E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 2:42 p.m. ET: In the Budget Control Act of 2011, President Barack Obama and Congress created a fail-safe device intended to spur agreement on a “grand bargain” of spending reductions and tax increases. The law, enacted as part of an escape from a potential debt limit crisis, created the famous “super committee” of 12 members of Congress which was assigned the job of devising entitlement and tax reforms which would reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion over ten years.
But the law included a default option: if the committee failed in its mission, then automatic spending cuts, called “the sequester,” would begin.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports on President Barack Obama's budget plan.
Neither Obama nor most congressional Republicans were happy with the prospect of automatic spending cuts, but once the president put his signature on the bill, those cuts were built into the law. Congress, of course, was free at any point to enact a new law to undo the cuts, but so far it hasn’t done so. Now that the cuts are less than a month from beginning, Obama is again warning of their effects.
Related: Budget battle resumes
In his statement Tuesday he called them “massive automatic cuts” and “deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy and national security” which he said “will cost us jobs, and it will slow down our recovery.” A few minutes later for emphasis he repeated the phrase “indiscriminate cuts.”
On Saturday Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Cater, in a speech at an international security conference in Munich, called the imminent cuts “huge and reckless” and said they would cause “devastating damage to the military.”
Nowhere in Obama’s statement Tuesday did he mention the exact dollar amount or percentage amount of the cuts that are slated to begin on March 1.
So how big are they? And are they “indiscriminate?"
The Daily Rundown’s Chuck Todd sits down with eight top men and women from the Obama and Romney campaigns to discuss strategy, Super PAC and their “Oh S” moment.
To answer the second question first: in one sense, the cuts are not indiscriminate.
The Budget Control Act does in fact discriminate between entitlement programs, such as Social Security, in which benefit payments are automatically made to those people eligible for them, and what are called discretionary programs, such as the spending on the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the National Park Service, which receive annual appropriations that can go up or down each year depending on the decisions of Congress.
For the most part, the cuts in the BCA exempt the entitlement programs: Grandma’s Social Security check is exempt, as is Uncle Pete’s veterans benefits check, but spending on NIH cancer research and on Zion National Park in Utah, for instance, is not.
As the Bipartisan Policy Center explained in a report last year, “The specified exemptions include Social Security, federal (including military) retirement programs, veterans benefits, Medicaid, and a host of other programs (mostly those benefitting individuals with low incomes). Furthermore, while Medicare would be subject to the sequester in the form of provider payment cuts, those cuts could not exceed two percent.”
But in another sense the cuts are indiscriminate in that they do not eliminate specific redundant or inefficient programs. The cuts are across-the-board to every federal department.
Recommended: GOP embraces cosmetic makeover, tweaking tone not principles
Alex Wong / Getty Images
President Barack Obama makes a statement during a press conference at the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House February 5, 2013 in Washington, DC.
How big will the cuts be in the current fiscal year?
Keep in mind that the current fiscal year, FY2013, began on Oct. 1 so Obama administration officials will have to implement 12 months’ worth of cuts in only seven months.
The Congressional Budget Office said in its annual budget forecast Tuesday that the automatic cuts will reduce spending by $85 billion in FY2013.
Even with the cuts taking effect, total federal spending will still be more than $3.5 trillion, a higher total than in FY2012. At 22.2 percent of gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, federal spending is high by the standards of the past 50 years. The 50-year spending average is 21 percent of GDP.
At the end of the Clinton presidency, a time which many people see as one of prosperity and when in fact there was a budget surplus, federal outlays amounted to only 18.2 percent of GDP. That’s partly because the economy was thriving, so the federal share of it was smaller than it would have been otherwise. When the economy is sluggish as it is today, federal spending – much of it automatic cash transfers in the form of entitlement spending – is relatively larger than it would be if the economy were flourishing.
The automatic cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act will reduce defense spending (other than spending for military personnel) by about 8 percent and non-defense discretionary spending by between 5 percent and 6 percent in FY2013, the CBO said Tuesday.
Members of Congress in both parties – especially those with military bases in their states or districts – have voiced alarm about the effect of the defense cuts. At last week’s confirmation hearing for Obama’s defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C. told Hagel, “Stopping sequestration from occurring is very important to me. North Carolina -- we have seven military institutions -- installations, and we have over a hundred thousand active-duty service members in my state.”
The BCA cuts, she said, “are going to harm our national security, will impair our readiness, will defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops safe and delay important investments in research and procurement as well as stunt our economic recovery at this time.”
Hagan was one of 74 senators voting for the BCA in 2011.
At a press conference at the Capitol Wednesday at which Republican members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees offered a proposal to avert spending cuts by means of cuts in federal civilian employee head count, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. said, “We have our fingerprints as Republicans on this proposal, on this sequestration idea. It was the president’s idea, according to Bob Woodward’s book, but we as the Republican Party agreed to it. We got into this mess together and we’re going to have to get out together….. To the president: we bear responsibility as Republicans for allowing this to happen. Lead us to a better solution.”
Graham was one of the 26 senators who voted against the BCA in 2011.
Leave a Comment:
Far from devastating, it sounds like these cuts are too little, too late. $85B out of a budget of $3.5T in 2013? That's nothing, and still Congress can't even manage to cut that paltry amount. They will spend us into oblivion because they're afraid of all the lobby groups that will come after them at election time. Our leaders are cowards.
You fail to mention we need a balanced approach to our debt and deficit, which is truly a focus group tested line that Obama has used to death. But so far that is all Obama has ever done is talk about the need for a balanced approach, where is the actual plan in writing for everyone to see? Where is the plan from the Senate Democrats? Lets face it, even sequester is paltry, and yet to listen to Obama those cuts will bring down the economy. Someone should point out to Obama that last quarter the economy had negative growth, so it is already down. Our rampant out of control spending has gas, food, and just about everything else facing massive inflation as the dollar tanks on the currency market. But according to Obama it is those paltry sequester cuts that are the real threat. Obama really does think all Americans are stupid.
Even with the cuts taking effect, total federal spending will still be more than $3.5 trillion, a higher total than in FY2012. At 22.2 percent of gross domestic product in the current fiscal year, federal spending is high by the standards of the past 50 years. The 50-year spending average is 21 percent of GDP.
These lines from the article say it all. This country has a spending problem. Notice how federal spending is the hightest its been relative to GDP in the past 50 years. This indicates a spending problem, not a revenue problem since this only focuses on spending.
majority of economists agree that downturn is tied to reductions in the public sector. don't blame the President for doing what you ask for...
Both parties have been playing number games with the low information voters. Cuts in spending are cuts in planned spending increases without the actual real cuts you and I would have to make when we do a household budget.
All of this government spending is what is making the economy stagnate.
Obama needs to go.....
What we need are some charismatic, fiscally conservative political leaders in DC. Unfortunately, I don't see any from either party. I think there are some good rank-n-file members in both parties, but they appear to be a small minority.
Also, DC isn't the only problem - the voters share an equal share of the blame by only electing the politicians that promise to give away everything for free.
Thank you Ron, we have the best congress that money can buy and we elect them. Most of the Red States receive more in federal money than they pay in federal taxes. There is to much welfare for the lazy and for corporations. Take the mortgage deduction away and there is no advantage in loaning money to people that can't pay it back. I like the idea of automatic cuts, it limits the politics. The only way that congress was ever able to agree on base closings was vote all or nothing, trade agreements all of this. You want top see a gutless worthless coward, take a look at your local congress person and if you want to see a lazy immoral person, look in the mirrorr. Immoral, what would you call it, fight 2 wars, charge them so the people fighting them also have to carry the debt. I would say that was immoral. As for the bigots that want to bring up the illegals, look at the last name of most of those killed in those wars. We are soft and that is why we are in the jam we are.
Please recall that any spending cuts by government shrinks the economy. We had a -0.1% GDP last quarter primarily due to low government spending. Just as increasing government spending is a stimulus, decreasing government spending is a supressant.
Cutting government spending does have long term benefits, to be sure. But all of the consequences in the short term are negative. That's why Reagan and Bush II oversaw the most government spending increases since Eisenhower, they both were very short-term oriented. But I am afraid conservatives are completely ignorant of this. They think that cutting spending would help us now. No, it doesn't. It's like reducing your rate of borrowing means you have less money, not more. Cuts hurt.
Keep your hands off of my Social Security, do not cut medicare. I both paid for them, and I earned them. If you want to do something constructive to the budget, raise taxes on those that can afford to pay, and cut the over bloated military budget. We can no longer afford to start wars for no good reason and we can no longer starve the treasury because of irresponsible people that don't want to pay their fair share.
Automatic cuts in our budget should start with tea party, just saying !!!
Johntho is typical (and I don't mean that as an insult at all). Once you get to the point of saying "let's cut this," you hurt real people. Saying "cut entitlements" means smaller checks to Johntho. But on the other hand, cutting the military budget means factory closings and lay-offs, or cancellation of R&D projects that might someday result in goldmines like the PC or internet.
Cuts hurt. Conservatives do not understand that.
Todays conservatives are not conservatives, are either Tea Party bigots/KKK or they are Christian Taliban/zealots. Taking the Iraq war and making it "off budget" and cutting taxes while fighting a war. That is not conservative, that is immoral. Goldwater turned over in his grave. Another group that took over the party are the neo-cons which is just another way of saying men with small penises.
A couple comments... First, I'm ok with a plan that delays spending cuts to areas where the money is currently not being wasted until certain economic milestones are met. However, this should not preclude us from cutting out waste and fraud now.
Second, at some point deficit spending ceases to be a stimulant and starts becoming a drag on the economy. Exactly what that point is is debatable, but the majority of economists I've read say it starts to happen when debt is anywhere from 80 to 100% of GDP. We are currently at or approaching those levels (depending on which measurement technique you use).
As to the rest of your original post...I really don't care what past presidents did (R or D)...what I care about is doing what's best for our country given today's circumstances. I'll agree cutting can have a negative affect in the short term, but it can also have a very positive effect in the long term by preventing the US from becoming the next Greece (which is where I personally think we're heading in the next 10 to 20 years).
This is the non-sequitur like "out of control spending" that gets us into a spiral of non-conversation.
Government cuts are going to hurt. They already hurt. Either you want a thriving economy or you want budget balance. You really can't have both in the short term.
Projections for 2013 show deficit reduction to $875B and 2014 to $460B. That's a huge improvement. What's the complaint?
Ron,
That's not true. The drag is that debt payments and interest rates become a drag, it's not the spending itself.
That is not happening to us, so in the short term anyway, stimulus is the way to get the economy going enough that we no longer need to stimulate.
Cutting now when the economy is just thinking about recovering is a bad idea. Stimulating when the economy is already good (see Reagan 1983 to 1989) only balloons the deficit. Without that unneeded stimulus in the 1980's we would be trillions better shape and able to stimulate without worry now.
PS, we're never turning into Greece. You're not giving us nearly the credit we deserve. This is America. We get through everything and save the world over and over. Have a little more faith. We have demographic (retirement) headwinds right now, but 30 years from now that will be on the wane. We'll do fine. 30 years ago was 1983. I'm a lot better off than I was in 1983. I'm sure lot's of people will be better off in 2043. no need to despair.
DM57 & noncoms,
I am a fiscal conservative and I understand cuts can hurt in the short term. Even if the cut is to end fraudulent programs, they are still likely to result in layoffs for the average worker. But, not getting our deficits under control can also hurt. In my opinion, not getting a handle on the deficits will hurt much more in the long-term.
As to "today's conservatives"...I do not think many people are good at applying the rules they espouse to their personal situations. I know many people that call themselves fiscal conservatives, but they will fight like crazy to stop any cuts to programs they use. I also have plenty of liberal friends, and they usually do the same thing - it's bad to cut down a tree unless it's blocking my view of the water...it's bad to develop land - except to build my beach house, etc.
@SmBusOwnerinNY#1.15: Agree with you except the words "Budget balance". Budget reduction is more appropriate since we've never been able to maintain a "balanced budget" for more than a few minutes. Unlikely to ever do so either. Regards
The only cuts I advocate now are removing fraud and waste. I'm ok with structural changes until certain economic milestones are met.
Are you also against cutting out fraud and waste now? I realize they do have some stimulative affect, but they can also create drag depending on the details.
Government cuts are going to hurt. They already hurt. Either you want a thriving economy or you want budget balance. You really can't have both in the short term.
We don't have a thriving economy and we don't have a balanced budget. Government spending does not create a thriving economy by borrowing money and running up deficits.
I would just add that when we balanced the budget in the 1990s, we did exactly what we have been doing for the past 4 years - holding spending increases to very small values, and letting the economy grow. We never once had a budget that was smaller (in absolute terms) than the previous year. In fact, we took our national debt from 117% of GDP in 1945 to 32% of GDP in 1980 without once balancing the budget or enacting drastic cuts.
I am as fiscally conservative as anyone, and as hateful of waste. But I am a great believer in not fixing something that isn't broke. We have a good trend established of minimal spending increases and moderate GDP growth. Let's stick with it. In 2009, our national debt increased by around 14% of the GDP; this year it will be around 2%. That's a great improvement. In a couple of years, if we do nothing drastic, it will go to a negative number (like we had 1945 to 1980).
What we need is historically-aware common sense. We have great models for getting our debt under control. Let's just do what America did successfully twice before. Am I the only guy who remembers as far back as 2000? The trillion dollar surplus? Zero national debt within our reach? That is achievable by using Clinton's math.
What a mess GWB Jr. got us into, two unfunded wars with tax cuts dump on a incoming President was just Stupid !!!
I was wiping tears from my eyes watching the Republican party stand by letting Jr. bankrupt our nation !!!
ron,
I think actual fraud is teeny. Waste is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think the renewable energy initiatives are waste. I disagree. What are you gonna do to solve disagreements like that?
While I also give Clinton credit for the 90's, I think the Republican congress also deserves half the credit. Basically, for 6 years we had fiscal conservatives in charge both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and we were reaping the post-war boom from the end of the Cold War.
This go around, I don't think we have true fiscal conservatives in charge of either branch of government. Even the Republicans are only for spending cuts to Democratic priorities.
If Obama would propose actual cuts (that will occur - not BS like saying we won't pay doctors rates - then passing a "special funding bill" each year), then I could support him on things like tax rate increases. Instead, all I hear from him is how he will create new spending programs with whatever new revenue he gets (or even if he doesn't get new revenue).
noncoms, right on with 1.21.
We don't really need to do anything but be responsible. Don't create new spending without paying for it, encourage the economy through smart long term policy. Extending the Bush tax cuts in any form permanently was a bad idea. They should have added 5 years or something, and had them phase out slowly so there was no "cliff." Back to Clinton rates in 10 years. THAT would have put us on the path to fiscal sanity for 50 years.
Well seaskip, you should be wiping the tears away with a bath towl during this administration's reign.
How many Dems voted for the war before being aqainst the war? How many $T's has Obama spent with negligable results?
How many $B's are wasted by government in the process of doing business, with little or no accounatability?
Does anyone know just how much waste is caused by government? Our government spends, we pay, and they still require more? Really?
Most of what I would classify as waste is debatable, but there are plenty of things like the 47(?) federal government training programs that duplicate effort and only a few had even high-level audits (and they performed very poorly with those). With any entity the size of the federal government, there are also bound to be a certain % of the budget to be saved by things like consolidation and streamlining processes.
One thing people seem to forget is, Clinton had Gore work with Republicans for years to make the federal government more efficient...and this is the type of action I would like to see Obama take today.
Having worked in business for a few decades, and having done many efficiency studies, I feel safe in saying the federal government could provide the same level of service and benefits it currently does and reduce overall spending by at least 5 to 10%. Every private entity I've worked with had at least this much slack, and I don't think the federal government is any more efficient than large private companies.
I definitely agree with you on this point. I think the tax cuts were probably the worst decision Bush made - even worse than the Iraq war. The Iraq war ended, but the tax cuts are still there and now the middle class feels like we are paying enough in taxes...but we aren't. We need to go back to the Clinton rates for everyone. (and I'm also fine with making Cap Gains rate the same as Ordinary Income rates for everyone).
Here is the reality. The only way we are really going to address the deficit and cut the debt is with a long term deal, and at some point that involves economic pain. However, that pain can be reduced if responsible and long term reforms are put in.
Obama said a lot of the right things on Monday, including a willingness to buck the yellow dog/Moveondotorg wing of his party with common sense reforms such as chained CPI and Medicare reimbursement reforms. Sorry, they are necessary and the people who protest that they "paid into them" generally get far more than they put in. The demographic trends need to be addressed. Entitlement reform is the one thing that Republicans, in the broad sense, get right.
The rest of the Republican vision for fiscal reform, however, is simply economically illiterate lunacy. There is no excuse, none, for preemptively insisting that any tax reforms must be applied to rate reductions, which is precisely what the Norquist pledge and current Republican orthodoxy requires. The thoughtless "it's a spending, not a revenue, problem" meme is based on a reckless self fulfilling prophecy. And the right wingers who prattle on about how the public sector inhibits the private sector simply don't have even the remotest idea what they are talking about. They are like the barber shop owner who proclaims he doesn't get anything for his taxes while cutting the hair of the assistant principal's kids (and the next seat over is occupied by a language arts teacher).
Make the long term deal, and the House Republicans need to pony up on tax reform without the jaw droppingly stupid condition that tax reforms must be applied to rate cuts. And the Moveon and Norquist/tea party crowds simply need to be steamrolled.
Definitely agree with returning to the Clinton rates. Tie it to economic measurements (e.g., unemployment < 6% and maybe a minimum of 2% growth for 2 years).
"These lines from the article say it all. This country has a spending problem. Notice how federal spending is the hightest its been relative to GDP in the past 50 years. This indicates a spending problem, not a revenue problem since this only focuses on spending."
Talk about classic circular reasoning. You do realize that "relative to GDP" is a comparative term, do you not?
Cuts in fraud and in Pentagon spending for things they don't want and don't need. We could cut half the Pentagon budget and still be the strongest country ever on this planet.
Cut in waste and pork will go along way too but the Congress isn't about to cut the pork.
A balanced approach is the proper way to handle the problem. President Obama has said many times that we need both revenue increases and spending cuts to bring down the deficit.
When you spend like drunken sailors and put it on the credit card for someone else to worry about you have no business complaining. That is what we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, as in the past, we raised revenue to pay for the wars, we cut revenue and still spent money on the military-industrial complex. Now the bill is due and, somehow, we have to come up with the money to pay it. We can cut fluff spending, fraud and so on, leaving vital programs and safety nets (paid for by recipients and raided by Congress) off the table. We can raise taxes, tariffs and fees to have the money to, not only make a minimum payment but pay up faster.
The bail out paid off for the auto industry. Most, if not all, of it has been paid back with interest. That is revenue. As more people go back to work they will pay more in taxes and that is revenue. As millionaires and billionaires pay a couple of percent more to compensate for hidden money etc. that is revenue. Tariffs on goods made in China would be a good source of revenue and maybe even force people to abandon the cheap labor of China for workers at home. Jobs in new technology generally pay more and that means more revenue from taxes. All without raising the tax rate on middle class and poor people, those least able to afford it.
The economy is starting to recover. Silicon Valley has nearly fully recovered to the level it was at just before the dot com bubble happened. The auto industry is doing well and housing is up at record levels since more than a decade.
Sensible cuts and sensible revenue increases will offer a balanced approach. Congress should stop being cowards and stand up to the lobbyists for once and do the right thing for the American people.
Congress should approve additional revenue by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions benefiting the wealthy !!!
But I don't see this happening with the Repub Koch Tealiban movement controlling the GOP !!!
seaskip, as usual, a narrow-minded lib view. If our non-leader in chief had curbed his outlandish spending starting in his first year, we could have seen some light at the end of this Chinese tunnel.
You wish to blame the rich for not paying enough taxes, but studies have shown that the entire income structure of the rich could be contributed and there would still be 15 trillion dollars of debt left, and that does not include his one trillion addition each year.
This guy and his low IQ voters have led us down the path of fiscal desperation, and I think you and your ilk probably know it. Blaming the rich just doesn't fly.
@Ron-1861300-SmBusOwnerinNY: Fraud is a miniscule problem. Waste and redundancy are just above miniscule. Basic problem is lack of "Full Employment" at appropriate wages. We either attain this or we continue with larger deficits and accumulative larger debt."Noncoms" above cited a period from 1945 to 1980 where the debt to GDP ratio was 117% in 1945 down to a 32% ratio in 1980 without ever having a balanced budget. This is pretty much correct except for a brief time during Ike's 2ed term, when He in fact, effected a balanced budget through spending cuts that quickly brought about a deepening recession that lasted well into the 2ed year of JFK's term. Additionally, in 1945, the government simply XXXed out that debt, and began with a clean ledger. Full employment at wages appropriate to costs, and yielding some discretionary spending and individual savings, are as vital to the economic health of our system as is the accrual of wealth within the system. One cannot exist, with any degree of long term health without the other. Too many politicians, especially republicans, seem to either not know, or stupidly reject this absolute. Excuse me for butting in. Meant no aggravation. Regards
hjack,
It's impossible to create an ongoing dialouge with a liberal who worships at the alter of Obama. They project the liberal talking points and actually believe their view is the only view.
And if you disagree, especially on MSNBC, you get banned.How else do you account for the vast number of re-regs that the FRH and Sanity complain about?
People, what it comes down to is that in his first term alone, the Bozobama, WITHOUT ever passing a budget, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, has spent us into a larger hole than all presidents before him, COMBINED. We had better reign in this out-of-control socialist idiot, and quick, or we will have no country left. The bozo has to go!
kraussk, under the constitution, it's Congess that passes laws, including the budget. For someone who dosen't know what he's talking about, you're awfully quick to call someone else an idiot.
As Mac said the key is GROWING. We can't tax or cut away our massive debt and deficit. As after WW2 we had a massive manufacturing growth and just grew right past our debt.
We have to give our businesses every advantage to grow. Not sure how all the many new regulations, higher taxes, higher insurance costs in Obamacare, much higher compliance costs, how all that helps a business to grow.
In the 1950's individual and corporate taxes were much higher. The Medicare and Medicaid didn't start until 1965. We also had a booming economy because of years of pent up demand for consumer goods.
BigATC You are comparing apples and oranges.
When you, or your family, makes a big investment one year, say build a pool or buy a car or repair the roof, you cut spending the next year to ensure you can pay for the big investment the year before.
Obama has never had a deficit under 1T dollars. He hasn't passed a budget in 3 years. He hasn't even gotten a democrat to vote for his budget proposals in 3 years.
When Obama took office, he didn't say that Bush exploded the debt and we will never recover, so I'm going to spend like a wino in a liquor store. He said he would cut the deficit in half. He said our debt was irresponsible and he wouldn't pass it down to our children and grandchildren.
This isn't about how we got in this mess. Everyone knows that Bush's wars created 5T in new debt. This isn't an excuse for Obama to create 6T in new debt in 4 years.
And then Obama and Jack Lew concoct sequestration, a concept so outrageous and so ludicrous that congress would be forced to cave into Obama's demands rather than let it come to fruition... and here we are. The GOP caved to Obama's tax hike in January and now they have to decide if they will cave again or put their collective foot down.
Stop talking about reducing the deficit a couple of billion... it does nothing. Even if you cut 250B from the budget, you still add 900B to the debt because the interest on the debt alone is almost 250B.
We need to cut 1.5T from the budget. We need a surplus of 500B PER YEAR for the NEXT 20 YEARS just to cut the debt in half. Liberals are excited when they get the deficit under 1T for the first time... yeah Obama!!!
Unemployment ticked up to 7.9% with just the uncertainty of sequestration. Actual unemployment is near 15% if you count the 3.5 million people that stopped looking for jobs. Actual sequestration, as the article says, will hardly cut the budget at all, but the economic damage and unemployment will be substantial.
Democratic answer... raise taxes! We just did. And with Obama's tax increases for Obamacare, we generated a whopping 100B... and will still have a near 1T deficit.
It's too bad Obama and Jack Lew can only think in terms of politics and not governing.
Taxes are lower than ever, if you are one of the mega rich then your taxes will go up a little but nothing like they were before Bush II. If you check out the economy, before Bush II, you will find with the higher taxes we had the biggest growth in our economy ever and that created a surplus with the budget.
Higher insurance cost was a factor well before Obama, with or without Obama care health insurance premiums were going up 10 to 30% a year before the world knew who Obama was. That is for the fortunate ones that could buy it.
Taxes should go way up! If Congress can justify spending they should justify to America they need to raise taxes to pay for it and not borrow money from China.
Obama is working our way out of the great recession Bush II created and doing well with what he has to work with.
If you want to replicate the Clinton era fine. At least be honest about it. Coupled with the higher tax rates (on the middle class) were deep actual cuts to the budget.
If you want the Clinton tax rates you must also have the Clinton government which was a fraction of the Obama government (I might add that the Republicans in Congress were mostly responsible for that part.)
Congress is the ones who want to cut spending -drastically. It's the White House and the Senate who don't want to cut spending to anything but the Pentagon.
In 1958 the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid just 29.2% of all Federal income taxes. In 2010 the top 3% of taxpayers earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income but paid 51% of all federal income taxes.
If you want to go back to the 50's (a complaint, I might add, that Leftists usually hurl at Republicans) then we should also change the tax rate of the middle class so that they are paying their fair share of the federal taxes.
What a mess !! Obama's 1.3 Trillion budget deficit each year in office. Over 5.2 Trillion in 4 years. Bush did not come close to that in 8 years.
Silly old Obama. If only he had left all of the Bush policies in effect, we wouldn't have a thing to worry about. No money, no credit, no jobs, no housing, no retirement, no health care, no food and no soup lines like they had after the Hoover Depression. Who could afford any of that?
Sequester is a joke. Massive spending cuts another joke. We are talking about 1 trillion over 10 years, and not actual cuts, just a reduction in planned future spending increases. We are talking about 100 billion per year for 10 years, all the while running trillion plus annual deficits, and this lame media outlet calls those massive cuts? This is just another Washington accounting scam, and does little to nothing to actually get this country on the right fiscal track. The federal government is projected to spend 44 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, and when sequester kicks in they will still be spending 43 trillion. Wow, how will our government survive? When the unwritten rule in Washington is that if you don't spend your entire budget you won't get a raise next year, there is certain to be massive waste.
The only bills that have been passed to avoid the sequester are from Republicans, and so far none of those have gotten any support from Obama or the Democrats in the Senate. It is really hard to compromise or negotiate when one side has put it in writing and the other side is only talking. Too bad if the sequester is not palatable to Obama or the Senate Democrats, the wait until the last minute game of kick the can has to stop. Spending cuts are always promised, but they never happen. So this is the time for Republicans to simply say our plan is on the table, where is your plan? This is about spending cuts, and so far the best option for the country is going to come from the sequester. Obama wanted it as part of the bill, he got it, and now he gets to live with it.
The "plan" is too vague to be put into effect. They can say "cut entitlements," but they won't say how much they will cut social security payments or medicare coverage. Put their feet to the fire and they vow to never cut a penny from your social security check, and they attack Obama for cutting $716 billion in medicare costs last year.
Republicans talk spending cuts, but they have yet to actually identify anywhere they are willing to cut, other than PBS, which is nothing.
Republicans plan has been cut into social security and medicare, that's the good old boys budget !!!
I will never vote Republican again as an Independent !!!
Americans see what the GOP are trying to do with their BS budgets, as far as I'm concern their party is finish !!!
The plan is too vague, now that is a good one. Something like ObamaCare? Which is still being written. Hundreds of pages said yet to be determined when it passed. But liberals supported that one no problem, and yet a Republican bill is too vague.
This so called President who is kicking the can down the road has got to stop. Balance the budget once and for all Mr. President. All he wants to do is spend money no one has, asks for more and more, and then goes out and appeals to the public he's doing the wright thing. He is no better than a used junk car salesman.
No Democrat controlled congress has put forth a balanced federal budget in over 40 years. It was a Republican controlled congress that worked with Clinton to balance the budget during part of his term. So don't be fooled, the Democrats don't have a track record of fiscal sanity, they just talk a good game.
" So don't be fooled, the Democrats don't have a track record of fiscal sanity, they just talk a good game."
I think you have your parties reversed. Give us Democratic majorities in House and Senate and the presidency, as in 2009, 2010, 1993 and 1994, and guess what? Stingiest governments since Eisenhower. The Democrats do have a track record of fiscal sanity. You know when government spending increased the most? When we had GOP majorities in House and Senate and a GOP president. You know which presidents increased spending the most? Reagan and Bush II. So enough with the "party of stupid" and the "base of stupidity," vote Democratic. I'd just point out that California, the state that Glen Beck once called "our Greece," got all Dem supermajorities and is now running a surplus.
Democrats don't say the wild unrealistic stuff that Republicans do, but they quietly take care of business and do the right thing.
Quietly do the right thing, you mean like failing to pass a budget for 4 years?
noncom, are you quitely insane? A surplus in California? Can you read? Do you have any abililty to reason without the lib blinders?
And in the meantime, check the IQ reports of the exit pollers, which indicate a 28 point deficit for those who voted for Oblama. (Personally, I thought the number was greater).
So basically Obama is wanting to continue spending money that the government doesn't have. This is a sign of leadership?
It was only a failure of leadership when it was a Republican. There has to come a point when people realize that either Obama simply doesn't care about the debt and deficit, or that he has no clue how to fix it. It would probably surprise people if they did a poll asking Obama supporters if they felt that the recent tax increase would balance the federal budget.
Economy Killer/Rick
Government has experience ZERO GROWTH during the Obama administration. Does that seem to you like something that someone who "doesn't care about the debt and deficit? would do? Do you not understand that large cuts in the federal budget during a recession causes massive unemployment?
The failure of leadership is a description more of John Boehner than Barack Obama. Immediately following the first election of Mr. Obama as President the Republican leadership met and agreed to oppose Obama in order to make him a one term President. They failed in that goal and they also failed in their obligation to put America before politics.
Starting in 2009 and ending with 2012 Obama has increased government spending by 5.2%. Any suggestion that Obama has kept the growth in government to zero is simply not true. There are debates about how much Obama increased government spending, but none that claim it to have been zero. The massive spending by our government is deflating the value of the dollar, and that certainly has a major impact on our economy. Since all Obama has never put forth an actual plan to address the debt and deficit, for which he could have endorsed Simpson Bowles, then yes I say he doesn't care about either. The failure of leadership was what Obama said of Bush when he wanted a debt ceiling increase. Now Obama wants the right to do that on his own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
you know Rick you about as stupid as a box of rocks. Can you say anything other than Republican platitudes. Do you have an operating brain of your own. If not, then please for the sake of us adults, push the barrell to the back of your throat and firmly pull the trigger.
Without getting in trouble DM, I agree with your every word. Rick numbers with his barnyard bovine excrement post has no business in an adult conversation. Improve the world Rick do as DM says.
Rick
The size of the government, measured by the number of employees has not increased during the Obama administration. The size of the deficit has shrunk every year during the Obama administration. Much of the deficit you complain about is caused by the debt run up during the previous administration ..... debt from two wars that were not paid for and a tax decrease that was foolish, given that we still had a sizable debt to pay off when that legislation was passed.
From Rick's link comes these figures of government spending as %GDP
2009: 25.2 percent
2010: 24.1 percent
2011: 24.1 percent
2012: 24.3 percent
2013: 23.3 percent
Not a bad trend. Obama shrank government by nearly 2% of the entire economy. Let's keep going by holding spending nearly constant (hurray for continuing resolutions; we don't need no stinkin' budgets) and growing the economy.
Johntho, Last week you called me a facist and said you would slap me back to reality. So don't try to insinuate that you are part of an adult conversation.
Johnyboy is looking forward to puberty ..... no, he is not an adult and his conversations prove it !
Noncoms, considering that virtually any spending above 19% guarentees deficits that is nothing to get excited about. The closest thing we had to getting a balanced budget in the late 90's we had 19%, or a bit under, in spending as a % of GDP.
Historical average on revenue we get as a percentage of GDP is around 18%. Throw in some of the highest spending/GDP ever under BO from the 23-25% range and that doesn't start to look all that good.
Don, the size of the deficit went down because the bar got lifted so high the first year. A massive 1.5 Trillion deficit. You can't help but go down from there. Thats like spending 500 bucks a month on gas. Then the next month you spend 1,000. Then down 20 bucks the next few months and telling your spouse..."look honey we are saving on gas".
According to Politico and fact check .......from Sep 08 to June 2012 there were 176,000 new Fed. govt jobs added, some of those were part time. You are incorrect on the jobs.
Isn't it curious that these 'budget cuts' are really 'cut in the percentage of increase'?
Only in government can you call that a cut.
True, no actual spending cuts at all. It is amazing that Congress can get away with those sorts of accounting gimmicks, but then again most Americans believe them. What is worse is the even after all of these phantom cuts, reductions in future spending increases, the government still increases spending at rates far in excess of cost of living adjustments. Of course the unwritten rule in government when it comes to any budget, if you don't spend it all you won't get an increase next year. Now there is a system that promotes waste.
Reminds me of an old Indian saying about "daylight savings time" (a little off topic, but does apply...):
"Only the government would cut the end of a blanket off, sew it back onto the top, and then tell you that you now have a longer blanket."
I've heard of "voodoo economics", but "voodoo accounting"??? That's an idea that can only spring from the mind of a entrenched liberal.
@NPCDan#5.3: If you believe what you just said you're within a hairs breadth of being a fool. Voodoo accounting accounts for our voodoo debt.
@Mac, I believe that our government consists of liars and fools.
@NPCDan #5.5: Generally, I have to agree with you there "NPCDan".
Mr O is acting like a spoiled bully. He absolutely will NOT work with anyone that will not kowtow to his way. He "promised" during campaigning that he would work with both sides and the idiots that voted for him believed his BS along with his other "promises". Write your congress person and tell them not to cave to this tyrant!
if President Obama refuses to work with anyone that won't kowtow to him, how do you explain the historically high number of senate filibusters?
Yes. Yes, Americans are that gluttonous, stupid, short sighted, and pathetic. Me, me, me, it's all about me. Forget the good of the country, just gimme gimme gimme
what a slut, we had an election remember, now shut your trailer door and be quiet
We elected a President and we elected Members of Congress .... nowhere did we elect a DICTATOR !
Grow the hell up and read about something called "Separation of Powers" !!
The Congressional Budget Office said in its annual budget forecast Tuesday that the automatic cuts will reduce spending by $85 billion in FY2013.Even with the cuts taking effect, total federal spending will still be more than $3.5 trillion, a higher total than in FY2012.
That is nothing! Its not even a real cut! Its just slowing the rate of growth of government!
“Stopping sequestration from occurring is very important to me. North Carolina -- we have seven military institutions -- installations, and we have over a hundred thousand active-duty service members in my state.”
So what?! Our military budget is unsustainable! Grow up and face reality.
On Saturday Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Cater, in a speech at an international security conference in Munich, called the imminent cuts “huge and reckless” and said they would cause “devastating damage to the military.”
Of course he would say that, he is the deputy defense secretary! He doesn't want cuts because thats his job on the line. We need massive cuts to the military. If we cut spending 43 percent it would be at 2003 levels. We were fighting two wars then! @!$%# you military industrial complex and @!$%# you politicians who won't cut spending. You will be the ruin of us all.
But by God keep your filthy, grubby hands out of entitlement spending!!! Like Grandpa Simpson said, "I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if I don't get it I'm going to raise hell!" LMAO!
Dotties, like I stated before he is no better than a used car salesman. He sold millions of voters a car that's a lemon with the engine about to fall out. His budget deadline was Monday and he was back on the road peddling his used junk cars. I doubt he has any clue how to budget and or set a budget because when you are spending out of control there is no way to budget anymore and since the money he's spending isn't his, he really don't care.
I say we start with a 50% reduction of pay and benefits for all former and past elected officials. Eliminate the office of the first lady, eliminate all the Czars, stop giving Social Security to people who never put into the Social Security (this program is a retirement not a charity). Just doing this will at least stop the ship from sinking.
I say start the impeachment process now before it's too late (maybe to late already). He already has been proven to go above the law on the illegals last fall, appointments not legal, and now this.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (Pub.L. 67–13, 42 Stat. 20, enacted June 10, 1921) was landmark legislation that established the framework for the modern federal budget. The act was approved by President Warren G. Harding to provide a national budget system and an independent audit of government accounts. The official title of this act is "The General Accounting Act of 1921," but is frequently referred to as "the budget act," or "the Budget and Accounting Act."[1] This act meant that for the first time, the president would be required to submit an annual budget for the entire federal government to Congress.[2] The object of the budget bill was to consolidate the spending agencies in both the executive and legislative branches of the government.[1]
@Still...
Too much truth brother. Obama has submitted a budget.
Annnnd it happened once. Annnnd in 2010.
The man is a total failure.
one big cut that needs to happen, CONGRESS PAY AND BENEFITS
it's very interesting to see what types of articles that feistyredhead, beverlyinchicago and everyone else of that sort post on..none like this. i wonder why? where are those obama administration supporters?????
The never post on articles that contain valid information that may be used against their liberal agenda.
The truth and facts are like kryptonite to them.
see post 18
Let's go sequester!!! Best thing, economically, that can happen to our country. This will force the bureaucrats in Washington to figure out what's important in their respective areas and what is not. It's easy to spend money when you have a virtually unlimited supply of it. It's much harder to take a smaller amount of money and prioritize spending and cut some things out that you really like, but aren't absolutely a necessity. Just ask anyone who has had a pay cut or been laid off.
No it wont. They will just cut what is important to preserve corporate welfare and make sure companies like GE continue to not pay taxes. It is what the people that own them pay them to do.
and, you choose him to be your leader...
roflmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
you would of been better off with a 4th grader leading you...
I was reading an article this morning that if the sequestration kicks in, the combat teams deploying to Afghanistan won't have enough money for the pre-deployment combat training. That means lots of raw troops. That translates to lots more casualties and injuries. It would be like asking the Baltimore Ravens to win the Super Bowl without practicing and at the same time replacing 30% of the team with people who had never played the game. Those of us with sons and daughters in service will have a much greater chance of getting that dreaded knock on the door from the 2 officers.
Easy solution for that one. Stop deploying troops to Afghanistan. We should have been out of the quagmire years ago.
then lets not send them, bring the rest home and that saves the cost. There is no more money, everybody wants to cut somebody else but not their own.
The sequester needs to happen. We are hearing screams from the Obama administration that it will harm the economic growth - what economic growth? The economy contracted in Q4, 2012! The amount of cuts for 2013 are less than $1-billion. That's a drop in the bucket. The sequester will not have a major impact on the economy. In fact, I'd bet that private business will view it as a positive.
Every Congressman should be thrown out - those self seving morons are going to kill the middle class and eveyrone who is not rich. We already got screwed the more FICA taxes this year and now these jerks want to take more. I pay into social security and I am getting sick and tired of the politicians trying to take it away. All I can say is I hope someday everyone one of these morons lose everything they have so they will know what the real people of this country go through. I blame Congress because they are the ones who fight the President on everything. Members of Congress themselves said they couldare less that the American people hate them so that right their tells how much they care about this country. When are poeple in this country going to start revolting against all this?
demand they stop giving money you don't have to ALL those countries that hate you...!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't do that, that would piss off the Israeli's and then all fo those 2 passport americans would be upset.
as a obama supporter scott i will gladly discuss deficit.
Economics is part of what is called soft science. The problem soft science has is there is no defined normal. If you wish to discuss abnornal cell growth we can compare a abnormal cell with a normal cell. We can test the boiling point of water and get a hard number.
Tell me which country has a "normal" well functioning economy? Your beliefs or my beliefs are theories- not facts.
So Japan is able to function with a debt to GNP of over 200% yet has low borrowing costs, and a vibrant economy. The USA during WWII ran a debt to GNP of well over 100% and we had no problems. So where is it written that debt to GNP must be no higher then 40% to have a sustainable economy?
But your side has made an ASSUMPTION a FACT- that debt is bad.
The countries that have tried your approach(Hayek) have not perfomed as well as the countries that have used expansionist approaches(Keynesian).
Until your side is willing and ABLE to discuss theory with measurable outcomes it is pointless having a discussion.
Comprendi?????
"The countries that have tried your approach(Hayek) have not perfomed as well as the countries that have used expansionist approaches(Keynesian)."
www. forbes. com/sites/peterferrara/2012/07/12/obamanomics-the-final-nail-in-the-discredited-keynesian-coffin/
"Keynesian economics is the false vision of human action which says the way to promote economic recovery and renewed growth is through increased government spending, deficits and debt. If that sounds nuts, that’s because it is."
The ONLY sites that state that Keynesian economics work, are websites with liberal agendas. When Forbes says it works, then I'll agree. Until then, you're just proving y point.
So I have a personal debt of 5,000. I might as well, according to this flawed logic, go out and spend 15,000 and in the end all will come around. What crack pipe are you smoking??
Sometimes you have to use common sense about debt. Think of your personal debt. School loans, house, care and all have future use. Take on debt for a vacation you have no future use. Investing in infrastructure, schools, making those student loans, etc. there is future value, future generations will use those roads etc. what about wars, just giving people money rather than they earn it, here or in other countries. as for austerity, it hasn't worked anywhere yet but Keynesian not used either, as you are supposed to save the surpluses or pay off debt during good times, not cut taxes, increase spending, or send rebates out.
Justanotherguy:
Peter Ferrera is a professional shill for the likes of the Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, and most laughably at all, the Heartland Institute, and he has peddled discredited nonsense on a variety of subjects in the past (e.g., the US has more Muslims than Afghanistan). While it is true that too much economic analysis is done by partisan hired guns,Ferrera isn't even an economist. He's a lawyer. A hired gun. Having an editorial published by Forbes doesn't make him more credible.
sorry for the delay in responding Just another guy.
Forbes Mag is a right wing publication supporting neo conservative Hayek philosophy. Using that publication for your Proof that Expansionist (Keynesanian) economics does not work is just a JOKE. Read the Economist which is(was) considered a conservative editoral board which has come out Oppossed to Cameron's austerity program.
Look at the UK- under Cameron's austerity approach they are entering their second recession under Cameron(plus the Great Recession of 2008) and despite massive spending cuts the DEFICIT has INCREASED due to greater then expected reduction in govt revenue(READ RECESSION).
Europe on the last G8 meeting stated they were going to be more expanionistic and have basically agreed to support Greece on its debt payout.
Your THEORIES are not holding up well. Show me FACTS not a right wing hack publication agreeing with your views.
To DM57- the big difference is you and I(families) are not able to print currency to pay our obligations. Govts can either print it or borrow it in pretty much limitless amounts. BIG difference
the american people need to learn how to vote better...lol
your destroying your futures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
your gonna get stuck paying that debt off...
get ready...reality will be slapping you right in the face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what do you care, you live in your mothers basement anyway, with a "bad back"
Here are the top ten countries with the best quality of life based on 16 categories:
10 Germany
9 Ireland
8 Belgium
7 Canada
6 Austria
5 Finland
4 Netherlands
3 Sweden
2 Norway
1 Denmark
Congratulations Denmark! Looking for the USA on this list is sort of like looking for WMDs in Iraq!
and we have subsidized the national defense of each and everyone of those countries. We need to wake up. I have also visited everyone of those countries and they are right.
Sounds like the "Spender-In-Chief" should have put some thought into this BEFORE filling the coiffers of his backers (e.g. Solyndra)....he has had SO much freedom from the liberal press to all of his reckless spending ways. What about "THE STIMULUS", what about when we raised THE DEBT CEILING to fix roads and bridges (love that line)....when he was going to hire "more teachers, police and firemen".....
Time for Congress to rein in the "teenager with a credit card" who lives in "MY" White House.
Time for a little fiscal sanity' y'all....immigration and phony gun control plans can wait.
no more spending cut cut cut spending
The Republican Party caved on the fiscal cliff deal. They got very little of what they wanted. They wanted big spending cuts, they got zilch. They wanted the tax cuts for the rich to be permanent, they did not get that either. What they did get was the same thing that the Democrats wanted, tax cuts for low and middle income folks are now permanent.
And now, because of the sequester the spending cuts will happen, but half of them will be on defense that they oppose. The only way to stop that is to compromise with the Democrats which means more revenue from the wealthy.
The president called on the top 2% to pay more taxes. That is EXACTLY what happened. The rates went up on incomes of $450k and up and INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS on those making $250k and up were REDUCED.
The Republicans did not want the top 2% to pay one penny more in taxes, they lost that completely. They wanted spending cuts, they did not get a single dime. The only thing that they DID GET is exactly what Obama has been calling for since 2008.
This is why Boehner pronounced that he will no longer negotiate with the president, Obama ate him up and spit him out in the fiscal cliff deal.
Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal that explains the tax increases on the top 2%;
Deductions Limits Will Affect Many
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON—One of the biggest tax increases in the fiscal-cliff bill is also one of the least understood: a set of limits on tax deductions and other breaks that will hit far more households than the bill's rate increases for top earners.
The bill approved in Congress to avert the fiscal cliff would bring the first major tax increase on high earners in 20 years. Laura Saunders breaks down how new tax increases will impact across different tax brackets.
The bill that cleared Congress Tuesday boosts the tax rate for single filers making more than $400,000 and married couples filing jointly making more than $450,000, or roughly the top 1% of filers.
But provisions that reduce the value of personal exemptions as well as most itemized deductions, including those for mortgage interest and state income-tax payments, will affect about twice as many people since they carry a lower income threshold—$250,000 for singles and $300,000 for married couples.