E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Associated Press
By Alan Fram
Failure by Congress' debt-cutting supercommittee to recommend $1.2 trillion in savings by Wednesday is supposed to automatically trigger spending cuts in the same amount to accomplish that job.
But the same legislators who concocted that budgetary booby trap just four months ago could end up spending the 2012 election year and beyond battling over defusing it.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they are writing legislation to prevent what they say would be devastating cuts to the military. House Republicans are exploring a similar move. Democrats maintain they won't let domestic programs be the sole source of savings.
In the face of those efforts, President Barack Obama has told the debt panel's co-chairmen that he "will not accept any measure that attempts to turn off the automatic cut trigger," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week. The leaders of both parties in the House and Senate have expressed similar sentiments — seemingly making any attempt to restore the money futile.
"Yes, I would feel bound by it," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said recently of the automatic cuts. "It was part of the agreement."
But that doesn't mean rank-and-file lawmakers won't try to block the cuts, or that viewpoints might not change if the right deal is offered — especially in the hothouse atmosphere of next year's presidential and congressional campaign or its aftermath.
With nearly $500 billion in defense spending and an equal amount of domestic dollars at stake, plenty of lawmakers are ready to try blocking all or parts of those automatic cuts, if only to win favor from backers of programs whose funds are on the chopping block.
"I have no doubt that there will be efforts to turn it off," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Never underestimate the willingness of politicians to try to avoid making some of the hard choices."
Recommended: Worst Congress Ever?
It's unclear how successful such an effort would be. Not only would an Obama veto be tough to overcome, but pressure from the financial markets on politicians to rein in the government's huge budget shortfalls could keep lawmakers from easing the automatic reductions.
The automatic cuts, enacted in this summer's debt-limit deal between Obama and congressional Republicans, were designed to be so distasteful that they would add pressure on the supercommittee to craft a compromise.
"I would have hoped it would have been a deterrent to those who have taken an oath to Grover Norquist that defense of our country" is less important than tax cuts, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday, in a dig at Republicans who signed a pledge from the conservative activist to not raise taxes.
But with prospects dimming for a bipartisan accord by the supercommittee on a deficit-reduction package by this week's deadline, it appears increasingly likely that members of Congress will have to live with the automatic cuts — or "sequestration" — that they built into the law. Little progress was made over the weekend as Democrats and Republicans traded barbs over which party was responsible for gridlock on the 12-member supercommittee.
And while lawmakers of all stripes agree that automatic, across-the-board cuts are no way to run the federal government, the threat hasn't outweighed the differences between the six Democrats and six Republicans on the deficit panel. Democrats are demanding significant tax increases in exchange for savings from expensive benefit programs, while Republicans are refusing to accept such revenue boosts.
The debt-limit agreement requires automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion if the supercommittee produces nothing or if Congress fails to approve a package of that size by Christmas.
If the debt panel produces less than $1.2 trillion in savings, automatic cuts are activated to make up the difference. So $800 billion in savings from the supercommittee would trigger $400 billion in automatic cuts.
By law, 18 percent of the automatic savings are assumed to come from interest costs the government would save from reducing the debt. If the supercommittee fails completely, out of the $1.2 trillion in automatic savings, $216 billion would be assumed interest savings.
That would leave $984 billion in automatic spending cuts. They are supposed to start in 2013 and be spread evenly over the next nine years, divided equally between defense and domestic programs. That works out to around $55 billion annually each from defense and domestic programs.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for the Pentagon, that would mean a 10 percent cut in its $550 billion budget in 2013 — a huge hit.
"Unless we act today, the dismantling of the greatest armed forces in history could begin tomorrow," Rep. Howard P. McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote supercommittee leaders on Friday in a letter warning them of the consequences of the automatic defense reductions.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said he wants to stick with the automatic cuts but would like to reshape them so they rely less heavily on defense.
Several lawmakers talked of the possibility of easing the impact of the automatic cuts on defense in interviews on Sunday news programs.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the supercommittee, said he hopes the current projected split of half defense, half domestic, for the automatic spending cuts will be changed in the event no deal emerges from his panel.
"But I am committed to insuring that the American people get that deficit reduction that they were promised," he said on Fox News Sunday. "But under the law, Congress will have 13 months to do that I n a smarter, more prudent fashion."
"Maybe sequestration is our only way we will get any kind of cuts," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" he believes the Pentagon cuts would be devastating. "But we do have the opportunity, even if the committee fails, to work around the sequester so that we still have $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years, but it's not done in the very Draconian way that Secretary Panetta is referring to."
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said, "If they're going to try to protect defense, there'll be pushback."
On the domestic side, the law exempts Social Security, Medicaid and many veterans' benefits and low-income programs. It also limits Medicare to a 2 percent reduction.
Still, that leaves education, agriculture and the environment programs exposed to cuts of around 8 percent in 2013, CBO says. For many Democrats, those are cuts worth fighting against, especially if Republicans try protecting defense programs.
The temptation to block the automatic cuts could grow even larger right after the 2012 elections, depending on the results.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire in January 2013. Extending them is a top GOP priority, while Democrats want to let them expire for the highest-earning Americans.
If either party wins White House and congressional control, its members could be ready to reshape both the automatic spending cuts and the tax cuts to their liking.
Leave a Comment:
Silly me - I thought that our elected officials swore an oath to protect the voter's wishes, NOT Grover Norquist's. How can one person control half of Congress? This is plain wrong.
Maybe the Democrats should swear an oath to Bill Maher. How would Republicans feel about that?
This is a very childish way to run congress.
are you seriously suggesting that this is all the republicans fault? the democrats have no responsibility? that is just palin naive of you.
Did anybody reeeeally think that this "Super Commitee" was going to work??? They would have had better results if they called in the "Super Friends." It was obvious that this idea would just kick the can down the road a bit and then there would be fingerpointing at who was to blame for its failure.
James:
Accumulation of the debt is the joint fault of both parties. The Republicans are to blame, though, for the inabilty to raise any additional income to deal with the debt. As Alan Simpson has said about Mr.Norqust and those who support him, anyone that does not put the interests of their country first should not be in Congress.
The reality is that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. The most significant way we can deal with the debt issue is to create jobs and get people working and paying taxes again. This helps in two ways: it increases tax revenue, and lessens the need to spend as much on support for those without jobs. Beyond that, our tax system has become patently unfair since the Reagan years. Those who make the most also benefit the most from our system; they should be paying more taxes. The social contract that had been developed between government and citizens since the early part of the last century has become the target of those who want to squeeze government to the point it cannot do anything but provide a defense. The problem with this is that the states cannot and will not absorb the additional costs of social support if the federal government cannot provide. To understand this philosophy, all you have to do is look at the words of Norquist and those who blindly follow him. Should these people succeed it will be the end of the US as we know it.
More Washington fraud (D & R). They do have term limits; you don't have to vote for them. They should all be locked up.
@Kraig
Lets be serious buddy, the dems have yet to pass a budget for the entire government. Blame rests on both sides of the isle.
The rich also have a valid point, why pay more when washington spends it like a drunken sailor?
Actually brendan, the drunken sailor knows when to stop.
Let the automatic cuts move forward and let the Bush tax cuts expire we we reduce the deficit by 6 trillion.
Sounds good to me.
actually, the real fault is ours, the voters, for continuing to re-elect those that we know are not working for the general public...which is all of them. Consider, the 1% that we all talk about..all of congress falls into that area..if you think for minute they will do anything that might hurt them in any way.. you are sadly mistaken.
Exactly what Mr. Obama wants......any legislation submitted to thwart the automatic deficit reductions.....he will VETO.
It would be extremely interesting to find out what "marching orders" he gave the Democrats on the Super 12 Ring Circus committee prior to his Asian tour.
Sure, create division of the American people towards our "elite" elected representatives, gut the military, and downgrade the dollar again. What a deal.
So what will Mr. Obama get out of this while America gets screwed once again ? Another talking point during his Canadian Bus campaign tours.
So much for Presidential leadership.
This committee is a farce. 1 trillion over 10 years is a 100 billion reduction per year while we are running over trillion dollar deficits per year under this administration.
Yes, Ido, poor Republicans for opening themselves for compromise, for offering sound alternatives to reduce the deficit in a thoughtful manner through which the poor and elderly won't have to bear all the weight of the budget cuts, and for not committing themselves to the will of one man, as opposed to the will of their constituencies...
Oh, wait.
I don't think Mr. Obama (or any reasonably competitive monkey in his position as a president facing an election) really wants these talks to fail so he can solidify his talking points. I think he knows pretty well that the American people are fed up with the way politics is being played and if CONGRESS fails to do its job, HE will also pay the price for it.
And by the way, this is CONGRESS failing to submit a deal to him. This is NOT a matter of presidential leadership. This is a matter of CONGRESSIONAL leadership miserably failing us (and him, in a way). These people, because Grover Norquist ordered so, have refused to listen to anything that might even have the word "compromise" in it, and because of THAT, we're facing huge budget cuts. It's not because Obama told Congress not to compromise on anything.
I know Obama has failed to be a leader many a time this year because of his desire to play politics, but this is not one of those instances. This was the time for Congress to shine, not the president's.
The problem is we are not paying for the government me want. The people want spending on education, on evironmental protection, on clean air, water and safe food, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. The American people WANT these things but there is a growing element on the far right that doesn't want to pay for these things and is trying to convince the rest of us that it's in our best interests to not have these protections. If this new view prevails over the course of this next year and into the next elections, it will be a very different America we will all live in and it won't be better for anyone except those at the very top of the income levels.
laurie,
Icouldn't have said it better myself, great post!
Throw all the bums out. Both parties are ruining this country.
Laurie: Just what kind of "slip" was that... "The problem is we are not paying for the government me want"
Quite frankly, I don't want to pay for the government YOU want (and quite a few other people seem to think they deserve)...
You state that the people want spending on education. Hate to break it to you, but we are already paying for our young peoples' education, and quite frankly, it sucks. Our youth are the best thing we have going for us - and they are an under-educated group overall, when you compare them to other nations...and throwing more money into the pot hasn't shown any improvement.
Social Security? Do you really want me to go there? We have a huge group of people milking this system, simply because they do not want to work. SS was originally created to be an extremely short safety net (that people paid into) and has become a lifelong paycheck that people haven't paid into. Unemployment? You realize that that is an insurance program for people who have been laid off? Again, created as a short-term program... You sound like you are embracing socialist rhetoric and trying to cast the "...growing element on the far right" as demonizing services that we pay for. To pay MORE for those services so that we can maintain uneducated young people, and people who are leeches of our current system is precisely why the 2012 election will be one for that this independent-turned-republican won't be missing.
BTW, I've never heard anyone say they didn't want to pay for clean water or safe food..sounds like leftist dribble to me...
Nikki, # 1.14, I agree totally, BUT, there has to be a nationwide, concerted effort. The problem is that most voters will gladly re-elect their own Rep and Senator, while maintaining that it's all the other Reps and Senators that are the problem. The obstacles to overcome would require a monumental effort that would make the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street together look like a Sunday afternoon picnic.
So first off, you have to find persons to run against the incumbants and then support them to the hilt. It would be great if they represented neither party, but that would be a tough haul. All the nominees (435 Reps and about 33 Senators across the country) would have to believe that there was sufficient backing for each one to win.
There would have to be a strongly organized effort in all 435 districts, with co-ordination at the state level and also at the national level. The first priority should be to defeat all Reps and Senators who sign any pledge other than the support and defense of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Then get them all nominees selected to sign a pledge that their only pledge is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Just Palin naive! LMAO That's a great quote!
Americandude
A drunken sailor stops spending because he ran out of money. Unlike our Gov't a drunken sailor can't borrow or print money.
We need an occupy throw out the republicans, and democrats. Before it's to late. For the last 20 yrs both parties have been screwing us all over, keeping us divided. Look up the definition indivisible.
Nikki, did you see my agreement with you at post # 1.16?
Well, yeah. How else were our cowardly representatives going to achieve anything? Sure isn't by stepping up to the plate.
Greentimer, yes thank you.
Yes, you are silly, they ACTUALLY swore and other to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. There are times that it's not in line with protecting the voter's wishes.
None of them want to admit that we HAVE to cut deep on both sides because there IS NO MORE MONEY. We can't keep spending money that we DON'T HAVE. I don't know how people can't get this. Taxing us even MORE will kill US. Maybe those of you who STILL HAVE JOBS or better yet, jobs that are above minimum wage, don't mind so much. Taking more money FROM the people to give it back to the people is utter nonsense. And grinding more money to the contractors of the WAR FOR PROFIT machine is just as bad. NEITHER PARTY GETS IT, THEY'RE BOTH TO BLAME. CUT IT TO THE QUICK!
You've all seen the picture of two mules tied together betwixt two piles of hay, with each pile being enough for one mule. Each is pulling towards a separate pile and against the other mule, resulting in neither one getting anything. They both refuse to go together to each pile with each mule eating half of each pile.
If one mule (really a Donkey) is willing to go join the other mule (really an elephant) at the elephant's pile of hay (really spending cuts), but the elephant refuses to join the donkey at the donkey's pile (really tax increases), then they still fritter away their life sustaining food.
It takes two to tango
We need to take away their wealth and benifits as they have done to us and then maybe it will sink thru what going on in this country. Oh hell what's the use they have done no work but build thereselves a protection from life in the great USA as it exist now.
Very childish, they would rather keep their promise to one man than serve their country. I don't know how any presidential candidate can get beyond that treasonous act come election time. And for the republicans to try to squirm out of the bargain they just made does not surprise anyone. They have become immoral and unethical.
In fairness, I think many of them truly believe holding the line against tax increases is in the country's best interests. That isn't treasonous, just misguided.
I've spent some time defending both parties (although mostly the GOP) from unreasonable attacks from name-callers in the interests of promoting a balanced view of the issues, but I have to admit, I'm beginning to look down on the Republican side more and more.
What a bunch of lying, conniving, sons of bitches.
Are you ready for the second Obama downgrade?? These Obama downgrades will be remembered as the highlight of the Great Obama Depression.
This will be the true Obama legacy. A legacy of failure that will resonate in the election booths accross the country for many years.
Never again in our lifetimes will Americans be so stupid as to elect a "community organizer" to such a position of responsibility.
No administration in our history has ever had a credit downgrade. Now Obama is working on his second.
Most all of what you say is because of the last republican, Bush.
Put the blame where it belongs. on the idiots in Congress that pass or fail to pass spending bills. Most of us are more aware how government works to blame the executive office for legislative failure. Study up.
Joseph:
The pending downgrade will be because the idiots in CONGRERSS cannot agree on anything. This is not Obama's fault. It is the selfish self-interst of our representatives. They control the purse. They should ALL be replaced in the next election. We need to get people back to work in good paying jobs and this issue would be on the way to solving itself.
Hey, read the Constitution--Congress is the branch that is vested with the financial responsibility; not the Executive branch. The President can only propose budgets. The final determination on spending and revenue is the realm of Congress. Therefore, the blame for the financial problems of this Country, including the depression, is squarely upon Congress, especially those representatives who have sold out to Norquist.
This is Obama's watch. Anything that happens is all Obama's fault.
"The Horrible Obama Years" That will be how he and his ilk are remembered.
Sorry Joseph, if Boehner hadn't walked away from the 4 trillion dollar Obama deal we wouldn't have had the "TEAPARTY DOWNGRADE".
Tsk, Tsk, Joseph...are you saying the sorry excuse for adults that comprise the current Congress are the fault of the President? How about some "personal responsibility" here. A Congress that refuses to fund infrastructure and maintenance on the National Highway System (which includes the out-of-safety-parameters bridges) - which was created in the name of National Security and Interstate Commerce - can't possibly be approved because those who use the system most to bring their employees, consumers, supplies and products to market should get a free pass??
Vote "For" the Super-Committee before they vote "Against" the Super-Committee?
Obama's "watch" consists of watching supposedly intelligent adults behave like a$$e$.
Dear Joseph, the debt was $11.9 Trillion in 2009 when Obama took office. How is that his fault?
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.
In December 2008, the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3 percentage points.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk2/art02.htm
Let me guess, it's Obama's fault.
"Are you ready for the second Obama downgrade?? "
And what happened with the first downgrade --- after all this gloom and doom and being told interest on T-bills would go up -- the rates DECREASED.
President Obama will probably be remembered for making us realize racism was alive and well in 21st century America.
Sheila - I couldn't agree with you more.....this is all about the black man in the White House trying to usurp white privilege. It couldn't be plainer. With all the bad things Bush did and how unpopular he was at the end, you never heard of his wife Laura being booed at any event she attended. This is all about racisim no matter how hard these people protest that it isn't.
Ummmmm........ I know its hard for people who beleive in ....what lives immediately around them i.e. I live in Detroit and many people around me vote democratic, Detroit is and has been a Democratic area. But get outside of Detroit and move west outside of big cities and you get very very republican. I know that the liberals look around and see more liberals in those big cities. But a lot of these republicans were elected by the people of their states to do just that.....not raise taxes. I know every ones screaming Norquist , hell I didn't even know who he was until a few months back, But I know many independents and republicans who voted for people on the No new taxes line. Which is why we have a republican gov and legislature in Michigan. All you have to do is look at where Detroit is now....go look it up. Detroit is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and will soon be assigned a Financial manager, if you have not experienced this then your in for a real treat. The financial manager will void every union contract and force the unions to re Neg. their contracts, and abolish the elected city council. The answer they gave was.......If Mr Obama would just give us 200 mil we would do better next time. I doubt its even being considered.
Shiela and Laurie i call BS Obama is whiter than most white people I know. Open your eyes he isn't and hasn't done anything but prance around on TV telling people what they want to hear. Will give him credit for ousting dictators and terrorists in the Middle East. That and ONLY that will be the man's legacy.
Joey Parent, pretty funny stuff. It looks like most of these people actually believed you. Some of the liberals around here can't take a joke - even when someone says something as unreal as your post. Keep up the good work. Colbert will notice.
Well,
True to form, the libbies here in libbieland have played the Bush card and the race card more than once. When they can't defend their messiah, they always fall back on those two cards.
Some of them are really good at deflection too.
Want to have some real fun and rattle the liberal cage?? Just start talking about Sarah Palin. LOL
McCain, Graham, McConnell all need to go.
Oh like Harry needs to stay .... he looks like hes going to pass away any minute
I'm sure he meant to include Pelosi, Reid, Cantor and Hoyer along with the rest of the pigs that have at least 12 years in Congress.
It is time that Congress realize who they work for--it is not one person (Grover Norquist), rather, it is the entire population. Rather than spin their wheels trying to figure out how to avoid the automatic cuts, perhaps they can spend their time more fruitfully by trying to work out a compromise. It is time that the supposed mainstream GOP stop the nonsense driven by pledges made to one person and work with the Dems to devise a fair compromise which includes cuts and revenue as that is the only way that our Country will get out of this mess. It is too bad that we have to wait another year before these inept Congressmen, from both parties, can be voted out. By the way, I bet that if the automatic cuts affected their salary or benefits, we would have a compromise!
The failure is we don't realize we have run out of options. The best thing the super committee can do is declare the country bankrupt.
Norquist comes across as this is my kingdom, you are my serfs and nothing will get done in this country unless I give it my permission. And we will now change the name to the United States of Grovel. The guy is evil and I can't believe he has duped our elected officials.
They weren't duped. They are ideolgically stupid.
Good one Alan,
It's true. We have finally run out of road to kick the can further down.
Massive deficit spending without a budget to even refer to, is going to cause double-digit inflation which will make all our money worthless.
Then there will be no medicaid, medicare, Social Security, food stamps, etc.
The whole super committee was a red herring. Neither side had any intention of it working out. It was supposed to be used to embarress one side or the other, as people started to fingerpoint and place blame of WHY it didn't work out.
"Oh it's the democrats fault, they weren't meeting halfway."
"Oh it's the republicans fault, they asked for to much."
Yah, next election, I say we vote out EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM OUT OF OFFICE! It's time for a younger generation to take the mantle. Maybe a bunch of college students with HUGE DEBT LOANS to repay? Maybe some people who had their HOMES FORECLOSED on.
Yah. That's what i'm going to do next congressional election. Vote for those that have so little. I'm going to vote for the college student with huge debt loans. I'm going to vote for the people that had their homes foreclosed on. I'm going to vote for someone NOT making millions of dollars in corporate lobbyist money. I'll vote for a member who refuses to even meet or talk to a single lobbyist.
That's whom i'm going to vote for.
Exactly correct. This supercommittee is pure political theater with both parties entrenched. Both the republicans and the democrats know how this will play out, with automatic cuts being triggered by their inaction, so it's all posturing and fingerpointing at this point. Ideologically, I'm pretty conservative on financial matters, but I just can't find one competent candidate in the GOP to vote for. The tea party has sold us out to big business under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
problem with that is those types dont run because they cant afford to
We need to make some changes to eliminate this partisan bickering and get our government moving again. The American Overhaul Act will do just that - check it out! www.american overhaulact.org.
Could we possibly change their name from "super committee" to "lazy SOBs who couldn't accomplish jack sh*t even with directions!"??
They just need to get their heads out of Norquists butt and get to it.
@ Dave
If that was a Board of Directors, they would have been voted off long ago.
What a waste of time... and hope...
Congress couldn't get it done the first time around. Both parties agreed to create an incentive (or safety net) if the Super Committee couldn't get it done. The Super Committee couldn't get it done.
And despite the automatic cuts not kicking in until 2013, we have to listen to the fight continue through the next election cycle.
Is this really a process? With power struggles like this, who needs to worry about foreign threats.
Anyone who even believed that there was going to be any other outcome than failure was living in fantasy land. Until the people in congress are honest about what they are doing our national debt and deficit will come continue to rise. All of these presidential candidates are talking about what they will do is just talk. Congress is the choke point in politics, they are the blockage in the stove pipe and they all need to just go away. They have only their best interest at heart and screw all of america! it is time to get rid of all these scumbags.
""I would have hoped it would have been a deterrent to those who have taken an oath to Grover Norquist that defense of our country" is less important than tax cuts, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday, in a dig at Republicans who signed a pledge from the conservative activist to not raise taxes."
This is really the problem. When members of Congress who were elected to serve their constituents show their allegiance to a non-elected individual instead of to this country, is this not treason? Even members of the Patriotic Millionaires asked this same question. The OWS protestors are also asking the question why our Congress is so strongly controlled by lobbyists? Our constitution ensures life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens not a select few who choose to take away the rights and monies from the majority and to promote their own libertarian ideology where only they benefit. Enough is enough.....
Country should come first!
Make the Supercommitte work. Get rid of the six obstuctionist Democrats and replace them with the bright esteemed Republicans and watch the cuts come out of the woodwork.
the repubes are dumber than rocks, you can put everyone of them in a room together and they could not find their way out with only one way in.
Joseph - All economists agree that you can't cut you way out of this problem. It takes a combination of tax increases and spending cuts so eliminating all Democrats and only having Republicans doesn't solve the problem it only exacerbates its.
Anyone who even believed that there was going to be any other outcome than failure was living in fantasy land. Until the people in congress are honest about what they are doing our national debt and deficit will come continue to rise. All of these presidential candidates are talking about what they will do is just talk. Congress is the choke point in politics, they are the blockage in the stove pipe and they all need to just go away. They have only their best interest at heart and screw all of america! it is time to get rid of all these scumbags.
There should not be any backing out of the sequester. Congress should have to do like the rest of us and take accountability for their actions, or in this case, lack of action. Let the chips fall.
Sheila,
Hopefully, President Obama will "stick to his guns" and veto any attempt to back out of the cuts, if in fact the committee cannot come to an agreement, which at this point seems pretty unlikely.
Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Nobody in Washington could care less about the USA. All they worry about is themselves and their next campaign. obama has done a good job teaching people how to point fingers and spread blame! I have to give him credit for that! If we had a leader who would present his own budget (haven't seen on in 935 days) this committee would never have been needed..
The republicans didn't put forth one serious proposal; Their revenue increases were always more than off set by their demand for lowering taxes, in other areas. I hope it is not lost on anyone that the major debt reduction ideas came from the Democrat side. Democrats had a proposal, on the table to reduce the deficit by 3 trillion dollars, and the republicans wouldn't even consider it because of it's increases, in revenue. REPUBLICANS ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING THE DEFICIT!!!!!!
It depends on how one views the basic problem. If the real problem is excessive and wasteful spending, then it makes more sense to cut out that unnecessary spending rather than to throw good money after bad. If the real problem is insifficient money to run a responsible government, then increase taxes. The thought of paying more taxes and printing more money to endorse and pay for wasteful and unnecessary spending is not a responsible solution, nor is it facing the real problem. One could easily argue thet DEMOCRATES ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING THE DEFICIT!!!!
Good post Richard.
The Democrats have been attempting to use the costs savings of getting out of Iraq as cutting debt when in reality those costs were planned to be cut years ago. That is a political game.
Everyone knows there is waste in government spending. Cut the wasteful spending before any tax increases otherwise what happened under Reagan will happen again. The promised spending cuts vanished after the taxes were increased.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
This entire predicument is just childish and stupid, driven by selfish interests on both sides of the isle. One thing we all need to do is to stop contributing money to both parties and take away their exceptional benefit packages and perks forcing them to budget as everyone else. It's no wonder they can't cope with reality. Terms should be limited for all elected officials at every level including the Supreme Court. This government has become shamefully disfunctional. We should keep the Constitution, prosecute those who have violated it, eliminate the Electorial College, get rid of all the "Czars" and start over by being more responsible with our votes to elect only people who possess integrity, exceptional character, and uniquely American priorities.
U.S. Representative (now Senator) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told The New Yorker:
what would you expect to come out of a republicans mouth?
Sheila - Exactly where is the statement that you take issue with? I thought it was pretty objective.
@ Leona
Nice thoeretically rhetoric. The reality is that our democracy is jeopardized when leaders can use the citizenry's money to solicit votes. A sublte difference...
DeMint is a Supply Sider. Everything is going to plan. The wealth is concentrating and the Public is being starved of its own resources.
DeMint uses the tax code as a whipping boy. Everything he does, everything he says, is for distraction. Supply Side Economics is the culprit here. SSE is doing what it was designed to achieve.
Sheila, your such a racist...
President Obama submitted the 2012 budget in February 14, 2011. the 2011 budget on February 1, 2010 and the 2010 budget in February of 2009.
The last time Congress PASSED a budget was April 29, 2009. All spending legislation must originate in the Republican-controlled House.
Re-Elect Obama 2012
And why didn't the Democrat Controlled Congress(House and Senate) pass Obama's proposed Budgets in 2011,2010 and 2009??? BTW the Republican House passed a Budget for 2012 this year. It got more votes then Obama's proposed Budget.
Why is anybody surprised by this state of affairs? They are politicians, not statesmen. We are being badly served by people we elected to serve our collective interests...instead, they will watch Rome burn and claim there was nothing they could do about it. We will pay a terrible price over time for their failure....already some of them are talking about preventing the automatic reductions from happening in Jan 2013....and that is probably wise to some extent. But, our debt is increasing at more than $1 trillion per year, and at some point the USA will, in fact, be broke. None of what Congress is doing actually addresses that fact. Raising taxes on high income earners will be required so Repubs should show some courage and just get on with it. But, Dems need to acknowledge that new taxes will not solve the rising debt problem. We have to reduce spending and the Dems should show some courage and get on with it. And most of all, seniors need to realize that programs they benefit from most (Medicare, Social Security) are not sustainable and quit whining about how they "earned" all these benefits....the truth is these benefits were voted into law by the seniors themselves years ago (before they were seniors) specifically to benefit them later (not in any self-serving way, but years ago many elderly people in our country lived in poverty and politicians at that time took action to change it)....but to claim this is an "earned" benefit is ludicrous, it's simply a theft from our grandchildren to the extent we refuse to pay for it. It didn't start out as a free lunch for the elderly, but that is what it has become.
Social Security is sustainable till 2079 with very minor reforms. There is no urgent need to make drastic cuts to the program at all.
Re-Elect Obama- Would you please give the source for this information?
@ Re-Elect
Is that something you heard? Or was there a report of that fact?
I find that a bit hard to believe as the past surplus of S.S. was borrowed and spent; meaning that all future obligations will have to be met with revenue.
Google people, google.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/simple-steps-to-fix-social-security/
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2010/05/18/12-ways-to-fix-social-security
http://zfacts.com/p/487.html
There is a lot more information out there..
@ Re-Elect
What you are saying is exactly how we get into the situation we are in. The need was urgent, is urgent, and is being kicked down the road... again.
As for your references; those articles don't address the fake that the "surplus" doesn't actually exist.
It's not urgent. Without legislative action the fund goes broke in 2036. That's a lot of time to make minor, effective changes.
As far as the social security surpluses go...
"Look at it this way. You know you will have to retire. So you pay off your mortgage before you retire. Yes, you still have to find money to live on. But you don't have to spend the same money on housing. Some of the money that you're not spending on housing is available for other living expenses. It's the same thing with Social Security. Money that is not being paid to other bondholders is available for benefits. Perhaps you would have been better off investing in the market and not paying off your mortgage. Perhaps the earnings from your stocks would be more than your mortgage payments. But nobody would say that paying off your mortgage has no economic benefits."
Joseph White, Case Western Reserve University
Source? Please backup your idiotic comments with some facts. Oh, that's right, there are no facts to support your post because your post is FALSE!
Sigh, why is it that conservatives never do their own research? There's a ton of information out there if you research the issue on your own instead of regurgitating right-wing nut ditto-speak.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/161279-social-security-here-s-how-to-extend-the-fund-s-life
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange/2010/08/03/Capital-Exchange-Social-Security.aspx#page1
http://policy.case.edu/white.html
Re-Elect
Did you not read this from your first link??
Social Security is expected to pay out more in benefits in 2010 than it takes in in payroll taxes, an event that wasn’t expected until 2016.
Now how is SS going to be solvent into 2036 if they PAY OUT MORE THEN IT TAKES IN???? Especially when Obama an wants to CUT it's income.