« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

His Idea: Why Did Barack Obama Propose It?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 19th, 2013 at 02:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

his idea

Today, Barack Obama spoke out about the pending sequestration flanked by first responders and others. What he did not mention was that sequestration was President Obama’s idea.

Today, President Obama said:

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.

But sequestration was his idea.

Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.

Why then did he propose sequestration?

FBI agents will be furloughed.

So, Mr. President, if it is so bad, why did you propose the idea?

Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.

Again, why did your team propose the idea?

Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.

Why then did you propose it?

Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.

Why then did you propose it?

Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids.

Why did you propose it if that would happen, Mr. President?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

If all these things would happen, why then did your team propose sequestration? Were you not being serious when you proposed it or are you not being serious now? You got your debt ceiling increase. You got more money to spend. All because you proposed sequestration and now you want to back out of it.

Sorry. You made your bed. Get some sleep.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mkeprof

    Kind of like how Clinton gets praised for balancing the budget while that was mostly a result of red-hot dot com economy and the resulting increase in revenues.

    For sure, whichever president actually does deficit cutting by reducing spending will preside over a economy in tailspin. It has to be done – but it will take someone with real conviction to do it. It would also mean a willingness to hurt re-election chances because of the bad economy that will accompany spending cuts. I am not sure there is a single politician who fits the criteria.

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    Indeed.

    http://thehayride.com/2013/02/obamas-worst-speech-ever-deconstructed/

  • rawlsian

    Obama proposed sequestration as a way to ensure the supercommitee would make tough choices and come to a deal. The GOP made a political calculation that Obama was very vulnerable and there would be a Republican administration. They voted strongly for sequestration. Then the establishment GOP bungled the election and that’s where we are today. To pretend otherwise is silly and helps the left to paint conservatives as less than adult in dealing with the problems of governing the country. This is not a winning strategy — as a party conservative have to prove they want to govern and have practical policy alternatives to offer.

    Looks like it is going to happen. As a fiscal conservative I welcome the fact it will result in some much needed cuts in the military budget and elsewhere, but the choices of what to cut will be far from optimal. It is, as everybody in Washington says, bad policy. But where is the willingness to embrace the hard debate that needs to happen? By the way, it will throw the economy into another recession — probably mild. But many people will lose their jobs — guess who will take the blame.

    This is stupid. Why are we doing this? 2014 is not far off. Trashing the economy in 2013 is not smart.

  • gscandlen

    He not only proposed it, he threatened to veto any change in it.

  • daniel22

    Obama figures that like with all other things the republicans would cave. He decided that he would play hardball and get the debt ceiling raised so he could spend even more. He regrets that now as sequestration will directly affect the democrats and his agenda. There has been more than enough time to take care of this problem and yet it is still facing us. The only way he is going to get out of this is with some serious back room deals and arm twisting. But he don’t really care, He and Michelle still get to live like a king and queen.

  • celador2

    Thumbs up

    “Sorry. You made your bed. Get some sleep.”
    Makes sense to me.

  • plh

    The sequestration idea was stupid; its approval and signing into law scream failure on the part of its perpetrators. In a sane world, a principled Republican leadership would have passed targeted bills to fund essential Government functions and dared the President to veto each and every one because they do not contain his collectivist, freedom and prosperity killing proposals. But if it takes a sequester to finally make actual cuts in the budget, they couldn’t happen any sooner.

  • gnelson

    I just heard a clip by the director of HUD claiming that the sequestration will cause lead poisoning in 3000 children because the government won’t be there to stop them from eating lead-based paint!! I swear, you can’t make this $h1t up. They really do think that we are STUPID!!!

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Have you actually looked at the numbers that the cuts entail? John Kerry spends more at the manicurist getting his nails trimmed.

  • Kyle-MI

    If we can only sustain a recovery (and I am skeptical that a recovery is even happening) by more and more government spending then we are stuck in a nasty little whirlpool. We can’t keep adding to the dept at the rate we are. Heaven help us if interest rates ever creep back up because they would take a very nasty bight out of government spending.

  • Kyle-MI

    I am surprise he didn’t bring out Big Bird and suggest that if sequestration goes through BB would be walking the streets homeless.

  • joshinca

    Obama’s voters are that stupid.

  • rbdwiggins

    That’s bull. There has been no real economic recovery, and the private sector is still shedding jobs… Nearly all of the GDP “growth” since 2009 was manufactured using a Keynesian calculator and federal deficit spending, and there are 8.3 million fewer people employed in January 2013 than there were in January 2009. Since 2010, manipulation of the labor force participation rate and creative census adjustments are responsible for the drop in the unemployment rate. If the Obama Administration had not accelerated federal spending to pad the economic numbers ahead of the 2012 general election, the fourth quarter GDP would have been reported as positive “growth” as well. Just like the entire Obama Administration, the “so-called” economic recovery is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

  • rawlsian

    There is no disagreement sequestration will knock off 0.3% to 0.5% of GDP in 2013. That is roughly in the range of $280B to $500B. There is no way that amount of demand can be taken out of the economy without having an impact on jobs, capacity utilization, etc. (especially since the multiplier is probably >1.3). Of course there will be a great deal of localized pain. So sequestration happens and if there is no agreement to do something soon (say within a couple of weeks) the economy will falter, slide into a mild recession with significant job losses. Who do you think is going to be blamed?

    Why do you pretend the impact will be nothing? Assuming you are serious, I see this as more magical thinking. If you believe there will be no impact, then buy stock index calls when the sequestration goes into effect and make a bundle.

    One frustration I have is that many conservatives appear to have no clue how the real economy works. I believe they are sincere in their views, but just have not had much exposure to the moving parts in the system. It makes me crazy to see people arguing the government should be run like a household. That tells me they have little or no business experience.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Don’t forget though that many times when states should be deciding if a program,service, etc is good for their state and if they can afford it, the feds take the decision out of their hands. They just force the state to run the program, throw them a few bucks, but then expect the state to pick up the rest even if it is not affordable. So taking away the fed money without ending the forced program will hurt the state badly. The fed money will be gone but the fed demands will not.

  • restoreliberty

    The vast majority of those lost jobs are going to be defense contractors, they know exactly who is to blame – Obama.

  • restoreliberty

    It is backfiring and the dems know it, they are the ones in a total panic, not the Republicans.

  • restoreliberty

    It was never an incentive to work anything out, it was from the time that the Obama team conceived of the idea nothing more than a political ploy. I, for one, am overjoyed to watch him and the demwits reap what they have sown.

  • davesinsanantonio

    NO POLITICIAN will ever fit that criteria. It will take a statesman! Statesmen care about what is best for the country. Politicians only care about their re-election, and they will pretend to be whatever you want them to be to achieve it. That is why we have to examine their long-term voting record as well as their words.

  • davesinsanantonio

    The fact is that the sequestration idea is now the law of the land. Whining that it was a bad idea doesn’t help anything. Do you have any positive suggestions as to what to do NOW? If not . . . .

  • rawlsian

    You have only counted the fiscal cliff reduction for 2013 and not included the sequester reduction. Here are the numbers: $40B cut in the fiscal cliff deal, ~$100B cut via sequestration (somewhat above $50B in defense and an equal amount from elsewhere). A 1.2 multiplier puts you in the $300B range of lost demand. This does not include effects of planning changes by businesses and direct costs due to increases in unemployment and other transfer programs.

  • rawlsian

    Maybe some will. Most will blame their representatives in congress. Need to face the facts here — no more magical thinking if we are serious about winning the longer game.

  • 1stRichard

    Yes, I almost forgot that not all are as bad as the state I am in, Massachusetts. Yet I am wondering where the tipping point in all this amongst the voting populace is. How bad must it get and how do limited government keep the moral high ground in this.

  • rawlsian

    Nearly nothing in your post is factual. The private sector has been gaining jobs, albeit slowly in comparison to historical performance after recessions. A large portion of the overall decline in employment and labor participation rate is due to demographics. The stagnant 4Q numbers were due to delays and reductions in government outlays some of which were due to planning for fiscal cliff and sequestration. (Remember the government fiscal year is not the calendar year — this is an important point about the sudden impact of FY2013 sequestration cuts). The reduction in government spending was countered by a smaller than expected trade deficit and decent retail spending and business investment. The retail segment will take a hit this year because of the ending of the payroll tax reduction and high gas prices. Business investment will depend on anticipated demand.

    If there is a desire to win going forward we have to deal with reality. mkeprof is right — a 1-2% hit to GDP is not a good idea with an improving but still fragile economy.

  • rawlsian

    Most people understand that congress is where the laws are worked out and passed. If republicans just say no, the people will blame them. This is a losing game.

    If sequestration goes through, reread you post six months from now and ask yourself who the public held responsible.

  • rbdwiggins

    The negative impact on job creation is happening right now, and it’s specifically the expected result of a fraudulent Keynesian economic model, federal intrusion into the private sector and unsustainable federal deficit spending. Deficit spending and intrusion by the federal government has always been in direct competition with the private sector, and the stimulative effect of deficit spending and federal intrusion on real GDP has always been negative. Although, it’s never reported that way. In the past, the private sector economy has been strong enough to recover from government manufactured recessions, i.e., federal intrusions into the private sector, and overcome those negative stimulative effects. With the current tax, spending and regulatory structure in place, robust private sector growth across the broader economy will no longer be possible. The federal government’s strict adherence to the Keynesian model has almost killed the Golden Goose.

  • Mark Kortum

    Not only is sequestration designed as a program where he can blame the Republicans for the sequestration itself but he can also blame many other things on sequestration and then the Republicans. There are many inevitable consequences of Obama’s war on our economy. Unemployment will rise, home values will drop further, food, health care, and energy prices will rise. Stocks and bonds will fall, and our currency will devalue and eventually not be used by the rest of the world as the standard it is today.

    Obama must further destroy our economy if he is to remake our country in a model of his choice. He has sewn the seeds of this destruction already with tax increases, Obamacare, choking regulation, limits on energy production and use, and out of control spending. Now all he needs is something and someone to blame the destruction on. His policies must not be associated with the destruction if the American public is to accept his solution, full government control of all sectors of the American economy.

    Sequestration is a perfect foil. he can give speeches like he did yesterday and blame it all on sequestration and those nasty Republicans. He knows the American public are essentially economic illiterates and will buy whatever he and his media outlets feed them. He hopes the angry mobs will pass him by and show up at Boehner’s and Cruz’s doorsteps, not his. Time will tell.

  • sliverlining

    President Merde said a lot of things. This article clearly indicates that. This must be that “transparency” I have been waiting so long for. I didn’t think it would come in the form of Toto pulling back the curtain.

    Transparency, after all, was his idea too!

  • rbdwiggins

    You can keep believing that garbage if you wish, but there will be no real economic recovery and no sustainable job growth until the federal government gets out of the way and lets the private sector decide where to allocate the resources.

  • Acton 27

    These comments express fear about sequestration’s negative effects on the economy. None of these projections take into account the POSITIVE effects of sequestration. The reason we had sequestration in the first place was that this was the minimum that the rating agencies required to prevent a further degradation in the US credit rating. Facing sequestration now will do that, and maybe convince the credit markets that we are not a complete deadbeat, keep interest rates down for a little longer (that will save about $800B a year), and restore confidence in investment in the US.

    There are a lot of comments that buy into the notion that sequestration will cause contraction. Maybe at the edges, but remember that sequestration does not “cut” anything — it just lows the increase over last year’s budget. At least on the non-defense side.

    There will be come cuts on the defense side, and that will hurt defense contractors a little. But they can trim some fat as well.

    All in all, time to stop worrying and learn to love the sequestration.

  • mch2212

    All the more reason why it’s important that articles like these get out to educate people. Especially love the links with direct proof!

  • dmacc799

    Erick, this is a great post. This needs to be the single, solitary message from every Republican. It needs to be tweeted, retweeted, and posted on multiple facebook pages.This is how the Democrats reach the low information voters and win. We need to be able to play the same game, in the same style, with the same simplicity of a message.

  • mch2212

    Can you laugh and feel pain at the same time? Unbelievable the ridiculous image that paints (no pun intended)!

  • silentnomore

    Those of you who were here when Reagan was elected remember that his first two years were tough. The economy was like a addict going through detox. No pain – No gain.

  • oribasius

    Yes, I agree. I’m confused as to why sequestration is so terrible. We’ll never get everyone to agree on what to cut, so let everything get cut equally across the board (which is what I believe sequestration does?). I don’t get why it’s so bad. Sure it will be a slight hit to the economy, but seems minor compared with the alternative.

    In other words…should we call Obama’s bluff?

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    Having watched and listened to Obama for six or seven years now, I think the man has a cartoon-like idea of life in general. He’s dominated by his cynicism: seems to have come to believe that all of life is nothing more than talking bologna and shining it on. That’s all he’s ever done. That’s all he’s ever had to do. That’s all that those who’ve elected him on the state and federal levels have ever required of him.

    Talk some crap. Lies, truth, sense, nonsense. It doesn’t matter. Just stand in front of microphones, blather some sweet-sounding rhetoric, and wait for the accolades to come pouring in . . . as they inevitably do. His learned disrespect for people–especially those who most fervently support him–and his cynical view of life in general are overwhelming. He’s always got by with the stuff hay becomes when bulls are through with it. He thinks that’s what life is all about.

    “Sequestration is good. Sequestration is bad. The debt is bad. We need to borrow more. Millions of hard-working Americans everywhere . . . blah, blah, blah.”

    It’s as though he’s gleaned from his supporters that all he has to do is be African-American. He doesn’t actually have to do the jobs he’s been hired to do. He’s African-American, and he’s been elected senator and president, and that’s enough. That’s his victory. He doesn’t have to take the jobs seriously.

    I find myself thinking things like, “Okay, we have our African-American president. Woop-de-doo. Big deal. Now, if you don’t mind, could we please elect somebody who can actually do the job? African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American, Bohemian-American, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, man, woman, straight, gay: ultimately, it doesn’t matter. We need somebody in the office who can actually do the job. We need somebody who has a plan: somebody who knows what to do, who can effectively change the parasitic, inept federal status quo.

    It’s clear, after five years, that Barack Obama can’t do it. He doesn’t have what it takes, and it’s equally clear that those who might say so–those who’d point out that it’s a big, big mistake to elect our president to serve civil-rights desires instead of to run the country–won’t dare. They didn’t want a president who can do the job the country more and more desperately needs. They wanted an African-American.

    I don’t hold the man’s heritage or skin color against him. For crying out loud, who ultimately cares so very much about that? But I do fault him–and, more emphatically, those who voted for him–for his cynicism about the job: for apparently believing that his irresponsible attitude is good enough.

    To be clear (because these days, I have to be, about such things): I don’t believe he’s irresponsible because he’s African-American. I believe he’s irresponsible because he’s Barack Obama: because Barack Obama is an irresponsible man, weak, vain, cowardly and cripplingly self-protective. He cannot do the job he was hired to do, he cannot admit it, and neither can those who support him. He has the brains, but he ain’t got the stones.

    While I’m ranting and raving . . ..

    Why is it that whenever Obama talks about funding shortfalls, he always targets services that help the population at large as those that will be cut or reduced? He always threatens us with fewer teachers, police, firefighters and healthcare workers.

    Why not cut free plane rides and limousines for himself and congresspersons? Why not sell Air Force One? Why not cut health benefits for himself and congresspersons? Why not cut congressional and presidential salaries? Why not eliminate the White House dog, hair dressers and chefs? Why not cut secret-service protection? Why not cut congressional staffers and aids?

    Why not pull Obama’s kids out of private school? Why should they get such expensive educations while so many others can’t afford it?

    I could probably fill a thick book with a list of federal budget items that could be cut without sacrificing services to the public at large: pork projects and cushy pampering ad nausea. But when Obama threatens us with what we’ll lose if and when sequestration takes effect, it’s always what the public at large will lose. Neither Obama nor anybody in congress ever talks about what he or she is willing to lose: what sacrifices he or she is willing to make.

    Do these people–these public servants–really care about those they so blithely consign to sacrifice? I think not, and that, to me, is the problem. Our political system is geared too heavily toward the politicians’ self-interest. Some self-interest is unavoidable. But when the system becomes totally structured around it, we get what we now have: a political system that serves the politicians–the wealthy, self-interested few–while the entire country flounders and bangs into walls . . . and Barack Obama, for all of his altruistic, idealistic blathering, is reinforcing the politicians’ self-interested status quo.

  • silentnomore

    Exactly, Kyle! Only in an Obama economy does a reduction in plannned increases in spending cause a contraction in the economy. Only in an Obama economy do unemployment benefits “create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” (Top down, bottom up, inside out – Beck)

  • silentnomore

    Oh, they can do plenty. Blocking the Progressive agenda is JOB ONE.

  • celador2

    dave, wonderful idea, a statesman without worry of reelection is what we need to lead and take cuts of necessary. And that is what we have right there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No worry of pandering for reelection.
    Barack Obama, step up to the plate and knock one out of the ball park.
    Next in the lineup Mr Speaker, John Boehner steps up….

  • celador2

    imo–
    The public has a short memory and the media do not remind them but instead mouth off WH talking points for the most part.
    So he gets away with the tawdry lie.

  • ihateliberals

    If you really think about it no matter which way it goes Obama stands to win withthe public. If congress fails to act since the House is controlled by Republicans Obama can blame the Republicans and the weak and febble minded will believe him. if congress acts then he can claim victory over the Repuhblicans and once again the weak and febble minded will believe him. If you think he gives a rats ass which way it goes then you are one of the weak and febble minded. He could care less. His plan is to defeat the Republicans in 2014 and take the House back. Then there wil be nothing to stop his agenda.

  • joshinca

    The fiscal cliff did not result in any real cuts in 2013 and sequestration will lead to approx 40b of cuts this year, not 100b or the more widely touted 80b.

    But your assertion is flatly wrong even if your numbers are correct – 40b+100b x 1.2 multiplier = 168b hit to GDP not 300b or your earlier assertion of 280b – 500b.

  • northfloridawriter

    Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama will ever take the blame for anything. As long as we have a media system which is corrupt, they will continue to carry his baggage and there are enough low info types out there to carry the day.
    The solution is not easy but unless our conservative bloggers, web sites, and talk radio is supplemented with enough real conservatives, not RINOs, representing the Republican Party, the disaster will continue.
    So come on folks, let’s take over the R Party with a bunch of Ted Cruz types. They’re out there, you know.

  • joshinca

    I am not sure whether today’s economy can do that without shedding a good amount of jobs.

    If you believe in Keynesian malarkey, as you seem to do, there is never a good time to cut spending because it will always cause a loss of jobs.
    And the political will to cut spending will be even lower when the economy is doing welll. In fact, it’s more likely that the political pressure will be in the direction of raising spending because times are good. Which is exactly how the states got into trouble in the early 00s.
    Which doesn’t even get into the possiblity of economic growth of 3%+ for the rest of Obama’s presedency, which is impossibly low imo.

  • joshinca

    The private sector has been gaining jobs, albeit slowly in comparison to historical performance after recessions.

    Nonsense.

    Job growth under Obama has not even been high enough to keep pace with population growth. As proven by the collapsing emploment to population statistic.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO/

    A large portion of the overall decline in employment and labor participation rate is due to demographics.

    Lies.

    The baby boom generation will begin retiring this year, but that number is lower than the number people born in the early nineties that will be entering the labor force – or should be. Even when the peak baby boom years hits retirement in

  • rosenstern

    I think this is the moment where conservatives stand strong on principle, regardless of the wails and gnashing of teeth. We might not like the exact mechanism but we are finally on the verge of some meaningful cuts to spending. If we stay strong and pass through this tsunami, voters will see that the opposition’s rhetoric has been hollow and the next round will get a little easier and so on, and so on. We will emerge from this as the party of adults prepared to do what is necessary for our country, even in the teeth of ridiculously inflamed rhetoric.

  • whitetop

    Why did he say firemen, policemen, teachers, day care centers would lose their jobs or close down? These are not paid by the federal government. Still no one calls him on it.

  • silentnomore

    Blah! Blah! Blah! When will they start picking up the cans and throwing them in the trash?

  • whitetop

    Good points and why hasn’t the Speaker of the House pointed out sequestration was Obama’s idea? Seems he has a powerful tool at his disposal but lacks the intellect to use it. At $85 billion and half of that being military cuts the government goes through that in a few days. Nearly 2/3 has been spent for all the pork attached to the Hurricane Sandy bailout.

  • silentnomore

    Rush, Beck, Levin, and plenty of others ARE calling him on it. Neither the MSM nor the LIV’s will EVER call him on it. “When you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the political support of Paul.”

  • plh

    The Speaker did point out the President’s role in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece dated February 19.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578314240032274944.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  • plh

    My strategy would be a form of “divide and conquer.” I would evaluate every item in the federal budget and rank them by both how freedom/prosperity friendly they are and how popular they are. I would then pass targeted funding bills, starting with those that rank highest on both lists, together with a pubicity offensive, saturating the airwaves and every other medium available, asking he public to support their enactment into law. Surely there must be dozens of “must pass” items that the majority of the people would demand for the Senate and the President to look foolish to ignore/oppose. We need to become the party of getting (the right) things done

  • plh

    Even if you think the President in invincible. that still doesn’t mean we should cave. We must continue to provide alternatives, and at the very least, abstain from voting on bills that we consider harmful. Any Obama victory under such circumstances would be more hollow, and the Democrats would completely own any resulting failure. We must deprive him of what he desires most: bipartisan victories.

  • plh

    A dangerous combination of ignorant, misguided, and bought & paid for with free stuff.

  • Ari

    Because from his own mouth, BHO says “I have”- to what ever sounds good, as he does just the opposite. This is his method of continuous LIES. Gullible will ~believe the LIAR in CHIEF~! Because they have no understanding and NEED a delusional belief.

    UNLESS we all circle the wagons and speak consistent truth and call him what he is on each issue, demanding equal time from articulate presenters with plain
    language that is unrefuteable. I am personally getting sick of he Rino WIMP and
    ivory tower posts on RED State… Those who eat so much of lying Obama press reports regarding the economy and Jobs… are just too scared to GET OFF THE POT! Fear has them in diarrhea of “can’t see” delusions.

    It is time to clean up our own houses, neighborhoods and social networks by first FINDING COMMON TRUTH… then SHARE it.

    The best truth one can say for any so called “positive” employment figures is
    that some persons who used to make from $12 to $30 an hour are now still
    unemployed or now only making minimum wage (but likely only working 29 hours / week)… That is no Recovery. When
    Obama CARE kicks in almost no one will be working over 29 hours.

    But employment figures will look better because it could open up another 20 percent of 29 hour job openings due to fewer full time jobs.

    Many of those posting, even here, just do not know what reality is,

    unless the LSMSM agrees.

    Get some real details from real market analysts. There is a REAL WORLD out in
    these United States and it is not on TV or most publications.

    American homes, families and (ex-)workers are in increasingly DIRE STRAITS!

    Our only hope is to out communicate common down-to-earth truths on social media and to an ever widening email list.
    First get the best facts then share them.

  • harmonicman

    Why is anyone surprised when the “liar in chief” lies again? As long as the main stream media continue to let him get away with avoiding any responsibility for anything, he will continue to mislead us into bankruptcy. As to those who say he is out of his league or doesn’t know what he is doing, I believe that he knows exactly what he is doing. He is doing what he planned for his entire political career. Forwarding the destruction of the United States. And he is doing an excellent job of it. Does anyone know or any way to stop him? I certainly don’t, and apparently the so-called Republicans in Washington don’t either.

  • realdeal33

    Forgot to mention livestock producers. The furlough of federal meat inspectors would shut down the industry and result in massive lost income. But we’re just another pawn to be toyed with for political gain. Read this: http://www.agrimarketing.com/s/80483

  • Ari

    The NECESSITY FOR HOLDING THE LINE on Sequestration is to DEMAND reality from Obama and the Senate. Otherwise we go 2 more years down the cesspool drain in to the Sewage pit.

  • paleen

    We have to a lot more than the sequestration cuts to right the government spending problem for the economy to really grow. It is true that the change will put us in a bit of a temporary recession but that will be true whenever it is done. If it isn’t done sometime then the government will in fact fall and all is lost. We have gone to far to come out of this without pain. We have to prepare the nation for this reality one way or another.

  • mkeprof

    I have no idea how you got the impression that I am advocating an annual increase in deficit. I am instead asking for a *cut* in spending – but only when GDP growth is above a threshold so that the economy can absorb it without us getting the blame for bringing on the next recession.

  • coninkalifornia

    This will work out great! So long as the MSM doesn’t prioritize Obama’s messaging and Republican leadership doesn’t cave, we’re golden! Those things never happen … I can’t think of one time when Obama won the battle for public opinion and then leadership caved – not in, like, a couple weeks at least.

    Seriously? How is this going to work out differently than Hagel’s inevitable appointment, the 2nd Debt Ceiling cave, the Fiscal Cliff debacle, the ‘unskewed’ polling embarrassment, the Benghazi scandal, every Romney campaign idea, the 2012 budget ‘fight,’ the 2011 payroll tax/extenders/XL pipeline surrender, the 1st Debt Ceiling Cave and Budget Control Act, the 2011 CR, and the 2010 extenders. Face it … the Republican establishment is on an epic losing streak here.

    And now they’re talking about combining the Sequester, Debt Ceiling, and 2013 CR is an unprecedented “TRIPLE CAVE!” It’ll be like the Triple Lindy www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDMMYT3vkTk only without the cool diving suit.

  • guvhog

    You are correct. This and those major OBamacare premium hikes coming next year will destroy Democrats in the voting booth resulting in GOP control of both houses.

  • guvhog

    Or they are physically unable to work.

  • rigdum

    yes, there is much doubt that this tiny cut will do anything serious to the economy.
    if you are one of the Keysians who has still not realized that the theory is good but it does not work in an economy with this much debt, please consider that raising taxes [like we just did on the rich, in in Obama care, to the tune of $160 billion a year] was twice as bad as this. ps: throw out Rawls and re-read Nozick.

  • GregInFla

    I am sorry. If I were to tell a department of a company that it will have to live on just a little more money than it got last year (which is what sequestration essentially is), and the manager tells me that he won’t get anything done the rest of the year and will have to fire most employees, my answer would be simple: you are fired! This is such nonsense. It is a testament to the blind eyes of the MSM, who should start losing their 1st amendment rights soon.

  • drifter

    I would hope that it would destroy Democrats but what needs to be destroyed is Obamacare and BO still has the veto…

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Standing ovation from Arizona. I suggest you cut this and paste it into a stand-alone diary. You were wise to be “clear.” You hit it exactly.

    The only thing I can add, and it is not exactly pertinent, is that as true as everything you wrote is, it may also be true that Barack Obama is completely up to the job he wants to accomplish–turning the United States into a European-style, inconsequential, socialist welfare state, and making himself rich in the process.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Works for me.

  • adair

    He tried to cover himself against the loss of sequester money by then proposing $84B in new spending. No, we must not have those deficits and debts reduced!

  • adair

    Perhaps the Speaker should have submitted his article to some newspapers in California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, the Carolinas and Florida. He can’t get his message out to people who don’t normally read the Wall St. Journal, but he could try.

  • moujmasti34

    Nathan. I can see what your saying… George`s article is impossible… last friday I got a great new Honda NSX from having made $9308 this past five weeks and-just over, $10,000 last-munth. no-doubt about it, this really is my favourite-job I have ever had. I began this five months/ago and straight away began to earn over $87… per hour. I use this website,, — Buzz80.ℂOℳ

  • capeconservative

    Might I suggest cutting the first lady’s staff down to the level of the previous FL’s. She currently has more than probably the previous dozen combined!