E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe sequester -- a series of sudden, deep cuts in military and domestic spending -- was supposed to be so destabilizing and unthinkable that it was conceived specifically to force Washington to work together on an alternative budget.
But in the face of dire warnings from President Barack Obama and some congressional leaders about these looming spending reductions, there seem few signs of panic on Capitol Hill now that they are just weeks away.
Forty-four billion dollars in cuts to federal outlays are set to start on March 1, amounting to an eight percent cut in defense spending and six percent in non-entitlement non-defense spending.
"These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness," President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union speech, and would "devastate" federal spending on education, energy, and research.
Despite such language from Obama, the reductions may not seem as immediate or terrifying to some members of Congress as the rhetoric would make it seem. There was no sense Thursday of Congress needing to get a deal clinched this week. After the House voted Thursday on a procedural motion on a Republican bill to extend a two-year pay freeze for federal employees, it headed off for a week's recess.
President Barack Obama explains his view on what a sequester would do to the U.S. economy while delivering the State of the Union on Tuesday.
"Our work schedule frankly does not match the gravity of the challenge that our country faces," said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., at a House hearing on the spending cuts Thursday before the subcommittee on Workforce Protection, which is part of the Education and Workforce Committee.
But as Courtney also indicated, there's nothing magical or irrevocable about March 1. "There is still time" to devise an alternative, he told the hearing. Congress and the president could come up with a deal on March 1 "or even on March 2," he said.
The thinking among some in Congress is that the bargaining over the spending cuts -- known as "the sequester" in Capitol Hill lingo -- will be folded into negotiations on the continuing spending resolution that expires on March 27.
For large Defense Department contractors such as General Dynamics, which is building the Virginia-class submarine in Groton, Conn. (in Courtney's district), the Department of Defense funds "are already well into the system," Courtney said. Procurement for submarines plays out over several years and doesn't come to sudden stop.
"Contracting officers (in the Pentagon) who have to deal with these defense vendors -- they are not going to turn the switch off on Day 1," Courtney said.
He added, "It's not going to be done by the Department (of Defense) all at once, in one single day."
He cited Senate testimony this week from Admiral Mark Ferguson, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, that the two subs slated to be built in 2013 are, in Courtney’s words, "pretty much solid, even if sequestration kicks in."
But the subs slated for 2014 "could be at risk, and that's not a good thing, but it's not going to trigger an immediate reduction of workers on March 1."
He added later he was not trying to minimize the damage that would be done if sequester cuts took effect -- damage such as postponing the deployment of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Mediterranean and the loss of some funds for Head Start programs, including ones in his district.
Layoffs just 'speculative and unforeseeable'
But even as Obama warns about the suddenness of the spending cuts, Assistant Secretary of Labor Jane Oates, in testimony Thursday before the subcommittee on Workforce Protection, re-affirmed what the Obama administration told employers last July: At the moment, despite the threat of spending cuts, firms with federal contracts are not required to send out the 60-day plant-closing and worker-layoff notices to their employees that would be required by the 1988 WARN (Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification) Act.
Any layoffs that might be caused by the spending cuts -- for example at defense contractors such as Boeing and General Dynamics -- are, for now, "speculative and unforeseeable," in Oates' words. That was the view of the Labor Department last July and she affirmed that it remained her view as of Thursday.
Since there's so much uncertainty about whether the cuts will occur, the firms can't know if some of their workers will need to be laid off. Therefore they need not issue the WARN notices -- until and unless they get specific information from the federal government of contract terminations or program cuts that would result in layoffs.
But employers may be put in a legally awkward and costly bind -- the WARN Act imposes large legal liabilities on employers if they fail to give their employees warning -- but then later order mass layoffs or plant closures.
The Obama administration, in a memo issued last September by the Office of Management and Budget, has told companies with federal contracts that it will reimburse them for litigation costs and other costs if they follow the Labor Department guidance and later get hit with lawsuits from laid-off workers under WARN.
As lawyers prepare for possible litigation over WARN, some House Republicans say they're willing to live with the sequester cuts if there's no other way to cut spending.
Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., one of GOP's rising stars and the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, told reporters Thursday that the sequester "is the law of the land … I would much rather find a way to replace it with a more reasonable long-term perspective of how we deal with our long-term debt issues. But if we don't have anything else, we don't have anything else. It is the law; it's going into effect."
Lankford said he opposed the idea of simply pushing back the effective date of the spending cuts.
'False promise'
Republicans are facing pressure from conservative groups to stick with the spending cuts since they are already embodied in law and not merely theoretical.
The conservative Club for Growth said last week, "The cuts that were promised in the sequester should be done, in whole, this fiscal year and not punted a day past when they are supposed to go into effect."
Any sequester replacement bill should not include tax increases or "another false promise to do more cuts later," the group said.
Some Republicans may be more concerned about the $44 billion in cuts than they are publicly acknowledging, but nonchalance is a better negotiating posture than panicky desperation.
At this point some Republicans appear to be following the advice given by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer last week.
Obama figured that "draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to offer concessions," Krauthammer wrote. But this move, he said, "backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party."
Krauthammer said, "The Republicans finally have leverage. They should use it."
There might be more awareness and alarm among people back home in congressional districts if certain groups weren't exempt from the spending cuts.
But these groups -- some of them potentially loud and powerful -- are in fact exempt from the spending cuts and would suffer no direct harm. They include uniformed military personnel (their pay is exempt from the cuts), people collecting Social Security benefits, and federal (including military) retirees.
Related:
GOP trades blame with Obama for looming sequester
Recommended:
N.J. Sen. Lautenberg won't seek re-election, easing Booker's path
Senate GOP stalls Hagel nomination by waging filibuster
This story was originally published on Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:19 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Gee didn't obummer sign the sequester? He was all for it back then. Now he thinks its a bad idea.
at least now he takes responsibility instead of trying to blame others..."
“What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes by the president's team.”
-- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on “Special Report with Bret Baier”
America's blind faith in duty and government is a result of christian values. It is time for christians to expand their values to include things outside of church like a money sin thing like a family business for profit, but not a sex sin like sodomy--and not a sin of lying to deny sins of sodomy by commercialism in porn even if the catholic pope gave his blessing in his ways. God is everywhere and lying about is just not true. NOTE: the word God is from an outsider's view to use.
If the sequester does take place, it will be a good thing for the President, and the Democrats. The country will benefit from it also. The deficit is already coming down, to 845 bil. in 2013, not counting the tax increase on the wealthy, making over 400,000. This sequester should bring it down even more, just as the economy is starting to pick up. Since it will not all happen all at once, the Republicans will shoulder most of the blame, simply because they have been obstructing continuously; since Obama was elected in his first term until now. For the next six months, the economy will become stronger, in my opinion, as it gets stronger the economy will be able to handle the cuts almost in stride, and the unemployment should continue to go lower even with the cuts. There are a lot of things in motion now that will be hard to slow down, and business will find a way to overcome this with a little effort. Start the infrastructure on bridges, Raise more revenue by closing some of the loopholes in it, the recovery will take place and the deficit will come down even if the sequester happens! This could also, be a good time for small businesses to start to become stronger, if they do it will create more jobs.
# 165: I meant to say closing loopholes in the tax system. Also, the increase in the SS taxes will generate more revenue.
@dale
While I agree with most of what you said, I don't see unemployment going down that much. Way too many jobs shipped overseas and will never come back. UNLESS we the people, join together and quit buying the foreign made products, and DEMAND American made products.
If people want their kids to have decent paying jobs, they had better start doing this. The long people wait, the harder it will be. And we cannot become a service type job country, as who would be serviced? Won't be the military, as they need to be reduced to a strong defensive force, not the world's cops.
So yes, this sequester could be one of the best things to happen. But the odds are 50 to 50 on it working like it should. The GOP will find a way to f it up. Just because of their hate of that 'uppity' POTUS.
Best comparison yet......"If a man were behind four months on his mortgage and was talking to you about his plans to build an addition on his home you would think him daft and delusional. But in Washington, ignoring a current crisis to discuss grand dreams is called “boldness” and “vision.”" More tax and spend liberalism and attempts to spin responsibility.
Yep - and people are buying into it at a scary level.
Until the press stops leading the sheep around by their noses we are in for some rough times. The people need to grow a brain stem and start thinking for themselves.
This Gov. is corrupt to the core now.
That's all that's left. The rest is just the minutia they feed you.
"This Gov. is corrupt to the core now." Thanks Both parties!!! Finally,after reading a lot of these comments,some TRUTH is told! This "Sequester" is BS,it's a drop in the Bucket. DC is nothing more than a "Racket",with their back pocket padded by Wall Street. It truly is "Both parties are corrupt"! Unless that changes,America will suffer,in more ways than one.
As long as Congress, especially the House, appear to be the problem, the President and his party will make gains in the midterm elections. Then watch out, hang on and be careful!
There is now talk from many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill that the best thing to do with the sequester cuts is to let them happen. Earlier this week the CBO Director testified to the Senate Budget Committee, and his numbers looked like they stunned the Senators. After all fiscal cliff deal and sequester cuts are factored into the federal budget and take place in two weeks, we need an additional $5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years to get the federal government on a sustainable financial course. That does not include the need to fix Social Security to keep it solvent long term nor the restructuring of Medicare necessary to keep it from running out of money as baby boomers retire.
That means the Congress, and Obama, need to come up with a plan that cuts the deficit by around $500 billion per year over the next 10 years. The CBO already has much better GDP growth above 3% projected into the numbers. Taxes have already been raised on the top income earners. There are only two real choices left, more significant budget cuts and/or higher taxes on the middle class. As Alan Greenspan said last week, the low hanging fruit has been taken. The actions the federal government needs to take now to get onto a sustainable financial track will be very unpopular.
@Peter17,
I have to disagree with you. Obama doesn't have to do squat, the House controls the money and purse strings. They and the Senate have to come up with a plan, and Obama will have to sign off on that plan. Then maybe we can see the cuts over the next ten years.
After the way the GOP has treated Obama, why should he stick his neck out for them? I don't think he will. No person would after being treated like that. Would you stick your neck out? I wouldn't, and most people won't.
If the cuts are fair, and loopholes in the tax codes are closed fairly, those cuts maynot be as unpopular as people think. True, not everyone will be happy campers, but it does need to be done.
Now hear this,both parties have failed us for decades.What makes it worse,is they don't get along.
America needs to,stand behind our current Potus,I think he may be heading in the right direction.
Obama is nothing more than an incompetent clown. Why would anyone in their right mind listen to him??
I heard on the news this morning that he is busy playing golf in Florida. The best thing he can do for this country is to stay there. He has an auto-pen available to sign things.
Troll post. Very immature and childish Peter.
@Peter17
Still upset that a black man is playing what used to be a "white man's game." It wasn't that long ago they wouldn't let women, of any color, play any golf at golf courses. Times have changed, there is even a LPGA. So get with the program, get your cranial/rectum surgery done, and enjoy the world as it now is.
Just keep cutting government spending until a balanced budget is reached and then cut a little more to start paying off the debt the government created.
Keep taxing the BeJesus out of the wealthy until the budget is balanced, and then tax them more to start paying of the debt.
Do yourself a favor JWM. Actually look a just how much income higher income groups have every year and how much taxes they pay. Unless you are "math incompetent" the numbers will tell you there is no way to balance the federal budget on the backs of higher income folks. IT IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE.
If liberals/progressives want to fund "big government" they are going to have to raise taxes significantly on those the middle class. It is the only way. If you still cannot come to grips with that fact, consider the following data which shows just where those higher income folks happen to reside and then tell all of us just how you are going to get Democrats to vote to hammer their higher income constituents with draconian tax rates.
Percentage of 2010 Tax Returns with AGIs over $200,000 – Top States:
5.66% - District of Colombia
5.46% - Connecticut
5.26% - New Jersey
4.82% - Massachusetts
4.45% - Maryland
4.39% - Virginia
3.92% - New York
3.92% - California
So you're with Ms. Pelosi, Willard? We don't have a spending problem?
The higher income groups STILL do not pay enough taxes. They will have to pay much more before the middle class is asked to make anymore sacrifices. Call it "trickle down" in reverse. Raise taxes on the wealthy first and eventually, the taxes will trickle down to the middle class.
What percentage of the income taxes should the wealthy pay J Willard?
Tell us what percentage share of the taxes they should pay? 20%, 40%, 100%?
I'm not referring to marginal tax rates, what share of the taxes paid do you think is fair?
70%. Just like it was before Reagan Phucked it up.
Obama was for the sequester: The White House promoted it in 2011. Now he's against it. Obama Lies yet again....
good let the dbag and minority subsidy end. Running around buying stuff arrogant never gonna get fired for anything aholes. Time for you to suffer
Maybe we need to be a little more sensitive to people in government. After all cutting government spending is covering new territory that has not been done before. People in government have been accustomed to having unlimited amounts of money and benefits. Loosing some of this seems to create panic for the people in government. Maybe crisis centers need to be established to help these government employees live within a real budget.
A financial transaction tax, levied on Wall Street would do zero harm to the economy and would raise hundreds of billions of Dollars to pay of the debt.
The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan came in and then he started rolling the snowball downhill of debt with his huge tax cuts for the top few and his massive spending increases. Little Bush doubled down on this, and we see where that got us. Put the top tax rates back to what they were before Reagan/Bush started meddling with it.
J Willard you sure are fond of lying
1. Reagan's tax cuts produced a 70% increase in Tax Revenues
2. Reagan vetoed 72 spending bills but was overridden 28 times by the Democrat Congress.
3. The Wealthy paid 19% of the income taxes in 1980 under the 70% top marginal rate. In 1988 with the 28% top marginal rate, the top 1% paid 27% of the income taxes, a nearly 50% increase in share of taxes paid.
4. the largest increase in the debt in the 1980's was due to the insolvency of SS. That's why Reagan agreed to tax increases on that entitlement. Personally I wish he would have just let it go bankrupt.
That is a cute little collection of talking points. No facts, no references. Not even a very good try.
D-
Looked up some of the later years. While the 1% paid 19% of the taxes in 1980, in 2000 they paid 36.6% and in 2009 they paid 38.7% of all federal taxes.
The reason they're not panicing over the sequester is that its just another tool that allows both sides to raise taxes and cut social programs. Both parties know they're going to raise our taxes. If you want this stopped then stop voting for these same people time and time again, they say the politicians never learn but if you ask me its the voters.
J. Willard Marriott: You my friend are an IDIOT! The reason my Son will have to work that much harder to pay for you incompetant's policies! PATHETIC!
All we need do, is place their jobs in Jeopardy, for most of them have NOT EARNED their salaries since GW Bush, when they placed into Law, their OUTRAGOUS OFF TIME!
Those sorry bastards should be fired, but they make and approve the Laws whereby they can get paid for doing absolutely NOTHING, yet, every hard working American will loose their source of income!
We need to DEMAND that we change the Constitution regarding our Congress and Senate! Who the F goes HOME, when our Country is in dire resolutions? Every job i've ever worked DEMANDED that I stay at work until the PROBLEM WAS SOLVED! Who the F are these sorry lazy racist SOB's?
Tracontech, You are living in la la land.. The rich pay most of the taxes.. They pay 36% taxes and now under Obama will pay 39%.. How would you like to pay that.. They worked for their money.. even if they were born rich, they have had to hang on to it.. You and people like you are so dumb and dont know what they are saying. 50% of us pay taxes.. The rest dont.. they should too.. even if it is $10.00. If you live here you should have to pay taxes.. You shouldnt get a free ride.. If you are making just enough to get by , then go to school and get a better job. Dont say you cant.. if you make little money you can get money for school. Dont blame others for your short comings.. Dont say things that arent true, your President says enough lies. Obama is the one who wants this sequester.. He wants to bring down our military and cause complete havoc.. He is a lousy leader, a worse man and a lousy president.
I don't want them to be speculative I want them to happen. Let's make the 47 percent 60 percent.
Obama panic? He will just take another multi million dollar expensive vacation.
With the mess America is in, Obama reminds me of Mad Magazines Alfred E. Newman......"What, me worry?"
All I know is that the last time there was a republican majority in both houses and a republican in the white house, two wars were started without funding, they cut taxes in a time of war (something that no administration had ever done), they created a whole new government agency that costs 78 billion/year (Homeland Security) introduced a new entitlement plan Medicare-D, and Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock took off in 2005 by over 3000%, yep that's right folks, Cheney's stock went from a little over 1million to $120,000,000. Finally and not least, all their deregulation led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, which by the way was caused by deregulation. Public service is certainly enriching when you're a republican handing out no bid contracts. Add to everything above the following fact, the republican agenda has not advanced the goals of the middle class, they have steadily lost ground during the "trickle" down republican administrations and dominated congresses, when deregulation derails the economy its the middle, working , and poverty ridden classes that bear the costs. It was republican economic policies that led to the "To Big To Fail" fiasco that dumped millions of hard working Americans onto the food stamp and public assistance rolls.
The republican solutions for the economy? Cut the throats of the middle class while continuing to give big oil billions in subsidies and millionaires a free tax ride. It is no wonder why Americans have turned away from the republicans, republican policies make no sense, do not protect the interests of the vast majority of Americans, and continues to rape the environment and loot the treasury.
BIBLE the mini-series on HISTORY channel starting 3/3/13 Sundays at 7pm CT coming from Mark Burnett has got to be really good. It is on HISTORY Channel starting on 3/3/13 on Sundays 7 pm CT Channel 55 on TWC Time Warner Cable. Check out the latest Bible trailer by going here: What are you most looking forward to watching in the series premiere on 3.3.13 at 8/7c? On HISTORY channel 55 on Time Warner Cable (TWC).
All the republicans crapping about SEQUESTER cuts on this board and the likes of you in the REPUBLICAN House should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem. President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 1st 2013. Vote Democratic always!
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights. The entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's "entitlements" as, it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, your magistrates , can be amended. get up and do your job or we will make it happen! count on it! Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights law on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they went in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls.They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially. George Will knows this and should be ashamed. He say 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to mach payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!