So What Is He Going To Cut?

[Gregg]

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”.

[MamaM]

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

[LDAHL]

$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?

[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?

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?

[ApatheticNoMore]

$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.

[flowerseverywhere]

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.

[Alan]

.....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.

[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, 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.

[Gregg]

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.

[peggy]

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.