E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSObama called House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday to talk sequester.
The Hill: “The calls appear aimed at demonstrating Obama is engaged in trying to avert the sequester.” Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel said, "If he wants to avert the sequester, shouldn’t the President be focused on the House of Congress that HASN’T acted, and where his own political party holds the majority?"
The Hill notes in the same story, “Senate Democrats are expected to bring a bill to the floor next week that would replace part of the sequester with a minimum 30 percent tax on millionaires, a proposal Republicans have rejected.”
USA Today: “The White House announced that Obama would travel to Virginia next week to discuss what effects automatic budget cuts would have on the defense industry.”
Obama told Al Sharpton in a radio interview: "I don't know if they're going to move. And that's what we're going to have to try to keep pushing over the next seven or eight days."
Stu Rothenberg notes that Democrats, led by the president and the White House, tell a better economic story than Republicans.
Writing in National Journal, Ron Brownstein notes the effects of the looming sequester have a “generational imbalance.” The sequester, he says, "directs its across-the-board cuts almost entirely at domestic and defense discretionary spending. That spending includes not only the government’s day-to-day operations (from national parks to aircraft carriers), but also most of its key investments in the productivity of future generations, including education, scientific research, and infrastructure. By contrast, the sequester completely exempts Social Security and Medicaid, and only slightly nicks Medicare with limited reductions in payments to doctors and hospitals."
NPR quotes GOP strategist Ed Rogers as seeing a lot of politics in the Benghazi questions: "I missed the meeting among Republicans where it was decided this would become an angry cause célèbre that should be pursued at all costs and with no holds barred.” More: “Juan Zarate, who was a counterterrorism adviser to President George W. Bush, says people could be asking meaty questions about the nature of the evolving terrorist threat, but they're not. ‘I think it's been substance that's lost amidst the debate about talking points and the way that the administration portrayed the incidents in the early days after the attacks,’ Zarate says.
And: Former Amb. Thomas Pickering who headed up the independent State Department review said, “I think this is quite unusual. This is the first time that this kind of a review has been so politicized."
Reuters: “President Barack Obama intends to nominate air quality expert Gina McCarthy to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz to head the Department of Energy as early as this week, according to a source familiar with the process. McCarthy would likely become the face of Obama's latest push to fight climate change. Currently the assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, she would replace Lisa Jackson, who stepped down as EPA chief this month. Moniz, a former undersecretary of energy during the Clinton administration, is director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative, a research group that gets funding from industry heavyweights including BP, Chevron, and Saudi Aramco for academic work on projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.”
National Journal has four things to know about McCarthy, including that she has some personality being a “tough talking and enthusiastic Bostonian.” She also worked for Mitt Romney. But her confirmation won’t be easy, considering she’s likely going to have to enact many of the climate-change fighting policies Obama wants to implement and go around Congress to do so.
The next big confirmation fight… McCarthy spoke at Georgetown Thursday and noted that she’s ready to take on climate change. “As President Obama said, climate change is a priority — and we are going to take action,” she said. Here’s something Republicans will likely jump all over. She said that the effort to stem climate change “hasn’t hurt the economy,” adding, “there are tremendous opportunities to address climate change that build the economy, that grow jobs.” Cue coal country members of Congress…
Some on the left don’t like Moniz because of his support for natural gas, The Hill writes. The controversial practice known as “fracking” is how companies extract natural gas.
“North Korea's recent nuclear test will be front and center when President Obama meets with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday, White House officials said,” The Hill writes.
USA Today: “Vice President Biden warned Congress on Thursday that there is a ‘moral price to be paid for inaction’ on revamping the nation's gun laws.”
Leave a Comment:
The Gop wants cuts, cuts, cuts, their big complaint is that Obama won't cut, now as the cuts are looming the complain the mean old president is responsible for cuts, and this is unacceptable. When republicans signed off on this deal Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted, now it seems he no longer wants what he wanted.
Looks like the Tea in the House is going bad, what's in the H2O !!!
This is silly. The sequester cuts are only about $85 Billion (or less) in 2013, which is only about 16% of the $535 Billion INCREASE in spending for Obama's first year (2009).
That tiny cut is not even 'a good beginning'.
Obama's focus is always the same - Increase taxes and NEVER cut spending.
The Republicans should just stick to two simple messages and keep repeating them;
1 - The skyrocketing Debt will be devastating to the future of our children.
2 - The massive increases in the money supply to fund the Deficits will result in massive Inflation, high Interest Rates, and more Unemployment.
These are simple messages that even the 'low information voters' will understand, and there is no doubt that we will have to deal with these problems in the near future.
Obama's own 2013 Budget projections show that the National Debt will increase from $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008 to $20.392 Trillion at the end of 2016 (Obama's last year) - but President's budget projections are notoriously 'optimistic' - it will likely be closer to $25 Trillion in 2016. The Interest cost alone will be devastating.
The Chinese are no longer buying our Debt - in fact, they have quietly 'cashed in' about $200 Billion of their loans to us over the last year (they know inflation is coming), and the Federal Reserve has had to replace that money by effectively 'printing new money' - along with about $1 Trillion in new money to finance the Deficit. The money supply (M1) has increased from about $1.4 Trillion in 2009 to about $2.5 Trillion now. Every responsible economist will tell you that this is highly "INFLATIONARY" - ala the 14% Inflation and 18% Interest Rates under Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Even the far-left Liberal outlet The Huffington Post recognized this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/federal-reserve-begins-ma_b_677483.html
The problem with that message Roy is that unemployment has gone down since Obama took office, the interest rates have never been lower, and the stock market is booming.
Forrest Grump 2.0 "The problem with that message Roy is that unemployment has gone down since Obama took office,"
The problem with that statement is "It's not true".
The Unemployment Rate for Bush's last full month in office (December 2008) was 7.3%.
It is now 7.9%.
By the way - In the two years that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress AND the Presidency (Jan 2009- Dec 2010), the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov) reports we actually LOST a net of 4,030,000 jobs, but in the last two years with a Republican House (Jan 2011- Dec 2012) we actually GAINED a net of 4,273,000 jobs.
So when people ask "Where are the jobs you promised, Mr. Boehner?", we just have to look at the record since the Republicans took over the House. 4,273,000 new jobs is not bad at all - Thanks, Mr. Boehner.
lol
Forrest, really? Unemployment down? 7.8 in January of 2009 and .......7.9 now. And, if the participation rate (those looking and employed for you liv's) were the same today as it was on the day he took office, the UE rate would be an impressive 10.9%.
That rate is sure to rise in the next month or two as we are heading back into a bit of a regression (you have to listen as well as read to news reports from ALL sides). Why do you think the big push to blame the GOP for the sequester mess should it come to fruition? The Obama administration will then be able to place blame on the sequester results and the GOP. Even if they get past the sequester, the UE rate is going to go up. Obama and you libs will have no one to blame if the sequester cuts are avoided and he and they and you can't afford for that to happen and expose the failed agenda for what it is.
As for interest rates, it is a false remedy for the stimulation of the economy thinking if interest rates are low, spending by consumers (on credit) will increase and thus improve the economic outlook. Ain't happening.
I don't feel the failure of Obama's economy, I lost $480,000 of my stock portfolio in the last two years of Bush, I gained all that back and then some inside of the first two years of Obama's presidency. Now it is just kicking tail. I closed my small consulting business due to the responsibilities of caring for a terminally ill mother in law, and took a management job in which I have never been paid more to do less than I was ever accustomed to. Like I said I just don't feel all the I'll effects you describe, I am doing far better since Bush has been gone, maybe you say according to "official numbers" it should not be so, but my official numbers are my personal balance sheet, and they tell me I am over a half million bucks better off in my retirement fund and with a handsome yearly income. Personally I am really happy with the Obama economy.
Forrest Grump 2.0 "I don't feel the failure of Obama's economy, I lost $480,000 of my stock portfolio in the last two years of Bush, I gained all that back and then some inside of the first two years of Obama's presidency."
Unless you sold your stock at a lower point under Bush, you LOST nothing, and you didn't GAIN it back under Obama unless you immediately bought your stock back right after selling it and held it until now, which is unlikely.
I suspect that you neither sold nor bought stock but just held onto it, meaning you neither lost nor gained any actual money. Real gains and losses only occur when you sell something and compare the selling price to your purchase price.
Give me a break Roy, OK if I would have sold it then I would have lost very close to a half mil and if I sell it now I would be over a half mil better off, the fact is I lost under Bush and I gained under Obama your word games notwithstanding. Roy companies are valued at the listed price of their stock, that is their value, I lost wealth and value under Bush I gained wealth and value under Obama, that is a fact. The fact that I have not yet cashed out is irrelevant, had I cashed out then I would have lost, because value was lost, if I cash out today I am a big winner because the value did in fact increase. The loss of wealth under Bush was staggering across the board, the market is twice as healthy now, those are real gains whether or not you cash out. The fact is my net worth plummeted as did everybody's under Bush, and my net worth has recouped under Bush and that is a fact. I am very grateful for the union negotiated collective bargaining agreements I worked under for many years, my union dues are actually the best investment I have ever made, there is no other way a guy like me could have been the sole source of income for my family and amassed the kind of money I have in my retirement fund.
I meant to say: my net worth has recouped under Obama and that is a fact. But you knew that Roy. You know Roy a lot of huge bonuses are paid to CEO's if the stock value increases, it is a gain in wealth for the company nobody tells the CEO it is just an illusion and there is no real gain until the stock is liquidate, like wise CEO's are fired when the stock declines in value, they can not save their jobs by claiming it is an illusion until the stock is sold. It is certainly not an illusion, but even if it was I much prefer the illusion of having a million dollars I can cash out rather than a half a million I can cash out. Ha you tickled me Roy.
Good for you Forrest.
That shows that Obama is all for those rich wall street types. They have grown richer with Obama.
Median income is still down close to 8%
Wages are flat
Unemployment is in the toliet
Every working American lost 2% of their pays
Cost of living is rising
According to you none of that matters, as long as your Stock is doing ok..
Ha, yes Jane I am a rich wall street type, thank god for my collective bargaining agreement in the hedge fund managers union.
BTW Jane, who fights against an increase in minimum wage, not the democrats, not Obama, who fights against unions and collective bargaining agreements which increase peoples income level, not the democrats, not Obama, who fights against equal pay for women, not the democrats not Obama. If you really are concerned about the income of regular folks you seem to be rooting for the wrong team, now don't you.
Oh Forrest, I was not referring to you when I used the term rich. I said Wall Street and meant Wall Street.
In 2012, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 11.3 percent, down from 11.8 percent in 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported . The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.4 million, also declined over the year.
Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.
What has been done besides lip service by the Obama Administration to actually increase the minimum wage.
Well Jane he can not change the laws, only congress can, he can cheerlead an agenda or provide lip service if you prefer but only congress can legislate and they just aren't interested in anything that benefits anybody other than the wealthy and corporations, they shoot down anything and everything that would have benefited working people especially working women.
Merely your opinion.
No it is not merely my opinion the president does not have the power to legislate, pass a budget, or authorize spending and the bills that this congress shot down are a matter of record not my opinion. I expect that this will change soon and this is my opinion but the indications are that the democrats will control all three branches of government in the near future, republicans will lose the house. They have the lowest approval rating ever recorded, that's a fact and not opinion, they have done nothing of value for this nation, and even the Gerrymandering that kept them from losing the house in November will not save them much longer if they can't produce legislation and policy that benefits the general electorate.
Yes your hate for the republicans shines through in your posts.
FACT
House Republicans are the only ones who have addressed the president’s sequester (the White House proposed it and insisted it be included in the 2011 debt limit agreement), and have passed two bills replacing it with responsible cuts and reforms.
The House passed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act HR.5652 in May 2012 and the Spending Reduction Act HR.6684 in Dec 2012.
Senate Democrats never passed legislation replacing the president’s sequester. It took the GOP-led No Budget, No Pay Act to get them to even consider passing a budget for the first time in four years.
President Obama doesn’t have a replacement plan either. He hasn’t even said when we’ll see his budget -- which is late again and which could have addressed his sequester.
Actually, if the President wants to avoid this, he just needs to tell the Senate to work on the bills already presented to them by the House. The lower chamber has already passed bills that replace the sequester with better cuts. The only holdup in this process is Harry Reid, who doesn’t want to govern through normal order, and who wants a replay of fiscal-cliff crises of the past two-plus years.
What bills are you referring to that congress shot down that would have helped the working American.
“Senate Democrats are expected to bring a bill to the floor next week that would replace part of the sequester with a minimum 30 percent tax on millionaires, a proposal Republicans have rejected.”
It's always the same with Obama - Don't cut spending - raise taxes.
The Debt that Obama is building up will devastate our children in the future.
Under Reagan, the Debt Ratio (National Debt as a % of GDP, which affects your solvency) averaged 42.8%.
Under Bush 1, the Debt Ratio averaged 58.4%.
Under Clinton, the Debt Ratio averaged 64.2%.
Under Bush 2, the Debt Ratio averaged 62.6% (yes, it was lower than Clinton).
Under Obama, it is currently (2012) at 104.8% of GDP.
Greece became insolvent when their Debt Ratio reached 120% of GDP, and their economy is a shambles, with Unemployment at 30%, and they have extreme 'austerity' because nobody will lend them any money and their debts are hopelessly high.
Doesn't ANYONE see the huge 'bubble' that this 'out of control' spending is creating?
We should be ashamed of the 'Legacy' that Obama is leaving our children and grandchildren, and we are allowing it to happen.
This will be known as "The Selfish Generation" because it spent money it didn't have and mortgaged their children's future to pay for it.
Tea people republicans are like spoiled little brats. They jump up and down till they get what they want, once they get what they want they no longer want it. That's why the tea people republicans are the laughing stock of the world.
The Tea is all mixed up and choking on their bags, this behavior is just crazy I would say !!!
Mo, wrong again as usual. It was Barry who wanted the sequestration and stated that he would not sign a bill changing it. Of course that was then... he was for it before he was against it.
Funny then isn't it how the Congress who vowed to never go along with Obama and in fact almost never did went along with this quite willingly.
Raising the Debt Ceiling
In 2006, Senator Obama said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills."
However in 2013, he said, "To even entertain the idea of not raising the debt ceiling, it's absurd."
Avoiding the Sequester
In 2011, President Obama said, "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts."
But now in 2013 President Obama is saying, "These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will add hundreds of thousands of people to unemployment roles."
Hey Republicans, if you don't like who the President chooses for his cabinet, try winning an election. Until then try drying your tears and acting like a grown up for once. Acting like a spoiled brat will not allow you the privilege earned by President Obama to choose his own people.
The Tea Party situation reminds me of my partying days in college. We would throw a party at our rental house, and inevitably, intoxicated and obnoxious "friends of friends of friends" would trickle in, drink lots of liquor, pi$$ on the lawn, leer at our girlfriends, steal the TV remote, and tick off the neighbors.
I think this is somewhat similar to what the Republican Establishment is dealing with now, wishing the obnoxious idiots would leave the party. There is one major exception to this analogy: The hosts invited these losers in to begin with.
The sequester originate in the WH by Obama to obtain his revenue stream from the rich. It's an OBAMA plan.
Now he's flip flopping again, blaming it on the gop. Nothing new here with his decision-making skills.
In the greater context of government budgeting, which we haven't had one in years thanks to Harry Reid and the Dem Senate, whjat is$85B as it relates to $T's - less than 2% of spending. The government can't do what businesses are forced to do when revenues don't exceed expenses?
The sky will not fall, and life will go on.
Seems that many still want to heap all blame on the GOP.
If Obama and company thinks that the sequester is such a bad idea, why did he support it? And support it big time.
Interesting on how the sequester didn't bpther him at the end of 2011 or throughout 2012. All we heard was that the top 2% needed to pay higher taxes and that our budgetary issues needed a "balanced" approach.
Well the GOP gave obama what he wanted at the end of 2012 when those earning $400k+ a year had to pay a higher tax rate. Then obama got another revenuewindfall of around 3.6% from the top 2% or so in the form of higher taxes to pay for obamacare.
Now we see that the senate wants to apply the "buffet rule" as well. I am sure glad that I am solidly middle class and my taxes won't be going up. But hey, pump prices are at an all time high, food prices have increased and my healthcare insurer wants an additional 10-12% premium increase. Makes me wonder just how affordable obamacare will be? Praise the lord that my wages haven't gone up to! I probably couldn't have handled it.
Naturally my payroll tax % contribution has also gone up since the first of the year, but hey, that at least goes for a good cause in paying for my future medicare and SS bennies.
I submit that the main reason obama is so worried about the sequester taking place is that his on the job training as POTUS didn't include any type of being fiscally responsible. No wonder why he claims the the sequester will be just a big butcher job. Little does he realize that it doesn't have to be so. As POTUS he has the power to see that cuts are done responsibly with minimal damage to the end users.
Interesting that he talked about government waste during his first term, seems that the sequester would be the perfect way to addressthis waste with a minimal impact on the end user. Heck obama can even direct savings (cuts if you will) to bloated government mid and upper level staffs with minimal impact to the end users.
I bet obama can even tell the senate leader to start acting responsibly by creating a senate version of a budget that can be reconciled with the houses version. CR's are really just an excuse to spend taxpayer $$$ foolishly.
Obama may think he and the democrats can hang his sequestration on the democrats, but the sequestration puts the pressure on obama to show us he can handle having the government live within current revenue streams.
If Obama and company thinks that the sequester is such a bad idea, why did he support it? And support it big time.
If the GOP thinks it is such a bad idea why did they vote for it and why did Boehner brag he got 98% of what he wanted, and now they are running from it and wish to blame any ill effects that may arise on the WH. Republicans turned their backs on a much better deals offered to them by this president and then wound up getting far less in the end, talk about on the job training Boehner has no idea how to negotiate. He demands things that will never happen makes a big grandstand of of it and then takes it in the rump every time, a little compromise would have served him better. You can complain all you want about Obama and his "on the job training" but he won his re-election in spite of all the GOP efforts to thwart that outcome and has come out on top politically every time he deals with the GOP. Only two reasons for that to happen he is not nearly as bad as you say, or republicans are just woefully pathetic, or both.
The sequester shows two things. First it shows that cuts alone are not going to help. Second it was intended to be so bad that the Republicans would be forced to compromise, for once. Will it work? Probably not, but at least everyone will suffer not just the middle class, elderly, and the poor.
We will spend 15 billion more than last year WITH the sequester. Why would anybody lose his job? Why would any service be cut from last years levels? It's all Obama "scare the ignorant" tactics.
And we all know who the "Ignorant" are...those fools that voted for Barry to begin with. Freakin community organizer... thanks uninformed voters!
Guess the business man that wouldn't show his tax returns would be a better fit in your mind? Damn, to think that a community organizer could spin the well oiled house speaker around is simple amazing to you fools.
gateway
He showed two years. Where have you been? Paid 14% on capital gains. Just like you would if you had any. He also paid more in taxes than you would make in several lifetimes. Being a crybaby whiner is very unbecoming. Romney is rich. Almost as rich as Kerry. Difference is he earned it. Get over it. Your boy won.
That wasn't the amount his father set as the standard. Well below it. So it is something to think about when a man bust down his own father mantle. Now, how can we prove that it is true about the 14%, when he amendded both statements. How about the other years. It is true that it is good to know your enemy as you know yourself. You need to know yourself so that you can know who your enemy is. Don't think he knows his self to well, Blamo. What say yea now?
Gateway
When you have your taxes done do you ask the accountant to come up with the maximum that you can pay? Romney's dad had nothing to do with the current rate on capital gains. That is psycho babble. You would do well to take a rudimentary class in simple paragraph writing as well. Two, to and too have very different meanings. And finally how do we know that the earth isn't flat? If you believe Obama's birth certificate, then it is only fair and good that you believe Romney's returns. And finally Romney is irrelevant at this point.
His father set the standard for the amount of years presidental candidates should show(12 years). He (Willard) has been the first to buck the trend. We know the earth isnt flat, the man is relevant cause he is still alive. How cruel you to throw him from the ship. Since you were able to read two, to and too have different meanings yet they all include one more. You seem to get my point.
Gateway
Who says that Mitt's dad set the standard besides you. Check your verbage. Again!
Since the 1976 election, presidential candidates have released at least one year of tax returns. After winning that election, Jimmy Carter then set the precedent for all sitting presidents and vice presidents to release their returns each year. Since 1984, the standard for challengers to an incumbent president has been to disclose at least two years of returns, if not significantly more.
According to PolitiFact , a non-partisan Pulitzer Prize Winning fact-checking site, the vast majority of candidates who have run for president or vice president in the last thirty-five years have indeed released their tax returns. Of the thirty-four candidates who ran during that time period, only seven—Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, and Ralph Nader—have refused to release their tax returns altogether. Most released their records in the late spring. Even Romney’s dad, George Romney, released his tax returns when he ran against Richard Nixon in the Republican primary in 1968.
Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/29757/do-presidential-candidates-always-release-their-tax-returns-also-photo-mitt-romney#ixzz2LfFTQGlw
--brought to you by mental_floss!
This is part of the reason that none of the above gentlemen were ever elected.
Although the U.S. president is one of the most visible people
in the country, the president's finances have often been closely guarded. But
after Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, pleaded no contest in 1973 to
tax evasion, the public became increasingly interested in financial disclosures
from the president's office.
Since the 1976 election, presidential candidates have released
at least one year of tax returns. After winning that election, Jimmy Carter then
set the precedent for all sitting presidents and vice presidents to release
their returns each year. Since 1984, the standard for challengers to an
incumbent president has been to disclose at least two years of returns, if not
significantly more.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee
Mitt Romney has said he will meet this two-year standard. But 2008 Republican
presidential nominee John McCain is the only
other candidate to release just two years of returns in the last 34 years. Bob
Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, set the tax-release record,
disclosing 29 years of returns during his run for the White House. So you have the Jimmy Carter part some what right you are still seeing it your way only. Good luck with the GOP'ers!
It amazes me the amount of time one wastes looking up information on how bad the other guy might be but rarely look up any faults(and there are faults) on the person they blindly support.
GOP'ers are something else. Got to love them some kind of way.
Sounds like 2 or more years is the norm to me.