Obama’s Sequester
[Guest post by JD]
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
Oh, and those peaceful illegal immigrants that Napolitano started releasing last week? Just the beginning. Which gives lie to the idea that this was done without the knowledge and approval of her and the White House.
—JD
The Left and the MFM are being aggressively dishonest. they are lying to your face.
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/4/2013 @ 10:45 am
If this was a sane country, we’d impeach him for intentional acts to harm the American people.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 10:47 am
Barack Obama, through sequestration, if bringing the ruling philosophy that has made places like Detroit, Chicago, or Oakland complete basket cases.
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don’t Call the Cops
And surprise, suprise.
Crime up in Oakland after police layoffs
Just as intended.
The political will is always there, Mr. Reid. To protect the budget at all costs, and literally shoot the hostages “living like caged animals in their homes” if they don’t pony up with the cash.
Oakland mayor breaks promise to take pay cut
That was Ron Dellums, the mayor who was responsible for laying off 80 cops.
The Democrats are bringing that attitude nationwide. Priorities.
Nancy Pelosi begs us not to ruin her dignity by cutting her paycheck
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:09 am
Just remember, the Democrats will layoff air traffic controllers and ground every USFS firefighting aircraft before cutting any of the perks of their offices.
That’s what Obama’s sequestration is really about. The peasants must be made to go without if they won’t work the fields hard enough to support our aristocracy in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:12 am
The 2717 MRAPs that Home Land “Security” managed to purchase before letting all the felons loose may have a role in all this. That’s about 100 armored personnel carriers for each of our 25 largest cities, with a few hundred left over for Seattle, Portland, Orlando, etc. One wonders where they are going to find the armed and certified personnel that these carriers are supposed to transport, let alone the mechanics, drivers, and assorted support personnel required to keep them running. The size of this fleet is staggeringly large by comparison to any prior measure of civil preparedness. The French Army, for example, has a fleet of about 500 such vehicles, and mighty Denmark a fleet of 350 or so. But these are their armies’ vehicles, not a local security force. What can justify such an acquistion? They have little offensive weaponry, and their main use is to transport squads of troops. Currently, the vehicles already in HSD hands are being used to serve warrants. How many warrants are in Janet’s purse today? And how many is she planning for tomorrow?
Comment by bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:35 am
We need a spending freeze across the board. We should only maintain essential spending. After all, if it’s not essential, why are we spending money on it? Our children are getting further in debt before they are even born…
Comment by Shanna Carson (179f03) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:40 am
It couldn’t have gotten on his desk if the majority of Republicans didn’t support it and vote for it.
Well, Obama thought Republicans would work in good faith to prevent something that bad from happening to the country. I guess that makes him naive.
….thanks to Republican filibustering.
***************
Look, both sides have their hands dirty over this. Both sides got it passed, and both sides (wrongly) assumed that some deal could be worked out to avoid it.
Obama and Democrats wanted to be able to say that they huge cuts were made and entitlements were not touched.
Republicans wanted to be able to say that huge cuts were made without further tax increases.
Now both can say it.
And that’s an honest assessment of what went down. Anything else is B.S.
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:41 am
Kman,
A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you’re not even as good as a stopped clock.
Obama and the Democrats are only interested in cutting defense, so they can spend that money on (cough, cough) “investments !” in education, training, roads, bridges, and universal nursery school !
They don’t want to cut anything else, that’s why cutting 2% from any federal agency is met with apocalyptic screams of, “we’ll have to fire the meat inspectors and the air traffic controllers !”
If an agency cannot find 2% to cut, then that is an implicit admission that there really is no waste or fat in that agency’s budget…and you don’t believe that every federal agency is that efficient and lean, do you ?
Comment by Elephant Stone (829813) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:59 am
I found eight billion, zero out Headstart.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:07 pm
They’re also interested in ending corporate welfare (things like huge subsidies to oil companies, farms).
Why the quotes around “investments”? You don’t think putting money into those things makes for better commerce, a stronger GDP, and a more skilled workforce in the long run (which translates into more tax income in the long run)?
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:26 pm
Completely, utterly wrong.
Democratic pollsters and political strategists Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, who actually care about the country, reveal the truth:
President Obama’s real agenda
It is utterly absurd to believe “both sides…assumed a deal could be worked out.
Obama doesn’t care about the sequester. He wanted a campaign issue to demagogue.
How many times can we listen to the Democrats insist we don’t have a spending problem before we stop with the crazy talk about “both sides” thinking there could be a compromise? The Democrats real goal, and the only goal they ever had, was to have a one party state so there isn’t another side with which they have to compromise.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/19/remarks-president-sequester
The GOP does make those distinctions; that’s why Obama threatened to veto any legislation allowing for those distinctions to be made.
We’ve all broken the code. “Investments” is just the euphemism Obama uses for every single dime of spending in a federal budget he intends to grow astronomically.
And the “compromise” he’s demanding is the GOP give him the tax hikes to “protect” all that spending.
Obama is hell bent on destroying the US.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:30 pm
“Obama vowed it would never happen”
Kman – Obama was for it before he was against it. As JD’s post indicates, he desperately wanted to avoid any more fiscal debates with Congress before the 2012 election. The Sequester was the solution the White House team devised for a spending cut mechanism when the Supercommittee failed to reach agreement on fiscal discipline. Obama has no interest in fiscal discipline, which is why he rejected the conclusions of Simpson-Bowles. Your desperate attempts to spin otherwise convince nobody of anything.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:33 pm
Guest post by JD]
Obama proposed it
I’m not sure. That may have been proposed by Jack Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff. They may have told Obama that the idea came from the Republicans. (I learned one thing new this week – it was taken directkly from Gramm Rudman) That would account for Sperling going ballistic with Woodward over that.
Some words from Jay Carney were played today on the Rush Limbaugh show and Carney use ddthe passive voice.
(after torpedoing an agreement for 800B in revenues, suddenly demanding 50% more)
Maybe Obama didn’t demand any more. Maybe his negotiators offered something without Obama being on board.
It could be that Jack Lew thought he was Aaron the Kohen, brother of Moses. (according to Jewish tradition, he made peace between people by telling one side that this person is ready to reconcile and the other person that the other one is)
Obama signed it into law
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:35 pm
I don’t recall the Senate even acting on any of the House bills until Thursday, and they were voted down, not filibustered.
As far as good faith goes, if you consider his 2 week carnival barker campaign against his own idea negotiating in good faith …
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:36 pm
Obama and Democrats wanted to be able to say that they huge cuts were made and entitlements were not touched.
There are no huge cuts.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:37 pm
“They’re also interested in ending corporate welfare (things like huge subsidies to oil companies, farms).”
Kman – Where is the fairness in that? Why not end corporate welfare to green energy and Hollywood as well?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:38 pm
Obama vowed it would never happen
Oct 22 debate:
First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:38 pm
Scott Johnson at Powerline makes a very astute observation.
Obamaworld full of lies
Obama knew the truth about sequestration had already been reported. He knew he didn’t need to care about the truth, because neither does the press corps.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:40 pm
Kman,
Are you drunk ?
The Democrats LOVE crony capitalism. They’ve actually given tons of money to all these green energy companies—do you actually deny that ?
Obama has had four years to end all these things you allege he does not support.
All those corporate jet “loopholes” that he spews on and on about could have been ended between January 20, 2009 and January 6, 2011.
But he didn’t do it.
General Electric paid zero dollars in corporate income taxes in 2011, and its chair was then appointed to be Obama’s special economic advisor.
By the way, what “subsidies” to oil companies are you talking about ? Please cite these “subsidies” and please cite the specific companies that you allege receive them.
As far as subsidies to farms goes, I’ve never heard the Democrats call for an end to them.
Comment by Elephant Stone (829813) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:41 pm
Sammy, you remind me of the good communists being sent off to the Gulag convinced their beloved leader Stalin didn’t know what was going on.
The answer to sequestration and the trip to the Gulag is the same; he knew.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:42 pm
The corporate jet “loophole” would, in theory, generate 4B over 10 years.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:43 pm
Fun fact; 80% of those “green energy” loans went to Obama contributors.
“Green energy” being in scare quotes because it was always intended as a heist. No energy; just green. Lots of green for Obama’s cronies.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:52 pm
I’m not sure there is corporate welfare to Hollywood, but in any event, there’s a difference between investing a small amount in burgeoning industries, and giving huge amounts of corporate welfare to already-rich and well-established industries.
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:55 pm
He was “for it” only in the sense that it would force both sides to come together and come up with a deficit solution. He wasn’t “for it” in the sense that he wanted it to happen.
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:57 pm
We gave a small amount to green energy?
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:57 pm
If he wasn’t for it, why did he threaten to veto changes to it?
No.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 12:59 pm
“…One wonders where they are going to find the armed and certified personnel that these carriers are supposed to transport…”
Comment by bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:35 am
They’re being graduated every month or so from the DHS Internal Security Academy.
Obama’s very own SA and Youth Corps.
Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:05 pm
BOTH parties have their favorites. Defense contractors and Big Oil are the faves of Republicans; Green companies are among the faves of Democrats. I don’t deny that; although I think a better case can be made for the government investing in new industries rather than already-rich-and-established ones (assuming, of course, that investments need to be made at all).
You’re right in the sense that they aren’t direct subsidies, like those given to farms. They’re cooked into the tax code in the form of huge tax breaks. Huuuge.
No, not to end them, but many are willing to cut them back or reform them.
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:07 pm
“I’m not sure there is corporate welfare to Hollywood, but in any event, there’s a difference between investing a small amount in burgeoning industries, and giving huge amounts of corporate welfare to already-rich and well-established industries.”
ROFL – the comedy never ends with Kman.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:08 pm
Example of Hollywood tax subsidies … of course, Kman will now recharacterize Hollywood as a “burgeoning industry”.
I’m gonna crack a rib laughing …
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:10 pm
You are delusional. He wanted it to happen. That’s why he never negotiated to avoid it. As Caddell and Schoen point out:
But then he never does meet with the GOP to negotiate. He said following one of the debt ceiling crises he engineered that he didn’t offer to meet with GOP leaders because he wanted to stay home with his daughters because they’re growing up so fast.
But he will spend time away from them to go to fundraisers and campaign rallies.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:11 pm
“I’m not sure there is corporate welfare to Hollywood, but in any event, there’s a difference between investing a small amount in burgeoning industries, and giving huge amounts of corporate welfare to already-rich and well-established industries.”
Kman – Educate yourself on tax break that film makers receive and which Obama just reupped at year end. We have been giving tax breaks for ethanol and wind energy for more than 30 years, another subject on which you should educate yourself.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:12 pm
Oh, I forgot about the Senate Dems finally bringing their plan for deficit reduction to the floor. It increased the deficit by 7B. And 4 Senate Dems voted against it too. This is Kmarts idea of good faith.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:15 pm
The Best Picture, ‘Argo”s production company, received 21 million, just by them selves.
Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:15 pm
“You’re right in the sense that they aren’t direct subsidies, like those given to farms. They’re cooked into the tax code in the form of huge tax breaks. Huuuge.”
Kman – Do you mean like depreciation and depletion allowances similar to what other companies are allowed to deduct? What taxes are oil companies subjected to that other companies are not?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:18 pm
When Exxon sells a gallon of gas, who makes more money? Exxon or the govt?
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:22 pm
Vast numbers of Republicans want to see farm subsidies end including many in the business of agriculture. The Dems need to hang onto them because farm bills are where they bury all the food stamp expenditures and fraud. If the farm subsidies end, there is no need for farm bills, and without the farm bills the whole food stamp mess comes to light.
Comment by elissa (60a83b) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:26 pm
Except their not similar. Some oil and gas companies get to declare better rates of depletion than businesses in the manufacturing fields. Then there are special tax credits designed specifically for the gas and oil indisutry — like the tax credit on drilling costs.
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:30 pm
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 10:47 am
Agree 100%, on several different charges, take our pick.
Comment by bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:35 am
I’ve heard that with the govt. buying up so much ammo that it can be difficult to find many sizes, as well as materials for self-loaders. That true, you shooters?
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:22 pm
A: govt.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:30 pm
Ugh. “They’re” not “their”
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:30 pm
“Except their not similar. Some oil and gas companies get to declare better rates of depletion than businesses in the manufacturing fields. Then there are special tax credits designed specifically for the gas and oil indisutry — like the tax credit on drilling costs.”
Kman – Orly?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:33 pm
October 26, 2012 Washington Post fact check on the origins of the sequester that cites Bob Woodward’s book “The Price of Politics.” :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:33 pm
“BOTH parties have their favorites. Defense contractors and Big Oil are the faves of Republicans”
Kman – So you are suggesting that Democrats do not support national defense?
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:34 pm
Thanks for posting the video. This is the kind of thing that should be run on TV and elsewhere, now, all of the time, and many similar instances.
If only the woman behind him was independently wealthy with a brilliant lawyer as her father, she could have held up a sign:
He’s Lying!!
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:37 pm
Wow. No. That’s like thinking, “John is going to trim his food budget this month. He must be against food.”
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:39 pm
Kmart and them make it out that oil and gas is subsidized more than anyone else. In fact, they are some of, if not the largest taxpayers around. They pay far more in taxes than they make in profit. They like to demagogue. It is what they do.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:42 pm
I guess the fact that Senator Leahy was pushing for the first F35 fighter base to be in Vermont.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:44 pm
Daley – defense is the one area that they would be willing to make immediate and real cuts to.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/4/2013 @ 1:44 pm
“Wow. No. That’s like thinking, “John is going to trim his food budget this month. He must be against food.””
Kman – Or kind of like we’re going to increase taxes on low profit margin oil companies and they’re going to pass the tax increases on to consumers, raising the price of gasoline, which hurts lowest income Americans the most. Obama must be against poor people and gasoline.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/4/2013 @ 2:20 pm
Those tax credits aren’t specifically for the oil and gas industry. Anyone in the mining industry gets almost exactly the same credits.
Only someone who is completely uninformed would compare the tax credits oil and gas industry gets for exploration and drilling to manufacturing.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:14 pm
37. Good point.
40. Seriously, if that’s all you noticed wrong with your scribbling, please do not bother with corrections.
You must have a Shih Tzu to wash or something.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:23 pm
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/mining_industry_overview_november_2006.pdf
Anybody hear anyone whining about the tax breaks “Big Zinc” gets for doing exactly the same thing “Big Oil” gets?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:27 pm
Fun fact: DHS is going to end the fiscal year with a multi-billion dollar surplus:
I have no doubt Obama came up with the idea of sequestration in order to manufacture crises he wouldn’t let go to waste.
But $9 billion is nearly a quarter of the $42 billion in the sequestration cuts that will actually occur in 2013.
The fact the Obama administration would rather release criminal illegal aliens than any surplus cash is proof positive Obama will never reduce spending.
Anyone who thinks Obama ever intended to reach a compromise with the GOP to avoid sequestration is insane.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:55 pm
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 3:55 pm
They have that much left over after buying all of those armored vehicles and billions of rounds of ammo?
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:13 pm
Anyone who thinks Obama ever intended to reach a compromise with the GOP to avoid sequestration is insane.
I figured he was never planning a compromise because defense cuts were a feature,
but I never thought he would try to make it a political victory by posturing against it when the time came. I thought he’d be satisfied with one political victory out of it. Silly me.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:16 pm
53 “The fact the Obama administration would rather release criminal illegal aliens than any surplus cash is proof positive Obama will never reduce spending.”
And with that lets just close the book on the first antiAmerikkkan President.
It doesn’t matter if there’s no titular head, he’s on the other side.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:27 pm
Here’s all you need to know:
Politico: Democrats struggle to find next tax triumph
Democrats catch a buzz off of spending other people’s money.
Hopefully the GOP will show just as much intransigence when it comes to gun control. There, like taxes, the Democrats’ idea of reasonable compromise is just how much of everything they want can they extract now in return for nothing.
Surprisingly, there may be intelligent life in the GOP:
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 4:57 pm
Kman, still think Obama ever intended to work out a compromise?
Roll Call: Obama’s Lost Leverage
Is your idea of a compromise “caving” and “rolling-over?” That’s Obama.
Sequester was never intended to force both sides to negotiate a compromise. It was intended to either give the Democrats a winning issue, or the GOP a losing issue. But one way or another, either through demagoguery or by making the GOP’s base so disgusted they’d stay home, the sequester was always about taking back the house.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:14 pm
“We lost the bet on just how intransigent the Republican majority can be,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO. “We made a mistake betting on reasonable compromise ultimately prevailing. We bet on that and we lost.”
Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that. Is pot legal in Va now too, or what?
The original compromise included cutting spending, the only part to be decided was how to do it more reasonably.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:53 pm
Exactly, MD, the current behavior is merely yet another confirmation that Obama’s word is no good.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:56 pm
kman, are you counting write-offs for business expenses, like exploration costs, leases on federal land, etc.? What subsidies are you referring to?
Comment by Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:00 pm
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 5:56 pm
It is becoming shear lunacy. The idea that the Repubs were “intransigent against compromise” over the piddly sequester cuts is almost clinically delusional.
Is Obama a spending addict or pusher or both? It wasn’t that many years ago he got his 800 billion or so (one time?) “stimulus” package through, then grandfathered it through by depending on continuing resolutions instead of budgets, and now a mere 80 billion kicks them into withdrawal.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:08 pm
There is one thing consistent about Democratic presidents of the last 30 years, if they held any other job in the world they would have been fired.
Clinton would have been fired from any other position for his behavior with a subordinate intern, and Obama would have been fired by any organization that was looking for responsible management.
Really, what company, other than something run by Bill Ayers, would keep Obama as a CEO?
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:13 pm
Not one. Obama would also fail because he never holds up his end of a deal. Never. This is really why he’s gotten almost none of his legislative agendas passed. Obamacare only passed because he had nothing to do with its contents, he just acted as cheerleader – and a pretty bad one at that. Since then, name any of his legislative agenda that has been adopted? Even up to the end of 2010 when he still had Democratic majorities in both Houses. Zipola.
His word is no good and even Democrats know it.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:32 pm
Kman,
You’re a liar—among other things.
“Big Oil” does not receive any subsidies—you lie like a Persian rug. I just
KNEW you couldn’t come up with any examples—you lied about that.
They only receive the same tax incentives than any other corporation/company is entitled to under the law.
If Democrats don’t like those laws, they should do away with them. They had ample opportunity under the first four years of Occidental College’s most famous “C” student.
You also lied when you sanctimoniously asserted that Democrats are trying to cut federal spending, and that they want to eliminate farm subsidies.
What is it with some of you lefties ?
Were you one of those angry teenagers who was raised by a single mom who was one paycheck ahead of the bill collectors, and so now you think for the rest of your life you’re entitled to fleece law-abiding folks, and lie about other people—simply because you grew up with some hardship ?
Abe Lincoln grew up in the woods without indoor plumbing or electricity. His mother died when he was a young boy.
He got over it, and became an exemplary citizen.
So can you. Seriously, bro, becoming an independent person will liberate you. After all, who wants to be dependent upon the government ?
Comment by Elephant Stone (e0dd9c) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:34 pm
Keep in mind the government spends over $11 billion per day. Sequestration only cuts $42 billion out of the spending increase in FY2013.
So taking a “meat cleaver” to the budget in their eyes means making them find savings of less than 4 days worth of spending by the end of September.
And that’s too hard.
But then, the people who think we first need to lay off border patrol agents and release criminal illegal aliens to find savings also thought this was a good idea.
FCC Goes NASCAR Racing to Publicize DTV
Between crap like the above, getting rid of the $25 billion federal program to maintain vacant federal properties (and selling those properties), taking back the billion dollar surpluses agencies like DHS will have by the end of the year, I’d have no problem coming up with savings of less than 4 days worth of spending.
Hey, I’d probably be able to cut 8 days worth of spending out of the budget without laying off a single air traffic controller or border patrol agent.
Oh, by the by, Napolitano is exempting the Preezy’s and Shotgun Joe’s Secret Service detail from any cuts. She says that’s too important. Our border doesn’t need to be defended but the guys who won’t let the states defend the border must be defended at all costs.
Although in Shotgun Joe’s case, the Secret Service may well be protecting us from Vice President shoot through the door.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:47 pm
Also note that if Napolitano has the kind of discretion to determine what will be exempted from across the board spending cuts, that puts a lie to the administration’s story that these cuts are automatic and they can’t control what gets cut.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 6:51 pm
STUPIDITY is
voting for 0bama twice
who are these people!?!?!?!
Comment by Colonel Haiku (c88b8c) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:12 pm
I don’t deny that; although I think a better case can be made for the government investing in new industries
Not when it’s merely crony capitalism (Hi, Barack!), and no better here than it is anywhere else…
Champagne socialism can be so beautiful and compassionate!
Comment by Mark (928c12) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:32 pm
Actually Mark, it would be better phrased that there is never a good case for government to be investing in new industries, and especially when it’s merely crony capitalism.
The idea that government is better at deciding what industries ought to get investment than the market. Any serious look at the history of that conceit shows that innovation occurs despite government, not because of it.
Japan’s MITI for instance is highly regarded by government functionaries and rent-seekers. In fact when you look at look at their history they stood in the way of innovators like Honda and Sony. Those were just silly little toys as far as the Ministry of International Trade and Industry was concerned. They tried to make sure the real innovators didn’t get funding.
They were wrong of course. The Japanese automobile industry is the second largest in the world, and Japan is the largest producer of electronics in the world.
That happened despite the idea that bureaucrats and their fans like Kman believed for no discernible reason whatsoever that government ought to be directing at industries the government believed would be the wave of the future. Those sectors led the Japanese economic boom and are still at the top of the heap because the bureaucrats and Kman were wrong.
But then, being wrong has never stopped bureaucrats or Kman from making the same failed argument. Over and over and over…
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:50 pm
I’m not going to bother adding in the words my optical mouse keeps highlighting and deleting without me noticing anymore unless really necessary. I think my meaning in the above comment is obvious.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 7:54 pm
I think one of the things that liberals such as Kman simply do not grasp is that if there’s an emerging industry on the upswing, then it is not necessary for government to try and “force” people to invest in it since greedy capitalists will instinctively want to infuse their own money into an inherently winning proposition.
After all, if it is actually an industry where money can be made, then the capitalists will run over there to invest in it on their own accord.
But that’s the poker tell about so many of these “green industries” and “green companies,”—none of the capitalists think they can make money in it.
Seriously, Kman, why aren’t you putting your money on the Chicago Cubs or San Diego Padres to win the World Series this year ?
Comment by Elephant Stone (e0dd9c) — 3/4/2013 @ 8:39 pm
kmart, businesses don’t pay taxes. It wouldn’t matter if you levied taxes on a business that is equal to 95% of their profits, they will still not pay one single dime in taxes. Do you know why? It’s because they pass on the taxes to the consumers (us), and we are the ones that actually are hurt by higher tax rates on companies you idjit.
Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:15 pm
Also, these “draconian” cuts that keep getting mentioned are not actually cuts at all. They are only cuts to the amount of increased spending from 2012. The amount of the so-called budget will still increase in 2013 over what was spent in 2012. There are no actual cuts.
Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:21 pm
This comment reminded me of this item that was briefly in the news last month:
Carter: I still don’t have a relationship with Obama
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/4/2013 @ 11:38 pm
I wonder if Obama will be loyal to Napolitano for lying about sequestration on his behalf, or toss her under the bus?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9908416/Airports-contradict-Janet-Napolitanos-sequester-claim.html
You really have to go to the foreign press to get news about this gaggle of malevolent lying clowns.
This will not be reported in the US press. The next time Napolitano comes out and lies about the horrors of sequestration no doubt the Obama administration will first call and threat the PAO as the airports they intend to lie about.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:50 am
The Colonel haikus:
Perry.
Comment by The grateful Dana (3e4784) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:29 am
Kman wrote:
That’s exactly the way it would play out in a Democratic campaign commercial. Paul Ryan wanted to reform Social Security and Medicare, because they are going to go flat, fornicating broke if something isn’t done, it it morphed into throwing grandma off the cliff.
Comment by The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:36 am
You might be a Republican if you politicized Benghazi for months then minimized the sequester that cut $79 million from the Embassy security budget.
The status quo reality the GOP is fightng for
Comment by Dad (b17026) — 3/5/2013 @ 7:10 am
Who politicized Benghazi for months … then minimized the sequester that cut $79 million from the Embassy security budget?
The status quo reality the GOP is fightng for
Comment by Dad (b17026) — 3/5/2013 @ 7:11 am
Dad is just cooypastaing the same drivel as last time. Plus a link to some socio-collectivist jealousy and class warfare.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/5/2013 @ 7:16 am
He’s linking Buzz feed for the stupid,
Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/5/2013 @ 7:20 am
Al Qaeda is on the run and our Ambassador is dead!
Winning!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/5/2013 @ 9:49 am
Dad, you are so incoherent. So you admit that Benghazi was caused by the Obama administration failures ?
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/5/2013 @ 9:52 am
“Dad” – Sharyl Atkisson had a few questions about Benghazi that have never been answered. Do you think you could help answer them?
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
I’m a big fan of FOI (Freedom of Info) but the Administrations I’ve covered (both Dem & Repub) seem to have made an art form out of ignoring
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Let’s be real: if enough people in the public, media and Congress don’t ask, then any Administration has the option to not answer.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
So far, not one piece of paper generated by these public agencies on Benghazi nite is deemed a document the public is entitled to see.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
We’ve asked the NSA, State Dept, Defense Intelligence Agency, CIA
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
No agency has provided documents responsive to our Freedom of Info (FOI) requests on Benghazi.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
\At a press conference 11/14/12, President Obama stated that his Admin. has provided all info regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Admin. hasn’t provided accounting of Benghazi survivors or the transcripts of their interviews done shortly after the attacks.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Admin. still hasn’t provided Benghazi surveillance video originally promised for public release around last Thanksgiving
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: White House still will not respond to our request for any White House photos taken Benghazi nite.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Officials have said Pres. Obama was very much kept informed of what was happening.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Def Secy Panetta testified Pres. Obama didn’t speak with him either throughout the attacks.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
After the initial briefing on LIbya and other matters at the very outset, Chmn of Jt Chiefs said Pres. Obama didn’t communicate with him and
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Secy Clinton testified Pres. Obama didn’t speak to her that night or throughout the attacks.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
PARTIAL ANSWER: We requested timeline of Pres. Obama’s actions and decision making on Benghazi night.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
If true, what is the Administration’s view regarding other videos or future material that it may wish were not published, but are legal?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Is this accurate? If so, what was Mrs. Clinton’s understanding at the time of what would be the grounds for arrest?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: A Benghazi victim’s family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video,
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
..major US naval base very close to libya
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
…he said he wasn’t sure how long the higher alert status could be maintained. He didn’t address the alleged lack of certain aircraft at
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Chmn of Jt Chiefs Dempsey testified that troops in the region were put on higher alert status after the 9/11/12 attacks..
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
ANSWERED: and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
…on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: And What was the earliest that any White House official was aware? Please provide details
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
However, Chmn of Jnt Chiefs Dempsey & Def Secy Panetta testified they knew of the security requests, but State didn’t ask for their aid.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
Secy Clinton said she was unaware of Stevens’ security concerns/requests & that Undersecy Kennedy was highest official below her who knew.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
ANSWERED AT CONG. HEARINGS: Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: …. if so, why was the protocol not followed?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain..
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
…including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
UNANSWERED: What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death…
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
This is to the best of my knowledge. Since answers weren’t provided to me, I’ve tried to find them in hearings, etc.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
So let’s go through the answered and as-yet-unanswered.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
…some of the questions were asked by Congress, and some of them were answered.
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
I tweeted out the outstanding questions a month ago. Since then, while the Admin. hasn’t provided CBS additional info…
Expand
Feb 28 Sharyl Attkisson @SharylAttkisson
As promised, I will give an update on the Benghazi info CBS asked the Admin. to provide last Oct.
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/5/2013 @ 9:53 am
Here Dad, I found most of the $79 million for embassy security … Janet Napolitano is blowing it on snazzy new uniforms for her Gestapo.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/5/2013 @ 10:02 am
“Dad,” I see, is using his same tired, old, already refuted lies.
Charlene Lamb, the DoS official responsible for handling these types of requests has already testified under oath that money had no bearing on her decision to deny Amb. Stevens requests for more security.
The DoS took over full responsibility for security for Benghazi in July 2012 from DoD, when had they relied on AFRICOM the expenses for security would have come from the DoD’s budget. Not DoS’s
Same goes for the DoS’s refusal to allow Site Security Team to extend past it’s scheduled August Departure date.
And “Dad” still can’t explain how extra money would have helped when Hillary! sez she was completely un****ing aware there were even security concerns at Benghazi.
And everyone else at State who was telling Amb. Stevens to shut up and go away was completely satisfied with the security they were providing him.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/09/197729.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513819/face-the-nation-transcripts-september-16-2012-libyan-pres-magariaf-amb-rice-and-sen-mccain/
And ultimately the most boneheaded part about “Dad’s” lie is it still puts the onus on Hillary!
Because it’s completely irresponsible to put diplomatic personnel in a dangerous position and then blame Congress for not providing you with the cash to protect them.
You know what you do if you don’t have the money to adequately secure a site where your people are in danger? I mean, if you’re not a complete idiot like Hillary!, and “Dad” as well otherwise he’d see this weakness of his transparent lie.
You shut it down like the Brits did after they came under attack.
If you don’t leave the targets there, bonehead “Dad,” you don’t have to worry about where you’re going to get the funding to provide them with adequate security.
But of course all the foregoing shows funding wasn’t even a concern until Hillary! and President Prom Queen had to find some way to divert attention from their own stupid, incompetent, uninformed decisions after the predictable catastrophe resulted.
Again, “Dad,” I have to ask the same question I asked on the SEQUESTER-MAGEDDON comment thread.
Why do you persist in repeating the same discredited lie time after time, liar?
Especially when it just a basic examination exposes you as a complete moron without even the basic understanding situation to come up with a better lie?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:20 am
Steve57, don’t forget that Rice was lying when she said that two of the four who died were providing security. Recall that the administration was lying about those two, who were really part of a CIA covert team involved in weapons trafficking (either trying to pick up MANPADS or some other weapons related work).
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:25 am
I keep putting “Dad” in scare quotes because there’s no way I can believe such a childish individual is a father.
He’s got to be at most some college student who imagines he’s “owning” us in some sort of “who’s your daddy” kind of way. Without realizing what a fool he is.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:26 am
SPQR, I’m not forgetting that. This administration came up with lie after lie to explain their failures.
I was just addressing the “GOP caused Benghazi by cutting the budget” lie.
I can’t address all the lies at one time, can I? I’d be here all afternoon.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:28 am
SPQR wrote:
Hey, if you’re going to get felt up at the airport, you at least want the agent to look good!
Comment by The Dana not so sure he'll enjoy it (3e4784) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:41 am
If a man is going to get . . . frisked . . . at the airport, can he tell TSA that he’s homosexual and then get a female agent to do the . . . exam . . . so that he won’t get overexcited?
Comment by The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:43 am
Although that does bring up two other lies.
1. First, Rice and others kept claiming the details of her talking points were based upon the “best available intel.”
That was a lie because it wasn’t an intelligence issue. It was an operational matter. In the Navy if there’s a terrorist attack on a USN facility you send out an OPREP. As in “Operational Report.” The CIA doesn’t need to deploy intel assets do discover what it’s contractors or field agents are doing; those are CIA operations.
The reports the Diplomatic Security Command Center was receiving from the DS agent manning the Tactical Operations Center in Benghazi was the equivalent of a Troops in Contact report. In other words an operational report from the US forces engaged.
The fact the Obama administration seized upon the “best available intel” story meant from the start they intended to lie and cover up from the start.
Obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience. But not to know-nothing liars like “Dad.”
2. Second, they kept claiming they had to wait for the results of a months-long FBI investigation.
The only reason to have a months long FBI investigation is to bury the facts. Reagan went on TV three days after the Marine barracks in Lebanon was bombed to explain what happened.
That’s what you can do. Unless you have something to hide like the “most transparent administration in history” always does.
And the idea that you can’t talk about a matter under investigation is a transparent lie as well. You can’t talk about facts uncovered by the investigation, but you most certainly can talk about what’s in the public domain.
And the events that night unfolding on the streets of Benghazi in full view of God and everybody was most certainly in the public domain.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:48 am
I hear DHS has put out an RFP worth $200 million for cologne, another for $50 million for candles, and another worth $75 million for Barry White CDs.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:53 am
oof, come on now they’re just doing what they are told….
The gestapo rounded up people and killed them – horribly
The security regualtions are there our govt at anytime and the voters can change them
every two years
Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:54 am
The security regualtions are there our govt at anytime and the voters can change them
every two years
How does that address them spending $50,000,000 on the eve of the sequester, over $1000 per agent, on new uniforms? Especially when they are releasing thousands of illegal aliens.
Comment by JD (4f721c) — 3/5/2013 @ 11:58 am
Regarding my comment #93. The vital questions are who, what, when, where, and why.
Who and why are intel issues.
What, when, and where you get from the troops. That’s an operational issue.
I mean, had DoD provided air support would they have waited for intel to confirm the “where;” the coordinates of the target? Or simply taken the operators word on site for where the bombs needed to go?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:01 pm
$1000 per TSA goon, I figured there had to be Sam Browne belts and leather trench coats.
Comment by SPQR (1c67c7) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:01 pm
JD
Im not defending it – I think they should just wear khakis and have those incipid knit shirts like they wear at best buy. I’m just against calling them gestapo
There are also 16 count em 16 15 story buildings at greenspoint that an overflow operation of the IRS used to inhabit in Houston that they pay millions of dollars each month in RENT! because they signed a 20 year lease.
Buildings are empty, rotting.
I wonder how much rent the government is paying for empty buildings – I bet you its in the billions.
Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:15 pm
JD, I believe this email addresses that question:
Griffin: Email Shows Obama Administration’s Pain-Inflicting Plan
The administration has directed the various executive branch departments to spend their money on stupid stuff and cut only the important stuff.
Obviously if DHS has already spent tens of millions of dollars on uniforms before sequestration takes effect, that money can no longer be effected by the automatic budget cuts.
Or so they think.
The federal government has unique powers to cancel contracts.
48 CFR 52.249-2 – Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price).
Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR) has made this clause mandatory since 1967. It has to be in the contract.
Obviously whatever contract DHS signed in February hasn’t been fulfilled.
They need to haul Idjit Napolitano to ask why furloughing employees at airports took precedence over cancelling this contract. Why does she not think spending $50 million on uniforms was in the interest of the government. Or did her department violate FAR and fail to include the T for C clause?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:17 pm
If the TSA does not like being called Gestapo, they van kiss my ass. EPWJ has a standing invitation likewise.
Comment by SPQR (1c67c7) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:20 pm
SPQR
thats unfortunate that you feel that way, many are vets who served honorably, they have the crappy job that everyone hates – they have to do their job.
Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/5/2013 @ 12:26 pm
hugo chavez assumes room temperature
Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/5/2013 @ 2:58 pm
Here’s how stupid “Dad” is, the very day he thinks Benghazi is a talking point to attack Republicans with, Secretary of State Lurch can’t answer the question of why State is hiding the survivors from interviews.
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/5/2013 @ 3:46 pm
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/5/2013 @ 3:46 pm
Secretary of State Lurch can’t answer the question of why State is hiding the survivors from interviews.
It wasn’t his decision – why should he know?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:39 pm
Bulletin from the TSA: Knives are now OK aboard airplanes, at least some of them. No word about scissors. But little bottles of liquid are not OK, since they may really be explosives.
And they got rid of the body scanners, I understand..
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:41 pm
More “consequences” of the sequester:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/05/military_spouse_in_need_of_medical_care_suspects_sequester_foul_play
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:42 pm
It wasn’t his decision – why should he know?
Really?!?!?!?!?!!?!!
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/5/2013 @ 4:47 pm
Sammy, are you trying to make sense or not?
Comment by SPQR (1c67c7) — 3/5/2013 @ 5:17 pm
Oh, great. After four years of cabinet secretaries claiming not to have a clue what’s up with what in their departments Sammy now thinks that’s normal.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 5:37 pm
What is this sequester thing you are speaking of, by the way?
Feds keep hiring with sequesters in place: 400 jobs posted on first day back
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/5/2013 @ 5:59 pm
It turns out that this is really Obama’s sequester in ways we didn’t realize:
The Sequester Revelation Obama has the legal power to avoid spending-cut damage.
So the law was a cut-and-paste job that passed Congress with no one apparently reading it, as is their habit now I guess. Since the Gramm-Rudman rules say that each budget account must be cut equally across the board, Obama can pick and choose what projects, programs, and activities he wants to cut, how much to cut each, and which ones he doesn’t want to cut at all.
And since the definitions of projects, programs and activities has morphed over the years since Congress last defined them 27 years ago, if Obama wanted to he could be very creative interpreting the language if he wished.
The author then goes on to make a very astute observation on that very point.
Since when hasn’t Obama wanted to be creative to give himself as much authority as he wants?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/6/2013 @ 12:37 am