So What Is He Going To Cut?

By all indication the sequester is going to happen tonight. It also looks like the Republican backed initiative to give full discretionary power to assign the associated budget cuts to President Obama will pass in Congress. The President then gets to decide where the $85B gets cut. Contrary to what he has been saying in campaign stops the past few weeks the responsibility will be his. The choice between the poor child and the disabled child will be his. If air traffic controllers or border guards get fired, its by his hand. Mass prisoner release? You guessed it, his choice. If this actually happens it will be interesting to see if the President chooses to eliminate testing of rhino hormones in mice or if he decides to cut vital services. The only explanation for the latter would be gaining an I-told-you-so moment because we all know there is plenty of the former in the “budget”.

I am just praying the right choices are made. It's never easy.

$85 billion seems like a relatively small portion of the annual budget. Certainly not enough to justify all the drama. What will the public reaction be when the sky doesn't fall?

This was coming all along - this way they get to say they made the cuts but blame Obama for what was cut. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it, too?

Unfortunately Obama is way too far to the right to make the cuts I'd want to see.

I do agree though, this is a tiny amount compared to the overall budget, executed over time and not all at once, and it has been blown way out of proportion. I'd also question the constitutionality of this strategy. Budget bills are suppose to originate in the House - does "you decide where to cut" qualify?

Quote:

---

$85 billion seems like a relatively small portion of the annual budget. Certainly not enough to justify all the drama.

---

Some of the drama was about proposed longer term cuts of several trillion, not just this years 85 billion. I agree 85 billion is a small amount. In TWO MONTHS the Fed creates 80 billion out of thin air to buy bad bank assets. So the banks get this much money handed to them basically every two months (and have since fall of 2012).

I haven't followed the details of this sequester because quite frankly they've bored me the heck to death by now! If ever there was a formula (precised engineered by psychologists by scientific testing ;)) to produce apathy it's having the same battle/"crisis" every couple of months (seems so, don't know why I'm stuck on this couple of months thing) but with some details changed. We were just here with the fiscal cliff.

Rhino hormones in mice, well I don't mind scientific research, the government does fund much of basic research, of course even that comes with lots of strings that you might not want to follow back to their source, the defense department funds much of it too, especially physical science, and there is no real difference in the research they fund and the other government funding agencies do, and the defense department, by which I mean the war department, can see benefit from it all. But sure I could easily see a place to cut 85 billion, the police state, money directly spent on wars, the war on drugs, many subsidies, even any subsidies going to things like CAs high speed rail project. But I don't trust Obama, even as far as I can spit, he'll probably go straight after Medicare and Social Security, as it seems he has it in for those programs.

Cut the salaries (over $170,000 each) all of the Washington Senators, congressman, and their staff (OK, they get less) and expense budget. Obama can make do with e-mails and photoconferencing, he doesn't have to leave the white house with an entourage of black cars and secret service. Ground air force one, no trips to Camp David, no health care, no pension contributions until this is solved. Close their buildings, turn off the lights, the security guards etc. and see how fast they figure things out.

but that won't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

.....but that won't happen.

---

You're right, it won't happen. Because this isn't about solving problems, it's about assigning blame. I've come to believe that politics is a despicable game, one that demands a winner and a loser and constituencies be damned.

I'd be happy if we simply dissolved the government and started over. That might actually solve something.

You can cut the salaries to Senators and congresspeople but um I'm not sure that's where they get most of their money, if you know what I mean (compared to kickbacks, to positions they can get in companies before and after going through the revolving door of washington, to stock profits that can pretty much only be explained by insider trading etc.). 2/3s of senators in 2008 were millionaires:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...a-millionaire/

Sometimes when you underfund things is actually leads to MORE coruption (because if our wonderful representatives can't get "enough" money legitimately then there are ways ...). But at this point in time I think the amount of money available through less than honorable means already so dwarfs their salaries, as does sometimes their existing wealth, as to likely make cutting their salaries immaterial. I really wouldn't mind disolving the government and starting over at this point either. The whole system doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

This was coming all along - this way they get to say they made the cuts but blame Obama for what was cut. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it, too?

---

The part of this that is kind of humorous to watch is the administration starting to back-peddle. For example, as of last night the fiscal cliff has become a "downward tumble" and now "nobody is going to feel these cuts for 3 or 4 weeks" instead of them being "immediately painful". Uh huh. As far as the initiative goes I thought it was pretty sharp on the part of the Congress. Remember, it will take a whole lot of Democratic votes to pass so "they" are the full Congress, not just the Republicans. Anyway, the whole sequester idea belongs to the President so it is absolutely fitting that he should carry the burden of the cuts. It might even put an end to the non-stop campaigning (for a while). Plus, after the sheer audacity and blatant appeal to the low information crowd with a constant stream of "do you hurt the poor kid or the disabled kid?" lines Mr. Obama might just be getting what he ask for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

The part of this that is kind of humorous to watch is the administration starting to back-peddle. For example, as of last night the fiscal cliff has become a "downward tumble" and now "nobody is going to feel these cuts for 3 or 4 weeks" instead of them being "immediately painful". Uh huh. As far as the initiative goes I thought it was pretty sharp on the part of the Congress. Remember, it will take a whole lot of Democratic votes to pass so "they" are the full Congress, not just the Republicans. Anyway, the whole sequester idea belongs to the President so it is absolutely fitting that he should carry the burden of the cuts. It might even put an end to the non-stop campaigning (for a while). Plus, after the sheer audacity and blatant appeal to the low information crowd with a constant stream of "do you hurt the poor kid or the disabled kid?" lines Mr. Obama might just be getting what he ask for.

---

No, they don't need a 'whole lot of democrats' to pass this. Just enough cowardly republicans who want to cut cut cut, (or at least make their teabagging constituents think they want to) but don't want to actually own the cuts that are made. Profiles in courage!

I suppose, once again, it will take the adults in charge to BE in charge. What a bunch of cowardly weenies! I'm pretty sure this was the republicans plan all along. Cause pain and hardship in the US and blame Obama for it. Anyone who votes for these mewling cowards is voting for losers. Period.

NO, President Obama ISN'T responsible for this, and you know it. The reason the sequester idea came around was because the Republicans, for the first time in history, stamped their spoiled little feet and said we aren't going to pay our bills (raise the debt ceiling) unless the President of the United States bows down and kisses our asses, but even then we will filibuster this, just cause we can! (Sorry Gregg, we do remember. Not a lot of low information voters here!)

President Obama (who won the election fair and square might I add) floated the sequester idea in order to actually keep the integrity and good standing of the US in the world, something the REPUBLICANS couldn't give a rats ass about. He was the adult then, and apparently he will have to be the adult now.

Gosh, I just hope he cherry picks the cuts so that all the red states feel the pain the most, and further, the democrats make good and sure those states know just who is to blame. But I doubt that will happen cause, as it turns out, President Obama has shown himself to be fair and...well, the adult in the room.

Given that I deal with the feds daily (CBP, as well as FDA), I was wondering how these agencies were going to be affected. Since my area is the biggest "inland port of entry," both agencies have a large presence here. Representatives from the local trade association met with the local CBP head honcho yesterday. Without being specific, CBP says any cuts will be spread evenly across the board. OT of CBP officers will be cut, but that is a small portion of their budget. Those most affected will be importers clearing perishables or fresh flowers (which need to be inspected). Any possible furloughs wouldn't happen until early-mid April, due to contractual obligations, although that could happen sooner for certain contract employees (IT help desk).

As for FDA: At this time, FDA does not anticipate having to furlough our employees. Other internal measures to absorb the cuts due to sequester will be taken, including reducing travel and training. HHS agencies, including FDA, have not sent the draft OMB memo meant to inform employees of the potential need for furloughs.

Personally, I'm concerned how this is going to affect approval of my brokers license. On Tuesday, I was told the local CBP head had recommended I be granted a license, and all documents were being forwarded to HQ in DC. There is a current backlog of about 400+ license applications, with 2-3 people to go through them and recommend license be granted or not. When I was interviewed by CBP at the beginning of this month, I was told it was going to take at least 90 days, and I'd be lucky if I heard something by Memorial Day!

Now we're hearing income tax refunds might be delayed. Geez!

But my corporation has already done some of the things Tradd mentioned: no raises this year, no travel except absolutely necessary, contract workers being let go, hiring freeze, etc. etc. So the economic domino effect has already started, and even if this gets settled quickly, the economy will be hurt trying to ramp back up.

Lainey, I'd not heard that! I received by W-2 about January 20, so I filed by paper. I just was in no mood to mess with the online stuff this year (don't know why). I had my refund direct deposited in my bank account on Feb. 13 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

Now we're hearing income tax refunds might be delayed. Geez!

---

And less than a year ago he told us it would be social security checks. I can't blame the opposition for putting it back on him, it's time to put up or shut up.

It's time for some collaboration to re-emerge. After spending 4 years doing nothing but trying to make Obama a one term President, I have zero faith in Boehner & other R leadership's abilities to wise up & practice the art of governing. What a sorry lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

You can cut the salaries to Senators and congresspeople but um I'm not sure that's where they get most of their money
.

---

one of the things it would do though is make them see the results of their offices being shut down. They have support staffs, security guards, the people who make the cafeteria food that they see every day they are there. There would be a face to the statistic of a person out of work. I think sometimes that is a big problem with our elected officials. They don't know what struggles their constituents go through they are so detached.

another thing I was thinking is that the sequester, if it forced layoffs or even losing 20% of their pay could get us in a much bigger mess. If people can't pay their mortgage, foreclosures happen. More kid free lunch, more food stamps, more unemployment payments etc. and less taxes going into the coffers. What a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

It's time for some collaboration to re-emerge.

---

I agree. Twice in the past year the House has passed legislation to avert sequestration, only to have the Senate fail to collaborate. The ruling party in Washington seems more interested in continuing down the path to Greece than dealing with a doable budget.

By the way, this will be the fourth year in a row that the Senate has refused to pass a budget, whether it was advanced by the House or presented by the President himself. It is indeed time for the Democratic majority to collaborate. Maybe if they'd done so sooner, sequestration would not have become our last resort.

What they were saying on Bloomberg last night was that there isn't much flexibility with regard to what to cut for this fiscal year. A great deal of the budget is already either expended or committed without practical recourse, so it the cuts are going to fall on the rest of the line items. That's why you hear so much talk about furloughs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Gosh, I just hope he cherry picks the cuts so that all the red states feel the pain the most...

---

I think you can bank on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

It's time for some collaboration to re-emerge. After spending 4 years doing nothing but trying to make Obama a one term President, I have zero faith in Boehner & other R leadership's abilities to wise up & practice the art of governing. What a sorry lot.

---

+1 Republicans haven't grasped that they are the minority party. "Collaboration" to them means Dems must do everything they demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

Cut the salaries (over $170,000 each) all of the Washington Senators, congressman, and their staff (OK, they get less) and expense budget.

.

---

Well, actually Sen. McCaskill of MO has proposed just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Well, actually Sen. McCaskill of MO has proposed just that.

---

In the last two years, there have been 27 congressional proposals to do that, but none of them passed. According to the linked HuffPo article "In the recent past, members of Congress have frequently offered to cut their own pay -- just like a cheapskate reaches for his wallet at the end of dinner knowing someone else reached first and will pay the tab."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I think you can bank on that.

---

Yes, of course, cause EVERYONE knows they check party affiliation before asking someone to take a 20% pay cut.....or reducing their food stamps. And hope you are on a airplane with democratic passengers, cause I'm thinking they will require a show of hands before they assign an air traffic controller.>8)

Well, I'm guessing the teabaggers are happy. They wanted draconian cuts, and they're gonna get them. These 'low information' folks, who don't actually know anything about running a huge, modern country, kept screaming about 'drowning' the government in the bathtub. These anti-government, anti-women, anti-education tea baggers, who base their platform on Sarah Palin sound bites (you betcha!) should be dancing in the streets.
Grover Norquist is probably wetting himself with excitement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Well, I'm guessing the teabaggers are happy. They wanted draconian cuts, and they're gonna get them.

---

Best as I can figure from the news is that the conservatives are not going to be happy until the cuts are in the entitlement programs of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It seems to me like it's coming down to either cutting back on these programs or having tax increases to cover them as they are. There is a middle ground that no one seems to want to visit. At least that's the long term choice that will avoid revisiting the issue every few months.

Obama periodically floats proposals to cut Social Security and so on as well (the chained CPI etc..). How serious he is is anyone's guess, he's slippery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Well, I'm guessing the teabaggers are happy. They wanted draconian cuts, and they're gonna get them. These 'low information' folks, who don't actually know anything about running a huge, modern country, kept screaming about 'drowning' the government in the bathtub...

---

In case you're interested in another opinion, http://www.cnbc.com/id/100476675/The...owth_Sequester

Quote:

---

The Obama administration is whipping up hysteria over the sequester budget cuts and their impact on the economy, the military, first providers, and so forth and so on. Armageddon. But if you climb into the Congressional Budget Office numbers for 2013, you see a much lighter and easier picture than all the worst-case scenarios being conjured up by the administration.
For example, the $85 billion so-called spending cut is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one-quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What's more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget.

So the actual outlay reduction is only half the budget-authority savings. The rest of it will spend out in the years ahead — that is, if Congress doesn't tamper with it.
And please remember that these so-called cuts come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending. They're not real cuts in the level of spending. (Not that a level reduction is a bad idea.)
Looking at the sequester in this light, it's clear that it won't result in economic Armageddon. In fact, I'll make the case that any spending relief is actually pro-growth. That's right. When the government spending share of GDP declines, so does the true tax burden on the economy. As a result, more resources are left in the free-market private sector, which will promote real growth.

---

I think that the take-away from all this is that the administration will continue to mis-represent the "draconian" nature of these cuts in order to inflame "low information voters".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

Obama periodically floats proposals to cut Social Security and so on as well (the chained CPI etc..). How serious he is is anyone's guess, he's slippery.

---

I am routinely trying to unravel the issues, but my read has been that he has implied to agree to some entitlement reductions as some sort of deal that would probably include tax increases. In a further fractioning of the parties, the democrats have told him to leave entitlements alone.

"House Democrats reiterated in the letter their "vigorous opposition to cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits in any final bill."
​http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2695257.html

Yet the President offers compromise, even though the Republicans refuse to acknowledge it as such.

Just me, but I have a hard time labeling a 2% cut draconian.

Short of a mutually-accepted refuting the entirety of a 205 page document (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...assets/ccs.pdf) such criticisms are easily dismissed as partisan perspective. The reality is you want more cuts, and folks on the far left more fewer cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Just me, but I have a hard time labeling a 2% cut draconian.

---

For a system whose health is dependent on more and more growth, any cuts aren't good.

In the meantime, my daughter got her furlough notice Friday. She will lose one day's pay per pay period starting April 1. And if the sequester goes on until July, then she will lose 2 days per pay period.

From what I'm hearing on the radio, President Obama took my advice and is cutting across the board. This is what I've been saying for years. I am glad that he finally is paying some heed to what I say, but you know, it took him a few years to get it. He had a steep learning curve. Maybe he and I will end up friends afterall.

Florence, I'm sorry about your daughter.

Unfortunately this is how the cuts will play out. All those who are celebrating these cuts, Norquist, teabaggers, low information types, don't realize how bad it can/may get. Oh it might not affect them now, personally, but it might (or not) in the future.

The cuts aren't just a state of mind, or 'on paper'. It's people, period. And unless someone actually believes the tin foil hat notion that there are thousands of public sector people just sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for something to do, then they have to know that those people did something. Something that served their community or government. And now we will wait...in lines, for service, for help. And the ones who are dancing in the streets now, will be the first to complain when they have to wait in long lines. Or when their library has to close it's doors early, or when they have a problem that needs attention. Stuff costs. My household budget has gone up, way up. Why can't some understand that the government costs have gone up too. And as creaker pointed out, an economy that is reliant on growth is going to have growing costs.
You have to spend money to make money. Apparently that axiom doesn't apply to the government. So, you have the whole weird disconnect of wanting the government to cut taxes, cut spending, and drown in the bath tub....but encourage job growth and grow the economy.

I heard someone say the other day we are a nation of people who love our services and standard of living, but don't want to pay for it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ng-charts-maps

'makers and takers'
This article breaks down how much tax dollars each state gets back for every dollar they send to Washington. Perhaps the reason for the deficit? Seems most states are 'takers'.
So, my point being, the tax cuts will affect your local services and quality of life, just in case you think you are insulated/isolated from federal spending.
We are all connected, as liberals have been saying for years. (a rising tide carries all boats) So, now we can see just how connected we are.

Interesting map in the article peggy. Happy to know my home state is a maker. With the tax rate here we better be sending money to someone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Interesting map in the article peggy. Happy to know my home state is a maker. With the tax rate here we better be sending money to someone!

---

sad to hear I'm in a "taker" state, wedged between Montana and Maine!