President Obama has finally given the dreaded sequester some attention. The $1.2 trillion package of spending cuts - designed to be so punitive that neither party would ever allow them to phase in - is scheduled to take effect March 1. Congress, the president suggested Tuesday, should put it off for a few months, offsetting it with a mix of better-targeted spending cuts and overdue revisions to the tax code that would raise some money. Lawmakers can make more sweeping policy changes in budget negotiations later this year, he said, and permanently turn off the sequester then.
The president’s plan is inadequate but not for the reasons Republicans claim.
In an interview broadcast Sunday, Obama said, correctly, “Washington cannot continually operate under the cloud of crisis.” Just running up to the sequester costs the government millions of dollars in federal projects disrupted, contracts canceled and budget contingencies planned, then replanned, as well as the sorts of preemptive spending reductions that contributed to last quarter’s surprise economic contraction.
Yet pushing back the sequester’s start date, as Obama proposed, would arrange for more terrible uncertainty. Perhaps that’s all he can hope to accomplish before March 1. But it’s no way to run a government.
Republican leaders should have pointed that out, criticized the president for failing to speak up earlier on the sequester, blasted Obama for declining to aim for a bigger deal before March 1 and then offered to strike a more ambitious bargain based on realistic negotiations. Instead, House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Ky., insisted that the only way to deal with the sequester is their way. They would not accept even a modest delay if it were financed with any new increases in federal revenue, they indicated. Their reaction echoes the view that it’s not “balanced” to replace sequester spending cuts with anything but other spending cuts.
But there’s no justification, beyond Republican ideological preference, for an all-spending-cuts approach to dealing with this. In 2011, politicians could not agree on how to reduce deficits - cuts, revenue or both? - so they promised to come up with something later and to punish themselves with sequestration if they failed. When lawmakers do finally hammer out a path to the deficit reduction the sequester demands, it’s more likely that the principle of “balance” would be violated if revenue increases were not included.
The Republicans’ position harms not only the effort to compromise on the sequester but also the broader budget debate. Given the size of projected budget imbalances, the political and mathematical necessity of new revenue should be taken as a given. Until Republicans accept that, they can’t achieve - or credibly demand — the large deficit reduction they claim to want.
Comments (15)
Add commentIs the GOP party about to
Is the GOP party about to sail off the edge of the earth?
Really Fish??......The fact
Really Fish??......The fact is, is that the GOP has already given in. Remember the latest deal constructed by the GOP in an effort to "get along". $1 dollar spending cut for every $47 dollars of taxes. What happened to your balanced approach?
Now, your savior wants more taxation to feed his obscene spending habits. Again, I ask you where is the balanced approach? Quite frankly, please join your "father" and "mother" in the white house and sail off the edge of the earth. Lord knows that you've already sailed off the edge of sanity.
Jon Stewart on tanks
Stewart had a segment on building tanks last night. The military doesn't want them, just the district where they build them. Isn't that Ohio, Boehner's district? And then they sell them to allies such as Saudi Arabia.
And then they put the dated ones, 3,000 and counting, in the tank cemetary in the desert for storage. At what cost? Will we resurrect them someday?
Do you think we make a profit when we sell them to the Saudis and others?
The military, to repeat, says they don't want them.
Why don't they listen to them?
What a colossal waste.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-...
J Boehner & M McConnell aimed their ship off the map
Some time ago.
They dont believe in navigational tools which is nothing new.
Empty echoes of republicons demanding ideological sequestration ring pretty hollow.
What would the Mittster have done ?
Lower the rate & broaden the tax base !
Where have I heard that lately ?
Well, cap
We could use someone to start building light rail and train cars again. They would at least indicate some common sense.
Earth to
Earth to Cap-n-Crunch.......newsflash.....Mittster isn't in the White House, so quite frankly who cares what he would have done? However, another very nice job of re-direct when you have no real coherent truths or facts.
Hey Gripless , Your problem seems very obvious to some
Your not onboard with the complete republicon transformational thinking that is the " party " platform.
(maybe you should read it, then ask for help to understand)
You know what the GOP does to free thinkers like Arnie Carlson ( former MN Gov.) , and those other former republicons that dared override TPAWs ( another former MN Gov.) vetoes , you will be banished due to your lack of puritanical thinking.
Until the idiot US Congress quits spending their " political capital" on looking out for their big $ campaign providers that operate them like puppets , dont see much progress on budget " talks ". Talks being the key word.
Thanks US Supreme Court !
WOW Psuedo Capt.....forget to
WOW Psuedo Capt.....forget to take your Ritalin today? I'll wait until you say something coherent before I dare to engage in any assemblence of a conversation.
He needs
.
Only in America
Where one can dig a huge hole, and blame someone else for not putting up a warning sign after falling in....
Grip
Grip, what you say sounds reasonable — "until you realize that there’s an important piece of context missing. Namely, that Democrats have already agreed to big spending cuts.
"With last year’s (2011) Budget Control Act — which resolved the debt ceiling crisis, and set the stage for the “fiscal cliff” — President Obama agreed to cut discretionary spending by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you split defense spending — which accounts for $600 billion in savings — from that total, you’re left with $900 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, accomplished by an across-the-board cap on appropriations.
What’s more, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, this cap is based on 2010 funding levels, which weren’t pumped up by the stimulus (“increases in discretionary funding under the Recovery Act are 2009 appropriations,” even if the money wasn’t spent until the following year)."
And, Grip, there's still room for revenue in overall "balance" between revenue and spending cuts. Let's close these loopholes:
"*The $17 billion carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers and other investors to count certain types of compensation as investment income rather than ordinary income.
*A $4 billion loophole that gives private jet owners special tax depreciation benefits and allows yacht owners to decrease income tax bills by claiming the vessel as a second home.
*The U.S. could make $161 billion by closing a loophole that allows offshore profit shifting, and $71 billion by closing the foreign-earned income loophole, which allows Americans couples working abroad to avoid U.S. federal taxes on the first $190,200 of income.
*The proposal would also close the $25 billion "Facebook Loophole," which allows companies to deduct stock options cashed in by an employee at an inflated current market value rather than the original cost."
http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-spending-budget-2013-2
Why not eliminate some of these loopholes, Grip?
Southie: Stewart's segment was great, as usual. He's been going after Pres. Obama pretty good lately, too, re: drone program. No sacred cows on that show.
"President Obama agreed to
"President Obama agreed to cut discretionary spending by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years"
That is not "big spending cuts" that's 150 million / year ... that's nothing considering the size of the deficit ... not to mention the debt.
Obama spends more than $150 million on
vacations in a year. But check your math 1.5 trillion divided by 10 =$1,500,000,000.
That's also why
this nation is doomed if Obama adds another 4-6 trillion to our debt before he leaves.
FnB ... Thanks ... that's
FnB ... Thanks ... that's what a guy gets for trying to do mulitple things at once. comment still holds up though.