February 25, 2013

"Can You Find the 'Savage' Sequester Cuts?"

Dan Mitchell savages the inane media hype about the sequester and provides this graphic:



(Via Instapundit.)

91 comments:

AprilApple said...

Isn't it odd that the media and the Obama administration are in sequestration propaganda synchronization?

It would be such a great thing to have a media that reported honestly and objectively on the subject.

St. George said...

After the Nazi Anschluss (annexation) of Austria in 1938, they held elections there. To prove that the Austrians approved of the invasion. Oh, and how.

Do the sequester. Everyone's happy. Sounds like a new dance craze. Proves that everything's fine.

Calypso Facto said...

I've been holding that one in reserve for a Facebook beatdown of anybody griping about the "inhumane" cuts.

MadisonMan said...

Most people don't know the sheer size of the US Government, or how many people we all employ, so when they hear of 100s of 1000s of jobs furloughed, they think it's more than just the drop in the bucket that it is.

Michael K said...

The administration will do its best to make the tiny cuts "hurt" by cutting the most visible functions of government. In Chicago, this is called "The pothole syndrome." You should see the streets in the few neighborhoods that don't vote the right way. That's where Obama learned his politics.

T J Sawyer said...

The truly sad thing is that years ago, you would go to the NYT to find such a clear picture of what the debate is about.

AJ Lynch said...

Yeah my local TV newscaster last night on Fox29 called the cuts "drastic".

sonicfrog said...

This is a misuse of statistics. It's minimizing the statistical outcome of an action by maximizing the data parameters to flood out the effects of noted action.

It's like having someone pore a thousand gallons of mercury into the Chesapeake Bay, then presenting data of mercury levels of the entire ocean to show that it's not going to have any affect because the ocean as a whole will not be affected.

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs. The question is, has the economy recovered enough to be able to absorb this new pool of workers into the civilian work force, or are we just creating another batch of unemployed people who will now go on government welfare, which is the opposite of what supporters of the sequester / smaller government want.

I'm for smaller government, but am afraid the result of these actions at this time will cause latter outcome and not the former.

Tank said...

sonic

Why should an increase in spending cause people to lose their jobs?

edutcher said...

It's a 3% cut in growth.

Do a 30% cut in size and that would be noticed.

But, hey, this is all just because Choom got his way last Fall and now the media has to find a way from him not looking like more of an ass than he is.

Brew Master said...

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs. The question is, has the economy recovered enough to be able to absorb this new pool of workers into the civilian work force, or are we just creating another batch of unemployed people who will now go on government welfare, which is the opposite of what supporters of the sequester / smaller government want.

Good grief, really?

Lets keep borrowing money and destroying the economy of this country so some government employees can keep their jobs, because otherwise they might add to the unemployment line?

sonicfrog said...

BTW, global warming alarmists do just the opposite, take one event, like hurricane Sandy for example, and use that to prove that the climate is going to hell, when all the stats on hurricane strength and occurrence show no increase in the amount or severity of storms on a global basis are increasing, which is what is supposed to happen.

This of course does not disprove AGW, btu they are misusing stats to promote a false narrative, that we are already experiencing the effect of AGW when the stats and science can't show that..

AprilApple said...

Yeah my local TV newscaster last night on Fox29 called the cuts "drastic".

"Drastic" is opinion.
...What the pro-democrat hack media do best.

Meade said...

Dan Mitchell: Why not cut spending by just 3.4% annually? Balanced budget in 10 years.

Inane Media: Oh no, that would be savage and draconian.

Dan Mitchell: But I saw the graphic facts provided by the Congressional Budget Office with my own eyes!

Inane Media: Well, who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes?

sonicfrog said...

Tank said...

sonic

Why should an increase in spending cause people to lose their jobs?


The increase in spending is mostly due to the forever increase in the cost of medicare and and other safety net programs.

I run my own little business. In the last two years, I've made several cut to my business spending. On item that I can control, I am spending less than I did four years ago. But, because of increases in spending that is beyond my control my ovre-all spend for each of the last two years has gone up. One example - Energy costs. Since I travel to my job sites for work, the increases in gas prices has had a major effect on my budget (as they do on govt budgets BTW). At the end of the last two years, even though I made cuts in my budget, my over-all spending has none-the-less gone up.

Widmerpool said...

But Sonicfrog, this is really the only sensible way to look at the magnitude of these cuts. Otherwise you are stuck with some politician gaming the denominator to make the case that "Agency/Department/Program/Boondoggle X" will be cut by 50%!!!!

Tank said...

sinic

I don't think that's accurate, but am no expert.

Meanwhile, by mentioning all the items that are "off the table" you have ID'd why this discussion is a joke.

jr565 said...

These aren't cuts per se. Every year got increases its rate of growth so spending goes up. This is simply saying that that rate of growth will be less.

Govt is still going to be spending more money!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs.

Too effing bad. If they lose their jobs and no one notices, then they were useless redundant jobs anyway in departments of government that no one wants or needs.

Don't give me the sob story about police, firemen and teachers either. The left has worn out that playing card. The LAST people to be let go are going to be those occupations. There are hundreds of thousands of officious clerks and other low hanging fruit that can be eliminated. Better yet. OUTSOURCE those positions to private industry IF their jobs are even necessary. We can get the work done for half the price.

The question is, has the economy recovered enough to be able to absorb this new pool of workers into the civilian work force, or are we just creating another batch of unemployed people who will now go on government welfare, which is the opposite of what supporters of the sequester / smaller government want.

Who cares? We are going to pay unemployment until kingdom come anyway. PLUS paying UI is cheaper than employing useless drones to do busy work.

Maybe they will have to step down into the real world with the rest of us and get a job that doesn't guarantee a lifetime pension and fully paid health insurance. Tough luck.

We can cut 5% across the board every year in EVERY agency, including the military, for the next 10 years and the effects on the public would be next to nil. There is a lot of waste and corruption in every level of government. So.....they don't get the big expensive conferences in Las Vegas. They don't get new furniture every year. Have to reuse their computers for a few more years..... Boo Fucking Hoo.

sonicfrog said...

BTW... At the end of the day, I say fine. Let this happen. The current body of things sitting in the chairs of Congress and the Presidency can't govern anyway. Might as well have the results of their failures felt by the citizenry. They deserve it. They vote for these guys.

I don't vote for people with R's in front of their names anymore (rarely ever voted for D's, so I really don't count them anyway) . I stick with L's or I's.

Alex said...

Waiting for garage to spin this as truly savage.

Alex said...

sonicfrog - instead of wasting your vote you should work to get libertarian Republicans nominated and swallow your pride during the general. But keep masturbating.

Darrell said...

Oh noes!
No more oxygen for NASA!
No more poison antidotes and antivenoms!


P.S. The scheduled moral booster in Las Vegas will not be affected. No will the Department "Good Job!" weekend in San Juan in Fall.

AprilApple said...

We should have “The Media Parroting the White House Talking Points” Award show. Lots of golden statues and back slaps! All your favorite TV “news” personalities will be there!

Bryan C said...

"The truly sad thing is that years ago, you would go to the NYT to find such a clear picture of what the debate is about."

The even sadder thing? The people who've read the NYT for years still think that they're well informed. They have no idea how badly they've been let down.

Larry J said...

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs. The question is, has the economy recovered enough to be able to absorb this new pool of workers into the civilian work force, or are we just creating another batch of unemployed people who will now go on government welfare, which is the opposite of what supporters of the sequester / smaller government want.

To pay the salary and benefits for each government employee, you need the full tax payments for several average taxpayers. For example, let's say that the fully loaded compensation for a government employee was $100K a year (and while some are less, many are far higher than that). According to the most recent figures I can find online, the average income tax return was for about $10,000 in federal taxes. That means it takes on average the full federal taxes of 10 families to pay for that one federal employee. The math is similar although the numbers are different for other levels of government. We can't afford the number of government employees that we have so some people will lose their jobs.

By ending the Bush era tax cuts, Obama is telling all of us to make do with less money. Government spending is still increasing but with sequestration, it won't increase quite as fast as they'd like. Boo freaking hoo. If I have to make do with less than I'd like, so should government.

Of course, they're going to use the old Washington Monument strategy to make the cuts as painful as they can. They'll spare the fat to cut the meat so people will feel it.

sonicfrog said...

Alex said...

sonicfrog - instead of wasting your vote you should work to get libertarian Republicans


Yeah because republicans are really interested in Libertarians.


.... This is where someone in the audience shouts "Go Newt" or "Liberals were AFRAID of Herman Cain" or some silliness like that...

Ron Paul is the spiritual Godfather of the Tea Party, but they and the republicans spit on him at every turn. no thanks. Both major partys are getting the government they deserve. i didn't vote for either one, so don't blame me for the crap you get as candidates.

jr565 said...

As Dan Mitchell says:
"a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion."


Spending will still increase by a few trillion dollars. If these orgs can do there jobs now with the budgets they have now, why would they have to make such draconian cuts?


"the politicians and interest groups have given us a budget process that assumes ever-increasing spending levels, which then allows them to make hysterical claims about “savage” and “draconian” cuts whenever spending doesn’t rise as fast as some hypothetical baseline."
Exactly.

sonicfrog said...

Widmerpool said...

But Sonicfrog, this is really the only sensible way to look at the magnitude of these cuts.


But magnitude is a different argument. What we're talking about is whether jobs will be lost. Yes they will. And as a result, more people will end up on unemployment, which, the last time i checked, is not desired by the Tea Party types. I'm just pointing out the disconnect.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs.

Too effing bad. If they lose their jobs and no one notices, then they were useless redundant jobs anyway in departments of government that no one wants or needs.


At least that is an honest response.

Paco Wové said...

"I'm just pointing out the disconnect."

It's not a "disconnect". It's called "choosing the least bad option".

Seeing Red said...

It's not fair, Sonic, we're losing our jobs out here, why should they be protected?

Why are they special?

Seeing Red said...

Ummm, Sonic? Obama chooses to have gas prices go up.

Seeing Red said...

Besides, for every person who loses his/her job, once food stamps kicks in, we'll see a jump in spending.

Nancy Pelosi said so.

sonicfrog said...

And the funny thing is, so much of this would be much more clear and easy to deal with if we eliminated base line budgeting....

Hmmmm.... Where have I heard that before????

Oh yeah. George W said he was going to do that. And it was one of the better ideas he had. Would have helped a lot. But then he got elected. Funny that Republican not only will not put Bush era things on the chopping block - NCLB, the bloat that is the Dept Of Homeland Security (a few rule changes would have done the job instead of creating another freaking money eating dept) - but also fail to consider the ramifications of their policies. You complain about Democrats wanting to increase the welfare roles, but cutting government in a draconian fashion during a weak recovery will guarantee that result.

It's why I don't vote republican anymore. To be blunt, though they are often knowledgeable, they are just as stupid as their Democrat brethren.

sonicfrog said...

Seeing Red said...

Ummm, Sonic? Obama chooses to have gas prices go up.


Hey... I didn't vote for the guy. Both candidates were such a joke, I wrote in Paris Hilton that year.

sonicfrog said...

Seeing Red said...

Besides, for every person who loses his/her job, once food stamps kicks in, we'll see a jump in spending.

Nancy Pelosi said so.


Didn't vote for her, either. She a prime example of the worst government money can buy.

sonicfrog said...

Seeing Red said...

It's not fair, Sonic, we're losing our jobs out here, why should they be protected?

Why are they special?


I don't give a damned about fairness. I'm just stating what will almost surely happen. I am for cutting government substantially. But it has to be done in a smart way so that the economy can absorb the jobs transfer from public to private sector. We are no where near that point, and all we are going to see are more unemployed.

Widmerpool said...

Sonicfrog,

I feel your pain, but you are taking yourself out of the ballgame. There is the makings of a fiscally-responsible party on the R side of things. The Ds are hopeless.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Both candidates were such a joke, I wrote in Paris Hilton that year.

I wrote in Zaphod Beeblebrox. At least he has some experience as the Ex-Galactic President.

I win :-)

And before anyone says something about wasting my vote ......I live in California. My vote is worth nothing.

Astro said...

Just heard Obama on the radio saying "We can't cut our way to prosperity."
I'm wondering, how does he know? He's never tried it.

Actually history shows us we can. In 1995 the projected deficit for FY2000 was $200+ billion. But after 5 years of republican-controlled Congress controlling spending and a 97 federal tax rate cut, there was a surplus of $230+ billion in FY2000.

Colonel Angus said...

It's like having someone pore a thousand gallons of mercury into the Chesapeake Bay, then presenting data of mercury levels of the entire ocean to show that it's not going to have any affect because the ocean as a whole will not be affected.

It's nothing like that at all. I will ask again, if we cannot cut $85 billion from $3+ trillion in spending, where does the tax revenue come from to pay for the $1 trillion in deficit spending?

Astro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry J said...

Astro said...
Just heard Obama on the radio saying "We can't cut our way to prosperity."
I'm wondering, how does he know? He's never tried it.


You can't borrow your way to prosperity, either. The federal government is currently borrowing roughly 40 cents out of every dollar it spends. You'd be just as likely to succeed doing that as drinking your way to sobriety.

Astro said...

I wrote in Zaphod Beeblebrox.

That* reminds me. I can't wait for baseball season to start. Sports is such a wasteland after football is over. I'm ready for baseball.

*Doubleheader.

Marshal said...

sonicfrog said...
The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs.


Revealing the left is justifying their spending with employment as if employment were the point rather than providing service. Also revealing: the increased taxes required to pay for their preferred employment will result in other people losing their jobs. Leftist concern over those jobs: none at all.

AprilApple said...

Obama thinks he can tax our way to prosperity.

Bruce Hayden said...

The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs. The question is, has the economy recovered enough to be able to absorb this new pool of workers into the civilian work force, or are we just creating another batch of unemployed people who will now go on government welfare, which is the opposite of what supporters of the sequester / smaller government want.

The problem is just the opposite, that government spending and government employees are the primary cause of the Obama Recession, the longest since the last time this sort of thing was tried, in the 1930s.

The federal government is now spending approximately 5% of GDP than when the 110th Congress was elected in 2006. Most of that was added in 2008, esp. with most of a trillion dollars added to the baseline with the "Stimulus" bill passed that year. And, what do we have to show for it? Record unemployment for a record length of time.

Obama and the Democrats have shown that you can't spend your way out of a recession, but rather, that trying to only makes things worse in the long run. So, when exactly are we going to be in a position to cut back on a small portion of their huge spending increases? If your answer is when the unemployment level decreases, that could be forever, since their spending is one of the big things driving up those unemployment levels.

Bruce Hayden said...

Quite humorous: White House Report Claims Sequestration Will Affect Federal Department That No Longer Exists.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Time was, in the '70s and '80's reading anecdotes from the Soviet Union, I would think:

"How sad to be so cynical about your government. Those folks, whenever one of their leaders makes a statement, seem to regard it at best as meaningless drivel - at worst a transparent lie pointing exactly away from the truth."

Now the Soviet Union is gone. But when Joe Biden speaks, Obama pronounces, or some MSM talking head comments, I think .....

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

I await the time when accuracy and completeness in reporting compels every segment on the Sequester to begin ...

"The coming Sequester, proposed by the Obama administration and passed into law by the elected Legislators of the time, but for which none of them seem willing to accept responsibility, .....

Xmas said...

Take a look at the OMB sequestration information:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf


Why does the Department of Agriculture have a Rental Assistance program? And why does that alone cost $900 million a year?

005-63-0137 Rental Assistance Program

BA 905 (million dollars).

sonicfrog said...

Widmerpool said...

Sonicfrog,

I feel your pain, but you are taking yourself out of the ballgame. There is the makings of a fiscally-responsible party on the R side of things. The Ds are hopeless.


I didn't take myself out of any game. Because I have no money to throw at candidates or campaigns, which is by far the biggest motivator for a large majority of politicians (nothing new there, always has been really) I recognized that my vote is the only currency I have to possibly affect the direction of policy. Both parties take the vote for granted, promising one thing, but then, as soon as they get your vote, they do what they promised their contributors, even if it means harming the country. They vote on bills they don't read, because it's the way the lobbyist who also paid for the campaign tells...

Oh, wait... That would be against the law.

I mean wishes them to vote, if only they could influence them (wink wink).

Each part want to win elections. But if they lose, it really doesn't matter, because both parties know the political pendulum will swing their way again. But, what they do fear more than anything is a real independent third party gaining popularity. Those votes might be lost forever, which in turn would interfere with fundraising. That's what they fear.

Registering independent? They don't like it, but they are not bothered as much by that, as stats show that registered independents, at the end of the voting day, tend to vote along party lines, as if they were actually either a Repub or Dem.

But what if more people simply no longer went along with the "voting for the lesser evil" idea? What if more and more voters actually voted for the Independent, instead of just registering as one? The one thing both parties fear more than anything is the loss of voters to a party they can't control. Now THAT would get their attention, and make them more interested in doing things better to win us back.

So, I'm certainly not wasting my vote. I'm spending it on a long term goal. And again, don't blame me for this mess. I didn't vote for most of the people in office.

sonicfrog said...

Marshal said...

sonicfrog said...
The sequester is going to result in people losing their jobs.

Revealing the left is justifying their spending with employment as if employment were the point rather than providing service. Also revealing: the increased taxes required to pay for their preferred employment will result in other people losing their jobs. Leftist concern over those jobs: none at all.


Interesting that the fact that this action is going to put more people on unemployment, i.e. government welfare, because there are no jobs didn't make it into that comment.

Xmas said...

Take a look at the OMB sequestration information:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf


Why does the Department of Agriculture have a Rental Assistance program? And why does that alone cost $900 million a year?

005-63-0137 Rental Assistance Program

BA 905 (million dollars).


Show me where the Republican Congress actually slated that for the chopping block, and I'll give them props.

This illustrates why they have no credibility with me. They never sat down and specifically named and numbered specific programs or departments they would cut. The Rick Perry gaff was a prime example of the mindset. He didn't have any plan to support cuts. He just rattled of a couple of departments that he thought would rally the base. That is also the standard Tea Party MO. Ryan had a plan. But it wasn't specific, and it was crafted in such a was as to guarantee that it could never pass the Democratic Senate... Not that anything would have mind you, but at least he could have offered something that look reasonable with real specific cuts to point to so they could put the Dems on their heels.

Instead it was the same ol' same ol'. offering up a piece of legislation that wouldn't pass, but would help him get re-elected.

I do give Ryan props for at least offering something though.

But again, I ask for the omteens time - We all agree George W Bush was a horrible President when it came to fiscal responsibility. His administration produced some dogs. Why not start at specifically reducing some of that spending? I mean, don't tell me you couldn't have convinced enough Dems to vote against their favorite whipping boy G W and his legacy. That would have been easy enough! The Dems could get back at their rival, and the Repubs could gain some serious cred for cutting programs they enacted....

Oh. There's the problem.

Leland said...

Sports is such a wasteland after football is over.

Dude, NASCAR! And this year, it's a spectator sport!



Too soon? Maybe something to leave to the Onion?

Ben Blankenship said...

"By ending the Bush era tax cuts, Obama is telling all of us to make do with less money. Government spending is still increasing but with sequestration, it won't increase quite as fast as they'd like. Boo freaking hoo. If I have to make do with less than I'd like, so should government." Thanks, responder, for that great comment.

Ben Blankenship said...

An earlier responder wrote: "By ending the Bush era tax cuts, Obama is telling all of us to make do with less money. Government spending is still increasing but with sequestration, it won't increase quite as fast as they'd like. Boo freaking hoo. If I have to make do with less than I'd like, so should government." Great stuff. Pass it on.

Leland said...

They never sat down and specifically named and numbered specific programs or departments they would cut.

They've passed a budget each year out of the House. Because you don't read it puts you in the same league as the Senate, Obama, and the MSM, but it doesn't mean there isn't a document outlining their prefered budget and recommended cuts. If you want media attention on these cuts, well then here and here. Yep, those are from 2011, the year Obama came up with Sequester to avoid discussing the GOP's proposed cuts.

So tell us again, who is lacking in credibility? You or the GOP?

Original Mike said...

"They never sat down and specifically named and numbered specific programs or departments they would cut."

By "they", you mean the Senate, right frog?

I am so disgusted at this, I could blow a gasket. The way it's done, the House passes a budget, the Senate passes a budget, and then they go to reconciliation. When was the last time the Senate passed a budget, frog?

Seeing Red said...

Via Drudge, from The Washington Times:

The federal government is facing massive furloughs beginning later this week, but it is still running help-wanted ads seeking workers to answer phones — at up to $81,000 a year — or to drive cars for the State Department, for as much as $26.45 an hour.

Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and Congress’s top waste-watcher, sent a letter Monday to the White House budget office asking it to halt new hiring in low-priority jobs as a way of trying to preserve more important positions such as food safety inspectors and Border Patrol agents....



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/25/furloughs-are-looming-feds-are-still-hiring/#ixzz2Lx2cUpH1
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Maguro said...

Obama thinks he can tax our way to prosperity.

Don't forget "borrow". We can't cut our way to prosperity, we have to tax and borrow our way there. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Marshal said...

sonicfrog said...

Interesting that the fact that this action is going to put more people on unemployment, i.e. government welfare, because there are no jobs didn't make it into that comment.


Some people will go on unemployment if we sequester, others will go on unemployment if we don't. Only the left's value judgement that some pigs are more equal than others has yet to be explained.

Also revealed is the left's insistence that all programs from non-leftists be intricately detailed. It's the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute. If they cannot come up with a better way to allocate their funds they should be replaced with people who can. Scott Walker for instance.

Original Mike said...

I saw an interview with Gene Sperling a couple of days ago and after he decried the meat ax approach of sequester, he was asked if he supported Congress giving "transfer authority" to agencies so managers could choose where to cut. No dice. He couldn't give a cogent argument why selected cuts were not acceptable (something about "no off ramps"), but it was clear they were not.

These guys have no interest in cutting anything.

I say, sequester away. And do it again at the next CR.

Original Mike said...

The CR that's necessary because THE SENATE WON'T PASS A BUDGET!!!

AJ Lynch said...

I am also becoming convinced the residents of the Imperial City, in both parties, don't have the heart or guts to rightsize the govt. So le's use these across the board cuts and then, as Orig Mike said, do it again and again and again.

Most businesses have downsized and rightsized over the last 20 years but our govts have put it off. It's time they stopped putting it off.

sonicfrog said...

Some people will go on unemployment if we sequester, others will go on unemployment if we don't.

Who will lose their jobs if we avoid the sequester?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Who will lose their jobs if we avoid the sequester?"

-- It matters where the government squeezes the money to pay for it from.

Seeing Red said...

Seriously, who is eating beef?

With the chained CPI, wasn't the example that people can't afford beef so they'll eat pork instead?

More grain to run our cars, less grain in our and our livestocks' bellies.

Greg Hlatky said...

The president's media lackys will in course trot out some obese, emotionally-lable single mother to blub about how her life will be destroyed.

Methadras said...

edutcher said...

It's a 3% cut in growth.

Do a 30% cut in size and that would be noticed.

But, hey, this is all just because Choom got his way last Fall and now the media has to find a way from him not looking like more of an ass than he is.


It's actually a cut to the baseline budget which was increased. The whole thing is nuts.

sonicfrog said...

Marshall. You said:

Some people will go on unemployment if we sequester, others will go on unemployment if we don't.

If the sequester does not happen, and all else remains unchanged, ceterus paribus, where are the job losses? Some people will lose their jobs due to the tax increases that is PelosiCare, but any new taxes that are increased from here on in is an independent variable from the sequester.

PelosiCare... God.... That makes it sound even worse, Conservatives should have labeled it that, maybe would have had better success fighting it! :-)

sonicfrog said...


It's actually a cut to the baseline budget which was increased. The whole thing is nuts.


As I said before, GW's idea of modifying or even scraping that practice was a wonderful idea.... It's actually why I voted for him. But no one dares to bring it up now.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...
But again, I ask for the omteens time - We all agree George W Bush was a horrible President when it came to fiscal responsibility. His administration produced some dogs. Why not start at specifically reducing some of that spending? I mean, don't tell me you couldn't have convinced enough Dems to vote against their favorite whipping boy G W and his legacy. That would have been easy enough! The Dems could get back at their rival, and the Repubs could gain some serious cred for cutting programs they enacted


You couldn't provide 3 such examples. Especially considering the President doesn't actually control the federal budget.

Your post was a run on profile in stupidity.

Jay said...

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...
But again, I ask for the omteens time - We all agree George W Bush was a horrible President when it came to fiscal responsibility. His administration produced some dogs. Why not start at specifically reducing some of that spending?


Because you're silly and ignorant?

The federal deficit was $248 billion just before Harry & Nancy took over Congress.

Do you ever shut up?

Maguro said...

If the sequester does not happen, and all else remains unchanged, ceterus paribus, where are the job losses?

Yes, the job losses from failing to get government spending under control are probably a ways down the road. There won't be any immediate consequences, so the easiest thing to do is just ignore the problem and keep on borrowing and spending.

But there's still no such thing as a free lunch, and the bill for those nice Federal jobs is going to come due sooner or later. We can't keep up this level of spending and borrowing indefinitely.

I'd prefer to see a planned, gradual reduction in gov't spending now as opposed to a much more severe reduction later, but either way the cuts will come.

Jay said...

I love trips down memory lane:

Tax receipts from individuals were projected to be $65.8 billion higher than expected because incomes rose, the budget office reported. Corporate tax receipts were $55.1 billion higher than expected, in part because of rising profits and fewer depreciation write-offs.

The gain in receipts from individuals is expected to include $15 billion in tax receipts from capital gains, White House Budget Director Rob Portman said. Bush won a reduction of the capital gains tax rate in 2003 as part of his tax-cut package.

The revenue growth is not expected to continue, according to the OMB, which forecast a 2.4 increase in receipts next year.

...

A deficit ``smaller than $300 billion, is that anything to brag about?'' Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on the floor of the Senate. ``I think not.''


You can't make that type of stupid up, folks.

Seeing Red said...

Harry & Nancy took over Congress, raised the minimum wage and ahhh, the glory years from 2007 & on were very exciting.

Douglas said...

My memory may be faulty, but I seem to recall that President Carter tried to eliminate baseline budgeting but failed.

It's pretty clear what the institutional forces are in favor of baseline budgeting. It's also clear that baseline budgeting (which would be prosecuted as accounting fraud if it were done by a publicly traded corporation) bears a great deal of the responsibility for the relentless growth in the federal budget. It allows Republicans to claim to be small government types while supporting year-to-year increases in expenditures. 'nuff said.

sonicfrog said...

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...
But again, I ask for the omteens time - We all agree George W Bush was a horrible President when it came to fiscal responsibility. His administration produced some dogs. Why not start at specifically reducing some of that spending? I mean, don't tell me you couldn't have convinced enough Dems to vote against their favorite whipping boy G W and his legacy. That would have been easy enough! The Dems could get back at their rival, and the Repubs could gain some serious cred for cutting programs they enacted

You couldn't provide 3 such examples.


I've already provided two, the bloated Dept of Homeland Security (already pointed out that simply changing intel sharing rules would have worked just as well if not better), NCLB (not as costly, but still a waste of time and money), and third, Medicare-D.

That was easy.

Back to you sport. Can you answer my question - Why didn't republicans go after cut that they actually could have gotten?... Maybe because, like you, they are more interested in scoring point than reducing the size of government, and they are not really serious about governing.

sonicfrog said...

One more thing. In the current stand-off, as things are now. I am in agreement with Boehner, that the President gut his tax increases. If the line is drawn right here, and there must be cuts, so be it.

But people will become unemployed, and the welfare roles will be increased.

Let the chips fall where they may. It will probably spell the end of the Tea Party faction though.

The Godfather said...

Granted that the sequester is a clumsy way to cut spending, but as some military genius said, you go to war with the army you've got.

If Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Budget Hawks, whatever, can't stand this relatively trivial cut in federal spending, then there's no hope that they can do the really tough work that needs to be done.

If the House caves on the sequester, I'll have to join sonicfrog as a cynical uninvolved defeatist.

But I don't think that's what will happen.

And BTW, the House really should pass a bill making government agencies responsible for allocating spending cuts so as to do the least possible harm to the public interest, which (if it ever became law) would reveal what the administration really thinks the public interest is.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...

I've already provided two, the bloated Dept of Homeland Security (already pointed out that simply changing intel sharing rules would have worked just as well if not better), NCLB (not as costly, but still a waste of time and money), and third, Medicare-D.

That was easy.


It is "easy" if you pretend Democrats didn't support those things.

You realize you're a fucking idiot, right?

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...


Back to you sport. Can you answer my question - Why didn't republicans go after cut that they actually could have gotten?


I like how you pretend this is some sort of serious question.

"Gotten" when, exactly?

Oh, never, because Democrats supported those things, and increase funding for them, today.

But hey, you keep up with the straw man.

You're good at that.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...

Back to you sport. Can you answer my question - Why didn't republicans go after cut that they actually could have gotten?


It is like totally believable the Republicans could de-fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Really. It is.

sonicfrog said...


It is like totally believable the Republicans could de-fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Really. It is.


You created it. You can uncreate it. Congress does have that power. Or do you just like this specific type of big government? Thank you for admitting you're all frauds.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...

You created it. You can uncreate it. Congress does have that power. Or do you just like this specific type of big government?


Stupid shit:

The DHS was created by Congress.
A congress that had Tom Daschle, Democrat, as Senate Majority leader.

Do you ever shut the fuck up with your utter nonsense?

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...

You created it. You can uncreate it. Congress does have that power. Or do you just like this specific type of big government? Thank you for admitting you're all frauds.


Please stupid shit, tell us, how exactly Republicans, controlling the House of Representatives, can de-fund the DHS.

Please outline this plan. I can't wait to read all about it.

PS: The Homeland Security Secretary stood before the media yesterday and assured them that if these sequestration cuts go through, America won't be at the same threat prevention level to terrorism.

I think you should go about pretending the DHS is a Republican thing.

PPS: Tom Daschle co-sponsored the legislation creating the DHS.

Idiot.

sonicfrog said...

Please stupid shit, tell us, how exactly Republicans, controlling the House of Representatives, can de-fund the DHS.

Please outline this plan. I can't wait to read all about it.


As I expected.... Nothing but excuses. By your logic, you're now saying that Congress can't defund anything. It's a contradiction wrapped in a conundrum.

Point is, they could propose specific cuts, cuts that they could get at least some bipartisan support. But they don't even make the case. They're not even trying.

This is why I consider the Tea Party movement as it currently exists fraudulent. Like you Jay, they are about making noise, not getting real results. They aren't even trying to construct anything that will pass.

Oh, and cut the TSA and put the responsibility of airport security in private hands.

And one more thing. Yes Daschle co-sponsored. So. This was G.W's baby. The fact that you won't even consider dismantling it and implementing the intel sharing rules instead tells us all we need to know. Like too many "Fiscal Conservatives", you only want cut to things you don't like. Again, it would go a long way to success if you offer cut from your favored programs.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...


As I expected.... Nothing but excuses. By your logic, you're now saying that Congress can't defund anything


No stupid shit: I said Republicans. How can Republicans de-fund anything?

Can you read, or is it reflexive for you to attack things people never said.

Point is, they could propose specific cuts

They already did this.

In 2011

Why are you so ignorant?

Jay said...

Point is, they could propose specific cuts

They already did this.

cuts that they could get at least some bipartisan support

Um, there is no Democratic support, none, zero, for any cuts.

How do we know this?
The Secretary of Defense is out arguing against any, that would be $1, in cuts to DoD

The President is running around saying teachers will be laid off, and is against any cuts. The Senate has passed no bill, written no plan, and has no intention of making any cuts.

Your post is a profile in stupidity and ignorance.

Jay said...

sonicfrog said...

This is why I consider the Tea Party movement as it currently exists fraudulent. Like you Jay, they are about making noise, not getting real results. They aren't even trying to construct anything that will pass.


Nobody gives a fuck what you think is "fraudulent"

You're here posting inane, dipshitty stuff.

Hey, remember when Democrats didn't put together any plan to cut spending that will pass and you criticized them?

Me too!

sonicfrog said...

Um... Which Dept of ___________ did the Ryan plan target for cuts?

0.

Which part of that plan was an instant poison pill that no Democrat would ever sign on to?

Reducing taxes further on top earners.

The Ryan plan was designed to not get passed. There are no cuts in specific departments, something that could have probably gotten some support for, both among some centrist Democrat, and, more important, in the general public. Instead, they did the "let's cut medicare", which, while that would help reduce spending, it stood absolutely no chance of getting any support from any Democrats at all. It was a ploy aimed at giving the Republicans fodder for the 2012 election, which in the end failed.

Thanks once again for proving my point.