The Sequester

[healthmyths]

Wrong yet again!

Your own OP admits the sequester was brought up in the Summer of 2011. When the negotiations between Boner and Obama broke down on July 22, 2011, Boner posted his sequester proposal on his own website July 25, 2011 as part of a "two step approach to hold Obama accountable." Obama then offered to follow it as an olive branch to Boner to restart negotiations.

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.
John Boehner, July 25, 2011

From this source:
Obama?s fanciful claim that Congress ?proposed? the sequester - The Washington Post

and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.
Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

Now tell me which is first 7/12/11 for WH... or 7/25/11 ??

Again you are using Woodward's already discredited book as the sole source of your claim.

There was no discussion of "triggers" until Wednesday July 20, 2011 and the triggers discussed were completely different from Woodward's. The mention of the sequester first appeared when Boner posted his framework on his website July 25, 2011 after all negotiations had broken down by July 22, 2011. Woodward has both the date and triggers completely wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...all&adxnnlx=1361426630-JudYfmwSRFzWshPBZBhdwA

The other remaining area of contention had to do with the problem of enforcement provisions, or “triggers,” in the deal. Because tax reform would take some time for Congress to puzzle out, while the spending cuts were relatively straightforward, the White House had been concerned from the start about being double-crossed. How could Democrats be assured that the Republican-controlled House wouldn’t simply announce a deal, enact only the spending cuts they wanted and then sabotage the revenue piece? The answer, Obama’s team decided, were a couple of “triggers” — something both sides really hated — that would automatically kick in if they didn’t come up with a version of tax reform that each party could stomach.

Specifically, Obama had two triggers in mind. The first, for Democrats, would have rescinded the Bush tax cuts for the highest earners. Boehner rejected this idea. He pointed out that Democrats themselves would have little incentive to pass tax reform if, by not passing it, they could achieve one of their most cherished policy objectives — the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

The second trigger, to appease Republicans, would include an automatic $425 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. But Boehner repeatedly said that he wanted his own “political trophy” as a trigger, something that had the same resonance for the right as the Bush tax cuts had for the left — namely the elimination of the “individual mandate,” the central plank in Obama’s health-care law that required every American to be insured. Striking down the provision was a top priority for the Tea Partiers in Congress, who saw it as evidence of Obama’s tyrannical tendencies. Obama wouldn’t entertain the possibility. The argument had been going on since the first round of negotiations between the two men and their staffs, but now that a deal seemed imminent, the question of how to enforce it had taken on a new urgency. At its core, the trigger debate was a matter of trust; each man had to be assured that the other wasn’t going to let his party renege on the tax-reform agreement when the inevitable arguments arose. And because they hadn’t worked together much and barely knew each other on a personal level, the only way for Obama and Boehner to feel reassured was if the political cost of pulling out was intolerably high to both of them.

Obama and Boehner argued heatedly but respectfully over both sticking points — the revenue number and the triggers — during a two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Wednesday, July 20. By the next morning, both men were facing rebellions on the Hill. The Times’s Carl Hulse and Jackie Calmes had written a front-page article disclosing the existence of the new round of talks and asserting that a deal was very near. Arriving for the weekly lunch of the Democratic Senate caucus, Jack Lew found himself berated by senators who were angered by the talk of entitlement cuts in exchange for the relatively paltry $800 billion in tax money, and livid at having heard about it from The Times. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, had been fully briefed (along with the House leader, Nancy Pelosi) only the night before. He remained stonily and pointedly silent in the meeting, while Lew absorbed one verbal blow after another.

At that very moment, Boehner was dialing Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, unbidden, in an effort to quell the eruption on the right. It wasn’t only the additional revenue that conservatives hated. Having campaigned in 2010 against Obama’s health-care plan, which included future Medicare cuts, conservatives in Congress were no more eager than Democrats to give the issue away in advance of 2012. (Their resistance to this part of the grand bargain highlighted what is perhaps the central paradox of budget politics on the right: Republicans have defined themselves almost entirely by their determination to reduce debt, but virtually every means of actually getting there — taxes, defense cuts, restructuring entitlements — strikes them as politically unpalatable.) “There is absolutely no deal,” Boehner assured Limbaugh on air.

And yet, even then, as powerful contingents in both parties rose up to oppose a deal that was already tenuous, negotiations were proceeding amiably and apace. At the White House that Thursday morning, July 21, Jackson, Loper, Nabors, Sperling and Lew, among other aides, agreed to set aside the revenue question and focus on hammering out some of the smaller discrepancies in the two offers. By now, a level of trust had grown among them; the mere fact that they had exchanged so much paper, and that none of it had been leaked to reporters or bloggers, seemed to cement their working relationship. To hear aides on both sides tell it, anyone who wandered into Nabors’s West Wing office would have thought they were moving, inexorably and constructively, toward a final agreement.

I'm not quoting Woodward BUT Gene Sperling WHITE HOUSE economic council Director..
HIS EXACT WORDS... "Automatic sequester" July 12,2011 FIRST TIME!!!

Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If we can't find 85 billion in cuts, we may be too far into the abyss.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

from 1930 to 1985 our country did FINE.

what was the top tax rate those years?

That 90 percent tax affected about 250 people.

 

[healthmyths]

Again... ISN'T July 12,2011 before July 20,2011??
Who first used the term who wanted it?? Obama's administration which MEANS OBAMA!!!

NOW the dick head is blaming GOP for starting this!!

And all the GoP and logical people want is to stop this stupid spending as the following examples of wasteful spending by this administration!!!
- $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.
- $1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu” of male prostitutes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
- Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties
- Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and
- a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
- Amtrak snacks. Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years.
- Conferences for government employees. In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
_ The US Department of Agriculture has sparked outcry by paying $100,000 a year to a speaker who used compulsory diversity training to teach employees that
“the Pilgrims were illegal aliens” and that “minorities” should be called “emerging majorities”.
- U.S. government has spent $1.5 million to actually preserve some left during the hostile Indian occupation of California’s Alcatraz Island more than four decades go.
While the State Department saved money on security in Libya, it somehow managed to find $5.6 million in 2011 to support “pressing cultural preservation needs” in
dozens of foreign countries. Here are some of the dire projects funded by U.S. tax dollars that perhaps could be better spent on securing U.S. embassies in hostile
Arab countries.

- Uncle Sam doled out $750,000 to restore a 16th-century tomb complex in India, $700,000 to conserve ruins in Tanzania, $600,000 for the “temple of the winged lions” in Jordan and $450,000 for the conservation of a 10th century temple in Cambodia. Those were just the big ticket projects.
Hundreds of thousands more went to smaller causes throughout the world.

For instance, the restoration of a 16th century convent in Guatemala got $119,052 and an aqueduct in Mexico received $115,000 and the following three projects each got $100,000 from the State Department; a program to document endangered musical traditions in Mali, the restoration of a railroad station in Paraguay and a 19th-century log house museum in Russia. Here is the list of all the allocations for 2011.


Are you telling me YOU are OK with that spending that Obama ADMINISTRATION and Obama approved???

Where is the logic in that spending???

How stupid!

 

[Truthmatters]

the top tax bracket did fine and our economy did great.

your lies do not stand up to the FACTS

 

[NYcarbineer]

The GOP propaganda on this has escalated to the point where they're now saying the President 'insisted' on the sequestration.

As if...

 

[peach174]

This report says not even 85 billion.
41 Billion Reasons Not to Sweat the Sequester: 2013 Cuts Are $44 Billion, Not $85 Billion. - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Both parties are playing game.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

the top tax bracket did fine and our economy did great.

your lies do not stand up to the FACTS

Here are the facts: EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What the Top 1% Really Paid When the Top Tax Bracket Was 91%

You're just a pathological liar.

 

[Vast LWC]

Personally, I'm not really sure the sequester will be as bad as everyone thinks, and yes, I agree that the whole panic about it is probably exaggerated for political purposes.

That being said, it will certainly have SOME effect on the recovery, and I find it ridiculous that Republicans are trying to pretend it's all Obama's fault that they are happening. Since John Boehner's own webpage tells a different story:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.

That's from June 2011.

 

[Vast LWC]

Whose sequester? Obama's!!!

In the debate, Obama said he didn’t propose sequestration, Congress did. (We asked the White House for comment, but didn't hear back.)

To determine the question of ownership, we turned to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.

Woodward’s reporting shows clearly that defense sequestration was an idea that came out of Obama’s White House. But the intention was to force Republicans to negotiate, not to actually put the cuts into effect.
The White House crafted the sequester during the summer 2011 battle over government spending that almost saw the country default on its debt payments for the first time in its history.
Woodward summarizes the thoughts of the Obama team: "There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense." Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t want to see their favorite domestic programs cut.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says Congress owns sequestration cuts

AND NOW TODAY what does Obama say: He blamed the current stalemate on "partisan recklessness and ideological rigidity."

Read more: Obama pins blame on Republicans for looming cuts, as fiscal hawk warns of 'failed presidency' | Fox News

First of all, the article does not say "The sequester is Obama's".

Secondly, here is clear proof that Politifact's "Mostly False" is "Mostly Incorrect".

The sequestration was put through in August of 2011.

This proposal was on John Boehner's webpage in June of 2011:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

Specifically:

CAPS TO CONTROL FUTURE SPENDING
The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.

Unless someone invented a time machine, and used it to change Boehner's web page, it would seem that Boehner himself was proposing "Sequestration" at least a month before the legislation happened.

 

[emptystep]

Personally, I'm not really sure the sequester will be as bad as everyone thinks, and yes, I agree that the whole panic about it is probably exaggerated for political purposes.

That being said, it will certainly have SOME effect on the recovery, and I find it ridiculous that Republicans are trying to pretend it's all Obama's fault that they are happening. Since John Boehner's own webpage tells a different story:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.

That's from June 2011.

As many sources as one can find saying the sequester is not going to be too bad one might believe that. Take this into account however. If it was just a political gimmick why are groups all over the spectrum screaming for this not to happen. When the pain really starts to be felt there is going to be this common question amount (edit: among) many, "Why didn't anyone warn us?" Apparently groups all over the spectrum don't have a very loud voice in this country.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Personally, I'm not really sure the sequester will be as bad as everyone thinks, and yes, I agree that the whole panic about it is probably exaggerated for political purposes.

That being said, it will certainly have SOME effect on the recovery, and I find it ridiculous that Republicans are trying to pretend it's all Obama's fault that they are happening. Since John Boehner's own webpage tells a different story:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.

That's from June 2011.

As many sources as one can find saying the sequester is not going to be too bad one might believe that. Take this into account however. If it was just a political gimmick why are groups all over the spectrum screaming for this not to happen. When the pain really starts to be felt there is going to be this common question amount (edit: among) many, "Why didn't anyone warn us?" Apparently groups all over the spectrum don't have a very loud voice in this country.

85 billion is a pinprick. This isn't even a start to the amount that needs to be cut.

 

[emptystep]

Personally, I'm not really sure the sequester will be as bad as everyone thinks, and yes, I agree that the whole panic about it is probably exaggerated for political purposes.

That being said, it will certainly have SOME effect on the recovery, and I find it ridiculous that Republicans are trying to pretend it's all Obama's fault that they are happening. Since John Boehner's own webpage tells a different story:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov



That's from June 2011.

As many sources as one can find saying the sequester is not going to be too bad one might believe that. Take this into account however. If it was just a political gimmick why are groups all over the spectrum screaming for this not to happen. When the pain really starts to be felt there is going to be this common question amount (edit: among) many, "Why didn't anyone warn us?" Apparently groups all over the spectrum don't have a very loud voice in this country.

85 billion is a pinprick. This isn't even a start to the amount that needs to be cut.

 

[emptystep]

Ambassador Tony Hall: Cutting Lives from the Budget? What Sequestration Could Mean for the World's Hungry

For far less than one percent of the federal budget, these programs provide essential life-saving emergency assistance to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education program ensures that millions of children can receive nutritious meals to attend school. Agricultural development programs, such as the Feed the Future initiative, provide funding for farmers in impoverished rural areas, which helps to strengthen the nutrition and incomes of millions of rural families. This helps households become more resilient to natural disasters, disease and other shocks.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the planned sequestration cuts would mean that U.S. poverty programs would suffer a $1 billion blow. Potential fallout from these cuts would put millions more people at risk and countless lives in danger. Bread for the World estimates that more than 600,000 children would lose nutritional assistance. Additionally, two million people in need of emergency food aid would see supplies drastically cut, if not eliminated, and over five million people will be left without prevention and treatment programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Beyond their positive humanitarian impact in the world, American anti-poverty efforts also serve to boost our own economy and security. A significant portion of our development support goes to fledgling democracies worldwide, supporting economic and political stability, and opening markets for American trade, research and entrepreneurial ingenuity. I was a firm believer in the importance of U.S. leadership in foreign assistance before I became the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation's food programs, and my diplomatic experience has reinforced that these programs are essential both for our country's political and economic health, as well as for millions of vulnerable people worldwide.

Hey, I got a great idea. Let's cut our food aid to fledgling democracies and, let's see. Oh, I know, let's cut our defense budget.

After the sequestration hits (God forbid) and it gets reverted for the most part. Some of these programs just aren't going to find a way back.

 

[editec]

Beside the fact that Sequestor is going to take us into another meltdown?

The Sequestor STILL does not remotely balance the budget.

Total FAIL no matter what side of the fence you sit on, folks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ambassador Tony Hall: Cutting Lives from the Budget? What Sequestration Could Mean for the World's Hungry

For far less than one percent of the federal budget, these programs provide essential life-saving emergency assistance to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education program ensures that millions of children can receive nutritious meals to attend school. Agricultural development programs, such as the Feed the Future initiative, provide funding for farmers in impoverished rural areas, which helps to strengthen the nutrition and incomes of millions of rural families. This helps households become more resilient to natural disasters, disease and other shocks.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the planned sequestration cuts would mean that U.S. poverty programs would suffer a $1 billion blow. Potential fallout from these cuts would put millions more people at risk and countless lives in danger. Bread for the World estimates that more than 600,000 children would lose nutritional assistance. Additionally, two million people in need of emergency food aid would see supplies drastically cut, if not eliminated, and over five million people will be left without prevention and treatment programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Beyond their positive humanitarian impact in the world, American anti-poverty efforts also serve to boost our own economy and security. A significant portion of our development support goes to fledgling democracies worldwide, supporting economic and political stability, and opening markets for American trade, research and entrepreneurial ingenuity. I was a firm believer in the importance of U.S. leadership in foreign assistance before I became the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation's food programs, and my diplomatic experience has reinforced that these programs are essential both for our country's political and economic health, as well as for millions of vulnerable people worldwide.

Hey, I got a great idea. Let's cut our food aid to fledgling democracies and, let's see. Oh, I know, let's cut our defense budget.

After the sequestration hits (God forbid) and it gets reverted for the most part. Some of these programs just aren't going to find a way back.

Oh yeah. Tell us all about it. Little children will be starving in the streets. Old people will be rummaging the trash bins for cat food. General world disaster because--not that we've cut spending because we haven't--but because we've cut the projected rate of future spending.
Anyone who falls for the "We're all going to die" at 1% of the budget is an enormous moronic tool.

 

[emptystep]

Ambassador Tony Hall: Cutting Lives from the Budget? What Sequestration Could Mean for the World's Hungry

For far less than one percent of the federal budget, these programs provide essential life-saving emergency assistance to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world. The McGovern-Dole Food for Education program ensures that millions of children can receive nutritious meals to attend school. Agricultural development programs, such as the Feed the Future initiative, provide funding for farmers in impoverished rural areas, which helps to strengthen the nutrition and incomes of millions of rural families. This helps households become more resilient to natural disasters, disease and other shocks.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the planned sequestration cuts would mean that U.S. poverty programs would suffer a $1 billion blow. Potential fallout from these cuts would put millions more people at risk and countless lives in danger. Bread for the World estimates that more than 600,000 children would lose nutritional assistance. Additionally, two million people in need of emergency food aid would see supplies drastically cut, if not eliminated, and over five million people will be left without prevention and treatment programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Beyond their positive humanitarian impact in the world, American anti-poverty efforts also serve to boost our own economy and security. A significant portion of our development support goes to fledgling democracies worldwide, supporting economic and political stability, and opening markets for American trade, research and entrepreneurial ingenuity. I was a firm believer in the importance of U.S. leadership in foreign assistance before I became the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nation's food programs, and my diplomatic experience has reinforced that these programs are essential both for our country's political and economic health, as well as for millions of vulnerable people worldwide.

Hey, I got a great idea. Let's cut our food aid to fledgling democracies and, let's see. Oh, I know, let's cut our defense budget.

After the sequestration hits (God forbid) and it gets reverted for the most part. Some of these programs just aren't going to find a way back.

Oh yeah. Tell us all about it. Little children will be starving in the streets. Old people will be rummaging the trash bins for cat food. General world disaster because--not that we've cut spending because we haven't--but because we've cut the projected rate of future spending.
Anyone who falls for the "We're all going to die" at 1% of the budget is an enormous moronic tool.

Please see editec's post directly above yours.

 

[emptystep]

Video of interview/statement from Rep. Hollen.

Van Hollen: 'We wish' House Republicans would hold sequester hearing - The Hill's Video

 

[RandallFlagg]

Personally, I'm not really sure the sequester will be as bad as everyone thinks, and yes, I agree that the whole panic about it is probably exaggerated for political purposes.

That being said, it will certainly have SOME effect on the recovery, and I find it ridiculous that Republicans are trying to pretend it's all Obama's fault that they are happening. Since John Boehner's own webpage tells a different story:

Two-Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable | Speaker.gov

The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration). This is the same mechanism used in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.

That's from June 2011.

I don't mean to sound like I'm on Offense here but (1) we spend 3.6 TRILLION dollars a year just keeping up with all the spending that Democrats love to do. 3.6 TRILLION.

(2) Obama said that he "would not deal on sequester. That the cuts WOULD happen. Now, when he sees that he can make republicans look bad, yet again, he has conveniently FORGOTTEN his part in all of this nonsense. Just like Barry ALWAYS does.

(3) What "recovery" are you referring to?

 

[Redfish]

Its 1% folks---------its like a guy making 100K having his pay cut to 99K. He would not know the difference, and neither will we.


The great kenyan messiah is LYING to you.