Friday, February 22, 2013

As the Games Continue, the Truth on Who is Responsible for Sequestration... (?)

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Sequestration. Who's responsible for the idea? I personally do not know, so I will leave the discussion to someone with a tad bit more klnowledge than I posses on this matter.

The New York Times - On July 26, 2011, Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, went to Harry Reid’s office for a budget strategy session. According to Bob Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” Lew told the Senate majority leader that they had come up with a trigger idea to force a budget deal.

“What’s the idea?” Reid asked.

“Sequestration,” Lew responded.

Reid folded himself over with his head between his knees, as if he were going to throw up. Then he came upright and gaped at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he exclaimed, “my staff said to me there is one more possible” enforcement method: sequestration. Reid said he had told his staff at the time, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Sequestration may have seemed insane back then. But politicians in both parties are secretly discovering that they love sequestration now. It allows them to do the dance moves they enjoy the most.

Democrats get to do the P.C. Shimmy. Traditional presidents go through a normal set of motions: They identify a problem. They come up with a proposal to address the problem. They try to convince the country that their proposal is the best approach.

Under the Permanent Campaign Shimmy, the president identifies a problem. Then he declines to come up with a proposal to address the problem. Then he comes up with a vague-but-politically-convenient concept that doesn’t address the problem (let’s raise taxes on the rich). Then he goes around the country blasting the opposition for not having as politically popular a concept. Then he returns to Washington and congratulates himself for being the only serious and substantive person in town.

Sequestration allows the White House to do this all over again. The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible.

He does have a vague and politically convenient concept. (Tax increases on the rich!) He does have a chance to lead the country into a budget showdown with furloughed workers and general mayhem, for which people will primarily blame Republicans... {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum


  1. It isn't just Woodward who's saying this (that it was the President's idea), either. Max Baucus and Dennis Kucinich have essentially fingered the President, too....Not that I'm surprised that he's passing the buck like this, of course.

    1. Withholding judgement until the evidence is conclusive. But, I would not be surprised if the far finger of truth points to the oval office.

  2. It takes two to tango.

    It's all well and fine for the White House to have an idea, but it takes congress to make it happen. Boehner, Ryan and Co., seemed pretty happy with the idea. It seems very clear to me why. They never expected Obama to be reelected. If they thought he would have won, they never would have gotten on board. The GOP and rightwing powers had convinced themselves that Obama would lose. And he won.

    As well, the Sequester sounded great - nice, simple, across the board, discretionary cuts. Conservatives love simple answers.

    The GOP is stuck in an awkward position now, though, and their true colors are showing. Finally we all can see that the GOP always knew the ridiculous military spending was unnecessary, it was purely for profiteering from the government, from our taxes. Cornered between cutting the military and paying higher taxes, the little piggies went for the defense cuts. Sur-prise, sur-prise.

    In the end, that's not such a bad thing, but in many other ways this really will hurt people. On this, Obama wins with every pain the Sequester administers, while the GOP is left only defending low taxes for rich people.

    The White House is well aware of all this, and always was. After all, in the end, in political reality, it takes two to tango, and it is up to the GOP congress to pass responsible, grown-up, serious, and yes, sometimes complicated, bills. We have some serious and complex problems in America. Today's conservative Republican leaders have shown themselves unsuited to the task, unable to even understand it.


    1. "and it is up to the GOP congress to pass responsible, grown-up, serious, and yes, sometimes complicated, bills."

      You mean bills like the Obamacare monstrosity? Bills that David Conyers is too lazy to read?

  3. Jersey: the GOP has been defending low taxes for everyone... only a small minority of whom are rich. Its either uninformed or dishonest to summarize it as "only defending low taxes for rich people". In fact, since under the GOP plan, the rich pay a lot more than the non-rich in every way (total dollars, percednt of income, and percent of the total tax picture), there is a good argument that your summary is entirely fact free once we get past the first word.

    1. dmarks, I wish it were true that the GOP was fighting for low taxes for everyone, but it isn't. The latest GOP "tax reform" proposals would include substantially raising taxes on the working and middle class, in their twisted version of "fairness." In America, as compared to the rest of the developed world, the wealthy pay a very low sum of their income, as well we tax unearned income at lower rate than earned, and loopholes, ostensibly designed to help the working and middle class, disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

      I'm sure the selfish idle rich appreciate your useful idiocy. Sycophants like you are what keep them in political power.


    2. Jersey: The idle rich aren't in political power. While many of those in Congress, in the ruling class, are rich, they DO fulfill their jobs as Senators and Representatives. Even if it is often not quite well. I doubt any of those in political power are really idle (i.e. not showing up to the legislature ever)/.

    3. And as for other countries, Jersey, let's revisit the fact that "the rich pay a lot more than the non-rich in every way (total dollars, percednt of income, and percent of the total tax picture)". The idea that some other countries in the developed world have a problem with excessive overtaxation does not mean we should follow their bad idea and have those in political power plunder even more of them. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the total tax picture.

    4. "The idle rich aren't in political power."


      Most people holder higher office are pretty wealthy. And those at the top are much more so. Remember, these guys can make a lot more money outside public office. You almost have to be idle rich to afford the time and money. And the payoffs are substantial, and those Think Tank guys make a lot of money.

      And the tax rates internationally?

      It's absurd. We don't even come close. And our debt keeps piling up. It's not the spending, it's the financing, and taxes are a part of that whether your brick-wall ideology likes it or not.


  4. He talks about all the moves possible because of sequestration. The situation was caused by the refusal of the majority Republicans to compromise, or even vote on their own policies. We are at this point because of the Republican House. We lost our top credit rating because of Republican inaction. A perfect example of kicking the can down the road; costing America more useless expense. At the time Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts. He knew that would be rejected, but it's on the record and the record shows Republicans rejected that offer. A clear sign that Republicans were not serious about cuts as they had been claiming since Obama's first campaign for president. I hope there is no last minute deal and the sequestration cuts go in effect. Nothing better for a 17 trillion dollar debt. Republicans lose on this issue either way.

  5. Anon said "At the time Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts."

    That is deceptive and quite dishonest of you to say, Anon. The "cuts" were merely a reduction in a massive many-trillion dollar debt increase. He didn't propose any cuts at all, really: but instead proposed a slightly less ridiculously high increase in the debt.

    No cuts in the debt at all; just a massive increase either way.

  6. You like to call people liars and dishonest. As I proved your tax argument wrong, so you are wrong here. Republicans haven't offered cuts in anything for 30 years. What massive multi-trillion dollar increase? You mean the massive increase in DOD spending Republicans wanted, that the DOD did not want? Have fun, confused.

    1. I have no idea who you are addressing your comments to. If it is me they are fallacious. I do not call people liars and no one will ever find that I have in any of my posts. Perhaps in response to specific individuals who in fact misrepresent and twist what I say and stand for I have. I can tell you unequivocally it has been in response to your BS or anyone else as delusional as yourself.

      As to proving me wrong, it is laughable at best. I have published a detailed tax plan at least twice without any response that "proved" me wrong. So, have fun in your delusional reality.

      My record as to the need for DOD cuts is all there for the non delusional to see ans understand. This is again an untruthful statement.

      Now, if you were addressing your comment to someone else , or a phantom please accept my appology. If not don't bother to return.

    2. Anon: "You like to call people liars and dishonest."

      Well, it is either that, or you are entirely uninformed. Obama's plan to increase the debt by many many trillions of dollars cannot be a cut. Which is it? Are you intentionally deceiving by talking of cuts, or do you really have no idea what you are talking about?

      There are opinions, which can be disputed. And facts, and you got this one very wrong.

      "Republicans haven't offered cuts in anything for 30 years."

      Ever hear of cut, cap and balance? Proof that you are either lying again, or have no idea what you are talking about. I would be delinquent not to call you a liar.

    3. RN said: "I do not call people liars and no one will ever find that I have in any of my posts"

      It might be different if it was a person, as opposed to a cloud of spammers and trolls and flamethrowers that call themselves "anonymous" here.

    4. To more directly address the Anon troll's comments, which were in a group which RN called "untruthful", lets look at this one:

      CBO, Obama's plan is to increase the debt by $20 trillion by 2020. That's a constant and singificent increase in the debt. The term 'cut' does not apply here at all.

  7. You two have no clue how to read, or what you are talking about.

    1. "You two have no clue how to read, or what you are talking about."

      ....spoken like a troll who was caught lobbing out a fib without regard to its veracity

  8. I won't debate with a conspiracy theorists delusional, false accusations. What an idiot liar you are.

  9. This brain dead troll is all yours dmarks.

  10. Tell us Dmarks how the whole world accepts there were no WMD's in Iraq, except you. Your reputation precedes you, you are a wacko nut job. RN agrees with everything you say, makes him the same.

    1. Anon: I never claimed the whole world accepts the fact of munitions meeting the definition of WMD were found in Iraq. The story hardly made headlines.

      You have proven yourself a fool in the above comment. Before you do so again, bother to do some basic research.


      wikileaks wmd in iraq

      I expect crickets....

      "you are a wacko nut job"

      A perfect example of one of those "poopy-pants" insults someone puts forth when they have completely lost an argument.

      "RN agrees with everything you say, makes him the same."

      Now you have proven here that you don't even bother to read this blog. Hear that, RN? I am now an Objectivist and a Johnson voter, just like you!

  11. You Anon the no identity idiot continue to prove yourself the fool. LMAO. Idiot!

    1. Yeah. he really stepped in it with the WMD one. Checking into this, I find that in fact the Wikileaks account is now generally accepted. One can very well argue that the WMD Saddam had didn't require the US invasion, or should have been handled differently. But anyone who argues "Iraq had no WMD" even after the facts are known, like the "Anonymous" troll here, is probably someone who has trouble telling the difference between Iran and Iraq, thinks Turkey is something you eat on Thanksgiving, and a Lebanese is a woman who loves other women.

  12. And yes there is complete silence. The anon that RN has dubbed "bobble brain" has apparently let go of the old lie that Saddam had no WMD. For him to claim it now would be for him to say that the Wikileaks documents are wrong. And that would be so unusual: the typical criticism of Wikileaks is that it should have stayed secret, not that its untrue. In any case, this was no secret anyway.

    For Anon to continue to lie about Iraq would only prove him, to use his words, as even more of a "wacko nut job".

    Let the crickets resume.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.


Related Posts with Thumbnails