White House steps up campaign to avoid spending cuts

Comments (96)
ccharles wrote:

Is the Sequester good, no. But it is needed and Obama did sign it into a Law that has to be followed. But the trim is suppose to be Goverment and it is clearly outlined in broad terms what areas the cuts are to come from. And stated in that law, low income help could not be touched in the cuts. So where does he come up with that amounts to an outright lie on his part. Nothing new.

It will be devastating to alot of federal workers, est. 270,000 workers face there jobs being terminated. This amount will hurt the economy, but the deal was made to raise the debt ceiling and now must be paid.

Feb 24, 2013 9:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hmm9999 wrote:

This administration is just fishing for bigger government and they use all kinds of excuses to maintain their hold on power.

In reality, the sequester cuts are a very small percentage of the national debt and/or the deficit. The sooner they are made, the better.

Since ALL must pay for what they get, all who get more than they can afford MUST give up the difference. We ALL MUST live within our means.

Cutting a little bit now may cause some pain BUT, not doing something now will only INCREASE the pain later.
If this administration can’t understand that, they have NO right to be in the offices they hold!

No government can give out anything they have not already taken from the people. Socialism has proven itself to NEVER work in the long run.

Continuing down the path of over-spending our means indicates one of two things. Either those in charge are too stupid to know what they are doing OR they have an agenda to destroy this nation.

Feb 24, 2013 9:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

He rails and rails against crisis after crisis, each of which he created himself.

Feb 24, 2013 9:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“est. 270,000 workers face there jobs being terminated. This amount will hurt the economy”

Since this bill was signed into law in August 2011 over 15 MILLION people has lost their jobs and the media(Reuters) keeps telling us the economy is slowly improving.

So another 270,000-700,000 governments jobs will probably make the economy grow a little more faster.

Feb 24, 2013 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

President Obama promoted the sequester, then refused to cut anything. So once again, he simply plays the victim and wags his finger. This is getting a bit old.

Feb 24, 2013 10:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

What cuts? Spending is already going to rise 6-8% from last year to this one. The “cut” is a reduction in the increase of gov spending by 2%. That means without the “cut” we would be spending 8-10% more than last year.

So I repeat. There is no cut! Stop putting it in your articles Reuters. Have respect for the citizens of this country.

Feb 24, 2013 11:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

Blame, blame, blame–that is all he does and all he will ever do.

Feb 25, 2013 1:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jocomus wrote:

Why didn’t Obama propose to cut paychecks payable to all lawmakers ? They will scramble to come to the negotiating table.

Feb 25, 2013 3:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
DeSwiss wrote:

”The Republican Party can’t become the stupid party.” ~Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

You’re not helping Piyush. :-/

Feb 25, 2013 4:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

For those of you blaming Obama for the sequester..the Republicans in the House thank you. Good work guys. Dumbed down government for the masses. This is nothing short of political posturing…both sides. Neither side in serious about spending cuts. The Democrats have no specific plan to cut overall spending. And those of you that think the Republicans are the saviors of America and the debt. Read Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013 (which is the Republicans budget proposal for 2013) and then explain to me how more tax cuts that favor the richest in America and an increase of $50B in Defense spending is fiscally responsible or helps reduce the debt. The only cuts proposed in that plan are in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And the cuts are vague. Absolutely no specifics. BioStudies is the only one here that has it right. Congress built automatic annual increases into virtually every department and program in the government. Spending actually increases automatically if they do nothing.

Feb 25, 2013 5:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
minipaws wrote:

All government workers take 2.5% paycut. Another one next year. They will quickly be incented to spend less than to spend more! Welcome to the real world.

Feb 25, 2013 7:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
IDONTGETIT wrote:

We need less federal government and more power to the state. But President Obam should stop taking plays from the republican Play books. Nero is fiddling while Rome burns. This is not how a leader should lead….

Feb 25, 2013 8:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
BobDR wrote:

White House comments would have a lot more meaning if they had someone in their Administration who actually understood economics! The string of comments sound like a bunch of drug-addled show biz types on a talk show.

Feb 25, 2013 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
BobDR wrote:

It’s a bit ironic that the freeloaders put this moron into office and his incompetence will affect them the most???

Feb 25, 2013 9:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055 said: “For those of you blaming Obama for the sequester..the Republicans in the House thank you. Good work guys. Dumbed down government for the masses. This is nothing short of political posturing…both sides.”

We’re blaming the President for the sequester because it was his idea that he now wants to renege on and blame Republicans for. I agree both sides want to defer blame, but according to Jay Carney: “and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president’s team.” So, it was:
1) Conjured up by Obama’s team (Democrat)
2) Passed by the House (Republican)
3) Passed by the Senate (Democrat)
4) Signed by the President (Democrat)

So, if Obama wants to play the blame game and talk about little kids who won’t get their free loaf of bread and milk, etc. then observers are right to acknowledge his involvement. Republicans signed it knowing it was the only way Democrats would ever cut spending. Democrats and Obama signed it thinking it would help them feign sincerity on spending cuts but would never go through due to its impact on Defense, they made a political miscalculation that Republicans would renege, allowing Democrats the opportunity to replace half of the cuts with tax increases as they have already suggested.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I actually support the sequester because it appears to be the best we can do to cut spending (the rate of growth in spending) even one dime. The sequester and the use of drones are perhaps the only Obama initiatives I could actually say that I support, given the current climate.

@xyz2055 said: “Neither side in serious about spending cuts. The Democrats have no specific plan to cut overall spending. And those of you that think the Republicans are the saviors of America and the debt. Read Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” version 3.0 2013 (which is the Republicans budget proposal for 2013) and then explain to me how more tax cuts that favor the richest in America and an increase of $50B in Defense spending is fiscally responsible or helps reduce the debt.”

This point I can agree on as you and Biostudies are correct: we are only talking about cuts in the rate of GROWTH in spending, not real cuts in the absolute level of spending. However, it stands that Democrats have no plan and, heck, they haven’t even passed a budget in over 4 years. Republicans are not perfect by any means but they have passed a balanced budget every year Obama has been in office, they passed HR 5262in May of last year to replace the sequester with more pragmatic cuts, and regarding the Ryan budget: it cut the rate of growth in government down to 3.1% which is better than where it is projected otherwise under the continuing resolution and Obama’s inept leadership. And how can you chide one party for being unspecific in areas where the opposition refuses to even acknowledge the problem with ANY proposal?

Now, I’m not trying to simply disagree or argue with you, rather I am more or less suggesting that given the two party choices that stand before us, I far prefer Republicans approach as they have actually put forth some plans (whether you like them or not) to get us further towards fiscal sanity (if not fiscal balance). Their propositions on Medicare, for example, may not have been as detailed as you would like, but it is far better than refusing to put forth any alternative to Medicare’s slated insolvency in 2024. Republicans are not perfect by any means, but if you believe in some degree of fiscal restraint and a robust, competitive private sector as the best path to American prosperity, I believe Republicans are undoubtedly the best ticket at this juncture.

Feb 25, 2013 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Any benefits reductions or “adjustments” to Social Security and / or Medicare must be matched by equal percentage cuts in benefits for active and retired Federal employees, including the military and elected officials.

All social benefit spending should be outlawed for any “black” budget deceptions as well, so the the public can actually see how much is being spent on non-military and non-pararmilitary social spending. It is time to stop hiding CIA and Pentagon and covert foreign aid spending in Federal social spending budgets.

Feb 25, 2013 9:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

BTW, I meant to say HR 5652 (HR 4966 and HR 6688 are related.)

Feb 25, 2013 9:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

So, where is our fearless leader at this time? He promised a balanced approach to deficit reduction. He got his tax hike. Where are the cuts?

The Sequester is simply smoke and mirrors anyway. It amounts to cuts that are smaller in size than the planned increase in spending. There will be no “cuts”. The only difference is that spending will not increase as much as it would have otherwise.

We need real spending cuts. We need to take all those “just a drop in the bucket” programs and cut or totally defund them. We need to find the government waste and useless agencies and get rid of them.

Remember all the news last year about Las Vegas junkets, judges partying in Hawaii, and such? How about an Executive Order coming from Obama that says, “No more parties on the Taxpayer dime.” That would be a no-brainer and would probably save billions per year.

Come on, Obama, lead us.

Feb 25, 2013 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

So what happened to the Republican’s (Cheney) “Deficits Don’t Matter” as they racked up debt with excessive tax cuts, which didn’t drive up tax revenue (they fell 2.5%), two unfunded wars and massive growth of the federal departments (AKA Homeland Security)? So now all of a sudden Republicans get religion and Deficits do matter?

Feb 25, 2013 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@speaker2…just to be clear, are you talking about the same “excessive tax cuts” that Obama extended in 2010 and made 99.3% of permanent in 2012? Yea, kinda nullifies that talking point…

Anyways, posts like yours make me very curious about one thing: Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?

I, for one, am not content that we have followed GWB’s fiscal recklessness with a “leader” who has served only to exacerbate and perpetuate those policies…what about you?

Feb 25, 2013 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..the last time that Republicans had control (both Houses and the Presidency) 2000-2006 they went on the wildest drunken sailor spending spree of all time. The debt doubled under Reagan. And you think they are fiscally responsible? Path to Prosperity IS the Republican budget proposal for for 2013. It isn’t balanced. Might want to read what the CBO says about that proposal. The ONLY time in our history that there has ever been a budget surplus was with Clinton had the White House with a Republican Congress. And gridlock was just as bad then as it is now. The difference..largest peace time expansion in our history. 21M new private sector jobs were created. You need to quit drinking the koolaid and take off those rose colored glasses.

Feb 25, 2013 10:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham…the sequestor will not stop the continuing increase of the debt. Read what BioStudies posted. He is exactly right.

Feb 25, 2013 10:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055…”the last time that Republicans had control (both Houses and the Presidency) 2000-2006 they went on the wildest drunken sailor spending spree of all time”

I wouldn’t call it “the wildest” considering Obama has added more dollars to the federal debt in 4 years than Bush did in his entire 8 year term. But, I will mostly agree as that spending spree was what prompted Senator Obama to oppose to raising of the debt ceiling:

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next five years, between now and 2011, the president’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion. Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health-care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next five years. That is why I will once again co-sponsor the pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again. Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just five years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

- Senator Obama , March 16th, 2006

I wish we could figure out what flavor of kool-aid he was drinking then…

Feb 25, 2013 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Speaker2..exactly right! And when the Republicans had control what did they do to save Medicare? Nothing..in fact they shackled it with a Prescription Drug Program that added billions more to the cost. Big Pharmacy however was extremely grateful.

Feb 25, 2013 10:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

“the sequestor will not stop the continuing increase of the debt. Read what BioStudies posted. He is exactly right.”

You mean Biostudies who I agreed with that by stating verbatim in my previous post “This point I can agree on as you and Biostudies are correct: we are only talking about cuts in the rate of GROWTH in spending, not real cuts in the absolute level of spending. However, it stands that Democrats have no plan and, heck, they haven’t even passed a budget in over 4 years. Republicans are not perfect by any means but they have passed a balanced budget every year Obama has been in office, they passed HR 5262in May of last year to replace the sequester with more pragmatic cuts, and regarding the Ryan budget: it cut the rate of growth in government down to 3.1% which is better than where it is projected otherwise under the continuing resolution and Obama’s inept leadership”

…I read what he wrote, I agreed with it and I then highlighted that Republicans are the only ones to have yet proposed an alternative. But, I guess you prefer operating government with no budget for four years, no proposal to slow the growth of government to any degree and refusing to propose any solution to Medicare’s slated insolvency in 2024….forward!

Feb 25, 2013 10:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055: “And when the Republicans had control what did they do to save Medicare? Nothing..in fact they shackled it with a Prescription Drug Program that added billions more to the cost. Big Pharmacy however was extremely grateful.”

Just like Big Pharma is extremely grateful to Obama as under PPACA the government cannot use it’s purchasing power to negotiate drug prices, negating hundreds of billions in potential savings….

Following such a biased, narrow-minded comment I must agian ask: Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?

Feb 25, 2013 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham post all the Democratic rhetoric you want. Obama’s statement in 2006 was politics. Just like it is today with the Republicans. His party wan’t in charge in 2006 he could say anything he wanted and have to back it up. You don’t get it. Neither side is truly interested in cutting spending. That’s my point. It’s all political theatre. Not now and certainly not between 2000 -2006 when the Republicans had the best chance in our history to actually cut the debt. Instead they doubled it.

Feb 25, 2013 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..put HR5262 in your search engine and see what you get…..”To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Bis(4-tbutylcyclohexyl) peroxydicarbonate”

Feb 25, 2013 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

” Neither side is truly interested in cutting spending”

I agree…but I believe Republicans have clearly done more than Democrats as of late for the exact reasons I have cited. Even the reviled Ryan budget is better than the continuing resolution and no Senate budget since April 29, 2009. Thus I will support them until Democrats show more sincerity in fiscal balance than Republicans.

Feb 25, 2013 11:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

I’ve got $50 that says Obama and The Republicans will within the next 30 days agree to stop the sequester and kick the can down the road. The largest cuts in the sequester are from the Republicans “sacred cow”….Defense.

Feb 25, 2013 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

That’s why I followed that original post with “BTW, I meant to say HR 5652 (HR 4966 and HR 6688 are related.)”

I re-pasted the typo after you demonstrated that you did not read the portion where I expressly agreed with you and Biostudies on the point that these are cut sin the rate of growth in spending.

Please read my posts before debating them…

Feb 25, 2013 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

HR 5652 is the “Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012″

Whether or not you agree with the alternative cuts suggested, let me re-iterate that the proposed Senate alternative replaces half of the cuts with tax increases! And democrats have deluded themselves into believing such a bill has any efficacy or chance of passing…classic.

Feb 25, 2013 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reviewed H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act of 2012, as posted on the Web site of the House Committee on Rules on December 19, 2012.

Assuming enactment around January 1, 2013, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 6684 would yield net deficit reduction of $217.7 billion over the 2013-2022 period. That figure reflects changes in direct spending and revenues from provisions that would yield gross estimated budgetary savings of $314.5 billion through 2022, partially offset by a cost of $96.8 billion through 2022 for the sequester replacement provisions in title VII of the legislation.

Further, the legislation would specify a cap on total discretionary budget authority for 2013 that is $19.1 billon lower than the total funding level of $1,047 billion that could be provided under current law. However, because any effect of that adjustment would be subject to future appropriation actions, there would be no impact on direct spending from that change in the cap on 2013 funding.

The legislation posted by the Rules Committee is a modified version of legislation passed by the House on May 10, 2012, as H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. (CBO provided an estimate of the effects of that legislation on May 9, 2012.)”

Seriously? I’d be embarrassed to acknowledge that this piece of legislation even exits. Assuming we continue to have $1T deficits over the next 10 years….without this bill the debt would grow by $10T by 2022. WITH this bill the debt would grow by $9.8T by 2022. This isn’t a spending cut bill..this is a redistribution of funds within the Federal government that essentially guarantees the same spending level for the next 10 years. Inflation would quickly devour the very very very very small savings in this bill.

Feb 25, 2013 12:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@jaham

My position is simple, to solve the debt problem will require both spending cuts and tax increases. Spending cuts should start with defense. We could cut that budget in half and we’d still be out spending all other countries.

Then I’d remove most corporate loopholes, so the companies actually start paying corporate taxes including all their offshore cash. Same thing with most agriculture welfare.

Never happen, companies have created jobs across a wide number of states, and while Congress yells and cries about the debt, if they have to cut funding or jobs in their own districts, they won’t do anything.

Feb 25, 2013 12:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

xyz2055…I didn’t say I thought it was ideal; embarrassing is not passing a budget in 4 years.

Feb 25, 2013 2:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@speaker2…I can mostly agree with you. The only difference is that I would cut spending down very close to current revenue levels while I’m sure you’d prefer revenues to come up closer to where spending levels are.

Defense spending needs to be cut in a pragmatic way, as Michele Flournay (who should be defense secretary) has suggested, but the bulk of our fiscal problems stem from entitlements.

In short, we need only two basic things for this country to prosper:
1) Reform Entitlements so that they are sustainable for the long term
2) Foster a robust private sector that is competitive in the new global economy…more taxes, regulation, and uncertainty is not furthering us towards that end.

Feb 25, 2013 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..your obsession with the budget is too funny. The aggregate of the spending bills that Congress passes IS the budget. We know in advance what we are going to spend each and every year based the allocation bills passed in Congress. But let’s take the House’s 2013 budget proposal that the Senate won’t even bring up for a vote. It is exactly the same platform that Romney and Ryan ran for President on in 2012. They got their butts kicked big time. Couldn’t even carry their own home states or states they previously held office in. That’s what America thinks about the Republican’s 2013 Budget plan.

Feb 25, 2013 2:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

Poor guy…still campaigning & always campaiging. Poor citizens hungry for a leader and none to be found at the White House.

Feb 25, 2013 2:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

If he was leader he could have solved this already. They all knew this was coming. He got his revnues. Now it’s time for him to negotiate some cuts and avoid this. He won’t.

Feb 25, 2013 2:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

This whole Sequester Deal is the NEW TREASURY SECRETARY APPOINTEE’S idea.

The Administration had to admit it yesterday after blaming it on the Rebublicans and few name name Journalists called them out on it.

It was Jack Lew and his buddy’s idea. They ran it by the administration and the Republicans jumped on board with it. The Congress passed it and the President sign it.

It’s the law now deal with it.

Feb 25, 2013 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Lanny wrote:

It will do no good for the Governors to “talk” with the Senators of their state. The 17th amendment put the Governors at the same level as a private citizen.
The President does not wish to compromise, he is out for more power.

Feb 25, 2013 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Have no problem whatsoever spent as money as we can print them, however layers of bureaucracies and wasteful spending has to be rein in. Everytime politicians face cuts they always play the same broken record, threat of cutting essential services and much needed R&D but never admit the wasteful spending.

Feb 25, 2013 2:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cfulbright wrote:

There are no $85 billion in cuts. There are just less growth in spending than without the sequestration. Dept of Transportation budget is going to go up $500 million, yet they say they are going to have to close airports.

This is all bull

Feb 25, 2013 2:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

WHOS FAULT IS IT?

The sequestration we now face is because the “Super Committee” that was formed to come up with $1.2 trillion of more carefully targeted spending cuts failed to do its one job. A deal was struck between Speaker Boehner and the White House that created the sequester to force the committee and Congress to act responsibly and address the cuts. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the deal, Paul Ryan heralded the sequestration as a victory of bipartisanship and a welcome change in Congress’ culture.

174 House Republicans—including the entire leadership—voted for it; and a majority of Senate Republicans voted for it, including, again, the entire leadership. Obama signed it.

@jaham likes to selectively misquote Jay Carney- here is more from this press briefing:

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/19/2013

Q And lastly, everyone agrees that the sequester is a bad idea, but didn’t it originate — the idea for the sequester originate here at the White House?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’ve been through this a lot — I know you’re filling in — but here’s the fundamental fact. During the deficit reduction of the debt ceiling negotiations, because the Republicans refused to embrace balance, refused in the end to join hands with the President and pursue a grand bargain, there was an absolute necessity to avoid default, and both sides were looking for trigger mechanisms — this is complicated budget-speak — to help make this package possible.

The sequester was something that was discussed, and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward because it was put forward by Republican Senator Gramm and Rudman back in the ‘80s as part of the Gramm-Rudman deal — there is a history here to this. But let’s be clear: Republicans embraced it. Every member of the House Republican leadership voted for it. Nearly two to one in the House Republicans voted for it over Democrats. And on the day it passed, the Speaker of the House said he got 98 percent of what he wanted and that he was pretty happy.

The issue here is the sequester was designed never to take effect because it was supposed to force Congress to do responsible, difficult things, make choices about how we reduce our deficit in a way that would allow us to avoid the sequester, the indiscriminate, across-the-board, devastating cuts that the sequester represents.

Unfortunately, Republicans have thus far all along the way refused to go along with the fundamental principle of balance, that we need to do this with spending cuts — tough spending cuts, with entitlement reforms and with revenues.

NO SPENDING CUTS FROM OBAMA?

MR. CARNEY: Thus far, the President — and Senator Simpson and Erskine Bowles noted this I think today in their presentation — the President has overseen more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It hasn’t always been pretty, but the fact is this President has signed into law more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. And thus far, more than two-thirds of that has come through spending cuts.

THE DEFICIT HAS GONE UP UNDER OBAMA?

“Late Friday afternoon, the Treasury Department published the official report on the U.S. budget deficit for the most recent fiscal year: $1.089 trillion. While that’s obviously still a very large budget shortfall, the deficit is $200 BILLION SMALLER than it was last year, and is nearly $300 BILLION SMALLER than when President Obama took office.

To add a little historical context to this, over the last four decades, only two presidents have reduced the deficit this much, this quickly: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.”

I hope maybe this will quiet some of the lies, but I doubt it.

Feb 25, 2013 2:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
123456951 wrote:

Obama’s voter approval ratings are about to start falling. The honeymoon is over. Also, the hell with the poor. Giving money away to Anybody with out asking anything in return is bull.

Feb 25, 2013 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

benmore2day…”To add a little historical context to this, over the last four decades, only two presidents have reduced the deficit this much, this quickly: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.””

All that deficit cutting is especially impressive when you consider Obama has been able to add more dollars to the Federal debt than any other President in history, and he’s only halfway done…what a fiscal champion!

Feb 25, 2013 3:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
swanto wrote:

Pure posturing

Just another idiotic footnote in the pathetic trajectory of American politics.

Sickening

Feb 25, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
swanto wrote:

Pure posturing

Just another idiotic footnote in the pathetic trajectory of American politics.

Sickening

Feb 25, 2013 3:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@benmore…BTW, you “selectively misquoted” from the wrong transcript:

BAIER: So, on that statement, both things probably can be said are not true, right?

CARNEY: Well, look, I love that the Republicans are trying to make this the Obama sequester. Let me remind you that on the day the sequester passed, the House of Representatives, 269 congressmen and women voted for it. How many were republicans? A 171.

Among those Republicans, the speaker of the House, the Republican majority leader, the Republican whip, and the chairman of the budget committee who later became the vice presidential nominee. All of them voted for it. The speaker of the House that day said I got 98 percent of what I want. I’m pretty pleased. So, somehow, what they like then they don’t like now.

BAIER: Fair.

CARNEY: And they’re trying to say it was the president’s idea.

BAIER: Fair, but it was the president’s idea.

CARNEY: Look —

BAIER: You can concede that point, right?

CARNEY: What I will concede is we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build the mechanism to get us out of default possibility.

BAIER: Right.

CARNEY: And the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the president’s team.

BAIER: Jack Lew is quoted in Bob Woodward’s book “We have idea for a trigger and Harry Reid is quoted as saying —

CARNEY: And you can hang all you want on this.

BAIER: No, I’m just quoting the book.

CARNEY: — to include revenue in that. And, shockingly, balance was imposed entirely by the Republicans at the time. That is why we have the situation we have now.

And both sides agreed when the Republicans voted overwhelmingly for it, as I will remind you, that the sequester was designed to be terrible policy that should not come to pass. And what we hear from Republicans now, unfortunately, again, is it will would be better to have tens of thousands of people laid off for furloughs, to have thousands of kids thrown off of Head Start if the sequester kicks in than to ask corporate jet owners to give up their tax break, or to ask oil and gas companies who have been making record profits and who are, you know, again and again, year after year to give us taxpayers subsidiaries. That is just not good economic policy. It doesn’t make sense. So the American people don’t support it.

BAIER: Jay, as always, thank you for coming on. I appreciate the patience in the breaking news tonight.

CARNEY: I’m a former news guy. I know news when I see it. I totally understand. Thank you, Bret.

BAIER: Thanks, Jay.

There is video of it but Reuters won’t let me post the link for some reason….truth hurts, don’t it?

Feb 25, 2013 3:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz2055 said: “your obsession with the budget is too funny. The aggregate of the spending bills that Congress passes IS the budget. We know in advance what we are going to spend each and every year based the allocation bills passed in Congress. But let’s take the House’s 2013 budget proposal that the Senate won’t even bring up for a vote. It is exactly the same platform that Romney and Ryan ran for President on in 2012. They got their butts kicked big time. Couldn’t even carry their own home states or states they previously held office in. That’s what America thinks about the Republican’s 2013 Budget plan. ”

LOL, yea it’s pretty easy to chastise your opponent for their proposal when you have not put forth your own proposal in 4 years…

Feb 25, 2013 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cleveland2012 wrote:

Some people are going to blame President Obama no matter what he does. I think he has a difficult job, and he was handed a lot of huge problems. But thank goodness we have a President who is strong enough and smart enough to stand up to the difficulties this country faces. But I think he should be careful because he is starting to come across as insincere. The high-flown rhetoric of the State of the Union Speech did not match the concreteness of the problems the country faces. And now he wants Governors to take a stand against something he approved. That makes no sense. In fact, that it makes no sense and comes from Obama scares the daylight out of me. One gets the feeling that our country is in deep trouble.

Feb 25, 2013 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

All both sides keep saying is they need to cut. Then when they try to cut anything there is a huge uproar from everybody that they can’t afford to cut because it would cause too many issues and job losses. I’m really confused!

Feb 25, 2013 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@harry079 ha sit exactly right: “This whole Sequester Deal is the NEW TREASURY SECRETARY APPOINTEE’S idea.

The Administration had to admit it yesterday after blaming it on the Rebublicans and few name name Journalists called them out on it.

It was Jack Lew and his buddy’s idea. They ran it by the administration and the Republicans jumped on board with it. The Congress passed it and the President sign it.”

It was the darn treasury secretary who has investments in private equity funds in the cayman islands….Romney who?

Feb 25, 2013 3:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ucjb wrote:

Obama wants to stop what he started. Too bad so sad.

Feb 25, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneofthecrowd wrote:

Who is complaining the most about sequestration? Perhaps if our illegal immigrants paid K-12 tuition which averages $10k per child per year, then education would need no cuts, oh but that logic wins the racist label. Cut defense and we won’t be able to expand into Africa, as if we actually want to expand our war theaters again. Sequestration is the best idea they’ve had and they just hate it, that’s a shame.

Feb 25, 2013 3:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneofthecrowd wrote:

We have 1.5 million children who came here illegally which each take $10k per year in average education benefits totalling $150 Billion. Instead of sending a tuition bill home we will lay off our own teachers. Seems unfair.

Feb 25, 2013 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
valwayne wrote:

Obama could have compromised with Republicans at the start of the year when he rolled them on massive Tax increases that aren’t just hitting the rich, but every single American that earns a paycheck. Instead of making a deal then he pushed back his Sequester by a few months. He’s had months to propose alternate cuts, but he hasn’t proposed a single cut. All he’s proposed are more taxes. The Sequester was Obama’s idea, and he signed it into law! Where is Obama’s proposal for alternate cuts? There is no proposal folks! Obama is lying. He has no intention of cutting a penny. Republicans just need to ignore Obama’s frantic propaganda, and let Obama’s Sequester go into effect because Obama will NEVER negoatiate in good faith. He is the worst, most failed, most arrogant, most partisan, most extreme left wing ideologue to ever sit in the White House!

Feb 25, 2013 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@jaham wrote: “All that deficit cutting is especially impressive when you consider Obama has been able to add more dollars to the Federal debt than any other President in history, and he’s only halfway done…what a fiscal champion!”

Do you care to explain with some verifiable FACTS how the president can simultaneously reduce the budget (as reported by the Treasury Dept.) and add more dollars to the budget?

@jaham wrote: “truth hurts, don’t it?”

There is nothing hurtful in Mr. Carey’s quote: “And the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the president’s team.” Thank you for posting the full quote in context. An idea put forth by the presidents team to strike a compromise deal with Repubs is how the process works. However, your accusation that this was the presidents idea, his policy that he put forth is still a false one.

Feb 25, 2013 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
randburg100 wrote:

oooooooooooooooooooh I bet all those governors are really scared of Mr Kenya…

Feb 25, 2013 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Amathonn wrote:

The sequester was President Obama’s idea.

If congress knuckles under now, Obama will just use that weakness as a cudgel to “annihilate them.”

Don’t weaken, boys & girls. And if Boehner tries to cave, get rid of him.

Feb 25, 2013 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Amathonn wrote:

The sequester was President Obama’s idea.

If congress knuckles under now, Obama will just use that weakness as a cudgel to “annihilate them.”

Don’t weaken, boys & girls. And if Boehner tries to cave, get rid of him.

Feb 25, 2013 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

the propaganda coming from our government is something out of the days of stalin. its on TV, its in the newspaper, its being talked about in every circle. its like this concerted effort to once again dupe the population into thinking the sun won’t rise tomorrow if we cut a tiny sliver of our massive budget that in reality will still be higher than last year. at what point do you take the needle away from the addict and say its time to sober up?

Feb 25, 2013 4:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@valwayne wrote: “Where is Obama’s proposal for alternate cuts? There is no proposal folks! Obama is lying.”

Analysis of the presidents 2013 budget from The Congressional Budget Office:

“The projected deficits under the President’s proposals would exceed those in CBO’s baseline—a benchmark showing the outcome if current laws generally remained unchanged—by 0.5 percent of GDP ($82 billion) in 2012, by 2.2 percent of GDP ($365 billion) in 2013, and by between 1.4 percent and 1.9 percent of GDP in each year from 2014 through 2022. In all, between 2013 and 2022, deficits would total $6.4 trillion (or 3.2 percent of total GDP projected for that period), $3.5 trillion more than the cumulative deficit in CBO’s baseline.”

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42972

Feb 25, 2013 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Bemore: “Do you care to explain with some verifiable FACTS how the president can simultaneously reduce the budget (as reported by the Treasury Dept.) and add more dollars to the budget?”

I’ll leave that to you since you are the self-appointed fact guru…

@Bemore: “There is nothing hurtful in Mr. Carey’s quote: “And the sequester was one of the ideas put forward, yes, by the president’s team.” Thank you for posting the full quote in context. An idea put forth by the presidents team to strike a compromise deal with Repubs is how the process works. However, your accusation that this was the presidents idea, his policy that he put forth is still a false one.”

Well, according to Jay Carney the idea did originate from the “President’s team”, that would make my accusation correct…Yes, it is how the process works and I support the sequester as I don’t believe Democrats would have ever cut spending otherwise.

Honestly, I am quite pleased as it continues to elude deluded Democrats that:
1)They just made over 99% of the temporary Bush tax cuts permanent
2) Spending will be cut via sequester for the foreseeable future (unless an alternative of only cuts is agreed upon by Democrats)
3)It is highly unlikely 2014 concedes the House to democrats and thus Obama is as lame a duck as you’ll ever find.

Lastly, if I have made a false statement please quote me explicitly and justify your claim of falsehood.

Feb 25, 2013 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
joe10082 wrote:

Very clever! Obama warns the governors about the impending cuts but the question is what steps has the President taken to bring about compromise between the parties on this matter? The answer is nothing! Nothing at all.

Feb 25, 2013 4:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

I copied the wrong paragraph in my previous post.

Corrected below.

“In its analysis of the President’s proposals excluding any macroeconomic effects, which was issued on March 16, CBO concluded that the federal budget deficit would equal $1.3 trillion (or 8.1 percent of gross domestic product, GDP) in fiscal year 2012 and would decline to about $1.0 trillion (or 6.1 percent of GDP) in 2013. The deficit would decline further relative to GDP in subsequent years, reaching 2.5 percent by 2017, but then increase again, reaching 3.0 percent of GDP in 2022.”

Feb 25, 2013 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@jaham-

How can you make the statement: “Obama has been able to add more dollars to the Federal debt than any other President in history..”
and not have any information to back it up?

The president has reduced the budget by over $300 billion in his first 4 years with no help from the Repubs, and has signed off on another 2.5 trillion in reductions.

You do realize how silly it sounds to refute the reality in the face of facts, don’t you?

Feb 25, 2013 4:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Not to worry, Boehner will cave on this like he always does.

Feb 25, 2013 4:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tdehoff wrote:

Its all Obama’s Fault read this:

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, in a piece not posted to the Internet until a time generally reserved for incriminating government document dumps (5:59 pm Friday), reminded the world, “The automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors…”

In other words Obama is lying, has been lying and will continue to lie until the MSM finds a backbone.

Feb 25, 2013 4:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
carterbenb wrote:

STOP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
Don’t raise the debt ceiling!

Feb 25, 2013 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
astroz wrote:

President Obama acts like a child. He wanted the sequester and has refused to cut anything.

Feb 25, 2013 5:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

Massive spending cuts, or “austerity measures” have not proven to be fiscally responsible, or helpful to the economy in Europe.

Financial/economic experts widely agree the safest and most responsible approach is a balanced one where both cuts and increased revenue are implemented.

76% of Americans polled (from both parties) agree with the experts and want a balanced approach of new revenue and spending cuts implemented to address the deficit.

Feb 25, 2013 5:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TeaPublican wrote:

Oh Please! Grow up and realize that this isn’t the end of the world! Sequester hysteria is just another big obama lie! The armed services and others being cut can shift funds around to take care of the cut! I think the major part of the military cuts can be made in the bloated bureaucracy and never be felt! This is a joke! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Calm down liberals. Your welfare checks will still be in the mail! Move along folks! There’s no story here!

Feb 25, 2013 5:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

@astroz-

A deal was struck between Speaker Boehner and the White House that created the sequester to force the committee and Congress to act responsibly and address the cuts. Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted in the deal.

The president never wanted the sequester to take affect. The sequester was supposed to be so drastic, so horrible, so scary that it would force Congress to propose focused responsible cuts before it ever kicked in. Of course the least productive Congress in recent history has done nothing.

Feb 25, 2013 5:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

I am beginning to hate this guy more than I hate bush and I really hate bush and his adm. But I am glad to see so many passionate people posting. I hope coming elections we elect libertarians and really sock it to all those who are aiding in the demise of our republic.

Feb 25, 2013 6:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Missourimule wrote:

Obama will do anything to avoid actually involving himself in government . . . he’ll stand in front of the cameras all day telling us how bad it’s going to be, and what rotten, greedy people the Republicans are — he’ll get up and tell the Governors about all the stuff that the Republicans are going to take away from them . . . . but he won’t sit down with McConnell and Boehner and try to actually work on any kind of a deal —

Feb 25, 2013 6:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mils54 wrote:

Cut the heck out of tha defense budget Mr president!, 750 Billion a year, Discusting!!!….Look at all the repubes startin to squirm!.

Feb 25, 2013 7:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mils54 wrote:

Wanna save 85 billion dollars?, End the war in Afghanistan this year not next, There’s your savings, Very simple!…..Kudos to you Mr President for not caving to the fat cats!!!.

Feb 25, 2013 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ReutersAgenda wrote:

Obama, you are so full of political rhetorical doo doo. Does your deception know no lower limit? You would place a child in front of your hidden agenda so that you can get your evil way. When will God send a lighting bolt your way?

Feb 25, 2013 8:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

Even after the spending cuts, we will still have to continue borrowing lots and lots of money from the Chinese. So, I think that we should cut even more until we stop borrowing.
Moreover, if cutting all those jobs is important to Obama, how about just cutting the money we give Pakistan and Egypt? They are already pissed off with us anyway.

Feb 25, 2013 8:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
123456951 wrote:

It is going to be interesting over the next decade how the Federal government will finally deal with it’s accumulating debt. At this point there looks as if there is no realistic solution. If inflation were to take off, that would make the debt look smaller relative to GDP, but real inflation will only begin to rise if wages climb. Not much a solution. Americans at some point are just going to have to be more frugal.

Feb 25, 2013 8:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
123456951 wrote:

It is going to be interesting over the next decade how the Federal government will finally deal with it’s accumulating debt. At this point there looks as if there is no realistic solution. If inflation were to take off, that would make the debt look smaller relative to GDP, but real inflation will only begin to rise if wages climb. Not much a solution. Americans at some point are just going to have to be more frugal.

Feb 25, 2013 8:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I wish they would go back to that ‘laser focus’ on creating new jobs and bringing jobs back that our american businesses and corporations have been sending to india/china and anywhere they can exploit workers for 2 bucks an hour. Maybe if we did that, all that increased income tax and less people needing aid might make a difference.

Feb 25, 2013 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
joe10082 wrote:

Obama had many many opportunities to reach bi partisan accord with the Republicans but he did not/would not do so. The word bi partisan compromise is not in his dictionary. He should own up to his mistakes rather than than those of the other parties involved. He has tripped many times in the last four years. Buy the way When are the troops coming home from Afghanistan Mr. President. Give the order.By the way the widows of veterans who died in combat can’t make ends meet on $7,900. a year. You must have somehow missed this fact.

Feb 25, 2013 9:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rwethereyet wrote:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Does Obama truly think the level of debt he is racking up is sustainable? I realize he wants to stimulate the economy, but all he’s doing is putting the US in a position that is unrecoverable. He received his tax increases and the Republicans met him on those. He needs to hold up his part of the deal and now let the spending cuts occur. This is crazy!

Feb 25, 2013 9:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kenradke11 wrote:

Then watch out!!! eventually ANARHY will come to fruition….there are going to be a lot of angry people out there and a lot will lose their COOL!
mark my words folks and this coming from a Canadian :)

Feb 25, 2013 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AveAmerGuy wrote:

So if this is about the equivalent to a 2% reduction (after the built-in increase) and the administration is saying that it will put off the cure for cancer, does that mean we are going to have to wait an additional week for the cure to cancer.

Feb 25, 2013 10:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Holy Shi_, the sky is falling; no, wait in a minute it is not after all. One crisis after another, clear demonstration that nobody in DC can lead, regardless of which side they sit. One of the underlings in the WH proposed this and the current resident in signed it into law – this person needs to fix it.

Feb 25, 2013 11:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USA4 wrote:

start the cutting. NOW! Negotiating with Obama is a waste of time. The man has no ability to lead.

Feb 25, 2013 11:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
thesafesrufer wrote:

I’m so ashamed of President Obama. The sequester reduces an “increase” in federal spending.

The President of the United States is not forthright on this issue with the American people.

Shame on you President Obama.

Feb 26, 2013 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
jackooo wrote:

The clowns are meeting to discus immigration?
What a farce. I thought we were doing the budget with defense in the equation.

Feb 26, 2013 2:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jackooo wrote:

Why are we looking at immigration NOW???
Thousands of AMERICAN jobs will be lost and Obama is looking at immigration?
4 more years.

Feb 26, 2013 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jackooo wrote:

Get the troops out of Afghanistan, N O W!!!

Feb 26, 2013 2:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mils54 wrote:

How much of our yearly bill is spent on the wall street bailout from Bush???……..We are screwed for years to come!. Way to go Pubes!

Feb 26, 2013 3:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Saristas wrote:

@joe10082

“By the way the widows of veterans who died in combat can’t make ends meet on $7,900. a year.”

Maybe they should get a job then?

Feb 27, 2013 9:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

I’m actually quite pleased considering we just made 99.3% of the Bush tax cuts permanent and now we are actually going to cut spending, even if it is perhaps the ugliest way to accomplish such.

And not only is spending going to be cut, but this entire drama puts Republicans i the drivers seat.

At the end of March when the continuing reoslution is being debated, Republcians can just opt to continue as is with the Budget Control act remaining in place; then it will Democrats threatening to shut down government if they don’t get more tax increases.

Obama and his liberal minions have been so busy touting victory and their “mandate” they haven’t been able to grasp the shifting landscape in Washington.

Bush tax cuts are permanent, spending is set to be cut for the next ten years and Obama is a lame duck…I’ll take it…

Feb 27, 2013 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.