Patterico's Pontifications » SEQUESTER-MAGEDDON !!!!!!!!

3/2/2013

SEQUESTER-MAGEDDON !!!!!!!!

Filed under: General — JD @ 5:43 am

[Guest post by JD]

Planes that do not run into each other on the runway are literally falling out of the skies. 170,000,000 people have lost their jobs, and after this initial blast, the aftershocks will be even worse. People are shooting shotguns either through their front doors, or up into the air, indiscriminately killing starving children who have taken to cannibalizing old people in the streets. People are conflating Star Trek and Star Wars. All the fresh fruit and meat at the grocery store was rancid. Teachers across this great land are now getting pink slips, but they can’t tell they are actually pink because of the lack of lights and rolling blackouts. Don’t even get me started on law enforcement, and national security. Prisons are being taken over by the inmates, with riots spilling into the streets. At this point, Luxembourg’s Royal Navy could pose an existential threat to us.

This is bad, people. Real bad. Post-apocalyptic nuclear winter bad.

I am going swimming.

—JD

Comments (173)

173 Comments

Horrible

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/2/2013 @ 5:43 am
I saw a Carrier Battle Group in Lake Michigan this morning that was supposed to be headed to the Middle East except that President Blameless claimed he didn’t have the funds to send it because of the Republican-caused sequester. Here for the upcoming riots?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:08 am
I am going swimming.

Let us know when you reach somewhere safe.

Comment by Pious Agnostic (20c167) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:17 am
“Where’s the kaboom? There’s supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!”

Comment by Rusty Bill (e3b0ca) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:27 am
All right, we’ve had our fun, but here’s the real danger, if we don’t get things under control, a warning from across the way;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/how_euro-socialism_set_off_a_fascist_bomb.html

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:35 am
In all seriousness I fully expect the nice people at TSA to put on some sort of a staged airport show/slowdown for us and the media –just their way of saying to travelers “you’ll regret staking out this position”.

Comment by elissa (1d03e3) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:36 am
And of course the underlying cause of all the panic; the creeping dread of all the politicians, bureauweenies, and talking heads that the common man might figure out that he needs them like a fish needs a bicycle.

Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 3/2/2013 @ 7:15 am
Stop N.E.A. funding now.

Comment by mg (31009b) — 3/2/2013 @ 7:19 am
In honor of the sequester I post the following article, a tribute to a wonderful city managed for decades by beautiful, caring Democrats:

The last Republican Mayor of Detroit, MI was Louis C. Miriani. He served from September 12, 1957 to January 2, 1962. He was Detroit’s 63rd mayor.

autos.aol.com, March 1

The city of Detroit must have an “emergency manager,” to solve the city’s financial emergency, according to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, who made the pronouncement today. The move will essentially over-ride Detroit’s elected government, and could be a pre-cursor to a bankruptcy for the “Motor City.”

Detroit is in decay. But it wasn’t always that way. In the 1950s and early 60s, it was one of the nation’s most prosperous cities–the home of the U.S. auto industry, which dominated America’s car-park its until Asian automakers began building up their market shares in the 1970s. It had nearly 2 million people at its height of prosperity.

Detroit today has become the butt of jokes and a national symbol of urban rot that many experts believe is irreversible without the city going through bankruptcy and a total re-think of the structure of the city. Exodus from the city, as well as corruption and mismanagement throughout the city’s political and bureaucratic structure for decades has created a $327 million budget deficit and more than $14 billion in long-term debt.

Other Michigan cities have been taken over by emergency managers–Ecorse, Benton Harbor Highland Park, Pontiac and Allen Park. But Detroit will be the biggest challenge because of its size and scale.

The Emergency Manager Law is unpopular in Michigan, so much so that Michiganders voted to get rid of it by referendum last November. Snyder, and a Republican-controlled State House, have been so determined to use it on Detroit that they rushed through a new Emergency Manager Law in December, flouting the will of the voters a month earlier, and even attached it to a budget measure insuring that it won’t be subject to another referendum.

Though Snyder’s move was widely viewed as underhanded, he has some cover with many voters because Detroit’s City Council and Board of Education has been so bad at their jobs for so long, with both institutions nailed for corruption. Voters outside Detroit do not want to see the State bailout Detroit.

What remains to be seen in Snyder’s move on Detroit is how much politics will be injected. The Governor, nor the Republican State House, has not much love for Detroit as it has been a reliable Democratic voting block for decades.

Karen Lewis, 49, a manager at a fast food store, reflected the resentment some residents feel at the takeover of the predominantly black and Democratic city by a predominantly white and Republican state government.

“It don’t take a genius to know what this is all about,” said Lewis, who is black. “They want our money and our land. No one cares about us. And we’re the ones who stuck around. Not the white folks.”

But Bernard Ragin, 41, said he was tired of living in a city that has seen a collapse of basic services. “I don’t care who fixes Detroit, as long as the street lights work and the police show up on time,” he said.

^ An illustration that at least the state of Michigan currently isn’t as loony liberal as beautiful, wonderful, humane, tolerant, compassionate California is. Not one part of the Golden State’s government is overseen by a person of true, thorough common sense—ie, Sacramento is analogous — politically (meaning mono-partisan) — to a big version of the city of Detroit.

Californians are anxious to become the next Greece, Mexico, France or Argentina (or a version of all four). Fantastic!

Comment by Mark (93f57a) — 3/2/2013 @ 7:35 am
this is kinda anticlimactic

the propaganda whores on cnn are spluttering about how the nasty republicans are refusing to budge on food stamp’s refusal to budge on new taxes

stupid propaganda whores

then they chuckle knowingly about the mind meld thing

then they mutter about longer lines at the airport

that’s it

that’s all they got

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:04 am
As I said, yesterday I went shopping and could not find a thing in my size. The clothes supply chain is broken! Then I went to Whole Foods and it was jammed, and I stood in line for minutes. Saw two major auto accidents on the way home, a mere 10 miles. People are on edge. When I got home, the cat ran around the back yard in circles for a good 10 minutes. “There will be no cat tacos!” I yelled, to no avail.

The panic and the struggle are exhausting. We are sleeping in today. The cat too.

Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:20 am
Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:35 am

Always trust content from Patterico,
and always follow links by narciso.

Thanks for that. It probably is more palatable to look at Italy and Musslini as an example than do the Wiemar Republic thing (no matter how appropriate the Weimar Republic illustration would be!!).

Here’s the dark humor cynic question of the day:
Is it a good thing or bad thing that America’s first comedian elected to a nation-wide office, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, won by voter fraud (most likely), while Italy’s national comedian Beppe Grillo apparently didn’t need it?

From the linked article:
[In Europe] The only protest party people can vote for are barely disguised fascists: The Five Star party in Italy, Golden Dawn in Greece, Pirate Party in Germany, and fascist insurgents in Hungary.

In America at least the protest vote can go to a Tea Party candidate, that while accused of being fascist and racist seems to me to boil down to two things:
1) You can’t keep spending money you don’t have indefinitely. (Either get more money, spend less, or both).
2) Our legislators need to read what they are going to vote on as a minimum requirement for their job.

Now, it seems to me the only way to defeat such a party is to do an alinsky, because otherwise it is just so common sense 95% of Americans would say they support those ideas.

In a country (the public, the elected officials, the free press) that was at all interested in reason and good will, it should be very easy to explain how the sequester happened, what it really does and doesn’t mean, and what the various options are.
All backed up with numbers and easy to read graphs.

But instead we get claims that the President wants a “balanced” approach and the Republicans want to throw anyone who isn’t rich under the bus.

This appears to me to be true only if:
1) You define “balanced” as increasing tax rates, closing “tax loopholes” for the rich, and instituting new hidden taxes; with nothing said about controlling spending.
2) Wanting an economy where more people can be employed and not need governmental support is the new definition of “throwing people under the bus”.

Now, if one wants to get past the demagogery, one could have a reasonable discussion on many common points of interests, but it would have to start with agreeing that having and spending are more closely related and the our elected officials need to read what they are voting on. (I bet lots of people liked then candidate Obama’s promise to have all proposed legislation up on the web (at least) 3 days before the vote. President Obama, can’t you keep that promise?)

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:23 am
“Teachers across the is great land are now gutting pink slips”

Just as long as they aren’t gutting teh kids, JD!

Comment by Colonel Haiku (345386) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:44 am
Before we return to the snark, does anyone actually believe that this President who believes in government employees more than any other President, would actually facillitate laying off government employees ?

Comment by Elephant Stone (728e31) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:44 am
A sinkhole in Tampa, FL, swallowed up a dude who was sleeping in his bedroom.

Coincidence ?

I think not.
This is precisely what happens when federal meat inspectors in Kansas City lose their jobs.

Comment by Elephant Stone (728e31) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:48 am
re: #14… What would he lose, Stones… an election?

No, they could be thrown under the bus. It’s possible, but extremely unlikely.

Comment by Colonel Haiku (345386) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:49 am
As I said, yesterday I went shopping and could not find a thing in my size. The clothes supply chain is broken!

Somehow the following seems to be a fitting symbol at this time in US history, at this moment in European history (per the link from narcisco)—when Barack Obama sits happily and smugly in the White House, with so many people in society looking the other way, or being more bothered and cynical about Republicans, or the Tea Party, or conservatives, than Democrats or liberals.

We’ve been taking a long, long trip on that road paved with good intentions, and doesn’t everything look wonderful…and compassionate.

Bloomberg.com, Feb 28, 2013:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT), already struggling to woo shoppers constrained by higher taxes, is “getting worse” at keeping shelves stocked, the retailer’s U.S. chief told executives, according to minutes of an officers’ meeting obtained by Bloomberg News. For much of its history, Wal-Mart has been considered a master of logistics, persuading suppliers to set up shop near its operations.

“We run out quickly and the new stuff doesn’t come in,” U.S. Chief Executive Officer Bill Simon said, according to the minutes of the Feb. 1 meeting. Simon said “self-inflicted wounds” were Wal-Mart’s “biggest risk” and that an executive vice president had been appointed to fix the restocking problem, according to the minutes.

Wal-Mart’s inability to keep its shelves stocked coincides with slowing sales growth. Same-store sales in the U.S. for the 13 weeks ending April 26 will be little changed, Simon said in the company’s Feb. 21 earnings call.

Evelin Cruz, a department manager at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pico Rivera, California, said Simon’s comments from the officers’ meeting were “dead on.” “There are gaps where merchandise is missing,” Cruz said in a telephone interview. “We are not talking about a couple of empty shelves. This is throughout the store in every store. Some places look like they’re going out of business.”

Cruz, 41, who has worked at Wal-Mart for nine years and oversees the photo and wireless sections at her store, said it can take weeks or months for merchandise to be replaced after it sells out. Cruz, a member of OUR Walmart, a labor-backed group seeking to improve working conditions at the discount chain, also said the number of photo and wireless employees she oversees has decreased from about 13 people to seven since the beginning of 2012. “All of this is affecting customers,” Cruz said. “You see people walking out because they’re looking for anyone to help them and there’s no coverage.”

Comment by Mark (93f57a) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:00 am
Re #14-
if it makes the public hurt and he can win a political PR battle out of it, yes, yes he would

for the good of the country and the world

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:02 am
#15,
one would like to make jokes about that, not that it is at all funny, but none of us wants to contemplate the reality of one moment sitting down on your bed to take your shoes and socks off, then next moment being sucked and drowned into a crater of mud with no warning

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:05 am
11. Patricia, President I,me,mine prefers dog tacos.

Comment by mg (31009b) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:11 am
In all seriousness I fully expect the nice people at TSA to put on some sort of a staged airport show/slowdown for us and the media –just their way of saying to travelers “you’ll regret staking out this position”.

Republicans and other rational people need to push back, hard. To a TSA slowdown, we need to call for disbanding the TSA “if they can’t get their act together.”

To school administrators who lay off teachers, we need to put their names on the web and ask “what does this person do that is worth paying them for?”

God knows there are time-servers in the bureaucracy — every time a front-line worker (fire, police, teacher, etc) is laid off, we need to go after the back-room no-work cronies with the iron rice bowls. If you know any government workers, you know that some of them work hard and are incredibly frustrated by the time-servers who game (and run) the system. Perhaps a website to out the layabouts?

This sequestration is the first shot in the big government-small government war, and the big-government folks are going to make it as scary as possible. If we just sit and watch, we lose. Of course, if the Republicans in Congress cave, we also lose and I am disheartened they aren’t taking credit instead of avoiding blame.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:32 am
I think even the best conservative repubs in Congress right now are a bit like a great poker player in a game in a saloon in the old west when he knows the guy dealing has a marked deck and the person on his right knows it and is cheating, and the guy on his left is in on it and has a fast draw with his colt 45.

Your options are limited.

Of course, Jesus had a few public encounters where they had things stacked against him and tried to sucker him into a no-win as well, but he always had the grace and wisdom to parry their attack with a question that put them on the defensive that they couldn’t answer.

That is the kind of wisdom some folks need to have, and they need to have it in a setting that doesn’t get edited out.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:49 am
Yeah, it’s already beginning. Here is today’s article about Sequestration from my local paper:

Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, according to the Gallup Poll. President Barack Obama, who signed the law authorizing the budget cuts he now condemns, has a 51 percent approval rating.

“The president is doing OK, in terms of approval rating, but Congress is taking it in the ear,” [USC political analyst Shirley Bebitch] Jeffe said.

[. . . ]

Both parties are blaming each other for the gridlock, but Raphael Sonenshein, director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles, blamed the GOP for a “continued, manufactured crisis” stemming from an unwillingness to negotiate as House Republicans try “to stay relevant after an election in which they get shellacked.”

So there you have it. The narrative from the media-academia axis will be as follows:

1. Obama is incredibly popular, Congress is incredibly unpopular, ergo Congress should bend to Obama’s will.

2. Republicans, who held on to the House even as Obama was comfortably reelected, actually got shellacked in the election and perhaps aren’t even the majority party any longer and should therefore bend to Obama’s will.

Those of us who remember how the media spun for Clinton during the 1995 government shutdown are going to be amazed at how brazenly they are going to spin for Obama over the next few weeks.

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:08 am
Enjoy:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/fear-and-loathing-on-the-permanent-campaign-trail.php

We do need some new words in the English language, as “amazed” doesn’t really mean what we think it does anymore.

We need a wqord to describe a situation that once you would have been amazed at, still wished you were amazed at, but unfortunately you have been shocked repeatedly to the point you are no longer amazed at.

“Obamaed”?

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:15 am
Don’t laugh, this is serious.
We’re talking about:
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Comment by Neo (d1c681) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:22 am
23. JVW

It has long been obvious that when the media prints something we do not like to hear, they’re spinning. As a matter of fact, everyone spins except Fox News and Limbaugh.

Right JVW?

President Obama is popular and Congress is unpopular because of the MSM spinners, correct?

I know you folks want to believe this mythology with all your hearts and souls.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:24 am
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/hitler-learns-about-power-lines-pop-up-ads.php

Please, please not here!!! we’ll put up with perry first!!!

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:32 am
Perry, how do you assertion for the idea that the GOP was allegedly “shellacked” in the 2012 House elections? Sure, they lost eight seats, but they maintained a clear majority of seats. Yet to the academic-media lefties (and do doubt to you too) that is somehow a huge repudiation of the GOP agenda.

And I don’t believe for one second that Obama is as popular as the liberal pollsters insist. Just recently, we had a poll where over half the country declared that things are worse off today than they were four years ago, yet we hear that Obama is so beloved. Actually, Obama is among the most polarizing Presidents in history, with a ridiculously large “strongly disapprove” number to go along with the adulation from the low-information voter.

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:33 am
I am going swimming.

I hope I’m not too late. Don’t do it, JD! Because of the sequester, the EPA cannot guarantee that fish will not poop in the water.

Closer to home, the sequester took my parking spot and I had to walk half a block with groceries. Curse you, sequester!

Comment by nk the sequestered (53646e) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:38 am
“President Obama is popular and Congress is unpopular because of the MSM spinners, correct?”

Perry – Obama is no more popular at this point than George Bush was. And speaking of that, how is Obama’s approval on jobs and the economy, which happen to be the public’s biggest concerns?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:43 am
Patricia, President I,me,mine prefers dog tacos.

Thank you, mg, the cat feels better knowing that.

Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:50 am
27. JVW

The Dems took the majority of votes for all three branches. Unfortunately for our country, actions such as gerrymandering and filibustering prevent the mandate of the majority from governing effectively.

Regarding the NBC/WSJ polling just out, do you regard them as liberal?

You folks are out of tune with the government for which the American voters voted.

Were the positions reversed, I am confident you would be saying the same as I.

We should not permit a minority to in effect take charge of our government, which is what we currently have.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:51 am
Just recently, we had a poll where over half the country declared that things are worse off today than they were four years ago, yet we hear that Obama is so beloved.

Maybe elsewhere too, but Rush discussed this as a result of Obama being in “perpetual campaign mode”. He always talks about the things he plans to do to change things, ignoring the fact that he’s been the one in charge of 4+years. If it wasn’t Bush’s fault, it’s the Repubs in Congress fault; ignore the fact that Obama had both houses of Congress for 2 years, or that he hasn’t even had the dem congress seriously consider his budget proposals.

The one big question is how will they decide who gets the Duranty prize this years.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/walter-duranty-prize/

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:53 am
Shorter Perry: 150 million idiots can’t be wrong

Comment by Icy (04273a) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:02 am
29. daleyrocks

Jobs and the economy could be better, that’s true.

What do you think President should do?

How about Congress; don’t they bear some responsibility?

I believe we need to do at least the following:

* Smart spending cuts phased in gradually;

* Closing loopholes and discontinuing corporate subsidies such as what we do for Exxon;

* Requiring our top bracket earners to pay at least 30% of adjusted gross income taxes;

* Raising taxes on dividend and capital gains income, to say 20% and 25% respecitively;

* Additional stimulation for infrastructure and education.

What is your solution?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:08 am
Increasing taxes will solve everything in Perry’s world.

Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:11 am
32. MD in Philly

Be serious now. During BO’s first term, the Repubs have not been willing to work out solutions with him.

Were you the Pres, what would have been your response to that situation?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:13 am
The Dems took the majority of votes for all three branches. Unfortunately for our country, actions such as gerrymandering and filibustering prevent the mandate of the majority from governing effectively.

Don’t blame the GOP for the gerrymandering. As long as the Democrats insist that a certain number of Congressional districts must be engineered to elect an African-American, or a Latino, or an Asian, or whichever other interest group is a part of their coalition, then that is going to make them less competitive in other seats. Imagine if they didn’t build a majority black district for Maxine Waters and instead they put some of her voters in a GOP district like the one that Dana Rohrbacher represents. In that scenario, Democrats could presumably get two center-left members of their party elected instead of a far-left member of the racial grievance lobby like Waters winning 72% of the vote in her district and Rohrbacher winning with 61%. But to ask the Democrats to put aside racial politics is like asking a skunk to not stink.

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:13 am
What is your solution?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:08 am

Remove the charitable deduction from the tax code. Totally. For the donor and the donee. Make the donor pay taxes on his income whether he pays for hookers or whether he gives it to Ronald McDonald House. Treat the donee like a business entity and treat all contributions to it as gross income, i.e no 503(c)s anymore. Think it will fly?

Comment by nk (53646e) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:17 am
Be serious now. During BO’s first term, the Repubs have not been willing to work out solutions with him.

No, what the GOP was not willing to do is throw away its principles in order to help Obama implement an agenda that they are opposed to. Imagine if Bush had demanded that Democrats help him plan for an invasion of Iran, or help him turn Medicare or Medicaid into block grant programs, or set up private accounts in Social Security. When Democrats refuse to go along wiht that agenda, would they be guilty of obstructionism or would they be holding on to principle?

Republicans in Congress offered to support Obama in a tax cut plan in 2009, but they drew the line at his wasteful and corrupt stimulus package. They also weren’t interested in federalizing health care, choking off the private sector, or pursuing a feeble and weak foreign policy. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:19 am
Elephant Stone #14,

Obama would falsely claim government employees were going to have their wages cut in order to further his political agenda. That’s almost the same thing.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:29 am
At least Perry finally admits he hates minorities.

Comment by Elephant Stone (728e31) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:31 am
Perry, you are the one that has never been serious.

Comment by SPQR (47fc98) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:31 am
39. JVW

Standing on principles while being unwilling to negotiate to solutions is the problem with today’s Republicans.

Regarding your second paragraph, you need to win elections in order to have a mandate for change.

Now go back to my opening statement.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:34 am
Perry, you are simply lying. Its Obama who has refused to negotiate.

Comment by SPQR (47fc98) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:36 am
And Perry, the utter horse manure of “smart spending cuts” is typical of your completely vacuous comments.

Comment by SPQR (47fc98) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:38 am
38. nk

No I don’t think that would fly, since we depend on charities of all kinds to do important things for people in need. I would guess that neither Repubs of Dems would support your suggestion.

(Gotta go!)

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:39 am
I agree with SPQR. Perry, you are full of it. If Obama and the Democrats’ agenda was so damn popular, why did they get their asses kicked in 2010?

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:39 am
Obama negotiated for tax rate increases just two months ago, and Democrats are back to demanding more.

That’s not good faith. That’s the bottom line.

Comment by SPQR (47fc98) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:41 am
it would be so much easier if we had a dick tater int the white house

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:51 am
Due to the Sequester budget cuts Biden now advises firing only one of your shotgun barrels in the air to ward off the postman.

Comment by SPQR (47fc98) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:51 am
*in* the white house I mean

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:51 am
The Strigoi don’t hunt in the daytime, so we’re sort of safe, like Will Smith in ‘I Legend’

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:56 am
will smith didn’t take very good care of his puppy dog in that movie he thinks he’s such a big star but he’s just a sick in the head puppy killer i think

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:58 am
In case you missed, here’s a great headline from the WSJ website:

World doesn’t end, Obama hardest hit

Comment by Whitey Nisson (d53e66) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:03 pm
I am going swimming.

I thought that they stopped cleaning the beaches after they pass Prop 13

Comment by Neo (d1c681) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:13 pm
MD in Philly #24 – Humphrey Bogart already beat us to it !

“Casablanca’ed” – and, in the sublime irony of the Sense of Humour of the Gods, “Casablanca” just means “WhiteHouse” …

Comment by Alasdair (a28b33) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:21 pm
Perry #34 – I will pretend that you asked a serious question with serious intent …

What is my solution ?

What a faltering economy needs …

1) Improved production of domestic energy raw materials and domestic energy – improves Balance of Payments and keeps folk employed producing them …
2) Improved domestic production of raw materials – whether food or raw materials for textiles or … you get the idea … improves Balance of Payments and keeps folk producing them …
3) Improved production of finished goods for sale … using the raw materials both from 2) and from overseas …

All three require government to stay out of the way as much as possible – intervening for safety reasons if needed … and they require government to respect Evolution while also putting humans first … so – if it’s a choice between Snail Darters (a sub-species of perch) or human water supply, respect Evolution – the Perch will develop other sub-species … Delta Smelt are a small sub-sub-species of the Osmeridae – relatives of Salmon and Trout … so – respect Evolution, and the Delta Smelt will either prosper or perish …

Oh – and respect common sense … don’t convert food to vehicle fuel when there are better local alternatives (see 1)) …

Well, Mr Perry ?

If our economy was prospering, we have the luxury to play screw-around with small sectors … in the current economy, we cannot afford to be so picky …

Comment by Alasdair (a28b33) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:38 pm
Here we have the conundrum of totality. Should three cities of Chicago, NewYork and LosAngeles rule dominion over the rest of the country

Well its been asked and answered by the constitution.

Sorry Mr. Perry

Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:39 pm
yolk broke dog won’t hunt ruby slippers ain’t comfy
ice cube ain’t solid didn’t de-waggle my penis-urine spot on my second hand pants
broke a shoe-lace trying to hang myself
nothing on tv
fly flew in my yawning O hole
postures good
5 letter word for actress-_Davis
came out Geena,not Bette
shoelace torn and frayed

Comment by pdbuttons (034e55) — 3/2/2013 @ 1:17 pm
Regarding the NBC/WSJ polling just out, do you regard them as liberal?

No, they actually must be totally rightwing because the recent poll you’re referencing also showed that a majority wants the sequester to go forward and a not-small percentage even wants the cuts to be deeper.

But, yep, there is cognitive dissonance in human nature. For example, liberals likely believing they’re such generous, tolerant, humane, caring souls — certainly compared with their ideological opposites — when, in reality, they may be anything but that.

Comment by Mark (93f57a) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, I noticed that, Nark, it’s within the MOE, 39/37, funny how they didn’t trumpet that particular finding,

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:16 pm
in other news, the line at the Glendale Cun Show here in The Valley was out the door, down the block and around the corner crowded, and that was before they opened.

no sign of the scheduled Occutard protest though.8-)

Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:27 pm
36.32. MD in Philly
Be serious now. …
That’s a disgustingly absurd comment.

Were you the Pres, what would have been your response to that situation?
Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:13 am

I would start out by telling the truth, at the very least, on occasion.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:28 pm
if we’re closing tax “loopholes”, lets start with the one that allows almost half the country to pay no income tax at all.

at the same time, let’s get rid of the falsely named “Earned Income Credit” which gives these leeches extra money from someone else’s pocket.

until everyone antes into the pot, the tax system isn’t “fair” no matter how much you rape the productive part of society.

Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:30 pm
55.MD in Philly #24 – Humphrey Bogart already beat us to it !
“Casablanca’ed” – and, in the sublime irony of the Sense of Humour of the Gods, “Casablanca” just means “WhiteHouse” …
Comment by Alasdair (a28b33) — 3/2/2013 @ 12:21 pm

As in, did you hear about what Obama did now?? I’m casablancaed once again!!

(I think “baracked” has a better ring to it, fewer syllables).

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:30 pm
Be serious now. During BO’s first term, the Repubs have not been willing to work out solutions with him.

it may be my advancing age, but i seem to remember someone meeting with Republicans who were there to negotiate, and among the first words out of their mouth were “I won”.

it’s kinda hard to w*rk things out with your opposition when you that attitude, unless, of course, that what you mean by “w*rk out” is “give me what i want”…

Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:34 pm
.

Dogs and cats, living together!!

MASS HYSTERIA!!!

.

Comment by Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Gender Bïgǒt (98ae1f) — 3/2/2013 @ 2:59 pm
it’s kinda hard to w*rk things out with your opposition when you that attitude, unless, of course, that what you mean by “w*rk out” is “give me what i want”…

red, that IS the definition of “work out” in the PostModern Liberal dictionary. Ditto “negotiate”, and the ever-popular “compromise”.

Comment by Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Gender Bïgǒt (98ae1f) — 3/2/2013 @ 3:02 pm
My cats pee outside. When they want to pee or poo
they bug me til I open the door..
I haven’t changed a kitty litter box in 6 years
I’m better than you

Comment by pdbuttons (034e55) — 3/2/2013 @ 3:40 pm
“What is your solution?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 11:08 am”

Perry – Obama is such an incredible screw up, I think he needs to resign for the good of the country.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/2/2013 @ 4:14 pm
Here we have the conundrum of totality. Should three cities of Chicago, NewYork and LosAngeles rule dominion over the rest of the country.

Hell, if only! What we are really looking at is whether the three cities of Detroit, Berkeley, and Stamford, CT should rule over the rest of the country.

Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/2/2013 @ 4:20 pm
daleyrocks #69 – better yet, Vice President Biden and Pres’ent Obama should call a Press conference at which, in this order, VP Biden should resign, and *then* Pres’ent Obama should resign …

Speaker Boehner can only do better than the current administration …

Comment by Alasdair (a28b33) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:09 pm
Perry wrote:

Standing on principles while being unwilling to negotiate to solutions is the problem with today’s Republicans.

It takes a Democrat to think that standing on one’s principles, that politicians doing what they campaigned on doing, is somehow a bad thing.

Comment by The Dana with principles (af9ec3) — 3/2/2013 @ 6:50 pm
From 2008-2010, Obama and the Democrats didn’t care whether the Republicans negotiated or compromised on legislation. The ObamaCare votes illustrate that when Democrats didn’t need any GOP votes, they didn’t care about negotiating with Republicans. Even now, Obama’s and the Democrats’ idea of negotiation is giving perks to interest groups or Cornhusker kickbacks.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/2/2013 @ 7:25 pm
The Sequester has come, yet we live?
More taxes O wants us to give
Top earners should pay,
They must save the day
And to the poor, more benes we’ll give!

Comment by The Limerick Avenger (af9ec3) — 3/2/2013 @ 7:56 pm
The sequester hit us in the gut,
Spending will have to be cut!
Barack is so mad,
“This is so bad!
The Repubs made me miss this putt!”

Comment by The Limerick Avenger (af9ec3) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:00 pm
Barack said, “How can this be?”
“Cut spending? Surely not me!”
“This cut we will halt,
It’s all Boehner’s fault!”
“I’ll win, just wait and see!”

Comment by The Limerick Avenger (af9ec3) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:08 pm
upset the stoopid I did
yeah,yeah, we are so fucked yeah
touchdowh Jesus
Christ

Comment by pdbuttons (034e55) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:15 pm
Now, now brown cowlick
damien omen eye stare
sesequestered bam! BAM

Comment by pdbuttons (034e55) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:18 pm
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342014/sequestageddon-mark-steyn

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 8:58 pm
narciso, nice job linking to Steyn’s latest column.
I nearly fell backwards out of my chair reading it.

Comment by Elephant Stone (b73aaf) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:07 pm
It captures the absurdity of the whole thing, well.

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:14 pm
The following post is absolutely true.

I was listening to NPR today. Really. I do that sometimes.

On All Things Considered they had a story about which group would be hardest hit by the sequestergeddon.

Surprise! It’s women. I think children and minorities came in second and third.

Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/2/2013 @ 9:28 pm
32. We should not permit a minority to in effect take charge of our government, which is what we currently have.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/2/2013 @ 10:51 am

Yeah! Bring on the tyranny of the majority now!

We! Can’t! Wait!

Perry’s Constitutional ignorance is, what’s the new word instead of “amazing” that we’ve agreed to use for something that once would have been amazing and we wish still were amazing but no longer is amazing?

There’s a reason why spending bills must originate in the House. That’s the chamber closest to the people.

Thankfully they have been unwilling to work out “solutions” with the Preezy as Da Won thinks that means conducting raid after raid on the private sector to loot it so he can restock his slush funds.

In other news, due to sequestration all the service academies will be forced to close. But the “savings will allow to the GSA to hold a two week team building” seminar for every single one of their many thousands of their managers at a luxury resort in Tahiti in May. As a cost cutting measure, GSA is putting a $2000 limit on reimbursements for room service and mini bar charges.

Also, upper management from the FBI will be chartering Royal Caribbean’s “Mariner of the Seas” to hunt for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack who are rumored to be hiding somewhere in that region. They will be using the latest in crime fighting tools; surveillance drones, cell phone eavesdropping equipment, an open bar, 5 cases of sun tan lotion, personal watercraft, and a line of credit in the ship’s casino.

Bob Menendez has been invited along as liaison due to his many contacts in the region. To avoid those unfortunate appearances of conflict of interest Sen. Menendez (D-Bunny Ranch) will be using a one of the DoJ’s fleet of luxuriously appointed executive jets which will stage to the Mariner of the Seas various ports of call to provide transport should air travel be required for official visits, the boat run out of the preferred single malt scotch and it isn’t available locally, or any of the hookers need to be replaced due to infection.

Those officials — which included Holder and Mueller, as well as former Attorneys General Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales — racked up nearly 700 “nonmission” trips between 2007 and 2011, at a cost of $11.4 million, according to the Government Accountability Office.

…“These luxury jets were supposedly needed for counterterrorism, but it turns out that they were used almost two-thirds of the time for jet-setting executive travel,” he said. “Nobody disputes that the Attorney General and the FBI Director should have access to the secure communications, but, for instance, there’s no reason they can’t take a less expensive mode of transportation, or cut their personal travel.”

Guess what’s not on the chopping block. Obama will ground every US Forest Service firefighting aircraft before Eric Holder is told to quit using the biz jet so much and do more teleconferencing.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 12:23 pm
Always follow links from narciso:

We have seen the boobs, and they are us.

Of course, those who don’t know who Pogo was may only enjoy it 1/2 as much.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/3/2013 @ 12:24 pm
Ace links to this WaPo article:

At Kan. airport, fliers back sequester cuts . . . but, wait, they’re closing the control tower?

The whole thing is immensely stupid, and one must wonder who directed Ms. Stephanie McCrummen, national reporter for the WaPo to the world famous metropolis of Garden City Kansas so she could write some snooty article about just how stupid the people supporting the sequester are.

GARDEN CITY, Kan. — The federal budget cuts were still an abstraction as American Eagle Flight 3429 crossed the snow-crusted plains into southwestern Kansas. Kevin Colvin, a construction manager flying in for work, looked out of the window at the tiny airport below.

“They make it sound like, ‘Oh my God! We’re going to die if we make these cuts!’ ” he said, eating a potato chip, the cuts still two days away. “I think it’s a bunch of BS.”

The cuts came into clearer focus Thursday. Garden City Regional Airport would lose its air traffic controllers, saving the federal government $318,756 and leaving pilots to handle landings, takeoffs and weather conditions mostly by themselves.

“Oh,” said Dave Unruh, a retired farmer who heard the news as he waited for a flight to Dallas. “Is that part of the deal?”

OMFG! Pilots will have to handle, landings, takeoffs, and weather conditions in Garden City Kansas all by their pathetic little selves without Uncle Sugar holding their hands.

You know. Just like they have to do at hundreds of other low traffic uncontrolled fields.

Drew M. at AoSHQ makes these excellent points.

By way of background, I have a private pilot license (I can fly small, single engine planes like a Cessna 172, though I haven’t in years). I flew out of an airport like the one described in this story and can tell you for a fact, it’s fear mongering based in either ignorance or agenda driven.

…Wait, 2 of the 4 four scheduled commercial flights already take off an land without anyone in the tower? So it’s done safely twice a day but doing it two more times will be….what?

At an airport like this (as opposed to ones in NYC, LA, ATL or even midsized ones like San Jose, Orlando, or Nashville), there’s very little traffic to sequence and pilots have plenty of tools to work safely in and around the airport.

People who aren’t pilots tend to have an overinflated sense of what air traffic controllers do. At an airport like the on in the story, the answer is not that much. They don’t have radar, they don’t have the ability to provide what are called “separation services” (which is what it sounds like…the ability to tell planes where to go to keep them from hitting each other).

Notice no actual pilots were interviewed in this story. My guess is most of them would just shrug if asked what closing this tower will mean to them.

I’m guessing Garden City could get along just fine without an airport. And if they need an airport they don’t need controllers. I’ve flown in and out of plenty of uncontrolled air fields.

And maybe American Eagle would cut back flights to two a day. The two that already fly in when the tower is shut down.

They actually print this in the article.

Powell warned of a decline in flights and associated revenue from fuel or fees or dinners at the popular restaurant Napoli’s at the Flight Deck.

Oh noes! The only Eye-talian place in SW Kansas may see revenues drop.

You know what else will cause a restaurant’s revenues to drop off? An endless Obama stimulus pork barrel project tearing up the streets outside your parking lot, which is scheduled to go on for years because if it takes 20 years to widen the road then that’s 200 jobs/yr. X 20 years = 4000 jobs saved or created!

Or a government subsidized light rail project.

Light rail kills restaurateur’s dream in St. Paul

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 1:13 pm
From personal experience I can tell you DrewM. may be wrong here:

Notice no actual pilots were interviewed in this story.

They may well have interviewed pilots, and got exactly the “ho hum, no big deal” response he predicted they’d get.

So those quotes don’t make it into the article. The WaPo propaganda machine didn’t spring into action and go to the locations the Obama administration directed them to simply to come back with an article saying “Tiny Kansas Town With Airport Almost Nobody Uses Loses Controllers Due To Sequester; ‘No Big Deal,’ Pilots Say.”

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 1:20 pm
You might be a Republican if you politicized Benghazi for months then minimized the sequester that cut $79 million from the Embassy security budget.

moron hypocrites

Comment by Dad (4f9417) — 3/3/2013 @ 4:31 pm
“Dad” approves of lying and covering up. Because of STFU

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/3/2013 @ 4:42 pm
Dad simply can’t think of a single thing the federal government can cut or any agency waste whatsoever to eliminate in order to save money. Not a single thing. It’s a tell. I’m pretty sure he is a progressive democrat.

Comment by elissa (a95fab) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:06 pm
Elissa – there is a secproggie Maginot Line that once government has established a spending level, it can never go below that level, or women, children, minorities, teachers, firefighters, and first responders will be starving and revert back to the Dark Ages. Can you imagine the OUTRAGE if we rolled back to the 2008 budget prior to the addition of the stimulus to the baseline?

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:14 pm
The federal government operates at complete efficiency at all times with no waste.

All federal employees are professional, polite and working to ensure the best in taxpayer services without complaint.

Federal employees always go above and beyond to assure that taxpayer dollars are well-spent.

Federal employees are the smartest people in the world. They never make an incorrect decision or every do any harm.

Every federal government department and program is essential. Any reduction in increased federal spending is dangerous and immoral.

The federal government has never wasted a cent of taxpayer money. To imply such is treason.

There is never any need to question governmental expenditures.

This is true now. It was not true seven years ago and it may not be true in the future. So, shut up.

Hey, thanks Dad, I see the light.

Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:29 pm
89. You might be a Republican if you politicized Benghazi for months then minimized the sequester that cut $79 million from the Embassy security budget.

moron hypocrites

Comment by Dad (4f9417) — 3/3/2013 @ 4:31 pm

You might have a point if (a) that cut was some prior year budget and instead of from a future budget and therefore could have had no effect on security in Benghazi (b) it was actually a cut.

It’s a nice little talking point, “Dad,” and a complete lie.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330408/libya-isnt-about-funding-cuts-katrina-trinko

Issa went on to note that Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who fielded security requests from the Libya U.S. diplomatic officials had said that money wasn’t the reason for the slim security in Libya. Consider this exchange from the congressional hearing on Libya last week:

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said Lamb.

During the hearings, Elijah Cummings, a Democratic congressman from Maryland and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, tried to make the GOP funding cuts a major issue — only to be foiled by Lamb’s response in her exchange with Rohrabacher.

What is it about you libs, “Dad,” that keeps you repeating lies long after they’ve been completely exposed as lies.

In any case, any “cuts” to be made to the DoS/USAID budget were more than made up in the Overseas Contingency Operations budget that provides unified funding for DoS, DoD, and USAID.

Besides, if Hillary! doesn’t read her emails how the hell would she know the Benghazi diplomatic facility wasn’t properly secured due to budget constraints? She testified she didn’t even know there was a problem.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:33 pm
OK- here’s one I could cut with pleasure:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday Mar. 3 rewarded Egypt for President Mohammed Morsi’s pledges of political and economic reforms by releasing $250 million in American aid to support the country’s “future as a democracy.”

How about you, Dad. Your turn.

Comment by elissa (a95fab) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:35 pm
*moron ~~hypocrites~~ dumb*** lying idiot*

KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts

On 9/11/12, U.S. Marines Were Protecting a U.S. Embassy – in Barbados

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:40 pm
“Dad”, its Obama who can’t figure out how to cut 2% from our insanely bloated budget. It is the Democrats who have failed to pass a budget for FOUR YEARS.

You are a twit. Grow up, “Dad”.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:41 pm
WaPo: The red flags in Obama’s foreign policy

Being the WaPo they start with the usual digs at the GOP that’s required for a dutiful party organ, then this:

For the last couple of years, the light footprint worked well enough to allow Obama to turn foreign policy into a talking point for his reelection. But the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 should have been a red flag to all who believe this president has invented a successful new model for U.S. leadership. Far from being an aberration, Benghazi was a toxic byproduct of the light footprint approach — and very likely the first in a series of boomerangs.

Why were Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans murdered by Libyan jihadists? The preliminary round of official investigations may focus on decisions by mid-level officials at the State Department that deprived the Benghazi mission of adequate security, and a failure by the large CIA team in the city to detect the imminent threat from extremist groups.

But ultimately the disaster in Libya derived from Obama’s doctrine. Having been reluctantly dragged by France and Britain into intervening in Libya’s revolution, Obama withdrew U.S. planes from the fight as quickly as possible; when the war ended, the White House insisted that no U.S. forces stay behind. Requests by Libya’s fragile transition government for NATO’s security assistance were answered with an ill-conceived and ultimately failed program to train a few people in Jordan.

All of the money in the world won’t make up for the fact that it’s amateur hour in the WH. But I guess Obama knows he can hide that fact as long as he’s got an army of willing liars like “Dad” to help him suppress the truth.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:47 pm
You totally missed Dad’s point, Steve57, just so you could carry out your rant.

Dad was referring to future embassy security confrontations, the fact that the sequester causes some concerns for said security.

This answer would have sufficed:

In any case, any “cuts” to be made to the DoS/USAID budget were more than made up in the Overseas Contingency Operations budget that provides unified funding for DoS, DoD, and USAID.

A citation to back up your “fact” would have been even more convincing!

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:50 pm
Perry, the sequester causes no concern for security. The fact that the executive branch is run by corrupt morons causes concerns for embassy security before and after the sequester.

You are the one missing the point.

But it does not surprise me that you, Dad and Obama will try to blame Benghazi on the sequester.

It is the kind of dishonest corrupt pieces of debris you all are.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:51 pm
*(b) it was not actually a cut.*

The real idiocy of “Dad’s” ~~contention~~ transparent lie is that their security concerns didn’t have to be addressed from the DoS core budget.

That is, had Hillary! been remotely aware of what was going on in her department and even known the Libyan diplomatic staff had these security concerns.

Which she testified she wasn’t.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:52 pm
Dad,

You obviously don’t know best.

I love how sequestration becomes something you try to hang on Republicans—the party that is allegedly the minority party—all the while your jukebox hero Barry O is actually the guy in charge.

By the way, Barry’s ‘Girl Friday’ Gene Sperling was on Meet the Depressed today and said that sequestration emanated from the White House. Why would he lie about something like that ?

Comment by Elephant Stone (ade9ca) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:53 pm
Uhh, Perry, if you’re incapable of looking up the budget figures to know that the share of the government wide OCO budget that DoS received in FY2012 was $8.7 billion then I don’t feel like helping you.

And, no, I didn’t miss any points. Or rather, I wouldn’t have if there was one.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:56 pm
Also, the money state received from the OCO budget was for its operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

But then that’s money they weren’t spending out of their core budget. The idea that some fictional “cut” the GOP foisted on DoS was responsible for the Benghazi debacle is laughable.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:59 pm
Perry, your goofy math is precisely why McDonald’s doesn’t trust you to work the cash register.

Comment by Elephant Stone (ade9ca) — 3/3/2013 @ 5:59 pm
And, Perry, they aren’t cuts. They are reductions in the rate of growth. And the folks from the affected agencies said that budget issues had no bearing on their security choices. So, again, you prove yourself to be an uninformed hyper-partisan polemicist.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:01 pm
Hey Perry,

Any good manager knows how to transfer money from less essential endeavors to critical activities.

Wait, we’re talking about the federal government. Never mind.

Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:03 pm
102. Elephant Stone

Republicans voted for sequestration, so both sides are responsible.

At the time, sequestration was though to be an opportunity to force both parties into serious negotiation.

But when protecting the wealthy segment of their base, revenue and revenue expenditures become non-negotiable for Boehner and O’Connell.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:24 pm
Perry, you are so full of it. The GOP isn’t protecting the wealthy, they are protecting all of us from Democrats’ insane destructive economic policies.

And its Obama who claims that things are non negotiable.

Obama could find the necessary 2% reductions in the budget in a couple of hours, if he wanted. Its Obama who refuses to negotiate about spending reductions at all.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:31 pm
Perry – when did Obama negotiate?

Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:32 pm
I can save $8 billion right now – zero out Headstart programs.

They are utterly useless wastes of money.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:33 pm
Perry,

Do you believe that changes in income tax rates affect federal receipts?

** If you do, then at what specific point can we no longer increase taxes without negatively impact federal receipts?

** If you don’t, please explain why this article and chart are incorrect.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:33 pm
CNN: 06:40 PM ET U.S. special forces previously assessed security at Benghazi post

The military security personnel came from the U.S. Africa Command, which has responsibility for any American military operations in Libya.

After July 2012, the State Department took full responsibility for security operations while military personnel performed other duties, including working with Libyan forces.

So, DoS tells DoD that it’s taking full responsibility for the security of its sites in Libya, then the Obama political appointee complains when they screw the pooch in Benghazi a month later they didn’t have the money to provide it.

This is a really, really stupid argument to make.

Consequently, I expect “Dad” and Perry to continue with it.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:36 pm
108. At the time, sequestration was though to be an opportunity to force both parties into serious negotiation.

But when protecting the wealthy segment of their base, revenue and revenue expenditures become non-negotiable for Boehner and O’Connell.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:24 pm

Right. It’s always amusing to have the Preezy accuse the GOP of not negotiating…from a fundraiser in Vegas or his birthday party in Chicago.

He was so serious about negotiating to avoid sequestration he jetted off to Florida to get $1000/hr golf lessons and hit the links with Tiger Woods.

You seriously don’t realize how transparent your OFA talking points are, do you, Perry?

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:39 pm
Obama proposed it (after torpedoing an agreement for 800B in revenues, suddenly demanding 50% more)
Obama signed it into law
Obama vowed it would never happen
Obama then vowed to veto changes to it
Obama then refused to negotiate
Obama spent the last 2 weeks campaigning against it with his dishonest parade of horribles
Obama then again opposed a bill that would have given him more flexibility to implement
The Senate never passed a bill to avert
The House passed at least 2 bills to avert
Obama signed the directive to implement

Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:39 pm
Protecting the wealth is a talking point.

Come back when you have something to add.

Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:40 pm
The Warren Buffets of the world loves them some Obama precisely because Obama isn’t demanding taxes his wealthy base will ever have to pay.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:43 pm
Perry – please e plain to us the corporate jet tax loophole and how it would raise more money. Ready? Go.

Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:48 pm
Perry the Bridge Gapper,

Sequestration actually emanated from the eighth grade science lab known as Obama’s Oval Office during the summer of 2011.

In recent days, some of Barry O’s mouthpieces have claimed they didn’t have anything to do with it. That’s precisely why Bob Woodward said the White House is lying.

For the fiftieth time, the sequestration is not about revenue—it’s about spending.
Why do you keep pushing that lie about it being about revenue ? (That’s a rhetorical question—I know why you do it—you have no other hands to play.)

Comment by Elephant Stone (ade9ca) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:52 pm
I spent the afternoon driving listening to Kathy Mattea’s “Coal” album.

Better use of ones precious minutes than beating down trolls.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/3/2013 @ 7:25 pm
Perry wrote:

Republicans voted for sequestration, so both sides are responsible.

Agreed.

At the time, sequestration was though to be an opportunity to force both parties into serious negotiation.

But when protecting the wealthy segment of their base, revenue and revenue expenditures become non-negotiable for Boehner and O’Connell.

Except, of course, that Messrs Boehner and McConell already agreed to tax increases, in the law which extended the 201/203/2010 tax cuts for everybody but the most productive Americans. The Republicans already agreed to, and helped pass into law, tax increases. Of course, almost immediately after that vote:

President Obama warned lawmakers that he quickly will seek more tax revenue from high earners and corporations and that he won’t bargain in an impending battle over raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

Yet, according to you, it’s the mean ol’ reich-wing Republicans who won’t negotiate.

The Republicans just plain don’t trust President Obama, for a very simple reason: he isn’t trustworthy.

Comment by The taxpayer Dana (af9ec3) — 3/3/2013 @ 7:56 pm
121. The Republicans just plain don’t trust President Obama, for a very simple reason: he isn’t trustworthy.

Comment by The taxpayer Dana (af9ec3) — 3/3/2013 @ 7:56 pm

Actually, Obama is demonstrating why he can’t be trusted. He never intended to negotiate with Republicans. He intended to continue his perpetual campaign and demagogue the issue. As he is doing now. He’s saying if he doesn’t get all the spending he wants the world will end; even with sequestration the government will still spend more than last year. That isn’t enough; he wants more and more spending. Not giving him everything he demands is a failure to negotiate according to his over-inflated ego.

You’d have to be a fool to think Obama ever intended to negotiate. He never has.

Apparently, there are a lot of fools in this country. I expect we’ll hear more from some of them on this comment thread.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 8:13 pm
Graphic evidence:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/03/one-chart-illustrating-horrifying-depth.html

Bison chips were never this thick.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/3/2013 @ 9:34 pm
Exactly, Gary. Obama isn’t at all interested in getting spending under control. He wants higher taxes to punish the successful and to have more money to spend.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 9:42 pm
108. 102. Elephant Stone

Republicans voted for sequestration, so both sides are responsible.

At the time, sequestration was though to be an opportunity to force both parties into serious negotiation.

But when protecting the wealthy segment of their base, revenue and revenue expenditures become non-negotiable for Boehner and O’Connell.

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/3/2013 @ 6:24 pm

I read on another thread, Perry, you’re in your ’70s and retired.

It’s sort of hard for me to believe that considering the foolish things you believe (assuming you actually believe what you write).

Obama’s Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda

President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations

… In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.

Obama was of course lying. But he had to keep the act up because he had lots of people to fool.

At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

I’m sure it’ll be the most open and transparent tax exempt “social welfare group in history.”

Lisa “Richard Windsor” Jackson, who in case I have to spell it out used unofficial email accounts and aliases to evade FOIA requests, is out of a job. Maybe she can be OFA’s “transparency czar.”

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

This is the NYT, so they left out the big item these big money donors will be angling for by buying access; they’re rent-seekers hoping to feed at the public trough.

There’s a reason the John Corzines of the world, who make Bernie Madoff look like a piker, pay for access to this President.

And poor Perry; he thinks it’s the GOP that’s looking out for the rich.

Well, I guess the time-honored saying about “old fools” is correct.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 10:36 pm
Report: 80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers

This is what those big money donors are buying with their now tax deductible contributions to Obama’s campaign.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/3/2013 @ 10:59 pm
Boarding the boxcars is significant of compromise, looking for a solution.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/3/2013 @ 11:04 pm
Mr 57 wrote:

I read on another thread, Perry, you’re in your ’70s and retired.

It’s sort of hard for me to believe that considering the foolish things you believe (assuming you actually believe what you write).

I have met Perry personally, on two occasions, and the description is correct. According to his own website, he was born in 1934.

Comment by The Dana who actually met Perry (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:43 am
A screen crawl this morning on one of the morning news shows noted that the Democrats are trying to give the Republicans the blame for spending cuts; I’d say that the Republicans ought to take the credit for spending cuts!

Comment by The Dana who thinks the only problem with the sequester is that it is too small. (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:55 am
Barack didn’t want sequester at all
But he hopes it’ll help GOP fall
If you ask me
The problem I see
Is that it’s just too darned small!

Comment by The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:32 am
I’d say that the Republicans ought to take the credit for spending cuts!

For stupid spending cuts, Dana? Sure, I give them credit for that. And I give them credit for protecting their wealthy base; to hell with the middle and the poor. Correct, Dana?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:48 am
No, Perry. You are wedded to your talking point. You already got your tax hikes less than 2 months ago.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:57 am
125. Steve57

And poor Perry; he thinks it’s the GOP that’s looking out for the rich.

If the opposition is playing hardball, it would be foolish for the other side to not do so in this post Citizens United era.

And let it not be forgotten, it is the Republicans who are adamantly opposed to increasing revenues by closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures, contrary to the Dem position on that issue. That, Mr Steve57, is protecting the wealthy!

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:02 am
132. JD

I’m not talking about tax hikes; I am talking about revenue increases. There’s a difference!

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:05 am
And let it not be forgotten, it is the Republicans who are adamantly opposed to increasing revenues by closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures, contrary to the Dem position on that issue.

Painted Jaguar: Let it not be forgotten that you scoop a turtle, drop a hedgehog into water, and leave armadillos alone. (I remember it now because my mummy, ever so smart in addition to patient and kind, wrote it down for me, on a scooped-out turtle shell).

My mummy also told me to leave “perrys” alone, unless it is a platypus. (I can remember what a platypus is, duck bill and beaver tail and talks with an Australian accent!!!)

Also let it be remembered that the Republicans were for closing tax loopholes before the Democrats, who said “No, no, no. Increase tax rates by not keeping them lower.”

Now the dems just want to eat their cake too after getting it.

Which would be sort-of OK if they were honest about it in the beginning. But for a long time now “honest” and “Democrat” go about as well together as “honest” and “hedgehog”, and we all remember that story.

Comment by Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:16 am
And let it not be forgotten, it is the Republicans who are adamantly opposed to increasing revenues by closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures, contrary to the Dem position on that issue. That, Mr Steve57, is protecting the wealthy!

Overt lies. Across the board. Are you constitutionally incapable of honesty? How do you plan on bridging the gap when you call people racists, and lie to their faces?

I, for one, will be happy to address loopholes, which is a BS Dem game, by the way. They are not loopholes, they were choices made by prior Congress’. I would be willing to address them as part of a larger tax reform, including tax reductions, etc.

When Romney proposed addressing loopholes, you and yours vilified him for it. You and yours have a history of getting your revenues, but not living up to the spending reductions side, so I don’t trust you for one nanosecond that we could do loopholes now and broad tax reform later.

Your past history, and current rhetoric, tell me you are lying.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:19 am
Are you [they] constitutionally incapable of honesty?

Painted Jaguar: As perry (the platypus) would say, “Yes, yes they are.”

Comment by Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:27 am
I’m not talking about tax hikes; I am talking about revenue increases. There’s a difference!

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:05 am

If you do not reduce spending, you will need to hike “taxes” when, as is happening now*, the tax base shrinks thereby decreasing “revenue”. That kind of euphemistic double-talk — it’s not taxes it’s revenue — is not helpful and it is not believable. I suppose postage stamps and the fed rate might be considered “revenue” but income tax and FICA are not.

*A glaring example is real estate taxes. Property values have shrunk, worse than halved in some places, but the taxing authorities’s budgets remain the same or increase and those property who are not in foreclosure are facing doubling of their taxes. And it’s transferable to the eployment rate. More unemployed, lower wages, but still big budgets, necessitating higher tax rates hitting the still working hardest.

Comment by nk (53646e) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:19 am
In the recent negotiations regarding tax rates at the beginning of the year, it was the White House protecting the deductability and depreciation schedules of private jet aircraft for corporations.

Perry just makes up stuff.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:19 am
President Obama has carefully cultivated them and knows that his mindless sycophants will believe anything he tells them even when they are easily provable lies. He shamelessly uses them. Perry and Dad are living examples of this. Even worse, the president uses these gullible types for his own purposes (not their interests or the overall interests of the United States as a sovereign nation) and they willingly and blindly go along with it all despite how weak and anti-intellectual they look to normal thinking people and how increasingly ridiculous their talking points are.

Comment by elissa (60a83b) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:37 am
Perry’s doublespeak and euphemisms are so cute.

Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:38 am
I am looking at my personal sequester. My revenues (income) have nosedived but my non-discretionary spending (medical bills and such) has skyrocketed. What do I do? What about a $10.00 burger at Blackie’s instead of $25.00 lamb chops at Demetri’s? These things are pretty straightforward to everyone whose budgets rely on their own work and not the pockets of the taxpayers.

Comment by nk (53646e) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:42 am
Reason’s “SEQUESTRATION SALE” is completely hilarious.

They are cutting their subscription rate by 2.3 percent! 34 cents off!

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:44 am
Perry is a lot like me on many “liberal or conservative” questions, but not on tax and spend I guess. We have debated once or twice over at Dana’s. BTW, Perry, I still do not pity cripples even now when I have become one.

Comment by nk (53646e) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:46 am
Patterico is following suit with Reason and has slashed the subscription rate here by 2.3% as well.

I’m telling my cats they need to eat 2.3% less food, and use 2.3% less kitty litter as well.

The cats have told the mice to run 2.3% slower.

If everyone does their share, we can make due with only a 37.3% increase from the 2008 budget (or 2007 or whatever year it was).

2.3% fewer rounds of golf and shells on skeet shooting. See how easy?

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:53 am
It is not even 2.3% less than last year. It is 2.3% less than the projection for next year, after accounting for the built in increases.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:02 am
Perry wrote:

I’m not talking about tax hikes; I am talking about revenue increases. There’s a difference!

Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase, “a distinction without a difference?” If someone has to pay more in taxes because of a change in the law, he’s going to call it a tax hike; he’s not about to console himself that it’s simply a revenue increase.

We know that you’ve bought in — lock, stock and barrel — to the Obama mantra, but most people with common sense see the distinction you have attempted to take as disingenuous, at best.

Comment by The semanticist Dana (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:02 am
Perry wrote:

I’d say that the Republicans ought to take the credit for spending cuts! (me)

For stupid spending cuts, Dana? Sure, I give them credit for that. And I give them credit for protecting their wealthy base; to hell with the middle and the poor. Correct, Dana?

Well, lookee here! From The Wall Street Journal:

Rhetoric Cools on Near-Term Pain of Cuts
By PETER NICHOLAS and DAMIAN PALETTA

After warning that across-the-board spending cuts would have catastrophic effects, White House officials are trying to play down fears that people will suffer hardships right away, instead preparing them for a fight that won’t be quickly resolved.

In an unsuccessful effort to get Republicans to negotiate over a more gradual deficit-reduction deal, the Obama administration spent weeks warning that the $85 billion in cuts, known as a sequester, would produce profound disruption, including teacher layoffs, flight delays, more porous borders and heightened exposure to terrorist attacks.

But it may be weeks or months before people feel the full force of the cuts. If the sequester doesn’t turn out to be as much of a burden as the president advertised, that could weaken a White House that has been portraying the Republicans as an unreasonable partner.

The administration at times has issued warnings about the spending cuts that turned out to be overblown. In a news conference last week, President Barack Obama spoke of janitors and other workers on Capitol Hill getting “a pay cut” because of the sequester. But a Capitol supervisor later told employees their pay and benefits wouldn’t be reduced by the cuts.

On Sunday, during an interview on ABC, White House economics adviser Gene Sperling noted that the Capitol janitors “will not get as much overtime,” adding that “the real issue is that this is, as the president said, a slow grind.”

Still, some outside observers warned the White House may have hurt itself just as it tries to advance other policy goals and as the next budget deadline—the need to pass a bill extending routine government funding—looms at the end of this month.

“You can only cry wolf once—maybe twice. They are stuck now with over-inflating the effects and now they have a significant credibility problem,” said Lanny Davis, an attorney who specializes in crisis management and a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton.

Gee, maybe the cuts weren’t so stupid after all.

Comment by The Dana who reads The Wall Street Journal (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:11 am
The Dana who knows how the Dems are – to them, any cuts or reductions in the rate of growth, to anything other than defense, are stupid.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:14 am
Our Windy City barrister wrote:

I am looking at my personal sequester. My revenues (income) have nosedived but my non-discretionary spending (medical bills and such) has skyrocketed. What do I do? What about a $10.00 burger at Blackie’s instead of $25.00 lamb chops at Demetri’s? These things are pretty straightforward to everyone whose budgets rely on their own work and not the pockets of the taxpayers.

Why not have that $25.00 lamb chop at Demitri’s, and either put it on your credit card — you can always pay your Visa bill with your MasterCard — or, like Ben Bernanke, simply declare that you have more money in your account than you had before? Such things seem to work fine for the federal government, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t work for you.

Comment by The credit-worthy Dana (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:19 am
From The Wall Street Journal:

The administration at times has issued warnings about the spending cuts that turned out to be overblown. In a news conference last week, President Barack Obama spoke of janitors and other workers on Capitol Hill getting “a pay cut” because of the sequester. But a Capitol supervisor later told employees their pay and benefits wouldn’t be reduced by the cuts.

On Sunday, during an interview on ABC, White House economics adviser Gene Sperling noted that the Capitol janitors “will not get as much overtime,” adding that “the real issue is that this is, as the president said, a slow grind.”

One of us hopes this means that The Speaker of the House has instructed the janitors not to mop the floors in the previous Speaker’s offices.

Comment by The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:25 am
Overblown is an understatement. Arne Duncan lied, claiming teachers were already getting pink slips. Obumbles also claimed teachers will be laid off, though one could reasonably question if local teachers are or should be paid with federal dollars.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:28 am
obama is obnoxious he has a new epa whore today

she hates coal plants and jobs is what the cnn propaganda sluts are saying

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:31 am
131. For stupid spending cuts, Dana? Sure, I give them credit for that. And I give them credit for protecting their wealthy base; to hell with the middle and the poor. Correct, Dana?

Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:48 am

Again, how can you have grown so old and remain so foolish? These cuts will only be “stupid” because that’s what Obama and the Democrats want. The Republicans have already offered to give the President wide discretion over where to make these miniscule cuts to the growth of spending, and the President threatens to veto it and the leader of the Senate Democratic says he won’t take it up.

G.O.P. Drafts Plan to Give Obama Discretion on Cuts

The key paragraph:

But White House budget officials are leery. If Congress grants the White House the authority to protect air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents and national parks, the administration’s carefully devised high-pressure campaign that has been mounting for weeks could deflate. Moreover, the White House would take on the responsibility of deciding which programs to protect and which to expose — and the political consequences that go with that.

You’re even more of a fool than I’ve given you credit for if you don’t think this “carefully devised high-pressure campaign” wasn’t planned from the start.

“Firemen first!” I forget who came up with that 40 years ago to describe the game Obama is playing. “Give me tax increases or I shoot the hostages.” It’s always the essential services the government mafia that is “liberalism” cuts first. Because if they actually cut the billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and stupidity they’d never get the money back.

I learned before I was 21 that when they lay off firemen and policemen it’s to save the jobs of the useless bureaucrats in big leather chairs and large offices. The ones deciding who to layoff. The ones looking out for their own interests.

And why do you think they’ve concentrated power in DC? Why do you think there’s even a Department of Education when outcomes were better before we had it? Precisely to make sure they’d have hostages to shoot. (Well, that and so some assistant to the assistant to the director of misplacing grant applications can make six figures, which is why they need the hostages)Education spending wouldn’t even be an issue had education been left to local and state governments.

They want it to be an issue, so they can play suckers like you, Perry. Unless you were in on it. Unless you were one of the rent-seekers or non-essential government workers riding the gravy train.

I go back and forth between thinking you’re an old fool or you’re just protecting your government-dependent pension.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:38 am
And while the sequester has supposedly slashed Defense spending, the Commander-in-Chief has somehow found the funds for yet another Defense mission. Now, I approve of the mission, but have to ask: if the sequester is just so horrible, so terrible, so catastrophic, where did the President find the money for the African mission?

Comment by The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:39 am
Steve57 – Obama threatened to veto that on Thursday, and gave the Senate Dems the room they needed to vote that down.

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:44 am
Mr 57, that plan was drawn up by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and it was rejected by teh Senate, by a wide margin. Not that passage would have mattered; President Obama promised to veto it if it had been passed.

The President doesn’t want to let this “crisis” go to waste. He may be a lousy President, but he’s a tremendous campaigner, and he’s still in campaign mode, that being all he actually knows. He believes that he can hurt the Republican Party with this, and he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about whether the sequester actually hurts anybody. If it hurts some people — and it will — he believes he can make them all into Democrat voters.

In the meantime, he went out to play golf with Tiger Woods, a trip which cost the government the funds which could have kept 341 (or more) federal employees from being laid off due to the sequester.

Comment by The Dana from Pennsylvania (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:47 am
So Perry’s actually pushin’ eighty ?
Wow.
So he was around when his beloved Big Government Ideas failed the first time ?

That’s what I love about liberals.
No matter how many times something has proven to be a failure—they try, try, again.
Hint: the Wright Brothers eventually got their plane to fly.

Comment by Elephant Stone (9c99a5) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:50 am
Obama will now intentionally work to make the sequester be as disruptive to Americans as possible.

Imagine that. Intentionally harm the American people by his actions.

In a sane country, we’d impeach him for that.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:50 am
The school districts that cry for a tax increase or bond issue because they “can’t make ends meet” always threaten to shut down the football team or the computer lab because it gets attention. If they threatened to shut down the Latin Club or the traveling chess team or lay off the redundant not-needed school administrators no one would pay any attention. This administration’s tired “we’ll all die” crisis strategy of fear mongering is just a larger national farce from the same playbook. Even if they essentially agree with President Obama’s politics most people are wise to the tactic, I think, and are not very concerned with the sequester.

Comment by elissa (60a83b) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:05 am
147. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase, “a distinction without a difference?” If someone has to pay more in taxes because of a change in the law, he’s going to call it a tax hike; he’s not about to console himself that it’s simply a revenue increase.

We know that you’ve bought in — lock, stock and barrel — to the Obama mantra, but most people with common sense see the distinction you have attempted to take as disingenuous, at best.

Comment by The semanticist Dana (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:02 am

As if people aren’t going to alter their behavior to lower their tax liability if Perry calls it a “revenue increase” instead of a tax hike.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:10 am
recall all the stories shortly after the crash were all about how the administration opened up positions to hire more women, which increased {inflated} gov’t. employees to offset the private sector job losses, while they staked the States with Stimulus & Son of Stimulus to keep gov’t. employees employed.

So the stimulus was basically: “We are saving the States, ergo the state workers, to prevent a cascade effect while the private sector sheds jobs. It will be OK when the economy bounces back.” Only problem? The economy did not bounce back – it obviously failed – and now those women are going to be joining the rest of us in the new economic reality, and the administration then laments all the gov’t. job losses, which they *ensured* would occur by over hiring!

Comment by Amy Shulkusky (676892) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:15 am
Thanks JD- it is so hard to find accurate and clear reporting these days, one could almost be tricked into believing anything.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:18 am
JD, Dana, to be honest I didn’t pay attention to the exact timeline. I knew it was a non-starter so there was no point in pretending I cared when it’d be rejected by the Senate Dems.

The point is, If I could see through the “firemen first” game before I was old enough to legally drink, how do you live to be over 70 years old and not figure it out?

Threaten a liberal’s budget increase and they’ll release the criminals from prison and layoff the cops.

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:18 am
The sequestermageddon hit on Friday, but on Sunday, John François Kerry released $250 million in additional aid to Egypt. It’s amazing the things for which we can find money when we don’t have any money.

Comment by The Dana who notices these things (3e4784) — 3/4/2013 @ 10:56 am
Muslim Brotherhood Reaps $250,000,000 Payday!!!!!

Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 10:58 am
Dana #165,

Your comment fits on the crazy coincidence thread, too.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:07 am
Why can’t we just eliminate Egypt, and instead give the $250 million to the meat inspectors and air traffic controllers here in America ?

Comment by Elephant Stone (829813) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:07 am
Yeah, I know. It’s funny how that 2% reduction is exactly what the feds need to keep Border Patrol agents on the job or the Navy afloat.

It isn’t like there are other areas that might be trimmed.

Oh, wait:

BUT THERE’S NOTHING TO CUT: EPA Spending Up 51% Since 2008

In 2008, EPA funding was $7,938,000,000, according to the Final Monthly Treasury Statement for fiscal year 2008. That would be $8,464,894,460 in real 2012 dollars, according to the BLS calculator.

The same Treasury report said EPA funding climbed to $12,796,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. That’s a 51.1 percent funding increase from four years earlier.

EEOC goes to bat for drunken steelworkers; strikes out

We sometimes hear of the savings that could be realized by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” at federal government agencies. But substantial savings might also be achieved if only we could eliminate absurdity.

Consider a lawsuit brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against United States Steel and the United Steelworkers Union under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The suit challenges a practice, approved by the Union, of alcohol testing of probationary employees. EEOC alleged that the practice violated a provision of the ADA that prohibits medical testing that is not “job related and consistent with business necessity.”

The steelworkers work in close proximity to “molten coke” that can reach a temperature of more than 2,000 degrees. Their work environment also includes dangerous heights, massive moving machinery, and superheated gases that are both toxic and combustible. Because of the hazardous conditions, the workers don layers of protective clothing, masks, and other equipment that cover their entire body.

The need for testing to guard against on-the-job intoxication by these steelworkers could hardly be more evident. In legalistic terms, the policy is “job related and justified by business necessity” because it enables the company to detect alcohol impairment on the job, thus promoting safety.

…The Court also took notice of the fact that employers frequently use random drug and alcohol testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions. This includes certain federal employers. Thus, one arm of the federal government was in the absurd position of arguing that a practice used by other governmental arms is unlawful.

…Finally, the Court pointed to the practical difficulties (noted above) of detecting individualized signs of impairment in the setting of a steel plant in which employees wear masks and other heavy equipment. In this context, it’s worth pointing out again that the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation was so poor that, as the Court found, the EEOC didn’t bother to visit the plant in question before it filed suit. Your tax dollars at work — or in this instance, not.

What the hey! Shouldn’t we all be willing to sacrifice air safety, border security, and national security to make sure funding is available to the federal agencies that exist to keep their boot on the neck of business, or crucifixions if you prefer, as well as propping up the Muslim Brotherhood?

Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:31 am
Steve,
==OK- here’s one I could cut with pleasure:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday Mar. 3 rewarded Egypt for President Mohammed Morsi’s pledges of political and economic reforms by releasing $250 million in American aid to support the country’s “future as a democracy.”

How about you, Dad. Your turn.

Comment by elissa — 3/3/2013 @ 5:35 pm==

Funny, not only did Dad not have a witty comeback he seems to have moved on. (You’re welcome).

Comment by elissa (4917c5) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:04 pm
Yesterday, the New York Times had a front page story sayinbg nortgghern Virginia was hardest hit. Today they say the poor.

And Congressman Jerrold Nadler sent this:

Dear Friends,

Ever since President Obama took office in 2009, Republicans in Congress have cynically hoped to blame him for the economic consequences of their own program of cutting taxes for the rich while cutting services and safety nets for the working and middle class. Their latest attempt was to force the so-called “sequester” – a series of deep, arbitrary spending cuts across the board for domestic and defense programs – to take effect on March 1st. This will jeopardize crucial services and programs across almost every aspect of our society, including $27 million in cuts to benefits for 9/11 first responders and victims under the Zadroga Law. [1] These cuts could cost another one million American jobs and throw our economy back into recession. [2]

Effects of the GOP-imposed sequester will be devastating:
•Eliminating support for 1,600 victims of domestic violence in New York
•4,300 New York children will be excluded from critical early childhood education
•100,000 Americans would be forced out of housing and shelter programs
•600,000 mothers and their children would be kicked out of nutrition programs
•Mental health services for 373,000 patients would be threatened
•7,400 fewer patients will have access to lifesaving HIV medications
•10,000 teacher jobs and up to 7,200 special ed positions could be in jeopardy
•Risks public health by threatening to cut 2,100 food inspections
Source: White House report [3]

Democrats in Congress have offered balanced proposals to prevent these catastrophic cuts by reducing spending responsibly while closing tax loopholes available to the wealthiest and large corporations. Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress have been unwilling to compromise, instead offering up the same tired and false choice between cutting essential services and running the United States economy into the ground.

Let me be clear: I will not support any proposal that seeks to reduce our deficit by gutting critical services instead of asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. Likewise, I will not vote for any bill that undermines our rock solid obligation to those who depend on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits.

Instead, I will continue to fight for a balanced solution that protects the middle class and small businesses while encouraging job creation and economic growth. It’s time for Republicans to put aside political brinksmanship and agree to reasonable solutions to our economic problems.

Get Updates in Real Time

Want to check out more of my work fighting for sensible solutions for the middle class? Make sure to follow me on Twitter as well as on Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr where you can see more of my work on these and many other issues.

Sincerely,

(1) McFarland, Art. “Government cuts could affect Zadroga benefits.” ABC 7, New York. February 25, 2013. Available: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9006655

(2) Adler, Loren and Shai Akaba. “The Sequester: What You Need to Know.” Bipartisan Policy Center. February 22, 2013. Available: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/02/sequester-need-to-know

(3) “Impact of March 1st Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: New York”
Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sequester-factsheets/New-York.pdf

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:22 pm
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:38 am

Why do you think there’s even a Department of Education

the Department of Education is just an extra layer of bureacracy. I think it was created so that some people could attend international conferences. (in other countries their education departmenmts are actually in charge of education)

Its creation didn’t add any money. It just took the “E” out of HEW.

Anita Hill was deliberately trying to confuse people and Sen Arlen Spector didn’t really understand. had the Dept of Education been abolished, she would not have lost her job. Somebody wrote that line for her.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:29 pm
I used to be suggested this blog by means of my cousin. I am no longer sure whether or not this put up is written by him as no one else recognise such designated about my problem. You’re wonderful! Thank you!

Comment by Rochii Online (a07985) — 3/8/2013 @ 12:14 pm