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:
White House picking a fight with Bob Woodward ....BIG mistake. A seasoned journist that's not afraid of the Obama administration. Bring it on. Trash and bash Woodward, not a good idea, but you know an Obama official will try....not going to look good for Obama. What kind of WH do we have, that threaten journalist that write the truth??? Yes, the truth, Obama media can't bury this Woodward story.
Hmmm...what difference does it make? I agree that the White House has NO BUSINESS threatening journalists and if the story is true, Obama should fire the staffer. But, what difference does it make whose idea this was? It passed in Congress with a large Republican majority...in the House, almost three to one.
The original idea was to propose such draconian automated cuts, as to drive a more reasonable compromise.
It passed the Democrat Senate with a 9 to 1 margin. 45 Yes votes and 6 No votes.
Don't forget the Budget Control Act of 2011 was a COMPROMISE! The Sequester wouldn't exist if Obama didn't sign it into law.
obama is probably the one who ordered Woodward be trashed.
the Left doesnt want to admit their little mustache is showing
Yep Stone, Just like benghazi, what difference does ot make!
Slodon - When you make up something, TRY....try, to come close to the truth. There are 100 senators, not 51... mkkk? Just giving SOME of the Democratic votes doesn't tell the whole story!
13000 kids wont get head start, most all the teachers and stuff will have to be fired, and our veterans will have to get their own medical stuff. firemen and policemen number cut in half and criminals are going to not be able to afford jail. these republicans who want to stop making everybodys life better need to get lost. The president should just order spending the way he needs and all them rich white congress people can go home.
Why do we even have a Congress? Its nothing but political games. Waste of money
bigo, you really should keep up with the REAL news. On the Teachers:
So that was a LIE!
Now as for Police/Firefighters. Why is the federal government subsidizing something that is strickly funded locally? That is another Obama LIE.
Considering that the vast majority of first responders are paid by local and state governments, you know the ones that have to balance their budgets every year, how do you presume that half of all policemen and firemen are going to have to be fired?
We are talking about reducing $44 Billion dollars from the INCREASED spending from last year. We will be spending more in 2013 than in 2012, even with these supposed "cuts".
We have well over $100 Billion in WASTE every year from the Federal government, and that doesn't even touch on areas of duplication, and areas of little to no necessity, not to mention areas where the Federal Government is taking a loss.
To think we will INCREASE SPENDING in 2013 by $15-20 Billion dollars and all these "horrible things are going to happen" ??? Come on, get real.
The fact of the matter is, the architects of the Sequester, the White House and Senate Democrats, specifically choose the places to call for "across the board" reductions to spending increases. For starters, to think that the various federal agencies can't largely get by on more money than they did the previous year, is a joke in itself. Secondly, the Congress and the White House could give the various Federal Agencies "Transfer Authority". This allows for the Federal Agencies themselves to shift their funding around from their many accounts, so that on their own the Federal Agencies can put funding where it's needed, thus being able to reduce waste, duplication, and areas of little necessity.
You won't see Democrats or Obama approve something like this, because it allows these reductions in spending, and does little to no harm in jobs, and has virtually NO drag on the economy. Allowing this, wouldn't allow for Democrats to request more taxes, to further their tax and spend agenda that does nothing to reduce waste, duplication, and unnecessary spending items. Keep in mind through Obamacare and through the increase in taxes through the Fiscal Cliff deal, the Federal Government will be bringing in roughly $100 Billion MORE per year than it took in before Obamacare and the Fiscal Cliff deal.
Obama has already gotten a tax increase.....now it's time for him to live up to the cuts he promised and that he so emphatically against getting rid of when he said this:
Yes he got a tax increase, a relatively small one for those earning at least $450,000 a year. It doesn't take a lot to understand that in order to balance a budget you need to not only make spending cuts, you also need to raise revenue.
What I would like to see happen is for the House to agree to closing our most egregious loopholes, which they were FOR, before they were AGAINST them.
In 2012 our Federal government spent $104.3 Billion in subsidies (corporate welfare), while spending only $14.4 Billion on Social welfare (not including SS and Medicare as they are not welfare).
From 2008 to 2010, 30 mult-billion dollar corporations, such as GE, PG&E, DuPont and HP, with reported profits of over $160 Billion, not only paid NO taxes, they received REFUNDS totaling almost $11 Billion.
Don't forget we have corporate welfare in all 50 states as well.
Sounds like closing these loopholes will give us the increase in revenue we need. We all know that GE, PG&E, DuPont, HP and many many others (Wal-mart 2012 revenues $127.1 billion, received $1.2 billion in subsidies) do not need WELFARE.
And btw, concerning Wal-Mart, even with such huge profits, and being our nations largest employer, about 2 million, hires most (about 90%) of the employees as part-time, keeping them below the hours needed for benefits, and of those who do qualify, the majority cannot afford their company offered health care, as Wal-mart is notoriously known for low pay (a manager makes $9-10/hr).
That means that we not only gave a corporation whose one year profits were $127.1 billion a $1.2 billion "gift", but we, the tax payers, are also paying for the food stamps and state provided health care for the majority of those 1.8 million employees.
Geanie...some of your numbers are factually incorrect. Which I'll get to as I go through your lines.
As I stated....we are raising revenue, both through growth over the years, and through an additional $100 Billion/year in new tax revenues. So twice we've raised taxes, and now we are doing the other portion (cutting) even tough we aren't really cutting...we just aren't increasing spending as much as we otherwise would have.
Personally, I'm ok with capping deductions, making an exception for legitimate charity donations. However, largely, I don't think we need to do this, but I don't see this as being a market killer, and could potentially provide the opportunity to LOWER tax rates on the middle class.
When you speak towards "corporate welfare" you should speak more specifically towards if companies were actually handed money, or if they gained benefit through paying lower tax rates. That said, 2012 was more like $97,642,000,000, still a lot, but not quite what you stated. You should also breakdown where these "subsidies" were given. More than $25 Billion of those subsidies went to Agricultural companies.
http://www.mygovcost.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/corporate-welfare.png
All of these various areas have been given subsidies for a reason.......to artificially keep costs, to the general public, down. So as these subsidies are taken away, and the cost of business is more directly shouldered on the backs of the companies themselves...you can expect for the price of their goods and services to go up.
Secondly, where are you getting $14.4 Billion on social welfare? Try, in 2013, we will spend $422.3 Billion (646.8 Billion if you include State and Local spending as well) and this does not include SS or medicare/medicaid, those are accounted for in other areas such as Pensions and Healthcare, which the two combined we will spend $1.795 Trillion on in 2013 (2.295 Trillion if you include State and Local spending again)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbn_13bs1n#usgs302
Certainly there are some companies that we can go through with a fine toothed comb and determine if they should receive subsidies, but we'll need politicians who are more interested in the country and not themselves....and I can tell you the vast majority of all the politicians in Washington won't do this.
Your numbers on the pay rates at Wal-mart are also incorrect. A Dept manager at Wal-mart makes $31,764/year. A store Asst Manager makes $42,487/year and a store Manager makes $57,435/year.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores%2c_Inc/Salary
Hourly workers (cashier) at Wal-mart make from $7.38/hour to $10.53/hour.
(Sales Associate) $7.58-$11.08/hour
(Retail Sales Associate) $7.77-$12.10/hour
(Certified Pharmacy Tech) $9.25-15.29/hour.
Sure, not the highest pay in the world.....but all except the Pharmacy tech, are ENTRY level positions...meaning you can come off the street with NO experience, and NO education and do these jobs!! And you have the ability to move into management positions within this company.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Wal-Mart_Stores%2c_Inc/Hourly_Rate
Could they pay more to their employees? Possibly.....but are they severely underpaying their employees for the jobs they do??? NOPE.
Hey if you righties want to see all your favorite losers,past and present,maybe watch cpac,I hear the biggest and latest loser,Romney will be there.Also last elections losers,Mcaine,Palin,,,lmao,,,real losers.
Hahahahahahaha
After all is said and done,Obama is Potus.
So suck it up rightards,after all we had to suffer with eight years of a guy who couldent put two words together,to complete a sentence.
Hillary 2016
I agree. But not the Hillary 2016 unless the president cant change the law so he can make himself be voted for as many times as people want. This is a good president who cares about people for real. All them righty nuts who don't want to take care of everyone and make sure they are living right are back in the old days thinking. everybody who works should get some more money to buy things and those people who just sit arond all day at nice desks should have to pitch in to help. Time for change in this rotten country.
The sequester is phase one of several deadlines manufactured by the GOP. At the end of March the teabaggers will again threaten to shut down the government and in April they will try to renege on our obligations by refusing to increase the debt ceiling. Teabagger republicans are our domestic economic Al Qaeda constantly threatening to slit our fiscal throat if the president won't do things their way. They believe hostage taking is the only way because they can't win elections anywhere but in gerrymandered congressional districts.
Correct
Its all about creating economic uncertainty so as to hamper the recovery. The GOP is more about making the other guy look bad then they are doing the right thing and possibly having the country trust them again. As of now it doesnt seem they get that message. They just continue to take thier ball and go home. When President Obama was reelected that was the voice of America. But they arent listening
WOW sharkbutt, how can you breath with your head so far up obama's azz? Obama has manufactured every single crisis over the last 4 years. He has no leadership skills, he has no understanding of economics and can only try to get things done using a crisis. finally, the GOP called him on this one.
Well,2014-2020,should be interesting as many tea bags and the old GOP,retards lose their seats.
I pray this sequester takes place. And then start cutting and cutting and cutting until our government can no longer afford to send billions of tax dollars to rebels fighting to overthrow their governments just to put a worse government in place of it. It's time to QUIT spending. It's PAST time to quit spending. Do it NOW.
They may cut your SS Medicare ,and welfare check carefully what you wish for
ohhhhhhh...nooooooo...
my dog ..ran under the couch..
More than 10 days ago, Congressman Alan Grayson and Mark Takano, initiated a letter. Adressed to President Obama, the letter has enabeled members of congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
The progressive Caucas co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellinson, Barbara Lee, Brown, Cartwright, Conjers, DeFazio, Folcomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, McGovern, Nadler, Neopolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velequez and Waters.
No signer can be found among the five vice chairs of the Progressive Caucus: Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Michael Honda, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Jan Shakowsky.
While still on the caucas roster, three quarters of the 70 member caucas seem lost in political smog. Those 54 members have not signed the current letter that makes a vital ciommitment:We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security Benefits - including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.
What about the other 54 members of the Progressive caucus? Theire absence is a clear message to Obama White Hause, which has repeatedly declared its desire to cut Social Security and cost of living adjustment.
Tea baggers aka the American Taliban are soon to be extinct,,losers
The Libs..they have a name for you....
they call you,..."Dances with Gerbils"...
Republicans have a habbit of stuffing with gerbils.
Owned
your proctologist called ..
there's a LIBERAL..stuck...up..there..
Another chink in the libs armor is the White House threatening Bob Woodward for not falling lockstep with what they want the media to do. Of course you'd never know that just reading this lib website - did Barry and company threaten you to NBC?
Bob Woodward was reporting misinformation. He should be slapped accordingly
a general..in OBAMMY NANNY'S
"Army" of OCCU-PLOP
THE RESULTS ARE IN..
DNA..TESTS ...CONFIRM
99.89% ACCURACY...
BARRACK OBAMA...
......
YOU ARE....
THE FATHER...
OF THE
SEQUESTOR
Hilarious. Woodward took down Nixon and liberals hail him as a hero.
Now he goes after Obama on sequester and the Dems assail him.
I am surprised they have not called him racist yet.
now i have such ambivilence...?
All the welfare tea baggers will be crying when they have no more free money coming from the govt.lmao
Applied for FREE OBAMACARE..LOBOTOMY...now pending
You did?wow. Dident work boy
came from..Obama's ,"Somewhere..Over The Rainbow"..Land
The lobotomy was successful.
It seems that the Obama admin. can't stand the truth. It was his idea and Bob Woodward wrote about it. Now they threaten him. This is the way of the Obama admin. He's not a leader he s a deceiver.
"As it turns out, the deficit-hawk wing of the GOP got only larger in both the House and Senate." Four years of trillion dollar deficits in a row tends to do that.... The shocking part is the lack of concern from any elected Democrat about deficits.
The President is trying a reverse Reagan strategy of blow out deficits that force the government to raise taxes, as Reagan attempted to cut taxes to force spending cuts. It didn't work for Reagan, and I predict it won't work for Obama. He is going to have to walk back into the political real world at some point. I suspect there are many elected Democrats who would finally breathe again if he did. Surely they are not all so foolish to think this is a good path, or that tax rate increases and loop-hole closing can solve the problem.
On the point of the sequester, maybe the Republicans should give the President the authority to defund any program he deems wasteful and only a two thirds vote in Congress could reverse his decision. And for every program he defunds, he can move that money to the account of choice to keep other programs fully funded. If Democrats think removing wasteful spending can solve their problem, let's give them the tools to prove it. I think what we would hear from the President is "that is Congress' job", or "they say this is wasteful but", or "there is not enough waste to bother with." All those arguments would end up not polling that well, so he'd either have to cut some wasteful spending or stop trying to blame Congress for not trying to give him the tools to make real progress toward fiscal sanity.
They have put their hate for Obama ahead of the good of the Country, they have too many lobbiest waiting in the background, and this is where they get all their money, and these lobbiest such as Koch brothers, and Trump, ect... have the same hate for Obama because they are all for raising prices on services and goods for their pocket, while keeping the middle man down, they rely on Corporate Welfare to pay their CEO'S the millions they dont deserve, and this threat to them is greater then the threat that is threatening this Country as a whole! We saw it during the election, Romney had to tweak his taxes to bring his % up to what the average middle class American pays, if that doesn't scream close the loop holes, what does?
zzzzzz..ZZZZZZ...zzzzzz...
The infamous Las Vegas bash held by the obscure General Services Administration wasn't that unusual after all.
The lavish 2010 conference, which cost over $800,000, had lawmakers fuming last year. But a new congressional report shows taxpayers picked up the tab for at least 894 conferences in 2012 -- to the tune of $340 million.
Those figures only cover "big-ticket" conferences -- or those that cost $100,000 or more -- so the total figure is likely higher.
The numbers, released in conjunction with a hearing Wednesday on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, come as the federal government braces for automatic spending cuts set to hit Friday. Some lawmakers have claimed that Washington could offset the impact by trimming the waste -- be it low-priority hires, needless government studies, or conferences.
The latest numbers showed some agencies are far more fond of their annual and special-occasion conventions than others.
Some agencies held only a few big-ticket conferences. The Labor Department held just four, keeping the total bill under $1 million. Even the GSA -- which has cut back on its conference spending in light of the Las Vegas scandal -- held only three.
But the Defense Department, which is also the biggest department in Washington, held nearly 300 conferences at a cost of $89 million.
The Department of Veterans Affairs held 127 at a cost of $72.7 million; the Justice Department held 107 at a cost of $58.7 million; and the Department of Health and Human Services held 140, at a cost of $56.1 million.
The hearing and report follow a slew of revelations on pricey conferences. While the VA did not report its numbers to the committee, the agency came under fire last year for two conferences allegedly costing more than $6 million the summer before.
Included on the list of expenses was $52,000 spent to produce a video parody of the movie "Patton."
The Department of Veterans Affairs claimed to be cracking down on its conference policy in light of the allegations, last year ordering an outside review of training policies and conferences
Don't mess with the VA,,,
Ate TOO MUCH
OBAMA CHINESE FOOD..
you are what you Eat...WON-DUM-PUK....
aliblahblah, Do you have anything to add to this adult converstation? or is being a troll your definition of a good time, nothing better to do!
ahhh accolytes from Liberals....i'm humbled
Come on folks we Republicans ruined the economy so who better than to trust with the economy going forward?
Im falbbergasted
you mean retarded.
Hey you,repukes are on your way,out. Soon. Very soon
Repuke a tards killed the economy.We the people will not let them the American Taliban in the white house again
Little Susie Soros..always Creamed ..Her Free OBAMA Cheese...
They wont take responsibility for the George Bush catastrophe. Until then who the F cares what they think or say.? No one
The same thing happened when Reagan was in, trickle down does not work for the economy only for the rich! Lessons were meant to be learned, some have failed to gather the knowledge neccessary to do so!
Your Proctologist called ..are you going to Close..Your.."LOOP-HOLES"..Hahhahahah
Lets blame Bush, hell....lets blame Reagan. If BAO was doing such a fine job you wouldn't be blaming anyone you'd be to busy taking credit!
I give credit to Obama on this one.
He is the first POTUS to effectively cut spending via Sequester.
Obama the King of Austerity.
lol
left-wing nutcases like obama cant stand people who can think for themselves; hence the trashing of Woodward
WOODWARD..
IS
A THREAT
TO
OBAMA's
IRON-CURTAIN....MEDIA
So, in summary, in 2011 nothing could get done because of the presidential elections no party wanting to make any kind of decision. In 2013, nothing can get done because of the 2014 election, nobody wants to make a decision that could cost them votes. In 2014 nothing will get done because for the 2016 elections.
Basically, nothing is ever going to get done until we have absolutly no choice and then anything that gets done is really going to hurt (not the politicians but the American people).
When has the need get elected or reelected has become a more important priority than the good of the country? The situation is pathetic, the lack of leadership on both sides is ridiculous, and yet no one steps up and actually stands for what is right for the country for the long term, which is a mix of tax increases (already partially achieved in January) and real spending cuts in defense and others and a complete reform of the so called entitlements.
Blaming anything on bush in obama's fifth year makes you look like an idiot
YEAR 2089..The Far Distant Future..
Still.....It's BUSH'S FAULT
recognizing obama is a FAILURE isnt "hate".
what would you left-wing nutjobs do if you couldnt play yoru race and "hate" cards and actually had to face facts?
YES
Even a blind squirrel occaisonally finds a nut.....
Let me see - The idea behind the sequester was Jack Lew. Isn't he Obama's new Treasury Secretary - replacing Little Timmy the tax cheat Geitner?
Let him marinate in his own juice. My mother always told me not to dish it out if I can't take it!
WWRWS? (What would Rev. Wright say? "America's chickens have come home to Roost."
Beyond the usual politically-correct cowardice of the Left that forbids criticism of any "Black man" in power with a (D) after his name; to admit obama is a failure is to admit the whole Progressive agenda has failed. The Left is WAY to rabidly partisan for that