Analysis: Cuts unlikely to deliver promised budget savings

Comments (47)
BioStudies wrote:

So this 44 Billion that we wont even end up saving is going to cause the economy to collapse if enacted?

How did you guys manage to talk yourselves into that one? LOL

Feb 28, 2013 3:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

So basically, the big GOP hubbub of the week is like deciding to save a few dollars by canceling the lease of an auto, say, and deciding to buy outright. You pay a big penalty, and are probably no further ahead in reality. The GOPers have no end to their stupidity. If they stopped being stupid, they would just stop being.

Feb 28, 2013 4:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:

The Bob Woodward story is exponentially more important than this story.

Pulitzer prize winning President slayer Bob Woodward (he took Nixon down}, just got a threatening email from the Obama White House – telling him that retribution was coming.

Woodward’s crime was reporting the truth about Obama and his insane over-reach in the “sequester” battle.

We can’t “safely” cut $40 billion out of a $3,500 billion dollar (that’s thousands of billions) budget without massive lay offs and losses to all government employees and government contractors. Especially, TSA airport employees, air controllers, teachers, police, border agents, and even the planned military deployment of an aircraft carrier – says Obama.

Woodward is calling BS on the Obama con job politics – enabled by leftist “journalist” stooges like the people who run this web site.

Feb 28, 2013 6:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
NorthStarMan wrote:

The budget cuts are reversible, which is what will probably happen if both sides can actually talk to one another. For now, we need to talk about cuts which bring us back to living within our means and stabilize the debt, then comes being smarter with the revenue we already raise and finally new sources of revenue. In other words Government should raid our pockets last, but raid them they will have to do.

Feb 28, 2013 7:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Maulau wrote:

I really hope that this sequester cuts will damage the economy and hurt employment. It will finally reveal to the country the kind of misguided stewardship that the Republican Party has inflicted on the country since their majority in Congress.

Feb 28, 2013 7:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

The USA gives 40 billion a year to other countries as “aid”.
The wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates of all time and it is costing the USA $72 billion a year. (tax cuts higher than in history).
The 20 largest US companies all made record profits but pay no taxes but still get refunds. 66% of all US companies pay no income taxes on profits (estimated tax losses of 100-800 billion dollars a year).
Now let’s see, where could we find a place to cut money or increase income and save jobs in the US?
Tough one.
I think more tax cuts for the wealthy would solve the problem.
Right?

Feb 28, 2013 7:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Of course it won’t solve the problem because our biggest and fastest growing area of the budget is entitlements like Medicare set for insolvency in 2024.

But, we need to cut spending and the Budget Control Act is set to do so for the next 10 years so I am pleased.

Feb 28, 2013 8:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Krowster wrote:

However, raising tariff on junk imports, increasing taxes of businesses that export jobs, giving crooked corporate and unscrupulous individuals serious jail time, and holding seriously accountable politicians to service the nation, not their greed, will go a very long way to changing the status qua.

Feb 28, 2013 8:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@jaham ~ I suggest you learn the difference between a prediction and a projection.

Feb 28, 2013 8:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

You have to start somewhere. These are small cuts relative to the deficit.

Feb 28, 2013 8:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

nothing new here folks, just politics as usual. move along. nothing to see…

Feb 28, 2013 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

We can certainly try 2 Republican solutions in place costly unemployment payments — faith-based measures and tax cuts for the unemployed. Only the unworthy will fall short on this plan.

Feb 28, 2013 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

And I suppose you, @SanPa, are the judge? I wonder what Jesus would have thought of a Faith-based measure like that. Only the unworthy….puh..lease.

Feb 28, 2013 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
joe_hcks wrote:

What people do not realize this is not a budget cut. This is an increase from last years budget. So the Government is telling me they cannot do their job using last years budget amount (I realize a budget has never been accomplished in a long time). They had over a year to get ready for this and all the department heads best solution is to hurt the federal worker. My wife and I will lose over $300/month and we cannot afford this, 2 kids in college another in high school, we live paycheck to paycheck.

Feb 28, 2013 10:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
ucjb wrote:

“But the sequester would do little to restrain federal debt over the long term because it fails to tackle health costs…” Obama said his healthcare plan would save us. I guess that was a lie too.

Feb 28, 2013 10:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

sylvan & SanPa
Both parties created this…own it. Also did you see this….
‘Economy barely expands in fourth quarter”. A much bigger concern that the sequester. By the way you voted for this. Please spin it for me.

Feb 28, 2013 10:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

“Tax cuts for the unemployed”?
The unemployed don’t pay income tax because they have no income.
LOL
It was a sarcastic joke, right?

Feb 28, 2013 10:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
John1980 wrote:

It is the Government’s right to spend your money, and China’s money, and the FED’s money, and money that hasn’t even been printed yet, anyway they see fit. Who are we to ask them to actually balance a budget or their checkbook? Or to reduce the 16 trillion in debt they have incurred. They need more money then ever to keep the ponzi scheme afloat. Just close your eyes and stick your head in the sand, good citizen.

Feb 28, 2013 10:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Parker1227… I fully agree; well put.

I would only add that the Federal Government is actually expected to spend north of $3,700B this year which makes Obama’s fear mongering even more inane (especially considering he wasn’t rustling up this kind of fear when raising taxes on this same economy two months ago).

What a dearth of leadership we have in the White House…

Feb 28, 2013 10:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
cbj wrote:

I simply find it interesting that now the Democrats must pin their hopes on an economic collapse. Any bets that they will do everything possible to assure this happens?
and as to the entire car lease metaphor . . .
You suffer from the illusion that most people who lease cars do-that since you will always have a payment why bother owning. The trick is to own it ‘free & clear’-to get OUT of the debt cycle. Not to keep renewing debt.

Feb 28, 2013 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
petct wrote:

So the juggernaut continues. Even if we stop spending we’ll not stop spending? And the end of the world as we know it is at hand due to the cuts (or not cuts?). Huh?

Feb 28, 2013 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
pandora_r wrote:

Let me simplify…the damage done by the sequester far outweighs the benefits of the monetary savings.

Feb 28, 2013 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Republicans have tried and tried to get the White House to make cuts that are reasonable, but Obama won’t do it. He hates any budget cuts and is going to make this as painful as possible. You can’t tell me there isn’t 2% of budget items that we cannot do without.

Feb 28, 2013 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“A $1 billion aircraft carrier, for example, may take years to build.”

HELLO the USS Ronald Reagan launched in 2001 cost $5 billion.

For a Nimitz Class Carrier to operate in an area such as the Persian Gulf can cost as much as $4.5 million a DAY.

Feb 28, 2013 11:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

So the earlier Reuter’s article describing the “crisis” was inaccurate? So the President shrilly proclaiming that the sky is falling is ill informed? So all the news reports about the destructive impact of the sequester are simply ratings tools? Seriously? We’re still going to have air travel? We’re still going to have teachers? We’re still going to be safe in our beds? I am sooooo relieved.

Feb 28, 2013 11:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
jertho wrote:

this is a diversion, and you know it.

Feb 28, 2013 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
jertho wrote:

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch

Feb 28, 2013 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
derdutchman wrote:

@jaham, just tell old people to not get sick. Who do they think they are, paying premiums, deductibles and copays for INSURANCE and then having the audacity to use it when the Navy is searching for enough money to build another carrier too big to squeeze through the Panama Canal, the Air Force its Yugo-like F-35s and Republican congressmen their junkets to warmer climes in a DC winter.

Feb 28, 2013 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jw_collins wrote:

I totally agree with the comments suggesting the stupidity of the GOP. However just commenting that the GOP is stupid does not get their attention. (After all…they’re stupid). They have to be voted OUT of OFFICE. OUT. Once they are OUT of OFFICE, they’ll look to see why, and they’ll discover that they are, and have been STUPID. The people of America should not have to suffer just because one political party is so very very stupid.

Feb 28, 2013 12:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sean540 wrote:

So let’s give up and continue to spend? I refuse to think our leaders are that incompetent.
The executive branch is very ingenious and can find a way to allocate the department budgets to avoid canceling a good contract. IF they are canceling a contract for a bad idea, then woohoo! it needed to be done.
It comes down to leadership and a little political will.

Feb 28, 2013 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USA4 wrote:

guess this means that we need to cut even more!

Feb 28, 2013 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

Let’s just pretentd for a while that all the Republicans got voted out of office and the Democrats could pass anything their little hearts desired.

Where do you all think we would be compared to today?

Feb 28, 2013 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeOvercoat wrote:

The phrase “exponentially more important” does not make sense as a math metaphor, but then math is not most people’s strong point.

Feb 28, 2013 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@derduthcman: “just tell old people to not get sick. Who do they think they are, paying premiums, deductibles and copays for INSURANCE and then having the audacity to use it when the Navy is searching for enough money to build another carrier too big to squeeze through the Panama Canal, the Air Force its Yugo-like F-35s and Republican congressmen their junkets to warmer climes in a DC winter. ”

I’d rather tell them that our military spending has no bearing on the fact that they have not paid enough into Medicare, for example, to sufficiently fund the benefits they are now drawing from it. I’d like to tell them that a vote for do-nothing Democrats who refuse to touch entitlements is a vote for Medicare insolvency 2024. And, I’d like to tell them that I don’t want to hear any of their complaints because I, as a member of Gen Y, am paying for their benefits under a program that will not be there for me when I retire.

Tell them to not get sick? Nah, they’d be better off if they were told to save for their own health costs because Medicare is slated for insolvency.

Feb 28, 2013 1:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@jw_collins…ohh, the irony..

Feb 28, 2013 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

jw_collins
Go read this article. Blame this all on the GOP too…”Economy barely expands in fourth quarter, brighter days ahead” BTW they just added the “brighter days ahead” to the recently. It’s been changed twice to put a positve spin one. So do you think Obama has anything to do with the economy tanking…yeah I thought so…it’s GW’s fault right???

Feb 28, 2013 2:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

jw_collins
“The people of America should not have to suffer just because one political party is so very very stupid.”

Really?? The party you hold so dear is starting to be exposed for the stupid policies they have created. Within a few months…pot kettle black…can’t wait to hear your spin then!!!

Feb 28, 2013 2:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

“Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending
cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get
rid of those automatic spending cuts – domestic and defense spending.
There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.” – Obama November 2011

That would be the House proposing alternatives to the sequester…the same House that Democrats blame for not proposing an alternative even though they haven’t come forth with one of their own. Maybe Obama should learn to hold his tongue every once in a while and focus on leading this COUNTRY instead of leading his political party…

My how easy it is to make false promises, bend the truth, contradict yourself and be a complete hypocrite when the liberal media has your back….

Feb 28, 2013 2:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pbgd wrote:

If it really yields less than half the savings, then it stands to reason that the impact on the economy will also be less than half. Which is a good thing.

Feb 28, 2013 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

The Republican plan is to allow the sequestration to take effect and then blame the President when the unemployment rate goes back up and the recovery stalls, none of which helps the American people. The GOP keeps trying new tactics to screw the American people. Maybe they’ll succeed this time.

Feb 28, 2013 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“The GOP keeps trying new tactics to screw the American people.”

Yep that August 2011 Budget Control Act was a brilliant plan by the GOP to screw the American People. Somehow they got people like Jack Lew and his buddies in the White House to get the President on board with the sequester idea and on top of that the GOP gave the President a $2.1 Trillion debt limit increase.

The best GOP tactic though was to raise taxes on themsevles at the end of December 2012. Raising the top rate 4.5% and increasing taxes on capital gains.

Brilliant!

Feb 28, 2013 4:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Harry,
Time to take your meds. And you’ve been reading way to much NY Times. Time for a reality check.

Feb 28, 2013 4:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

@Somethingstinks

What part of my sarcastic statement is flawed?

Feb 28, 2013 5:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JimmyJingo wrote:

“If the sequester were not to take effect, federal debt would equal the size of the economy by 2031, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.”

Our national debt now exceeds our GDP. I realize the article means the intragovernmental holdings, but this is simply one of the many shell-game lies of our government accounting. In the end, the US taxpayer is on the hook for ALL national debt, no matter what they call it.

Feb 28, 2013 6:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
systemBuilder wrote:

A 2% cut is not deep. Have you considered taking a course in English?

Feb 28, 2013 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

systemBuilder wrote:

A 2% cut is not deep. Have you considered taking a course in English?

It’s not about the 2% cut. It’s about the ability to borrow $4 billion a day. The $2.1 Trillion debt limit increase that the administration got in the Budget Control Act along with the sequester was the Golden Ticket that as of December 31 was totally cashed out.

The Treasury burned through that $2.1 trillion in 18 months and now it’s ability to borrow is severely restricted until the debt limit issue is dealt with one way or another by May 15.

That $85 billion for this year is nothing compared to the $120 billion a month they been borrowing to run all the current programs.

That is what they are afraid of.

Feb 28, 2013 10:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@flashrooster said: “The Republican plan is to allow the sequestration to take effect and then blame the President when the unemployment rate goes back up and the recovery stalls, none of which helps the American people. The GOP keeps trying new tactics to screw the American people. Maybe they’ll succeed this time.”

Yea, as if the Democratic plan of passing not a single alternative to the sequester and then blaming Republicans is any better?

Mar 01, 2013 4:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.