While many Republicans are trying to deny any part of the sequestration, many in the tea party see it as a great victory and celebrate whittling down government. According to Washingtonpost.com:
Deep reductions in domestic and defense spending are set to begin Friday in a process known as sequestration, which will make progress toward the tea party’s goal of shrinking the government. What unfolds over the following months will be a high-stakes test of whether significant cuts in spending will help or hurt the economy — and the Republican Party’s brand.
The cuts, worth $1.2 trillion over 10 years, are slated to become reality after a period when the tea party — a movement, represented by a group of Republicans elected in 2010, whose goal is to radically cut the government — has struggled to have a lasting impact on Washington. The tea party saw President Obama win reelection and enact more than $600 billion in tax increases on the wealthy, while GOP leaders agreed to allow more federal borrowing without anything in return.
But many Republicans say the sequester is the moment when the tea party can claim it has made its mark. Although Democratic and Republican leaders are pointing fingers, the tea party and its allies are happily accepting credit for the cuts.
“This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), a tea party Republican elected in 2010.
Most Americans know it was the tea party republicans who were the catalyst for the sequestration even though many folks are now back-pedalling to beat the band. The tea party seems quite willing and proud to accept the “credit,” regardless of how dubious the distinction is. Wonder if they will be quite as willing to accept credit when food isn’t inspected,, parks are closed, teachers and medical personnel are furloughed and our national security is compromised? I hope they enjoy setting the economy back on its haunches. Ideology first, country second. I hope they don’t dare call themselves tea party patriots. Harming the country isn’t patriotic.
To me, it is completely meaningless and beside the point whether the idea for sequester originated with this faction or that. I’m willing to assume that some bright spark in the White House came up with the idea in 2011 or whenever. Even so, however, the whole point of sequester was to put a brick wall out there of such horrific implications that there could be no dodging coming to grips with these budget issues in 2013.
The flaw in the sequester plan appears to be that, while rational people might regard it as sufficient motivation to face the music on budgetary and debt issues, Members of Congress are so completely in this for their individual hides that the consequences of the sequester proved insufficiently condign to force a facing up to responsibility. So if the White House originated the device, the criticism is not that they came up with the idea, but that they didn’t make it sufficiently horrible to overcome partisan inertia. If the opportunity ever arises in the future, I hope the action forcing event will be a requirement that every member of Congress ritually disembowels him/herself en masse on the Capitol steps in a bipartisan display of solidarity if agreement is not reached by the assigned date. Perhaps then they would act. If not, at least there would be something in it for me other than watching international markets tank.
Over the weekend I had this startling insight (which I hope is less insight than hallucination) that perhaps the thinking in the Congressional Republican sector is that tanking the economic recovery through allowing across-the-board reductions pursuant to sequester was politically useful in that an incumbent President usually gets both blame and credit for external economic conditions. I’m not so sure that there are not Republicans in Congress (and no doubt elsewhere) who would risk throttling the recovery on the theory that if the economy goes sour, it would hand Obama a mess that would take him down a peg or two. There was a time when such an attitude would have been unthinkable and unspeakable in this country. I do not think this is such a time.
I would like to think that no one would do that….but I have been thinking that such people exist for some time now.
Good summation, Scout.
M-h, I believe we citizens see how these in-it-for-me pols start even at the local level.
So, tell me again how increasing the budget is a cut? We are still increasing the budget by 15 billion. President Obama, when asked if he could shave 2% from a budget of 4 trillion, by Gov. Haley, said “NO.”
We are, in DC logic, cutting about 2%.. We can’t cut 2 pennies out of every dollar?
Even fake pennies? Cutting 2 cents per dollar is going to collapse the economy? Really? We just casually SPENT 60 billion, filled with pork. That was on top of the “normal” spending. We’re in danger because gov’t workers are now in same boat as the rest of us? They might lose a job?
I disagree with the Tea Party taking credit. The Tea Party members involved, I think, voted against this deal in the first place.
Maybe the President and Senate should stop obstructing progress and allow the agencies to conduct the sequester. Or replace it with targeted cuts, as some in the House have asked. All we here from the President is “no.” What proposals are coming from the Senate? The Senate and President don’t care about the sequester. They know that the lackeys in the press and the apologists for Obama will blame the GOP no matter what.
The President can’t replace the sequester with targetted cuts. President NO? That is such a lie. He compromised enough to get into trouble with his own party. The problem for you is, The President doesn’t see what the tea party wants to do as “progress. Lackies and apologists for Obama? He should blame the tea party, and thus the Republicans because they cozied up to them. The GOP, who I think of as traditional Republicans find the sequester as dangerous as most of moderates and liberals.
The tea party as accepted responsibility for sequestration, as well they should. They don’t see it is a bad thing. I do.
Federal workers shouldn’t be losing their jobs. Why should they? Why should someone’s life be disrupted because a bunch of idiots are playing politics.
New Republic:
We should start all the cuts with Congressional and Presidential salaries. If they aren’t doing their jobs, why pay them?
That isn’t a solution. Its the law to pay people for their work.
Obviously you are with the wing nuts now. Do you remember the last election? Who won? Remember by how many votes? The president is a pretty hard working guy, according to the work ethic most of us know and respect.
Who won? Why…the Republicans won in the House. You know..the ones that have been presenting budgets.
Yep, Obama is working hard. CAMPAIGNING. Instead of governing.
He needs to get back to DC. He wants to pretend that tax raises are “cuts” in spending. He thinks raising taxes are reducing the deficit by whatever amount he thinks will be raised.
He got his tax raise. Now he needs to cut without additional taxes. And the Senate needs to do their damn jobs. Apologists? Yep….. see your statements. He can never do anything wrong. Nor can the Democrats. I have yet to see criticism of the Democrats and their inaction and incompetency.
You don’t see it because you are so busy spinning and weaving. I am beginning to think you wouldn’t know governing if you saw it. Campaigning? Is that the latest spin? He is the people’s president.
Who won the presidency? I am aware that we elected some real fools to the House.
The concept of consent is integral to governing. Consent is a result of discussions and compromise.
cargo – there you go again – with a sound bite, and half of a quote.
what was supposedly said was that Obama would not cut the budget without revenue increases. He wants to close loop holes in the tax code. He wants to find ways to avoid tax avoidance. He wants people to pay their fair share, instead of the middle class subsidizing the wealthy. Why is carried interest allowed? Why can someone like Newt Gingrich avoid paying medicare taxes on earned income? Why can the oil companies get subsidies? The scare tactic is to cry about the high rates – the advertised rates that are not paid by the wealthy – Why is GE, Verizon, Pepsi, etc paying such a low (or no) rate? Why is Romney’s taxes down below 15% (how low, we do not know)? Why can’t I pay 15% like him?? The top 400 earners pay 18% of salary in federal taxes – I would welcome paying 18%.
The top 400 cannot pay 18.5%, 18375%, 19% (along your lines of pennies) – another percent is going to kill them….Yet, me, at a much lower salary am expected to pay more than them.
Loop holes to close:
Carried Interest
Paying to ship jobs overseas
Nascar – why are we subsidizing nascar or the nfl??
Last in first out accounting
Corporate Jet and Yaught deductions
Capital gains – why is a passive investment taxed less than hard work
Song writers pay capital gains rate – avoiding SS and Medicare taxes
Mortgage deduction for a yacht
My HOA pays income tax, yet the NFL is tax exempt.
Repatriate Money – sure, companies want to bring dollars back to the US, but how did much of those dollars get out of the US – they give away patents and IP to foreign subsidiaries, and then pay leasing fees to those same subsidiaries. Moving profits off shore – and then want to bring it back avoiding taxes – nice when you can do it. There are more companies headquartered in Delaware than people, same for the Cayman Islands – tax avoidance.
Funny how the R’s can stand behind no new taxes, and that is standing for principals, but standing behind people paying their fair share is not viewed as standing for principals.
and by the way – if you have had earned income in the past few years, Obama has cut your taxes. If you have earned income this year and into the future – Obama has cut your taxes. Even the wealthy have gotten a tax cut under Obama – it is a fact.
Well done.
@Pat.Herve
There you go again. That weasel word “fair share.” No one has defined what should be the fair share. Didn’t the tax rate go up on people making 400K +? I thought THAT was supposed to be the fair share. Now its time for the cuts.
He’s not working to close “loophole” on his cronies. Oil maybe?
I’m perfectly happy if the loopholes were shut down….. but also get rid of the progressive tax code. Flat tax. 18%. No deductions. On all income over ….lets say….2X poverty level.
But increased taxes will NEVER keep up with spending. EVER. Its been shown that could completely confiscate the profits of the Fortune 500 and pay for less than one year’s deficit.
The idea that taxes could even cover any of it is absurd. There is no intention of cutting any spending. And by cuts, I mean spending less than last year…NOT reducing an increase.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich/page/full/
Confiscate the total profits of…well.. everyone and you get to pay for ONE year.
But…hey…Moon’s right. Obama won by a HUGE majority of 3 million people….a mandate if I ever saw one. We should kowtow to our masters, raise taxes on everyone until we pay for everything, and keep on printing money. Obama won. Since that means he’s in charge…he gets the blame. Because everyone knows that “compromise” means doing it the Democrat way.
Cargo wants to start his own government since he knows all the answers.
@Cargo
Why are you being like this? 3 million is a significant lead. What difference does it make. He won. Why do you always try to trivialize the President or actually anyone who is a Democrat? I didn’t like Bush’s policies but I didn’t hate him as a person. I didn’t act like a puke over his every move.
Conservatives are just beating a dead frigging horse. Their governance set the economy up so that it failed. Theyd didn’t do it totally alone but they need to take major responsibility. It took a lot of money to set the ship back on course. Now its on course. Too bad they aren’t really smart or fair enough to see that the country will do better if everyone works together.
It really sickens me. It costs money to have people on unemployment, sick, unvaccinated, etc. it is squandering human resources. i will never forget Obama has been treated. Never.
@Cargosquid
Too funny – you take things out of context, publish sound bites, and half quotes – and I have weasel words.
Yes, fair share – why I am paying upwards of 25% while the super wealthy are only paying 18%?
How come spending in DC became so bad after Obama was elected – but Boehner, Cantor and Ryan (adn many other R’s) never saw a spending plan, unfunded mandate or unfunded tax cut that they never liked, until Jan 2009?
Previous Presidents won with much less, and considered it a mandate.
The cuts are about 2 percent of all federal spending, including entitlements. However, none of the cuts come from entitlement spending, which is 70 percent of all federal spending. The remaining 30 percent, which is discretionary spending, is absorbing all the cuts. As a percent of discretionary spending, the cuts amount to at least 10 percent. That is significant.
Further, the cuts have to be realized by the end of this fiscal year in seven months. That also makes them significant,
Scout is absolutely correct. Obama, incorrectly, believed his game of chicken would require that rational thinking beings would move out of the way to avoid the oncoming train, i.e. compromise, thus self preservation would HAVE to kick in, no one would choose death.
He was wrong, there are factions in the GOP that so blindly believe in an afterlife that these unthinkable cuts are only a stepping stone to their realization of heaven. A place in extreme GOP land where a nation survives the rapture and discovers the afterlife brought you by the TEA party. The sequestor is the means to an end, a end that guts defense, guts social safety nets, and leaves this country incredibly weak.
Maybe the red states will figure out how dependant they are.
The tea party’s day of reckoning is at hand. They want small government, low taxes and lower deficits? Well, here it comes. Enjoy!
@Pat.Herve
Those Presidents didn’t have mandates either. As for Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan….only Ryan comes close to being a “Tea Party” type, and that’s only IN COMPARISON to the other Republicans. They are at fault too. If you notice..the fiscal conservatives are gunning for them too. It was Bush’s spending that helped keep conservatives home…and started the nascent Tea Party. Then Obama’s spending took off and he rammed ObamaCared down our throats. But even now..its the Republicans that are the main targets of the Tea Party.
@Elena
Funny…Obama threatened to veto any deal that did NOT have the sequester and the Democrats signed off on it too. All it takes is for the Democrats to compromise. They got their tax raise.
Obama doesn’t want the sequester. What on earth are you talking about? @Cargo. Making that up as you go along?
I have no respect for anyone who doesn’t vote and then comes along with a fife and three cornered hat calling themselves the tea party. Why would anyone who didnt vote even have an option for an opinion.
The tea party is CLUELESS about macroeconomis. Totally clueless.
@Moon-howler
He doesn’t want the sequester? Then why is he not in DC dealing with the House and Senate? Why did he threaten to veto the bill back when it was written if the sequester wasn’t in it.
The Tea Party people voted AGAINST that deal. Apparently you don’t like the deal either. So, what’s the problem?
Its not the Tea Party ignoring microeconomics. They aren’t the ones ignoring Keynes. Or thinking that you can spend your way out of a hole.
@Cargo
He said he would veto any sequestration bills that only had spending cuts in it. The bill he will sign must have revenue increases also.
I agree with him. Don’t lie and spin and say that he won’t cut anything. He has already agreed to many many cuts. You know it and I know it.
I said the tea party was clueless. Clueless on many things. They had better enjoy the flash in the pan from 2010. It won’t happen again. They have proven they have done nothing to help the economy, even though all we heard before that was the mighty roar about how they would fix things when they got in office.
Their roar is sounding a little hollow at this point.
@Cargosquid
cargo – please show me the spending that Obama made? I have asked before. I can adn have show you plenty of unfunded Republican spending. The deficit was $1.2 Trillion BeFoRe Obama came into office – The debt increased by over a Trillion the year before he came into office. I think you have stated that the economy was doing fine back then. I have shown you that several times, I guess if it is not written in a one off blog you do not like to read it. I guess facts get in the way.
Why isn’t Obama in DC – because he is the only adult in the room. Look at Boehner’s message after Obama was elected – he said he will no longer negotiate with Obama. McConnel has been working for 5 years to make Obama a 1 term President. All what the R’s will come up with, is to allow Obama to reallocate the cuts – a very political football, that Obama and every other intelligent person can see through. Even if he were to make all the cuts in entitlements – the R’s would eviscerate him for it. Look at the election, when he had the very same cuts that Ryan had proposed – and Ryan himself took to the podium to attack Obama for those very same cuts – where were his principles? Mitt Romney was vague about what he was going to do regarding taxes, but even he knew loop holes needed to e closed.
I really do have to give Obama credit for him being able to keep his cool in front of all the people that are pulling the strings in their attempt to smear him in any way possible. Never in history has there been such a smear campaign – created by and supported by a political party. From the Birthers, Tea Party, he is a Muslim, Obama bucks, etc.
Very well put, Pat. Boehner also told the Senate to get off its ‘ass’ and do some work yesterday….speaking of an adult NOT being in the room. Tempting to say but….
In what way was the 2008 debt 1.2 trillion? Bush did not sign and stated he would veto the 2009 bill of 1.2 trillion. Now, Bush DID sign TARP on his watch, so that might be what you are adding up..but the BUDGET did not get to 1.2 trillion in debt until OBAMA signed it when he took office. THAT was the last budget out to the Deomocrats.
Obama is that adult? When did Obama negotiate in good faith? When has the Senate EVER negotiated except in the “fiscal cliff” deal.
Again…if he is not going to allocate the cuts…and the Senate has refused to budge on cuts…then I guess its the sequester. Its a shame that the Democrats are so locked into raising taxes that all they want to do is tax the rich, borrow even more, and spend spend spend.
2007
Submitted by George W. Bush
Submitted to 109th Congress
Total revenue $2.57 trillion
Total expenditures $2.73 trillion
Deficit $161 billion
Debt $8.95 trillion
Website http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014 Congressional Budget Office
2008
Submitted by George W. Bush
Submitted to 110th Congress
Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated)
Total expenditures $2.9 trillion (estimated)
Deficit $239 billion (estimated)
$454.8 billion (actual)
2009 per budget request of Bush. Changed by Congress. SIGNED by Obama.
Submitted by George W. Bush
Submitted to 110th Congress
Total revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated)
$2.105 trillion (actual)[1]
Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)[1]
Deficit $407 billion (estimated)
$1.413 trillion (actual)[1]
Debt $12.867455 trillion (estimated)
Website http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/hist.html US Government Printing Office
Debt $9.985 trillion (estimated)
Website http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy08/hist.html US Government Printing Office
This is where his 1.2 trillion debt came from. HE signed the Democrat budget because Bush would not…so Pelosi held it until Obama came into office…an unprecedented move.
@Moon-howler
The Senate does need to get off its collective ass. Its the Senate of “whatever.”
But you don’t care. They’re Democrats.
You don’t know what I care about and what I don’t.
You missed the point, as usual. All of them need to make this not happen. I just don’t think his remarks were productive. There are 53 Democratic Senators. What are the other 47, just out of curiosity?
@Cargosquid
cargo – the spending was already done. I know you do not want to believe it – but the spending was already done. The debt had risen by nearly $1 Trillion in 2008, Before Obama took office. The deficit was already at $1.3 Trillion before he took office.
Yes, the 2009 budget did get to Obama’s desk – and he did sign the Omnibus appropriations act of 2009. Bush had already signed –
CR – Continuing Resolution to Until March 2009 – effectively, the first 6 months of the fiscal year, and several Appropriations Acts funding many of the government functions. Bush also gets credit for the first Auto bailout and TARP – which is why the OMB issued a report before Obama took office indicatiing a $1.3Trillion dollar deficit. Your links do not work, but I assume that they point to the budget, not actual legislation.
Bush only vetoed 5 pieces of legislation – so, do not try to spin that he was going to veto any spending bill – it is just not true.
@Moon-howler
Reid needs to bring up anything for the Senate to consider it.
And they are voting party line.
@Pat.Herve
He stated that he was going to veto it.
My numbers are from his budget. If there was spending other than the budget… those deficits are not appearing in the sources.
I did use Wiki for the data I showed…and if there had been deficits that large, they would be shown in the totals, this far after the fact. The first link works….the other two…no. But it was the data not the links I was looking at.
Apparently we are at an impasse. US Budgetary matters are so screwed up that anyone can come up with different numbers.
How about a law that the gov’t must use general accounting principles?
@Cargosquid
Yes, you used Budget numbers – not actual – the actual numbers show much more spending, debt and deficit.