Sequester Pain - why not the administration

[fskimospy]

The media has been telling me since 2011 that the economy is doing great. How many stories have played just in the last two months about how we don't have enough construction workers? President Obama himself told us long ago that he had fixed the private sector and now only needed to work on the public sector. (I'm sure we all know scads of government workers who have been laid off, right guys? Um, guys? Anybody?)

I actually do believe the sequester is good fiscal policy. It spreads the pain, forces fiscal restraint where none would otherwise be imposed, and may even spur some government agencies to look for ways to not waste money. I don't "own it" because since it was not my idea, that would be rude to President Obama. And austerity? Please! Total federal spending in 2003 was $2.16T (2012 equivalent dollars, 19.7% of GDP) with two wars going full blast. Total federal spending in 2011 was $3.60T (2012 equivalent dollars, 24.1% of GDP) with one war ended and one winding down. There is no rational definition of austerity that fits that behavior.

Obligatory link to the very liberal Brookings/Urban Institutes' Tax Policy Center from whence came my data: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Perhaps Obama should have been more clear in proposing the sequester. Something like "I have a proposal, but I don't want to do it, and if we do do it then I want you guys to take the blame for anything bad, m'kay?"

Except of course there is and I'm quite sure you know it. You are trying to do the same thing that Fern did in another thread, which is make up your own definition of austerity and then claim the US isn't doing it. For the sake of rational discussion we should use the definition that economists and policy analysts use as opposed to ones that either the internet makes up or that political parties invent for their own interests. Sound good?

If we are using economics definitions as opposed to made up ones, the US has engaged in modest austerity over the last few years and Europe has engaged in significant austerity. You can read the same as I can and you have seen the utter failure of conservative economics in this regard. I'm sure you do think it is good policy, but reality disagrees.

Oh, and trying to compare federal spending in 2003 to current in absolute numbers? You're making yourself look ignorant.

Obama didn't need to be clearer, as he isn't trying to convince you. Your first paragraph shows that you would rather attempt to cherry pick a single quote of his about the economy's strength than select dozens if not hundreds of his about its weakness. That shows either a partisan interest in getting the facts wrong or a delusional view of reality.

The facts couldn't be simpler. The Republicans made a ransom demand and this was Obama's response. It is only owned by Obama if you think the ransomer bears no responsibility for the situation he creates. I can't help but notice that neither you or any other conservative poster answered the two questions I asked. Why are you guys fighting so hard to avoid it?

 

[Agent11]

Your questions are disingenuous, they come from the perspective that the Democrats had no blame at all in the entire ordeal.

When you reach an impasse you either find common ground you can live with or you blame the other side and go no where.

Someone could just as easily ask why couldn't the senate pass legislation to avoid the sequester? The Republican Congress sent up a bill twice, and it went no further.

Both sides had figurative lines drawn in the sand, and the sequester was the only option.

Instead of both sides owning up to it they have been playing games trying to pin the blame on each other, and the President has as well.

That is not leadership.

 

[fskimospy]

How are they disingenuous? The sequester wasn't the only option, it was a response to an explicit demand that Republicans extracted by holding the world financial system hostage. They CHOSE to do that, and that was the precipitating event.

Did the Republicans demand fiscal concessions in order to not cause a US debt default?

Absent those demands, would Obama have signed that policy?

They are simple questions. The Republicans didn't have to hold the world financial system hostage, but they chose the irresponsible path and did. Don't try to absolve them of responsibility for the results, it just encourages them to be irresponsible in the future.

 

[Craig234]

He signed it. And assuming Obama and Reid are on speaking terms I suppose they spoke on the matter, and Reid didn't seem too enthusiastic about avoiding the sequester either.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/boehner-hopes-senate-gets-off-their-ass/



The sequester has been a forgone conclusion for a while now, put down the pompoms.

The only alternative he had to the sequester was not raising the debt ceiling when it passed, or massive entitlement and spending cuts without revenue now. You're for that.

Also, we don't need garbage attacking rhetoric about 'pompoms' here. There is nothing about pompoms you are responding to - just the truth you don't like. Drop that.

 

[Craig234]

Your questions are disingenuous, they come from the perspective that the Democrats had no blame at all in the entire ordeal.

When you reach an impasse you either find common ground you can live with or you blame the other side and go no where.

Someone could just as easily ask why couldn't the senate pass legislation to avoid the sequester? The Republican Congress sent up a bill twice, and it went no further.

Both sides had figurative lines drawn in the sand, and the sequester was the only option.

Instead of both sides owning up to it they have been playing games trying to pin the blame on each other, and the President has as well.

That is not leadership.

How many times do you need this explained? This is the last time.

The government has a useless mechanism called the debt ceiling. It doesn't do anything but require Congress to raise it enough to pay our bill, doing nothing good but just preventing the nation from being unable to pay its bills, which would have a disastrous effect on the economy.

The Republicans held it hostage for a power grab. Period.

What was the ransom they demanded for their hostage of the US economy? Large spending cuts that they favor.

Now, that's already very bad behavior - threatening the US economy to get their way that they can't get through the normal political system, to serve the agenda of the rich.

So, the options for the Democrats were to either do nothing and let the Republicans block the increase and hurt the economy terribly; or pay the ransom.

It's up to the American people to punish the Republicans' behavior for that - and they do not. They've decided to reward the hostage taking with voting for them enough to do it.

Now, the Democrats could simply agree to pass anything the Republicans say; instead, they reduced the ransom by suggesting the Simpson-Bowles commission, and Republicans said that wasn't enough, so Democrats offered up the sequestration to guarantee Republicans big spending cuts whether from the commission or the sequestration.

When it came time to reach a deal, the Democrats offered one that had mostly spending cuts and some revenue increases; Republicans said no revenue, only cuts.

So, those were Democrats' options. Sequestration, or let the Republicans write their own bill with their agenda to cut entitlements and spending for the poor.

That's not equally to blame for the situation. Not even close. The only thing you can blame Democrats for there is not accepting one of the worse options - so you're doing that, right?

So stop with the false statements about 'equal and shared blame'.

Elected leaders are entrusted with power. Republicans abused that power to take the economy hostage to get more power than they could in the elections.

It's like the Fire Department refusing to come to put out your fire unless you sign their request for a pay increase. An abuse of power. But many people vote for them anyway.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That isn't how politics work. You cannot just say 'If they wouldn't be such meanies and just let us do what we want it would all be fine!' Unless you have enough of a majority to do what you want and ignore the opposition.

This is a gross distortion of what actually happened.

Before 2011, there was no precedent for one of the parties unilaterally holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling. Sure, they whined, and some made token gesture votes against, but there was never any threat of it actually being voted down. A debt ceiling that had to increase because of spending that had already occurred, and had occurred with the House in the hands of that same party.

Then the new "tea party" asshole Republicans came to Congress. They decided to make this an issue. They wanted cuts. And they are responsible for the mess that ensued.

I can say it, and I will say it every time anyone tries to misrepresent the series of events, or decide to start measuring the chain of causation at the point where Obama did something, ignoring what it was in response to.

As they say in the gift shop -- you break it, you bought it. Political leaders don't get to instigate a fight and then whine like childish morons when that fight doesn't go their way. These cuts occurred because the Republicans forced us to have cuts or they would let the country default, and for no other reason. They are 100% responsible.

Here again are the two questions that cut to the core of the issue, which is why none of the right-wingers will answer them:

Did the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to domestic spending cuts? Yes or no?

Would Obama have put forward the sequester without the Republicans' acting so irresponsibly in that way? Yes or no?

 

[Agent11]

So are you saying that congress cannot demand spending cuts?

Craig the debt ceiling was over a year ago. Get with the times, you are living in the past.

That argument, concerning the debt ceiling was valid. A year ago. Since then things changed. The issue that came to a head within the last 30 days was whether the Democrats and Republicans could work out a deal to avoid the automatic cuts of sequester... The sequester they put in place to avoid another debt ceiling crisis. The sequester they all passed and that the president signed.

Being as talks concerning the debt ceiling went SO well, they NEVER should have thought sequester would go into effect... Right?

My supposition is that the sequester is more or less what should have been passed. Would have been nice if it was a little more targeted... But I seem to recall that there was a possibility of that at some point, a possibility that was squandered because people were too busy trying to avoid blame and point fingers.

 

[fskimospy]

So are you saying that congress cannot demand spending cuts?

Craig the debt ceiling was over a year ago. Get with the times, you are living in the past.

That argument, concerning the debt ceiling was valid. A year ago. Since then things changed. The issue that came to a head within the last 30 days was whether the Democrats and Republicans could work out a deal to avoid the automatic cuts of sequester... The sequester they put in place to avoid another debt ceiling crisis. The sequester they all passed and that the president signed.

Being as talks concerning the debt ceiling went SO well, they NEVER should have thought sequester would go into effect... Right?

My supposition is that the sequester is more or less what should have been passed. Would have been nice if it was a little more targeted... But I seem to recall that there was a possibility of that at some point, a possibility that was squandered because people were too busy trying to avoid blame and point fingers.

No, we are saying that when congress demands spending cuts by holding the world financial system hostage. It is responsible when it gets what it asked for.

 

[Agent11]

That was over a year ago.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So are you saying that congress cannot demand spending cuts?

In exchange for paying for previously-approved spending? Absolutely not.

Congress decides how much money is going to be spent. If they want that number reduced, they can do so as part of budget discussions. Deciding afterwards to refuse to pay for spending they've already approved unless they get political concessions is just extortion.

And once they decided to do that, they set in motion a chain of events that they have no right to complain about.

 

[fskimospy]

That was over a year ago.

Irrelevant.

 

[Craig234]

So are you saying that congress cannot demand spending cuts?

The point isn't that they asked for cuts - that's normal, appropriate politics. They might be wrong about what the policy should be, but being wrong is allowed.

The issue is that they abused the power and trust placed in them to act as responsible officials by threatening not to pay our bills, which would cause huge damage to the economy, taking it hostage so they could make demands they couldn't get passed in normal politics.

You've been told that over and over and over and you just ignore it.

Craig the debt ceiling was over a year ago. Get with the times, you are living in the past.

Excuse me, we are discussing what happened - the truth versus your version simply claiming 'it was Obama's idea' without any mention of the ransom he was paying.

That argument, concerning the debt ceiling was valid. A year ago. Since then things changed. The issue that came to a head within the last 30 days was whether the Democrats and Republicans could work out a deal to avoid the automatic cuts of sequester... The sequester they put in place to avoid another debt ceiling crisis. The sequester they all passed and that the president signed.

Yes, and that's exactly what I said - the history of how we got the sequester, and the history of what just happened with options to avoid it.

Just because the recent events involved a sequestration already in place, doesn't make it irrelevant how it got there in the first place.

That would be like a kidnapper getting an agreement for annual payments and suing when one isn't paid, without any mention of why the agreement was entered.

Being as talks concerning the debt ceiling went SO well, they NEVER should have thought sequester would go into effect... Right?

Everyone involved in the sequestration planning said it was not intended to get invoked, that its only purpose was to pressure voting yes on a deal.

Obama, like everyone else, wrongly though that's what would happen. Instead, when it came time for a deal, the Simpson-Bowles plan included a lot of new revenues - and Republicans demanded the right to a totally one-sided plan with their demands and zero revenues, and if the didn't get it, they'd renege on the agreement to avoid sequestration - which is what they did.

My supposition is that the sequester is more or less what should have been passed. Would have been nice if it was a little more targeted... But I seem to recall that there was a possibility of that at some point, a possibility that was squandered because people were too busy trying to avoid blame and point fingers.

You're not listening and repeating yourself. The gamesmanship was to pass the plan in order to get to blame Obama for every cut as his choice.

You say you 'more or less' like the sequestration. Democrats and Republicans both called it a terrible thing that should not be implemented. Republicans then supported it.

Republicans are trying to have it both ways - say they're against the sequestration to avoid blame for the cuts, but vote for it instead of any reasonable compromise.

Both sides are blaming each other, but one's correct and one isn't.

 

[Agent11]

Excuse me, but you guys are the ones repeating yourselves. A broken record, citing grievances from over a year ago to justify behavior today.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics today, yes the Republicans acted shamelessly in 2011. That does not justify current behavior.

 

[Craig234]

Excuse me, but you guys are the ones repeating yourselves. A broken record, citing grievances from over a year ago to justify behavior today.

When one person isn't listening, and the other tries to explain again, they're both repeating themselves - but one has a reason.

This is exactly what is wrong with politics today, yes the Republicans acted shamelessly in 2011. That does not justify current behavior.

No one said that. The history of 2011 was given to correct an incorrect assertion about who is to blame for the current situation, and to explain how we got here.

But this seems unproductive now. So, good luck on the issue.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Before 2011, there was no precedent for one of the parties unilaterally holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling. Sure, they whined, and some made token gesture votes against, but there was never any threat of it actually being voted down. A debt ceiling that had to increase because of spending that had already occurred, and had occurred with the House in the hands of that same party.

I must disagree here.

The debt ceiling as in play during the Clinton/Gingrich time, and a govt shutdown is certainly much more than "whining" or a "token gesture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

Fern

 

[Fern]

You guys can't seriously believe what you're saying.

Did the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to domestic spending cuts? Yes or no?

Would Obama have put forward the sequester without the Republicans' acting so irresponsibly in that way? Yes or no?

Republicans demanded the cuts and are now trying to run away from the consequences of their preferred policies. We all know that their preferred outcome would be for the cuts to happen and for Obama to be blamed for the pain that comes with them. They are simply unwilling to stand up for the consequences of their ideology.

This was going to be my reply, almost word-for-word.

Are any of the righties here going to give a straight answer?

I haven't seen any reports that the Reid/Boehner deal for two votes also included budget cuts. You may be correct, IDK. But since you're making this claim pls provide linkage.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I must disagree here.

The debt ceiling as in play during the Clinton/Gingrich time, and a govt shutdown is certainly much more than "whining" or a "token gesture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

Fern

Thank you -- I stand corrected on the debt ceiling thing. I didn't realize the 90s shutdown involved a threat to raise the ceiling.

That said, upon reading further on the matter, it doesn't appear the threat was nearly as serious as it was in 2011. Also noteworthy -- the Republicans received the bulk of the blame for the ensuing mess, much as they are this time around.

 

[werepossum]

Thank you -- I stand corrected on the debt ceiling thing. I didn't realize the 90s shutdown involved a threat to raise the ceiling.

That said, upon reading further on the matter, it doesn't appear the threat was nearly as serious as it was in 2011. Also noteworthy -- the Republicans received the bulk of the blame for the ensuing mess, much as they are this time around.

An actual government shut-down isn't "nearly as serious" as an argument? M'kay . . .

Of course the Pubbies got the lion's share of the blame - the Democrats own the media. The GOP's media wing is limited to FoxNews, which is largely incompetent and preaching to the choir. (Except the Tea Party; I understand they are boycotting FoxNews for not spending more time on Benghazi.)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

An actual government shut-down isn't "nearly as serious" as an argument? M'kay . . .

I was referring to the threat of not raising the debt ceiling. I don't believe the GOP would have gone through with that in in 1995. I could see them doing it in 2011.

Of course the Pubbies got the lion's share of the blame - the Democrats own the media.

Oh, brother. Don't you guys ever get tired of this tune?

They got the lion's share of the blame for two main reasons: first, because they precipitated the crisis and therefore were in fact deserving of the lion's share of the blame; and second, Clinton is charismatic, while Gingrich has always been a pompous douchebag that people just don't like.

 

[Craig234]

Just found some interesting additional history on the debt ceiling on Wikipedia:

In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephard Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by the Republican Congress in 1995.

And there's even more, from when the Republicans took control of the House in 2011 and passed changes to the rules in Janurary 2011, including:

In addition, the new rules repeal the “Gephardt rule,” which allowed the House to raise the federal debt limit automatically when the House and Senate approve a conference report on the budget resolution. The House now will have to hold a separate vote to raise the debt limit, an action that will be required in early spring.

The Republicans deserve the blame.

 

[Fern]

Eski/Charles, you guys going to respond to my post #91 above?

Fern

 

[Fern]

Just found some interesting additional history on the debt ceiling on Wikipedia:

In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephard Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by the Republican Congress in 1995.

And there's even more, from when the Republicans took control of the House in 2011 and passed changes to the rules in Janurary 2011, including:

In addition, the new rules repeal the “Gephardt rule,” which allowed the House to raise the federal debt limit automatically when the House and Senate approve a conference report on the budget resolution. The House now will have to hold a separate vote to raise the debt limit, an action that will be required in early spring.

The Republicans deserve the blame.

Irrelevant. We haven't had a budget passed in years.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Irrelevant. We haven't had a budget passed in years.

Fern

You're right, discussing the history is not relevant to the history.

Thanks for the good point.

 

[Fern]

Your point is moot. If Gephardt's rule were still in force it wouldn't have changed a thing. We've had no budget etc.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Eski/Charles, you guys going to respond to my post #91 above?

Fern

Yes, it was something to the effect of $1 trillion in immediate cuts and a committee to find an additional $3 trillion in cuts.