Cuts in place, Obama and GOP brace for next fight

Various sectors hit with spending cuts
Associated Press
Mar 3, 2013

 

Severe spending cuts now the law of the land, President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans refused Saturday to concede any culpability for failing to stave off what both parties acknowledged was a foolhardy way to slash $85 billion in federal spending.

The still-fragile economy braced itself for the gradual but potentially grave impact of the across-the-board cuts, which took effect Friday night at the stroke of Obama's pen. Hours earlier, he and congressional leaders emerged from a White House meeting no closer to an agreement.

Even as they pledged a renewed effort to retroactively undo the spending cuts, both parties said the blame rests squarely on the other for any damage the cuts might inflict. There were no indications that either side was wavering from entrenched positions that for weeks had prevented progress on a deal to find a way out: Republicans refusing any deal with more tax revenue and Democrats snubbing any deal without it.

"None of this is necessary," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday. "It's happening because Republicans in Congress chose this outcome over closing a single wasteful tax loophole that helps reduce the deficit."

The president said the cuts would cause "a ripple effect across the economy" that would worsen the longer they stay in place, eventually costing more than 750,000 jobs and disrupting the lives of middle-class families.

In the Republican-controlled House, GOP lawmakers washed their hands of the mess, arguing that bills they passed in the last Congress to avert the cuts absolved them of any responsibility. Those bills passed with little to no Democratic support and were never taken up by the Senate.

"We've done the work and shown that these choices can be made in a responsible, thoughtful way," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington in the GOP address.

Obama was holding out hope that as Americans start feeling the effects of the sequester — the term used for the automatic spending cuts — public pressure will force lawmakers back to the table. Ever wary that such fiscal fiascos could jeopardize the rest of his second-term agenda, Obama vowed in his weekly address to keep pushing reforms on immigration, preschool, gun violence and transportation.

But attention was already turning to the next major budget hurdles, with less than a month to negotiate a plan to fund the government beyond March 27 and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.

Hopes that a measure to undo the spending cuts could be wrapped into a March deal to keep the government running dimmed Friday when both Obama and House Speaker John Boehner said they'd prefer to keep the two issues separate.

"I'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time," Boehner said.

 

Comments

2cents

"was a foolhardy way"

I looked up the pronunciation of this!

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php...

LOL, off to work kids, working like a farm animal this week, have fun....

Contango

Before sequester, over the next 10 yrs., Fed spending was set to increase by 7% per yr.

With the draconian and apocalyptic sequester "cuts," spending will only go up by 6.9% per yr.

Not to worry boys and girls, the U.S.' trip of spending itself into the fiscal, financial and economic ashcan of History is still doable.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?v...

coasterfan

Republicans will forever have zero credibility on this issue, since they were completely silent about deficit spending until Obama came into office. Bush increased federal spending an average of 8% per year during his 8 years in office. That's what putting two unnecessary wars on the country's credit card, while giving unnecessary huge tax breaks to the 1% will do for you. Obama, by comparison, increased spending less than 2% per year during his first term. Could Republicans possibly be more hypocritical?

Contango

@ coasterfan:

Not to worry, both Pres. Kennedy and LBJ began kicking up spending.

LBJ's Vietnam escalation amounted to deficit spending. Hence the need to STEAL SS and offload Fannie Mae in order to balance his 1969 budget.

Pres. Eisenhower was a pretty good budgeter.

Decreased spending? An accounting trick since the TARP paybacks were put into the numbers.

The Big Dog's back

winnie, how'd we pay for Bush's adventures in Iraq?

swiss cheese kat

Obama, of course, is not ending the war in Afghanistan.

The Big Dog's back

How'd we pay for Bush's Medicare Part D?

swiss cheese kat

How are millions of Americans gonna pay for obamacare?

The Big Dog's back

How'd did we make up revenue for Bush's giant tax cuts to the rich?

real talk

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
Ronald Reagan

The GOP has 0 credibility when it comes to the debt

Contango

A "joke" at a dinner, not unlike Pres. BHO talkin' about dog being tasty.

Contango

Point:

The Revolutionary War was unfunded.
Mr. Lincoln's War was unfunded.
FDR's WW2 was unfunded
Truman's Korea was unfunded
Johnson's Vietnam was unfunded.

Name me a war which was funded.

The Big Dog's back

Name me a U.S. war where taxes for the rich were cut.

The Big Dog's back

Desperate for more military funding, Johnson proposed a six-percent surcharge tax on personal and corporate incomes. Johnson's tax proposal, approved by Congress in March 1967,

The Big Dog's back

During World War II, federal revenues roughly tripled as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the number of people paying income taxes expanded tenfold, from 3% of the population in 1939 to 30% by 1943. In 1940, a family of four needed close to $80,000 of income in today's dollars before it paid any federal income taxes at all. By the war's end, it saw its effective tax rate rise from 1.5% to 15.1%. (Today such a family only pays a federal income tax rate of about 6%.) But taxes weren't the only way the war was paid for. Spending on nondefense programs was cut almost in half, from 8.1% of GDP in 1940 to 4.4% in 1945.

Even during wars closer in magnitude to those in which we are presently engaged, significant sacrifices were made. In 1950 and 1951 Congress increased taxes by close to 4% of GDP to pay for the Korean War, even though the high World War II tax rates were still largely in effect. In 1968, a 10% surtax was imposed to pay for the Vietnam War, which raised revenue by about 1% of GDP. And there was conscription during both wars, which can be viewed as a kind of tax that was largely paid by the poor and middle class--young men from wealthy families largely escaped its effects through college deferments.
winnie with more bullspit.

Contango

So you're arguing that marginal federal income tax rates should be raised on everyone?

goofus

I assume you can source your statistics or are you going to Coasterfanmedia.com lol

John Harville

Whoa... Lincoln got Congress to pass the income tax to fund the Civil War.

John Harville

Contango... name me some sources to support your facts.

August 5, 1861 Lincoln signs the Revenue Act establishing the first Income Tax... to pay for 'his' Civil War. Google it, fool.

Victory Tax of 1942 - "FDR's War"

Liberty Bonds - citizens 'paid' for WWI - what JPMorgan didn't 'loan'

Well, I just named three or four.

mikel

your numbers don't make sense. prezo has outspent bush so the percentage of increase has to greater under prezo. once again, are you talking about the wars that senator's obama, biden, kerry, clinton, pelosi and reid all voted to support???? they are as culpable as bush for those wars.

John Harville

Mikel... Constitutionally, the President doesn't spend. That would be Congress - specifically the House.

60% of the National Debt is owed to the citizenry of the United States - that's us... bonds, treasury notes, construction bonds etc., interest...

Income actually was up in January and has ....

Oh, what's the use. You want to blame the president for everything - even chicken pox, Im sure.

goofus

People a classic example of how the left actually feels. Give the people money,phones,foddstamps,and whatever for they are voting blocs to keep them in power. Notice how John Harville trivializes the contribution of the American public with the bonds and notes they purchase for retirement or whatever because they still might believe in the sysytem. Does not the money owed to the people who used their hard earned money to purchase bonds and notes mean less than the debt to a foreign government. You worked hard for your money but the left could care less because you WORKED for it. A classic understatement income was up, certainly maroon, president Harrison J. Bounell raised taxes!!!!

KnuckleDragger

LOL. Still can't believe the sequester was Obama's idea, ehh? Here we are in Obama's second term and you lame brains are still blaming Bush? It is simply amazing how long liberals can sit in denial. There is some hope though, I see the MSM is now starting to grow irritated with Obama (except MSNBC of course) and is starting to ask him tough questions.

goofus

And your statistical proof comes from who? Coasterfan media once again!!!

John Harville

Forbes::: Deficit has dropped $300 billion - to $845 billion - since Obama took office in 2009.
Deficit will drop to $430 illion by next fiscal year end in September.
But it's still a deficit and will begin to increase without a combination of cuts in spending and increase in taxes.
Obama's administration has collected $2.7 trillion in taxes.

goofus

What deficit are you talking about, the national debt clock hasn't gone down and we have no budget for a baseline reading, just continous resolutions!!!

Speakezy

I bet you could cut waste on the welfare system and it would double the sequester dollars. Most of that money could be had by only allowing the SNAP card losers to only buy healthy food items at the store! No pop and chips and candy. Better yet have a state store or section in a store that only those with SNAP cards can shop. And by the way this is why we need TERM LIMITS in Congress!

The Big Dog's back

Actually it wouldn't. Cutting Corporate welfare and tax loop holes for the rich would.

Contango

Let Congress and the Pres. dust off and debate the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommendations which Pres. BHO asked for and then ignored.

The Big Dog's back

Playin dodgeball again?

Pages