E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWith the clock ticking until the sequester cuts, explaining how we got here… Failed assumptions, failed Grand Bargains… Boehner to appear on “Meet”… When does the sequester take effect? Answer: Anytime before 11:59 pm ET on March 1… Senate confirms Lew as Treasury secretary, while John Brennan gets bumped to next week… And why Iowa is so important to 2014.
*** How we got here: With Washington headed -- inexorably -- to Friday’s deadline when the automatic across-the-board spending cuts take effect, there’s a natural question to ask: How did we get here and why didn’t the sequester work as intended? Well, here’s our quick answer: First, Republicans, fueled by the Tea Party and their gains in the 2010 midterms on a message of cutting back the size of government, demanded that they would raise the debt limit only accompanied by equal spending cuts. (Prior to that, debt-ceiling increases had been fairly routine exercises for all past administrations.) Second, after agreeing to some spending cuts, the Obama White House and congressional Republicans couldn’t agree how to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion over 10 years (to raise the debt limit by that much because the White House wanted to avoid another debt-ceiling showdown before Nov. 2012), so they created the sequester. That mechanism ($600 billion cuts in defense spending cuts that Republicans weren’t supposed to like; $600 billion in non-defense spending cuts that Democrats weren’t supposed to like) was intended to be so draconian that it would force the two parties to make a deal. As we know, it was the brainchild of Jack Lew, a veteran of the budget wars of the ‘80s, the first time the word “sequester” entered the Washington lexicon.
*** Failed assumptions, failed Grand Bargains: Third, the assumption that the cuts would force a compromise turned out to be incorrect. Whether it was during the Super Committee, the fiscal-cliff negotiations, or now, those spending cuts -- especially on defense -- weren’t enough to strike a deal. As it turns out, the deficit-hawk wing of the GOP got only larger in both the House and Senate. Fourth, all attempts for a Grand Bargain failed: In 2011, both sides retreated to let the election decide the fiscal fight. And at the end of 2012, they dealt only with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts (and not the sequester or increasing the debt ceiling again). Fifth and finally, that fiscal-cliff deal on the Bush tax cuts created a TREMENDOUS amount of intra-party blowback for House Speaker John Boehner, which only made resolving this sequester standoff even more difficult. (After all, remember that it wasn’t too long ago when the big discussion in DC was whether Boehner would lose his speakership.) And just as importantly, folks like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn -- who are both up for re-election next year and both have colleagues from their states who have become Tea Party stars (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz) – are probably more reluctant to make a deal than ever before. Bottom line: The Senate escape hatch that saved the day during the fiscal-cliff fight isn’t there right now.
*** Sequester is here to stay: So ultimately, the big miscalculation on the White House’s part on sequester was that defense spending would be a forcing mechanism. It is not and will not be. And, as things stand right now, they are wrong to believe the Republicans are going to break like they did at end of 2012. The law was on the president’s ideological side at the end of 2012. That’s why the GOP broke on taxes. In this case, the law is on the Republicans’ ideological side. It is easier for them to defend the sequester at home because they can say, “We said we’d cut spending and the size of government, the president tried to stop us but we wouldn’t let him.” A bad spending cut for many Republicans is easier to defend than any supposed fair tax hike on anyone. So if the White House really wants to stop the sequester, they might have to come up with their own set of $85 billion in spending cuts for this year to replace it. In this political environment, there is no way Boehner, McConnell and Cornyn can politically survive doing anything short of that. The president can still get more revenue down the road on tax reform, but he may have to fold on sequester if he wants a chance at winning in the long run. But that’s also a hard thing to ask a president who just won re-election on this very issue.
*** Boehner to appear on “Meet the Press”: Speaking of Boehner, the House GOP leader on Sunday will sit down for an exclusive interview with NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.”
*** When does the sequester take effect? By the way, when do the sequester cuts go into effect? As NBC’s Peter Alexander notes, we all know it happens this Friday, March 1. But when exactly does it take place? In simple terms, per Alexander, it doesn’t take place until the president signs the sequester order, which must happen anytime before 11:59 pm ET on Friday, March 1.
*** On the White House vs. Woodward dust-up: To be honest, we don’t have much more to say in the dust-up between the Obama White House and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, except for these three points. One, political reporters should always go out of their way NOT to become part of the story. Two, you shouldn’t pick fights with folks who can buy ink by the barrel (or in today’s age, have unlimited bandwidth) and have banked credibility over decades to earn the benefit of the doubt. And three, if you’ve been in this business long enough, you’ve probably received emails more incendiary and threatening than “I think you will regret staking out that claim.” In fact, the email exchange between Woodward and White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, has since become public, and it’s hard to conclude that Sperling was attempting to intimidate Woodward.
*** Lew confirmed, Brennan bumped until next week: Recapping yesterday’s activity in the Senate, former White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew won confirmation to be Treasury secretary by a 71-26 vote, per NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell. Meanwhile, NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee moved a vote on John Brennan's nomination as CIA director until next Tuesday. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the committee vice chairman, said Wednesday night that the panel had bumped the Brennan vote until next week.
*** Why Iowa is so important for 2014: The big 2014 news yesterday was Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA)’s decision NOT to run for the Senate, which potentially gives conservative Rep. Steve King (R-IA) a clearer shot to being the GOP nominee if he decides to run. Here’s why next year’s Iowa Senate race is so important: If you take this seat off the map for Republicans – and it’s very premature to do that – then they almost have to run the table on all their other Senate opportunities to win back the Senate. Remember, Republicans have to pick up six seats to take control of the upper chamber. If you give them West Virginia (Rockefeller retiring) and South Dakota (possible Tim Johnson retirement), then Republicans still needs to win four out of these five seats where Dems are probably running for re-election: Alaska (Begich), Arkansas (Pryor), Louisiana (Landrieu), Montana (Baucus), and North Carolina (Hagan). In other words, if Iowa is in play for Republicans, they don’t need to knock off as many Dem incumbents. If it isn’t in play, then they almost have to run the table. One other point here: King would probably have little chance of winning a Senate contest in a presidential year, but he does have a chance in a midterm cycle, so folks ought to be careful making assumptions.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Do you still need proof of the conservative bias of the media?
Under President Obama, the Federal Deficit has decreased and Federal Spending has also decreased.
But you won't hear that on NBC, ABC, CNN, or FOX because they are on the side of the Republicans and the rich.
Here is data posted on the White House website. It seems you are incorrect about spending.
Total Federal Outlays – OMB data:
FY2006 - $2.655 trillion
FY2007 - $2.729 trillion
FY2008 - $2.983 trillion (last Bush budget)
FY2009 - $3.518 trillion (budget signed into law by Obama on 3/11/2009)
FY2010 - $3.456 trillion
FY2011 - $3.603 trillion
FY2012 - $3.796 trillion (est.)
In terms of our national debt, this data is posted on the U.S. Treasury website.
Total National Debt:
$5,662,216,013,697 – (01/01/2001) Bush2 about to take office
$8,680,224,380,086 – (01/01/2007) Reid & Pelosi take control of Congress
$9,229,172,659,218 – (01/01/2008) Reid & Pelosi Budgets Go Into Effect
$10,699,804,864,612 – (01/01/2009) Obama about to take office
$16,608,318,357,377 – (02/21/2013)
The total national debt has increased by more than $5.9 trillion since Obama took office, and that is $900 billion more debt than was added during the entire 8 years Bush2 was in office.
How do you make that statement with a straight face?
Harbinger, your joking, right? Have you ever heard of George Stephanopoulis? How about David Axelrod, who just joined NBC as their senior political analyst? There's all the proof anyone needs to establish the bias in the media and it's far from a conservative bias. This is not even debatable, the media serves Obama and the White-house, just ask Bob Woodward.
Harbinger is right about the deficit decreasing. In 2009 it was about 10% of GDP. Now it's about 5%. Next year's deficit is estimated at around 4%. The data are from various sources, including whitehouse.gov. You can check it out.
And he's right in saying you never hear about it. A poll shows that only 6% of Americans realize that the deficit is going down.
blog.ourfuture.org/20130226/deficit-is-falling-dramatically-but-only-6-know-that
Harb - you are REALLY funny! Thanks for the laugh
Valarie Jarrett warned us that there will be a backlash. “There Will Be Hell to Pay for Obama’s Critics"
Journalists beware.... Woodward and now Lanni Davis both liberal in their political views.
Who was it who called Woodward a "liberal" in his political views? Was it Genghis Kahn?
Well now he has a new excuse for not doing good. Another blame game. Even in this video he puts down congress, good thing he is transparent. "Already some in congress are trying to UNDO some of these cuts my message to them NO. Just wow......
ok video link doesn't seem to be pasting so Ill write it down. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqD2h7e_MLg.
True or False:
There are fewer government workers now than when President Obama took office.
But you won't hear this on NBC, ABC, CNN, or FOX because they are on the side of the Republicans and the rich.
Most of our elite wealthy folks, including CEOs on Wall Street, are Democrats.
If you check the Office of Personnel Management website (part of the U.S. government and an agency that reports to Obama), the total federal workforce for 2008 was 4.2 million. The total federal workforce for 2011 was 4.4 million, an increase of 200,000 federal workers in three years under Obama. They have yet to list a number for 2012. It seems you have a problem with numbers. I suggest using federal government websites to check out the REAL facts.
Peter, the leftists are merely regurgitating the lies put out by Obama and others wherein they refer to all levels of govt for their data rather than the Federal data.
State and local govt employees have NOTHING to do with the Federal Govt, a fact that these liberals either ignore or are simply too ignorant to understand.
TOTAL government workforce has decreased over 600000 jobs.
Real fact.
Look it up.
Nonsense - I did look it up, on the official government website for the Office of Personnel Management. They are responsible for keeping track of the numbers, not move-on-dot-org or whatever lefty site you get your info from. Perhaps you are just making up the numbers, or would you care to list where you get them???
I give credit to Obama on this one.
He is the first POTUS to effectively cut spending via Sequester.
Obama the King of Austerity.
Don't worry he will take credit for reducing the budget deficit via the sequester !
Go get'em Mr Woodward. This egotistical administration needs to be brought to bay. And it looks like with other journalists maybe the lapdog days are over. Let's hope so.
Despite the "mainstream media" efforts to promote Republican propaganda, the American people know who is to blame for this crisis.
We also know that it was Republicans who have been holding the economy hostage for years.
MSNBC won't run any article or cover any story that makes thier " Dear Leader " look bad.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves, at will, money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, usually followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through certain definite sequences. From courage by revolution to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, and back to dependency."
-Alexander Tyler, 18th Century English Professor, writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic
Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee FRSE (15 October 1747 – 5 January 1813)
Fu*k that sleaze bag Obama, and ALL of his followers.
its been reported on abc that the american people have not got upset about all this bs the politicians have been shoving down our throats,the reason is they have (via the internet and newspapers)awakened a sleeping giant in the voters,and i would believe that in 2014 they show their collective rage towards the politicians in washington who have done nothing but make we the people miserable,lined their pockets,tried everything to run a crooked game in gerrymandering our boundaries,then standing in the halls of the senate and congress and have the audacity to call one another gentlemen and madam,what a joke.