense spending over fiscal restraint." Now he's "singing the sequestration blues," and it's his own fault.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
The conventional wisdom states that the Republicans are in an advantageous position since an inability to reach agreement would automatically force spending cuts. My theory is that the Republicans are much more fond of "spending cuts" as a political issue to win votes as opposed to "spending cuts" as policy. I think recent history confirms this view. No doubt, in terms of rhetoric the Republicans excel in discussing the need for spending cuts, however in reality they have done little more than kick the can down the road and are equal perpetrators in the nation's fiscal issues.
Well, I say leave the military alone, and fire millions of other “government employees”.
We can get over that—there are millions that are either unnecessary or redundant. Line ‘em all up, and count every 5th one and fire him.
Is this to be a cut in increases or an actual cut?
Deep spending cuts?
Cutting it to zero would be “deep”. Merely slowing its growth is not even a cut.
The US should pull it’s forces out of Europe, Japan, Asia and stop giving free stuff to places like Egypt. They took advantage of the US Defense umbrella to build their socialism. Let them defend themselves and bear the burden of cost. The US shouldn’t be funding or fighting endless wars anyway. Big deal, so we reduce the rate of increase in spending, not a true cut. They act as if this is the end of the world or something.
Defense contractors are joining forces with public health experts — both groups that rely heavily on federal funds — in a "combined call to stop the upcoming sequester cuts," says Kate Ackley at Roll Call. "The rare display of unity among groups that are often pitted against one another underscored" how much opposition there is to the across-the-board budget cuts, and how much support there is for a compromise. These strange bedfellows are urging Congress and the Obama administration "to arrive at a bipartisan grand bargain that should include new tax revenues, an overhaul of entitlement programs, and cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the ledger." If they can work together, maybe Republicans and Democrats can, too.
The Sequester is a meat ax, across the board chainsaw that does not even allow departments to initiate the cuts in the best way. It is also trying to balance 3/3rds of the budget on the backs of 1/3rd of the budget while it exempts mandatory spending, which is exploding.
Many of the indiscriminate discretionary cuts will end up costing the government more money as soon as next year if they are implemented this way. People may cry and moan about that, but that is the way it is.
A target approach is much more fiscally sound.
Defense is already reeling from the 2011 $487 Billion in cuts over ten years (we are already two years into that cycle). With the Continuing Resolution freezing their budget and now 50% of the Sequestration cuts being levied on one department (the DoD), it is a triple disaster.
For the first time, I am beginning to see media and liberals on TV talk about entitlement reform.
Even Democrats and liberal realize that we could totally zero out Defense spending, and the out of control spending on entitlements looks like this:
For the sake of our nation, we have to tackle this problem.
My prayer is that God will act His will, even upon the reprobate and pagan members of our government (as he did with Nebakanezer). Perhaps there is still hope our nation will turn around. Otherwise, our nation will not endure. Our real fiscal cliff is not behind us, we are speeding towards and entitlement disaster at 90 mph.
ha, dream on. Enjoy the theater. The Republicans are only a pretend 2nd party, they will work with the Dems to ensure govt. does nothing but grow ever larger in the end.
The military is just as bloated and can stand some cuts.
As somebody pointed out, there are many serviceable weapons and equipment that are eliminated, just so shiny new weapons and equipment can be brought forth and somebody gets their commission.
...that seems to be the major issue. Are there actual cuts in the sequester, or is it just baseline bugeting Bee Ess.
Sad state of affairs when they’ve got the issues so muddied we can’t even see what the heck they’re talking about. The gov’t is so huge and convulted I doubt they even know for sure.
Let the second American Revolution begin!
My understanding is we are cutting increases which is fine by me. Greenspan was on CNBC and he seemed to agree with sequestration....can’t be sure so don’t quote me:o)
“The Sequester is a meat ax, across the board chainsaw “
A more appropriate analogy would be “paring knife”. The cuts proposed simply aren’t that big.
The hyperbole associated with the minor cuts are a million billion gazillion gigantoid supernovoid huge-ish percent larger than the actual cuts, which represent much less than 10% next year.
“...does not even allow departments to initiate the cuts in the best way”
Oh, and this means you realize you are losing the argument on the “cuts” because you are now shifting to criticizing “the process” as somehow being unfair.
Out of a greedy government budget of 1.6 trillion, they will cut 85 billion. This is practically nothing and shouldn’t even be noticed among all the waste and corruption when Obama’s cronies are feeding at the trough.
The only reason it is noticed is that cuts will be made in egregious ways...cutting budgets so voters are actually affected, hoping to inflame them against House Republican candidates in ‘14. As always, it’s a political move to discredit opposition to the Marxists’ agenda.
I think a few hundred thousand bureaucrats and a few Departments (EPA, Education, ATF, etc.) can go before we jump on the loony world-destabilization bandwagon. I’d dump Medicare and SS entirely before sending such a GO signal to China.
I do agree with you on Egypt, but not for cost-savings. They are essentially the Muslim Brotherhood, and only our pResident wants to support that.
The Actual Cost Of Stopping The Sequester Will Shock You (Video)
This we do know, unless the items on auto-pilot get the axe, Medicaid, medicare, SS and food stamps etc. by at least forty percent we still have the problem of turning into Greece in less than ten years.
Auto-pilot: Spoken of often by elected representatives to indicate those items funded by government that are legally on the books and cannot by law be deviated from without changing the law, such as mentioned above, the big four, welfare payments in general and then the big three, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Until the big four are dealt with we will continue to enjoy the deficit rising each and every year not by the false number of 1.3 Trillion with a T, but the far more realistic number of 6 to 7 Trillion with a T. Which is why the overall debt, is not 16 Trillion, but more on the order of 80 to 220 trillion when all of the promises of government are lumped into one pot, and depending on whom you talk to.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but there comes a time when the majority start getting the message. That is when things are going to get very very interesting. Can we survive? Can we get it right, again? Will Congress act? It is like one of those 1940’s and fifties serials. What will happen next week to save the day?
On March 1, the House should pass a bill restoring the most agregious cuts to the Military. The bill should be hand carried to the Senate. It is then on the Senate if bad things happen.
The House can pick what will be restored in other agencies as well.
Then if what you say is true about it being "practically nothing" from a fiscal or deficit side, but Sequestration is going to harm Defense to the degree that the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that it would harm us (before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees this week), why do it all?
Defense Cuts In Sequester Would 'Hollow' Military, Joint Chiefs Warn
In fact, these are very deep cuts, they only focus on discretionary spending (Defense taking the brunt), but they don't solve our problem, which is entitlement spending (which is exempt from sequestration).
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.