I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
PJ ·
February 6, 2013 at 8:26pm
So apparently the GOP is calling Obama's bluff on the sequester, and it may go through. I'm fine with that. I know we hawkish types are supposed to care deeply about cuts to defense spending, and at some level I do, but cutting overall spending is so much more important to me right now that I almost don't care about deep defense cuts. And I speak as someone who works for a company that might get hit pretty hard by the sequester.
Anyone out there think we need to make significant concessions to avoid the sequester?
- Comment (81)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (32)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
I know we hawkish types are supposed to care deeply about cuts to defense spending, and at some level I do, but cutting overall spending is so much more important to me right now, that I almost don't care at all about deep defense cuts.
Yet you should and this why: defense spending is probably the only 'government' program that is productive because it provides both jobs and civilian protection. It is a win-win for all American citizens.
Apr '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
I agree. Democrats are much better politicians than Republicans generally. But now that they have maneuvered us into this position, I say we follow through with it. Cuts have to start somewhere. If Republicans agree to cut defense, we will have more credibility when we demand entitlement cuts. Although I really don't hold out hope that it will happen. Jan Brewer's 180 blew me away.
Feb '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
"I know we hawkish types are supposed to care deeply about cuts to defense spending, and at some level I do, but cutting overall spending is so much more important to me right now, that I almost don't care at all about deep defense cuts"
Very well said!
Dec '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Ron Selander:
"I know we hawkish types are supposed to care deeply about cuts to defense spending, and at some level I do, but cutting overall spending is so much more important to me right now, that I almost don't care at all about deep defense cuts"
I don't accept this line of thinking because taking a cut in defense spending allows Obama to fund his endless entitlement programs.
Aug '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
I'm fine with it, but I suspect a deal will be made at the last minute. Washington cannot be trusted with money.
May '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
I am OK with the sequester, but like all situations dealing with fiscal prudence I expect some last minute closed door deal that avoids it. If they are going to cut defense spending, that is fine, just make sure there is a proportional reduction in what we are expecting from those serving.
Oct '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Obama didn't negotiate for cuts when it was time for new taxes (he didn't want any spending cuts tied to the fiscal cliff). So now, the republican's should not negotiate for any new taxes when it's time for cuts. Turn about is fair play.
Aug '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Doc
I agree. Democrats are much better politicians than Republicans generally. But now that they have maneuvered us into this position, I say we follow through with it. Cuts have to start somewhere. If Republicans agree to cut defense, we will have more credibility when we demand entitlement cuts. Although I really don't hold out hope that it will happen. Jan Brewer's 180 blew me away. · 1 hour ago
Democrats are better politicians? More effective at times, but not better. It takes work - economic understanding, adherence to principle, a sense of history, an understanding of human nature - to be a conservative. It takes guts to be a conservative Republican. Any yahoo can play the Democrat "because we just care more" populist appeal. Look at the NYT's formula for an economic turnaround: stronger unions, stonger labor regulations, higher minimum wages...ugh? Were these people all (pick your gripe group) studies majors?
Brewer is showing that she is not conservative - big disappointment.
Sep '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Doc
... Jan Brewer's 180 blew me away. · 1 hour ago
Jan Brewer's 180? Wha'd I miss?
Aug '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
The sequester is onorous, but not entirely devastating. Obama and the Democrats think that this is the lever that they need to get still more tax revenue. They fully intend to gut the military in any case. I say, take the hit now and let them know we will cope. Perhaps this is the only way that the Democrats can get serious about entitlement reform. Will they really elect to continue to feed the entitlement beast while the rest of their welfare state pets starve, and all the while the economy sputters and declines? This is the problem with legislated traps; the Democrats may well have trapped themselves this time.
Apr '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Yes! I agree. Once defense spending gets low enough that even dems wont push it lower than we can begin cutting into all the other fat. Some times you just have to tear it all down and start from scratch.
Edited on February 6, 2013 at 3:14amAug '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
TG
Doc
... Jan Brewer's 180 blew me away. · 1 hour ago
Jan Brewer's 180? Wha'd I miss? · 5 minutes ago
AHCCCS (AZ Medicaid) was historically open to AZ residents with incomes well above the Federal Medicaid guidelines. In 2012 and facing deficits, Brewer and the state applied for and received permission to tighten its ACHSS income requirements (still above federal guidelines) to close a $500 million program deficit that threatened the state's solvency. This change was granted and the Fed agreed to contine its Medicaid support. After forgoing the set-up of a state Obamacare insurance exchange, following complaints from state providers about unreimbursed care following the previous year's AHCCCS cuts, Brewer has capitulated, asking for the requisite new state tax on hospital care ($220 million) called for to get Obamacare funds. Brewer then proposes the re-expansion of AHCCS so that the state can grab some $1.2 billion more in federal healthcare funding. The problem is this federal support is scheduled to decline over time, leaving states with the remainder of the bill. Costs slowly shift to the states while federally mandated enrollment and coverage requirements remain.
Edited on February 6, 2013 at 1:46amSep '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Not only yes, but HELL YES!!!
There's plenty of fat in the Pentagon budget, and the DoD has already cut back in anticipation. Remember, that was the presumed reason for the 4th Q GDP decline! Meanwhile salaries and pensions are exempt from sequester cuts, as is Social Security!
But Zero will have to eat half of the sequester in domestic discretionary spending cuts! Might I suggest the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to start? How about suspending Pigford payments??
Oooh! Oooh! Can I please get the power to make THE LIST????
It gives me goose bumps!!!!
Oct '10
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
curtmilr:
Oooh! Oooh! Can I please get the power to make THE LIST????
It gives me goose bumps!!!! · 7 minutes ago
He's got a little list, and they'll none of them be missed.
Dec '12
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Having now been made to suffer through way too many of these coordinated, cynical Ruling Class charades disguised as protracted, down to the wire, partisan negotiations, I am now convinced that any measure of sequester avoidance would be no better than the current lawful path and probably much more damaging in the long run.
It will be mighty painful but the game must stop here. Every aspect of this debacle – The Budget Control Act, the “Super Committee”, budget sequestration – should now be seen as a supreme insult to any responsible, hardworking American. Our fools inside the beltway insisted on this game of chicken and have demonstrated complete contempt for We the People.
They all own this. Let it be…and then the REAL rebuilding can begin.
Nov '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
If they can work out a deal that will exchange the defense cuts for cuts in something else, without raising taxes, I'd be for it. Don't think that will happen, so on with the sequester!
Here's the thing: in all the previous recent budget battles the Republicans have been stuck with, so to speak, "hostages" they're not prepared to "shoot": it would be worse for the country (not to mention the GOP) to go over the fiscal cliff, or to hit the debt ceiling.
But sequestration? Seeing that the President wants to gut defense anyway, they don't have much to lose.
So we finally have a battle in which the Republicans have the upper hand, or at least an even playing field.
Mar '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
EThompson:I know we hawkish types are supposed to care deeply about cuts to defense spending, and at some level I do, but cutting overall spending is so much more important to me right now, thatI almost don't care at all about deep defense cuts.
Yet you should and this why: defense spending is probably the only 'government' program that is productive because it provides both jobs andcivilian protection. It is a win-win for all American citizens. · 3 hours ago
In some ways, it's not worth it though, if it's more about making Lockheed Martin rich and less about protecting us. I'm very much the capitalist for civilian goods and services, but I recognize what a disgrace our defense contracting industry has become. I say bring back things like the Naval Aircraft Factory. I don't mind paying a fair price for weaponry. I refuse to endorse the gouging of the taxpayer that our defense industry has practiced the past few decades, though. I realize that some of the cost increases are due to political wrangling, but some of it is just a plain old case of ripping off taxpayers.
Dec '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Douglas
I refuse to endorse the gouging of the taxpayer that our defense industry has practiced the past few decades, though. I realize that some of the cost increases are due to political wrangling, but some of it is just a plain old case of ripping off taxpayers.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I refuse to allow Obama and his minions a free pass to make this call. (Dick Cheney and even the much maligned Don Rumsfeld- yes!) But who, in the year 2013, is as qualified as these two men to make sensible decisions on the trimming of the Pentagon budget?
Mar '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
Something else rather pertinent to this question that many seem not to know is that Defense cuts are already happening. The DoD is not waiting on the bumpkins in the White House and on Capital Hill to issue their imperial judgement. The assumption is: there will be less money, cutbacks begin now (more specifically last fall).
The DoD is already planning to work with less, that is baked in, the only question is will GOP be able gain something from Obama for this?
Mar '11
Re: I'm Fine with the Sequester. How About You?
EThompson
I wholeheartedly agree, but I refuse to allow Obama and his minions a free pass to make this call. (Dick Cheney and even the much maligned Don Rumsfeld- yes!) But who, in the year 2013, is as qualified as these two men to make sensible decisions on the trimming of the Pentagon budget? · 35 minutes ago
For all of the crap Dick Cheney gets, he was the most courageous SecDef in modern memory when it came to killing programs without fear. He killed the A-12 fiasco, did his best to end the Marine-killing Ospreys, and axed several other programs that weren't performing. He wasn't perfect... I think he made a mistake axing the Tomcat 21... but he gets credit for calling 'em as he saw them, instead of using weapons to buy off votes of Congressmen.