Sequester Spending Cuts a Time-Bomb for the GOP?

[Frodo]

Sequester cuts a time bomb for GOP?

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 2/8/13 4:42 AM EST

Republicans open to letting billions in sequester cuts go through figure they can blame the president if the economy goes south.

But Democrats are betting they can shift that blame right back to the GOP.

They’re so confident, in fact, that they’re already eyeing at least 10 Republican-held seats with strong military connections from Florida to California to target in 2014, after sequester cuts have trickled down to local bases where jobs are lost and voters notice.

“Republicans who are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to find solutions and are responsible for cuts to defense and jobs in their districts are going to find an unwelcome reception from voters,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Republicans can't say they weren't warned: The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that sequestration could cost 1 million jobs and send the country into another recession.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/sequester-cuts-ticking-time-bomb-87363.html#ixzz2KRF2u89A

[Blackacre]

just kill the sequester. Austerity doesn't work and everybody with a brain knows it.

[Mehmentum]

Everyone knows that the GOP likes spending cuts, so most spending cuts will (rightly or wrongly) get blamed on the GOP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

just kill the sequester. Austerity doesn't work and everybody with a brain knows it.

The sequester is fine as long as 100% of the cuts are from the military.

[badgate]

^But...force readiness!

[politicallefty]

It's still preferable to gutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. At least with the sequester, we're getting a serious reduction in defense spending. I can accept some of the nastiness with the sequester so long as defense is getting a significant axe. We cannot have budget sanity so long as the military-industrial complex is alive and well. It is completely indefensible for this country to have a defense budget that is 40-50% of the entire world. I don't like the idea of putting the cuts in so fast, but that seems like the only we're ever going to get said cuts.

[opebo]

just kill the sequester. Austerity doesn't work and everybody with a brain knows it.

I think the party mentioned in the thread title is the GOP, is it not?

[pbrower2a]

just kill the sequester. Austerity doesn't work and everybody with a brain knows it.

I think the party mentioned in the thread title is the GOP, is it not?

Nice rejoinder. Of course I see the GOP even more deficient, as a rule, in conscience.

[bballrox4717]

just kill the sequester. Austerity doesn't work and everybody with a brain knows it.

The sequester is fine as long as 100% of the cuts are from the military.

Yeah, killing military jobs and sending even more people to the unemployment line is an excellent idea when we're at a 7.9 % unemployment rate. There's a time and place for spending cuts in the military and entitlement reform: after we fix the economy. The debt should not be the primary concern right now, and attempting to deal with the debt when the economy is still broken has and will continue to slow the recovery.

[Torie]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

[memphis]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

So we've got Obama supporting cutting the military and taxing richers. Not enough to plug the hole, but something. Meanwhile, the GOP wants to cut PBS and cut taxes further. Yes, it's Obama who's not being serious

[Torie]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

So we've got Obama supporting cutting the military and taxing richers. Not enough to plug the hole, but something. Meanwhile, the GOP wants to cut PBS and cut taxes further. Yes, it's Obama who's not being serious

No, you will not trick me into defending the GOP here. Nice try though Memphis.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

Here's the point: Spending should NOT be cut right now, not when we're barely starting to recover from the worst economic crisis in decades.

[Torie]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

Here's the point: Spending should NOT be cut right now, not when we're barely starting to recover from the worst economic crisis in decades.

How about entitlement cuts that kick in two years from now?  The thing about entitlements, is that cuts there do bind future Congresses. Budget cuts are only good for the current Congress, so something claiming to cut the budget 5 years hence, is just worthless. It means nothing. It needs to be a change to a statute that hands out money.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

Here's the point: Spending should NOT be cut right now, not when we're barely starting to recover from the worst economic crisis in decades.

How about entitlement cuts that kick in two years from now?  The thing about entitlements, is that cuts there do bind future Congresses. Budget cuts are only good for the current Congress, so something claiming to cut the budget 5 years hence, is just worthless. It means nothing. It needs to be a change to a statute that hands out money.

What's your point exactly? I would say that cutting entitlement in a country that already has the most pathetic social safety net of all the Western world is a bit silly, and that instead it would make much more sense to massively increase welfare spending instead, while paying for it by raising taxes and cutting military spending, but you're a neoliberal so it's a lost cause.

Anyway, back to the original point: deficit reduction is NOT a priority. Economic stimulus is.

[Maxwell]

So we're going to continue to push back the Sequester, which was something that the Senate had ALREADY AGREED TO if they weren't going to do that budget awhile ago? I think that's rather pathetic.

I would like some more military spending cuts and more cuts all around, but the sequester is definitely a start towards budgetary balance, along with slicing some loopholes.

[Torie]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

Here's the point: Spending should NOT be cut right now, not when we're barely starting to recover from the worst economic crisis in decades.

How about entitlement cuts that kick in two years from now?  The thing about entitlements, is that cuts there do bind future Congresses. Budget cuts are only good for the current Congress, so something claiming to cut the budget 5 years hence, is just worthless. It means nothing. It needs to be a change to a statute that hands out money.

What's your point exactly? I would say that cutting entitlement in a country that already has the most pathetic social safety net of all the Western world is a bit silly, and that instead it would make much more sense to massively increase welfare spending instead, while paying for it by raising taxes and cutting military spending, but you're a neoliberal so it's a lost cause.

Anyway, back to the original point: deficit reduction is NOT a priority. Economic stimulus is.

You do agree that the projected outlays over time versus revenues coming in, will balloon the debt to unsustainable levels don't you?  If not, I understand your point of view. One option is to increase taxes to make it all balance, but that will mean considerably higher taxes on the middle class. That is a policy choice, but one nobody embraces out loud in the political class. Means testing entitlements would go a long way to getting the US out of the fiscal box, but that is also a nut that the political class just doesn't have the guts to crack either. DC should stand for "District of Cowards."

[LastVoter]

Obama insisted on the sequester, and now he wants to can it, and blame the Pubs when it isn't. I wonder outside the military when Obama will actively support cutting spending on anything real. Maybe we should have a pool, when that date will be.

Here's the point: Spending should NOT be cut right now, not when we're barely starting to recover from the worst economic crisis in decades.

How about entitlement cuts that kick in two years from now?  The thing about entitlements, is that cuts there do bind future Congresses. Budget cuts are only good for the current Congress, so something claiming to cut the budget 5 years hence, is just worthless. It means nothing. It needs to be a change to a statute that hands out money.

What's your point exactly? I would say that cutting entitlement in a country that already has the most pathetic social safety net of all the Western world is a bit silly, and that instead it would make much more sense to massively increase welfare spending instead, while paying for it by raising taxes and cutting military spending, but you're a neoliberal so it's a lost cause.

Anyway, back to the original point: deficit reduction is NOT a priority. Economic stimulus is.

You do agree that the projected outlays over time versus revenues coming in, will balloon the debt to unsustainable levels don't you?  If not, I understand your point of view. One option is to increase taxes to make it all balance, but that will mean considerably higher taxes on the middle class. That is a policy choice, but one nobody embraces out loud in the political class. Means testing entitlements would go a long way to getting the US out of the fiscal box, but that is also a nut that the political class just doesn't have the guts to crack either. DC should stand for "District of Cowards."

Well the answer here is to pass a wealth tax on fortunes over $1 million, and increase IRS payroll to enforce it.