E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNational Journal: “Just four days remain until Friday’s start date for federal spending cuts that were supposed to be too painful to ever let happen, but lawmakers return to Washington on Monday with little hope for an eleventh-hour deal to avert or reshape them—or any let-up in the fighting over who is to blame.”
The New York Daily News: “Billions of dollars in automatic cuts are set to hit government spending this week — and Washington is in full hysteria over who's to blame and just how bad it will really be.”
“President Barack Obama will be meeting with the nation’s governors as they push Congress to avert deep federal spending cuts that begin to take effect Friday,” AP writes. “The state leaders are in Washington for the annual meeting of the National Governors Association. The president, first lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, are scheduled to address them at the White House.”
Drones? What drones? Robert Gibbs on MSNBC Saturday: “When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'"
“Chuck Hagel appears poised to finally put his bruising confirmation battle behind him this week — but as soon as it’s over, he’ll immediately face a series of crises at the Pentagon,” Politico writes. “Hagel’s camp is confident he’ll get the required 60 votes when the Senate is expected to consider his nomination again on Tuesday and move ahead to confirmation as the next secretary of defense. But barring a sudden outbreak of comity in Congress, Hagel’s Defense Department and the rest of the federal government will endure the now-infamous automatic, across-the-board budget restrictions of sequestration on Friday. So before he’s even had one week on the job, Hagel could lose more than $40 billion from his budget. Then he’ll lose an additional $6 billion on March 27 under what’s been called the ‘second sequester,’ cuts that go into effect with or without a 2013 budget.”
Obama Treasury nominee Jack Lew is slated for a Senate Finance Committee vote Tuesday and expected to pass.
Reuters: “Cuban President Raul Castro announced on Sunday he will step down from power after his second term ends in 2018, and the new parliament named a 52-year-old rising star to become his first vice president and most visible successor. … In a surprise move, the new parliament also named Miguel Diaz-Canel as first vice president, meaning he would take over if Castro cannot serve his full term. Diaz-Canel is a member of the political bureau who rose through the Communist Party ranks in the provinces to become the most visible possible successor to Castro.”
Here’s the bigger picture: “The new government will almost certainly be the last headed up by the Castro brothers and their generation of leaders who have ruled Cuba since they swept down from the mountains in the 1959 revolution.”
Leave a Comment:
Click on: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/21/balanced-plan-avert-sequester-and-reduce-deficit
to see White House’s state-by-state reports (.pdf) of sequester damage.
“DANGER AHEAD”
I'll try to keep this simple, so even the 'low information voters' will understand.
In EVERY INSTANCE where a government has significantly increased the paper money supply faster than the economy grows, it has led to significant Inflation after a lag of a few short years. Simply put, a doubling of the money supply will typically lead to a doubling of prices (100% Inflation).
The Federal Reserve has been dramatically increasing the money supply (M1) recently to finance the Deficits – It has increased M1 from about $1.4 Trillion a few years ago to about $2.5 Trillion now (a 79% increase). Massive Inflation is coming – SOON.
Of course, when it happens, politicians will 'blame' anything and everything except the true cause – their monetary policy.
Here's more detailed information for those interested - Quote on the subject from Wikipedia “Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply." - see the link below for information on how the money supply affects inflation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
Further Note – China is no longer buying our Debt – in fact, they have actually reduced their holdings of U.S. Debt by about $200 Billion in the last year or so because they don't want to be stuck holding debt that is quickly declining in value. For those technically inclined, I would recommend Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman's book “Money Mischief” - Chapter 8, entitled 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation' where he demonstrates numerous past examples (including in the United States) where there was a perfect correlation between big increases in the money supply and resulting inflation.
The estimated 'sequester cuts' of about $60 Billion for 2013 are only about 1.6% of the projected spending of $3.6 Trillion this year.
Does ANYONE seriously think that there is not at least 1.6% of fat in federal spending?
Remember, federal spending increased in 2009 by $535 Billion (+18% over 2008), and has remained at that high level for 4 years despite the 'supposed' end of the 'stimulus' spending in 2010.
The Best Actor award should have gone to Obama last night for his role in "The Sky is Falling".
lol
Is typing your scary sentences in bold supposed to make them scarier Roy?
Are the TeaPeople trying to back away from their 'stop the spending' mantra? Stop the Spending!....Stop the Spending!.......
Hey TeaPeople.....the Budget Control Act......You liked it, now you don't....Cuts, Cuts.....Big Government Cuts......This is what cuts look like.....
Be Proud.......Own It TeaPeople!
The Best Actor award should have gone to Obama last night for his role in "The Sky is Falling"
If sequester isn't so bad, then why are Republicans eager to tell us it was President Obama proposed it?
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."
Because it is the truth, Amy, even as Obama plays the "fear game" with the gullible !
If air traffic controllers lose their job, it is ONLY because barack Hussein Obama has seen fit to make those jobe the "sacrificial lamb" of his politics. After all, Obama has been provided the discretion and the power to decide exactly where those non-military cuts will take place !!
Still not getting this, maybe I'm dense. If the sequester is a bad thing, why isn't Congress trying to stop it? If sequester cuts are a good thing, why are Republicans giving Obama the credit for coming up with it?
Amy - It appears that it is President Obama and most liberal Democrats that think it is bad, even when it was Obama that came up with the the idea. However, to most of us fiscal conservatives it is a good idea and I am more than happy to give Obama the credit if it goes into effect.
The liberal media outlets have been a complete embarrassment on this issue. What cuts? There is no cuts...period! Even with the Sequester going into effect, the US Govt budget will still spend over 15 B (with a B) more than it did last year. This is simply about slowing the growth rate of Obama's plan to overtake the US with big, massive, dependent Govt. Who's going to pay for that, eh Obama? All you're doing is buying low-information (i.e., morons) voters and illegal immigrants for dependency on the Govt. If we can't cut 2% of waste from any department in the US Govt (especially when we see so many reports of corruption, waste, and sheer irresponsibility) then what chance under God's blue sky above do we ever have of getting serious about our budget deficits? Answer: Not a chance under Obama!
Steve, did you in your math figure what happens if America's economy becomes robust again? Without threat of cutting vital programs and thus their jobs? Did you factor in the increased revenue by closing loopholes that very rich and the large corporations enjoy at our expense, that the president proposes? OF course not. You take Fox news figures like these and form an opinion based on half truths and lies and then turn around and blame Obama. Who is the moron Steve, it might be the guy in the mirror.
Steve's bought into the tea people talking point lock stock and barrel. Steve do you know the definition of a tea people moron? Someone who doesn't know he's a moron. Kind of like you Steve.
"If sequestration does occur it will be up to the administration as to where to cut the budget."
So why is the Obama Administration saying it will cut national security, USDA meat inspection and air traffic control? Furthermore the Administration is saying it will cut services like fire, police and teacher’s pay which are things the federal government doesn’t provide.
How could a reduction to the yearly purposed increase in spending cause such a budget problem? Federal spending will still increase 10% this year after the “cut”.
On a personal note my employer delayed raises at our annual review, when my boss does revisits compensation I would be more than ecstatic if I received a 10% raise.
I vote the administration furlough the security that protects Congress. If they want to risk our national defense capability to protect these loopholes for the very rich, then let them risk their personal security to do it.
This is from Roll Call, circa 2010.....I can only imagine that costs have increased since then
This is outrageous....and I second your idea Army.....furlough their security!
Amanda,
These cuts are not an abstraction. Maine is one of the only New England states that have not seen an improvement in unemployment. Our state economy is struggling, and property taxes are set to go up after the Republicans cut income taxes for the wealthiest, creating a shortfall in the school and Medicaid budgets. From our local paper today:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/02/24/politics/white-house-spending-cuts-to-have-broad-negative-impact-on-maine-jobs-and-programs/
Amy - When are you and others on the left going to accept the fact that the U.S. Government is broke, we are spending to much on to many programs. The federal government should not be subsidizing teachers and 1st responders throughout the U.S., that is a State responsibility. Let the states and local communities raise taxes if needed. Over the past 50 years or more the American people have become to dependent upon the Federal Government. The more taxes that is raised, the more the government spends, it has to stop.
sfcret
Reminds me of the debate over the auto bailout during the financial crisis. Mit Romney said "let Detroit go bankrupt." He was against using federal dollars to save a private industry. The President looked at the related jobs that would be lost if we let the auto companies shrink. It would have had a huge, ripple effect on unemployment. Obama OK'ed the bailout, and now the American auto industry is profitable once again, and Michigan's economy is recovering.
If we make cuts to education, in military spending, and to transportation safety, etc. those cuts will have a ripple effect in the local economy, crippling the recovery. This has happened in other countries, like Japan, where they imposed austerity measures before the economy was strong enough to take off on it's own.
Amy - False, but then your and the left think that the Federal Government should take care of our needs from cradle to grave. Where do you suppose we cut if not in education (a state responsibility), military spending (lot of waste there now) and other government areas. We can not keep raising taxes, since the more tax collected the more money for politicians to spend.
The President does not get to "cherry pick under sequestration."If the sequestration were to occur, the actual results would differ based on changes in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis. However, the report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions. Under the assumptions required by the STA, the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
Let the political games begin ! On Stage #1, we have Barack Hussein Obama playing the fear game even as HE has the power to decide WHERE the cuts will be made !
So your ok with congress not doing it's job? Your ok with them abdicating their responsibilities and pushing off their work on the president?
The TPRepubs fiddle while Rome burns.
If the House did anything they'd have to own up to their decisions. They'd have to take responsibility for the state of our economy. But by doing nothing - they can take any position after the fact instead of governing and standing behind the decisions they make. The House are a bunch of cowards being run by a bully minority of TPers. Grow a pair and do something for us. Do what's right instead of cowering whenever Grover or Rush or the Koch brothers start bloviating about the plight of the poor 1%ers.
First, which registered party is the TP? I seem to find only Democrats, Rejpublicans and Independents.
Next, where is obama in the budget process, or during Benghazi? Playing along with Hillary?
And where are the proposals passed in the House that Harry Reid refuses to place to a vote in the Senate? Now which party is the party of NO?
Do I understanmd correctly that the cuts are to be made "across the board" without any decision making as to where the cuts will take place? I read that Gingrich suggested that the house pass a resolution to limit spending to what the reduced amount after the sequestor would be with the administration authorized to decide where to make those cuts. The Repubs decided not to do that as I understand they were concerned that the administration would cut only those programs that the Repubs care about.
Time will tell but I believe the lesson that we must both cut spending and INCREASE revenues will help us reduce the deficit. With only one or the other there will be a lot of angst but little to show for it.
Isn't the spending cuts outlined in sequestration money that was budgeted and not spent?
I have problems understanding how a 2.4% reduction in expense will create the fears outlined by the president. Now at $180K per hour to fly AF1, what savings would we see if Mr. Obama would spent howtime in DC solving the nations ills, than flying around the nation campaigning? Add the additional expense for the second plane, the car and the various security folks expenses, and what would we have in savings?
rotorhead1
If you read this report maybe that will help you understand.
OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012
But here is part of it: the sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in non-exempt nondefense discretionary funding. The sequestration would also impose cuts of 2.0 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to other non-exempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs.
OK, it's owned by Obama. If it worked for him prior to the fiscal cliff, what is wrong with it today?
Or, is this just another flip-flop by Barry? Agree to anything, then change your mind. Great administrator, no?