E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe automatic spending cuts, just days away, would cut $85 billion a year, having an impact on federal food inspectors, TSA officers, Department of Defense and civilian workers. NBC's John Yang reports.
President Barack Obama used his bully pulpit Tuesday to warn of calamitous consequences for the U.S. economy should the automatic spending cuts known as the “sequester” go into effect next Friday.
The president warned that the automatic cuts, totaling about $85 billion over the course of this year, would prompt job losses, weakened national security and canceled government services – among other consequences.
“So these cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” Obama said in a statement at the White House. “This is not an abstraction; people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”
The speech featured no new, concrete proposal from the president detailing how he would prefer for Congress to replace the sequester.
NBC's Chuck Todd says it may feel as though the sky is falling (once more) but it's likely the spending cuts will go through March 1, the government will come up with a compromise deal, and they'll punt something else down the road.
Democrats in Congress released a plan last week that called for $55 billion in new revenues from closing tax loopholes and deductions, and additional cuts by $27.5 billion to each the defense and discretionary spending budgets over the course of the next decade.
Obama’s speech was otherwise spent reiterating points he’s made for the better part of the last two months. He said that any sequester replacement should be “balanced” – shorthand for a combination of new tax revenue and spending cuts – and Obama urged lawmakers to approve a shorter-term replacement for the automatic cuts if they couldn’t reach consensus on a broader package by the end-of-February deadline.
Rather, the president, who was flanked by first-responders whose jobs Obama said would be threatened by the sequester, was making use of political optics and the presidential bully pulpit to pressure Congress to act.
Still, the urgency appeared to have little effect on Republicans, who dismissed the president’s remarks as unserious about reaching a solution.
"Once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.
President Barack Obama voices harsh words toward Republican lawmakers Tuesday while speaking about looming budget cuts.
“Today's event at the White House proves once again that more than three months after the November election, President Obama still prefers campaign events to common sense, bipartisan action,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
Indeed, many Republicans have treated the sequester as a fait accompli; Congress is out of town this week, and lawmakers would only have a handful of days next week to act upon the sequester. Some Republicans have also argued that even if the sequester is replaced, its $85 billion in cuts should set a baseline for offsetting cuts in other areas of the budget.
“I have to say, though, that so far, at least, the ideas that the Republicans have proposed asks nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations,” Obama said of the GOP proposal. “So the burden is all on first-responders or seniors or middle-class families. They doubled down, in fact, on the harsh, harmful cuts that I've outlined.”
The president added, as if to drive home the point: “Well, that's not balanced. That would be like Democrats saying we have to close our deficits without any spending cuts whatsoever. It's all taxes. That's not the position Democrats have taken, that's certainly not the position I've taken.”
This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:04 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
If you support a President that supports drone attacks and drone spying on US citizens.
If you support a President that wants to limit your right to own a gun.
If you support a President that has never submitted a budget of any kind.
Then this country is in worst shape than I thought.
The President submitted budgets to Congress every year it was required, The President supports the second amendment.
However, leave your address and we'll have our drone get back to you.
You are correct.
And by now I thought the ignorants would have seen this.
Instead, they stand stupid with smiling faces and hands held out.
Only the budgets that he submitted were in crayon and received ZERO votes from Democrats as well as Republicans.
How sad is it when your Democratic Senate votes your budget down 0-99.
What happened to the president that wanted to close Gitmo and give terrorists due process in American courts???
Muslim terrorists get more rights than American citizens on American soil? Sad.
I love drones. I would have them running 24/7 until every Muslim was single the National Anthem!!!
But on American soil to American citizens without due process. Only Obama.
What about Muslim Terrorist Americans?
You mean like Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist. The one your president doesn't consider a terrorist. He called the incident "work place violence".
If they are Americans, they get due process. IT'S THE LAW!!!!!!! Then, if your liberal friends will allow it, we have the DEATH PENALTY.
I doubt Obama would ever use a drone on American soil agains a Muslim... his people... the ones he holds in such high regard. On black people... white people... Jews... Christians... sure... but not Muslims.
stone6 you forgot the "d" stoned6
Actually, I think he's wrong on the use of drones against Americans, without some form of prior due process.
That doesn't necessarily include Texans.
You all are aware that the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified last week to Congress that the implementation of sequestration will harm national security, aren't you?
Whose national security would that be?
Yes we are.
My wife is civil service and at one time I was military AND civil service.
We are both prepared to give up money and time to teach the liberals a lesson that they need.
National security will never be at stake here.
Obama would be impeached faster than Clinton is that happened.
What WILL happen is that the liberals will be forced to open their eyes.
Wow Stoner6, suddenly you are concerned about National Security. You want to slash the defense budget to increase benefits and entitlements and food stamps and unemployment insurance because you are worried about national security.
During Benghazi, Obama couldn't be bothered to be in the Situation Room or even call more than once.
Your Secretary of State couldn't be bothered to read her emails pleading for more security.
No one could be bothered to detain the terrorists or even question one that was detained for us in Tunisia.
And then Jack Lew cooks up sequestration and he and Obama go sell the idea to Harry Reid. But you are so concerned about National Security.
The Republicans want to secure our borders before any immigration reform gets passed, but Obama wants to implement a path for citizenship without even bothering to secure the borders. Even his own Secretary of Homeland Security calls our border security a joke. 11 million illegal aliens walked right into this country. The committed felonies. And Obama rewards them with aid and assistance and benefits.
Thank goodness you and Obama are so concerned with National Security.
I am sure you are better qualified to define "national security" than the Joint Chiefs.
Republicans in the House voted to go into recess. The clock is running and the ball is in their court. No Republican proposal; no negotiation; no bill and sequestration.
Good stone.
Very good.
It's time for a real change.
If it must be this way, so be it.
Obama and the democrats had 18 months to come up with cuts to coincide with the tax increases. Obama said $3 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. He got his revenue but no cuts.
Then HIS sequestration was kicked two months down the road and the debt ceiling was delayed until he passes a budget.
He had two months to come up with cuts. But nothing. He was too busy playing golf and using his pulpit to blame Republicans for something that hasn't even gone into effect.
Where are the cuts? Show us the cuts and sequestration will be cancelled. But there are no cuts. Obama wants to cancel sequestration BEFORE he will show us any cuts. More lies.
He holds all of the cards. He just needs to LEAD... to ACT. But he can't. So in order to get any cuts in any shape or form, we will have to let his sequestration go into effect. They aren't the cuts anyone wants. But if it is the only way to get cuts... we'll start there.
I think stoned6 is a frustrated young man that perhaps hasn't received his late IRS refund check. But wait you can blame that on the cliff, Bush and so on...
What cuts do you want?
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year no later than the first Monday of February. Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that for the third time in four years it will not adhere to this legal deadline. The Office of Management and Budget cites “the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document.”[1] This failure to meet statutory budget obligations has become a pernicious pattern for the President and his party’s leaders. For over 1,000 days, Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget resolution, ignoring the legal requirement to pass a budget resolution by April 15 of each year
what cuts are you willing to accept ??
Suggest some and I'll let you know.
There is no penalty for not meeting the deadline. In fact, I believe that if they don't receive a budget by April 15th, Congress can proceed with appropriation bills without a budget. The Constitution doesn't require a budget; it does require appropriations by Congress beginning in the House.
You might be surprised to discover that the President actually signs the bills AFTER they've been passed by Congress and sent to him, rather than vice versa.
I'e always been concerned about national security, and am perfectly willing to take the Joint Chiefs at their word. I am surprised to find Republicans doubting them.
this is exactly the problem i've been talking about ----- nobody from either party is proposing any specific cuts. ------ i'm starting to believe we might actually be better off with the sequester cuts --- at least that way, we get a few.
I've suggested some earlier...corporate tax cuts, different methods for calculating cost of living increases, etc. Obama, Reid and McConnell have agreed these are open for discussion. It's the uncompromising position of the Tea Party Caucus in the House that's preventing Boehner from moving ahead...so he punted and went into recess.
well... i've heard that before, and i tend to agree with those.
If the President was convinced that resolution of the sequester had reached emergency status he could call the congress into session. Why hasn't he done that?
Boehner's trapped between the rock and the hard place...and, to mix metaphors, in over his head. If we go over the sequestration cliff and things bomb in the economy, he becomes the sacrificial lamb...and a Republican coup victim. Cantor is salivating.
Not Charlie Sheen - good idea...e-mail him on it.
Sequestration was a joint proposal hammered out between Obama and Boehner. It isn't "Obama's sequestration," as some have claimed. As Boehner said at the time, "We got 98% of what we wanted." The point was to make sequestration so drastic that it would force a compromise in order to avoid it.
Obama has now proposed both spending cuts and raising revenue by closing loopholes that chiefly benefit the rich. (Eg., no subsidies to the oil industries, the most profitable corporations the planet has ever produced.) Boehner is now calling the closing of loopholes "raising taxes," which it isn't.
The GOP are willing to close the loopholes, but only with the proviso that the revenue thus earned be accompanied by an equivalent cut in taxes. Boehner: "They got their tax hike last time." In other words, now he wants the tax cuts back.
It's hard to imagine what the Republican Party wants anymore. The highest marginal tax rate was more than 90% in the 1950s, the most prosperous decade in our history, under Eisenhower. It averaged around 50% under Reagan. It was reduced to 39% under Clinton. Now it's 35%.
How low does the GOP want taxes to be? Zero -- except for Defense? Their position is absurd on the face of it.
But it's easy to see why the Republicans seem to actually WANT the sequester cuts to take place, even though economists warn it will be a disaster. For one thing, the disaster will have happened on Obama's watch and will be a blot on his administration. For another, if Obama gives up what he earned during the initial agreement, the rich get richer. Finally, whatever happens, tax rates will remain low -- extremely low, which is what they seem to want. And "extremely" is the proper word. It's the equivalent of Michelle Bachmann calling openly for a default on US Treasury bonds during the one of the last self-imposed crises.
In short, nothing is too extreme anymore.
Obama is in a learning process.
One he started too late.
Conservative run America, always have and always will.
The only other answer to the problem is total socialism.
Most of us I HOPE do not want that.
If corporations and business are given tax breaks they will bring back jobs to America.
If Unions are gone, more business will come back.
Sure, you may not make $65 dollars an hour for polishing hood ornaments on an assembly line all day.
But, you will be employed.
AND you will once again have the chance at your dream of one day becoming rich too.
It is Obama who just signed legislation making the Bush tax cuts "permanent" for over 99% of all taxpayers. Even though those at the top will see an increase in their taxes this year, the whole fiscal cliff package is adding another $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years according to the CBO.
Where tax rates remain "extremely low" are for the middle class and those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. If you and others want Big Government, it is the middle class that will have to step up and pay for it.
From 12/7/2012 Wall Street Journal article: "The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them (only approx. 200 households per year paid a marginal rate above 80% on any income). In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today."
Viewer— Ready - Nah...capitalism is moving on to bigger and better markets...they've dried this one up.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year no later than the first Monday of February. Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that for the third time in four years it will not adhere to this legal deadline. The Office of Management and Budget cites “the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document.”[1] This failure to meet statutory budget obligations has become a pernicious pattern for the President and his party’s leaders. For over 1,000 days, Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget resolution, ignoring the legal requirement to pass a budget resolution by April 15 of each year
You've already posted that. Answer above.
Even one time is grounds for dismissal......
Then if you add that the Senate has not passed a budget since 2009....also against the law....
It is time for law-abiding Americans to stand up and remove this ineffective administration....
All of the budgets from the President, Senate and House have been delayed because the CBO had to redo their baseline budget due to the fiscal cliff bill signed into law in early January that added an additional $4 trillion to the total national debt over the next 10 years. The CBO was about a month late in getting that new baseline published. That will happen any time significant changes to the tax code are made at year-end.
Robert Maxwell....just like a liberal Democrat....pick and choose the specific data or time point that only supports your position and blame the result on one item...
You realize that tax rates had nothing to do with the recovery but it was due to a couple of key factors....
1. Unfettered demand to re-build the world after WWII which the United States, undamaged by war, was in the best position to deliver
2. During rationing, people saved and saved and then released those funds to drive economic growth....
Most historians attribute these two factors to the "prosperous 50's" and also throw the caveat into play that if taxes would have been lower, the resulting increase in growth would have been exponential....
Stop spinning....you are making yourself dizzy!
Taxes and growth...plus a GI Bill that trained a generation of managers. Unions were at their peak and income more widely spread than at any other time in our history...creating a large middle class with cash and credit.
Now tell us how you are going to recreate those conditions today.
are you certain it is a good idea to recreate those conditions ???
Why not...created tremondous wealth and the largest middle class since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution.
But, sadly, would be impossible to recreate today, due to its success and today's demographics, technology, the end of communism, the global economy, etc., etc.
i see..... so, you believe that the accumulation of wealth is the most important function of a society ???
Certainly an important one...the MOST important? No. Based on polls of "citizen satisfaction," there are less wealthy and smaller states than ours, with happier populations.
i would say that right now the most important problem we face is violent behavior ------- i would also say that one of the most likely causes of that behavior is greed ----- the accumulation of material possessions. ------- when i was a kid back in the 50's and 60's, we didn't have a lot of material possessions, but somehow we were happy. ---- as the singer songwriter cheryl crowe says in one of her songs , it's not in having what you want, but wanting what you got.
Hmmm...I suppose it is for an already materially sated society...but there are billions who still have that phase of human evolution ahead of them.
well.... we need to decide which is more important, because it's not realistic to have both. ------ and as you may recall from prior threads, i am not a materialistic person, but on the other hand, i don't envy the wealth of others. ------ this whole "class envy" situation that the media is promoting, is getting very silly, and will ultimately lead to more problems, not solutions.
Shepherd, there is some wisdom in your statement about a "saving" based society instead of a "debt" based one. Debt/borrowing is weakness as a country or society while credit/saving is power.
Actually what made the US strong after WWII was the Bretton Woods agreement dethroning the British as the global currency and using the still "gold backed" US dollar. We literally forced every country rebuilding to use all American goods and pretty much everything had to be bought with US dollars.
Everyone else lost all their GOLD during WWII so they had nothing to back a currency with. All other currencies were like confetti.Every nickel spent on the planet after WWII came from and ended back in the US.
The actual boom ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s: We officially unbacked the dollar and joined the confetti currencies. We borrowed and inflated our way out of the 1970's and never stopped.
Borrowing and inflating became federal monetary policy after 1970.
Viewer Ready
OMG are you brainwashed.
Conservatism is not what the Republican's preach or practice anymore.
WOW...I'm still in shock
Oooh and won't that be bad because it will occur while Obama presides. No wonder he's worried. Now is the time for him to stop his bullying and trying to outsmart the Republicans, and to negotiate in good faith, not play his stupid slimy sly games. Come on brother, get with the program and enough of showing Whitey who's boss.
So the President is blaming someone for something. Again. What the hell else is new?
Blame....blame....blame....
Divide....divide....divide....
Circumvent Congress and the Constitution....
Just another great day in the White House.....
Obama offers "no new, concrete proposal... detailing how he would prefer for Congress to replace the sequester". Instead he points fingers and blames others, mostly Republicans. This is not the way to gain support and encourage cooperation.
Like a chess match has moves are getting predicable.
Move attention away from the main topic (health care, guns) Then get congress to increase budget ceiling by frightening people with less services. Seems to work everytime
You were expecting more services for less money?
Hahahaha.
Hey, he did play golf with Tiger Woods.
He got that done.
Can anyone riddle me this....?
There is rampant illegal email usage going on at the EPA (and who knows which other government agencies) and MSNBC chooses not to report it.....
This action is against the law and should be reported, even if you are the "liberal stream media" (aka, Propaganda Arm of the White House)....
Wake up people, this administration is the most corrupt administration since the Nixon era....
And they are betting you don't even notice......
Report it...Darrell Issa is always looking for something going on in the administration to investigate. I am sure he'd be happy to hear about it.
Already happened.....head of EPA resigned about 2 months ago for the same reason....
Transparency...Hah!
Hiding true agenda.....priceless....
Lets just all stop paying taxes and let the US Government fall. No matter how bad that would be it will cost us all less now. Because the fools running the government the last 30 years don't know what they are doing.
Interesting concept as the government has no money unless they take it from productive, tax paying Americans!
Nonsense. They have as much as the fed wants to print.
That is where you are wrong....The Fed is not part of the government....
The government has no money unless they take it from you and I, either directly or indirectly (through business taxes)....
I sure wished we had an informed electorate......
The government oversees the Fed. It created it and could eliminate it if the votes were there. When they print more money, it devalues the money you have. They don't need to take it from you...they just devalue what you have. Which also "monetizes the existing debt" and makes our exports cheaper to others.
Hmmm...I hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but "low information voter" is a term invented by a political scientist who worked for the Clinton Administration. Rusk plagiarized it. Well, maybe that's not quite the right word...he just "forgets his sources," so he ends up thinking eveything that comes out of his mouth is both true and original. Control the medium, you control the message.
Barry NOBAMA and his Mate MOOO CHELLE have devastated America already.This Chimp is out playing golf every other day while our sons and daughters in the Uniform lay down their lives in a total BS war. and we thought Bush was bad
Skip the racist BS. What war are you talking about? Afghanistan? As a country, we made commitments to the government of Afghanistan. We are withdrawing as fast as practical. You want to "cut and run?"
Or, maybe you are posting from a cave on the Afghan-Pakistan boder, eh?
I think it's a mistake on the part of Republicans to try to pin the sequester on Obama. It's totally disingenuous... you can't vote for something and, with a straight face, go blame the other guy for its existence in law."
-- TeaParty Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI)
Why would a lib care what a dumb, racist, no nothing tea party guy says...they all lie anyways...don't they?
From beyond the grave JFK reminds us of what We Must Do...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qqnRRO3zziI#!
anytime the demoncrat might actually have to uphold one of their many fraudulent promises to cut spending,
it. is. a. disaster.
The only way to fix this busted government and the impending implosion would to cut everything and start over. We have become so much of a soft country always demanding the government fix everything.
It's time for us to take responsibility for our own actions. We elected these clowns in government both republicans and democrats who take advice from special interest groups rather than from their constituents.
We need to fix the government by taking away first their entitlements. Why does a member of the House
or Congress need to paid a salary above the middle class. They should be set the middle class rate for
which ever state they were elected from. They should be held accountable for all laws they pass..such as with the Obama care they are exempt from this when they should fall into it with the
rest of the country. These fat cats in Washington believe that they are above the laws they make when they should be the first ones to follow them.
I say we stop arguing over political lines and hold every single one of them accountable for their actions. Hell let's get rid of the 2 party system and have people be elected on their merits not which party they are affiliated
with.
Double post please ignore
And so the Blamo agenda to spend this country into oblivion continues...Keep stacking up that debt because it's not a problem! Raise the spending limit and keep that stimulus pumping! Raise taxes so we can spend some more and keep that gov't growing! Obamacare for everybody! What an out of control joke this administration is.
You want balanced Mr. President? How much spending cuts did you provide when you got the tax hike at the end of the year? Do you really think we are that stupid? Just because you can get the media to go along with your talking points without asking you or your Administration any actual questions doesn't mean the rest of us don't realize you are playing the same old game.
Deflect, deny, blame -- Can't you come up with something new?
Gboy...
How many tax hikes were included in the "budget control act" of 2011?
What a patently stupid statement....Obama approval at 60% and GOP approval below 20%. You are doing the equivilent to a team losing by 40 points talking trash to the winning team. Not only is it stupid...it is pathetic.
Yes.
2 % is no cut , we will not feel a thing compared to the over all debt 2% is nothing , Obama has sold this country a bag of lies over the last four years that will cost us in lost jobs , high taxes , and a failed foreign policy. Obama is Americas big mistake .
If there was only a way to unseat Obama for his "bag of lies".....oops, you clowns had your chance a few months ago. You made your "argument" and were pounded for it.
In other words, the majority of people don't buy your line of ****.
Then the majority of the people can stew in their ignorance.
post#467 shows racism is alive and still festering in america,let the whole system go under,then we will realize we have been lied to and screwed by these so-called gentlemen in washington,all they have done is lined their pockets with special interest money,i'm sure they laugh their asses off when they are having dinner and drinks on our dollars,we deserve what we get for the votes we gave them,and i mean dems and rescumblicans and indies.
Acutually the Politicians have convinced themselves they are doing right by the country.
Look at Nancy P's recent statement that they shouldn't freeze Congressional pay. She said they should value the work that they do, and they deserve a pay raise. This from one of the wealthiest people in Congress.
They have rationalized that they deserve all the perks, that they are serviing the public interest, and how dare we voters question their intentions because they are good people.
Post 467 is not racist. Anyone of any race can lie or be a mistake. In fact, I call your post racist because you see race where it doesn't exist - so mikevietvet I think you are the racist
Mike
Where are you when all the lib/prog/soc dem haters berate black politicians and private black business people...call them dumb and uncle toms..
No, your party of KKK (dems) is alive and well
Democrats did not try at all to make cuts knowing the Republicans would shoulder the problems. Democrats are ruining this country. STOP SPENDING!!!!!
Sorry you Obama drones but the president is a liar. First of all the CBO states the sequester will cut spending about 45 billion not over 80 billion like Obama states. He comes back from his latest golf outing and warns of layoffs, lost of services, children won't eat, fires won't be put out blah blah. The truth is, and this is from federal government figures that, the federal government wastes 125 billion dollars a year. How about this you jacka$$, cut about one third of the waste, just one third and the sequester is paid for. But, this dufus likes to scare people. Our president is a lair, a sham and a dope. There are government reports that show where the waste is but will Obama do anything -- NO. He's rather tell you your house will burn down, granny will be thrown off a cliff, and the little children will suffer. What a joke and a bigger joke is the Obama drones that still believe this fanatic.
When are you "low information voters" going to stop allowing yourselves and your IQ's to be insulted.
You people really can't be this GULLIBLE......right?
2% across the board cuts, even at 85 BILLION...............its out of a budget of 3 1/2 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!
And the THEATRICS............again this IDIOT surrounds himself with VICTIMS....like children after Sandy Hook.....it is SICKENING.......AND BENEATH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
Most of these jobs like EMS, firefighters, and teachers are funded by States, but lets accept the PREMISE....why Mr. President, since you CARE so much about these "victims" that you now surround yourself with.... for the OPTICS....WHY did you throw away billions ......on the SEIU, UAW, and "green energy"?
ITS CALLED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING..............you moron........why did you and your Administration CHOOSE to throw it away?
Instead this IDIOT now stands before the WILLING LIBERAL MEDIA.........and rattles off everything from DAY CARES TO CANCER........that will SUFFER...because the EVIL REPUBLICANS wont let him RAISE TAXES.
Mr user
You sir are a disgrace to the human race.
why?? because hes right??
Mruseurhead is 110% right, but the low information people just don't get the facts because they're too caught up in the smoke coming from Obama's asscrack.
Watching The Presidents "Speech"
My Dog got Scared..ran under The Couch...
A number of problems here.
The first problem is that voters want all the services of a big government, but dont want to pay for it.
Politicians have convinced voters that these services are essential, and that removing them will devistate the economy. Well no doubt there will be a hangover or withdrawel as services are cut back. We have gotten used to living well beyond our means, and there is no way to fix this without pain.
Of course we can just continue on, and let the next generations clean up the mess we created. That seems to be the plan at the moment. The issue is to cut back produces an immediate hangover, while if we continue to live beyond our means the problems are more vague and occur at a later unknown date.
The other issue is that when a government organization is forced to cut its budget, it does it in the most painful possible way, to scare those who set its budget. So when a local hospital was forced to cut its budget, it reduced hours on the emergency room. It didnt reduce admin, it didnt reduce travel, it didnt reduce salaries to the highest paid, it cut the service the community most used.
So when the Defense Dept is told to cut its budget, it doesnt stop the design of new air craft we don't need, or bring some ships into port that arent essential, or cut admin that are just wasting money, it cuts pay to the troops, the worst thing it could do.
In the end we will continue to live beyond our means and toss a greater burden on future generations. We have gotten used to living on debt, and getting off takes leadership which neither the politicians or the voters have.
We're worried about our streets not being safe because of furloughs (not layoffs), yet we're fine with these public servants standing around for a photo op with the President for hours? And no one sees a problem here?