Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Hail Armageddon

Posted by on Mar. 1, 2013 at 6:05 AM
  • 12 Replies
2 moms liked this

Krauthammer, has about the keenest insight of any political commentator out there.   It's no wonder both sides tend to respect him.

“The worst-case scenario for us,” a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist told The Post, “is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens.”

Think about that. Worst case? That a government drowning in debt should cut back by 2.2 percent — and the country survives. That a government now borrowing 35 cents of every dollar it spends reduces that borrowing by two cents “and nothing bad really happens.” Oh, the humanity!

A normal citizen might think this a good thing. For reactionary liberalism, however, whatever sum our ever-inflating government happens to spend today (now double what Bill Clinton spent in his last year) is the Platonic ideal — the reduction of which, however minuscule, is a national calamity.

Or damn well should be. Otherwise, people might get the idea that we can shrink government and live on.

Hence the president’s message. If the “sequestration” — automatic spending cuts — goes into effect, the skies will fall. Plane travel jeopardized, carrier groups beached, teachers furloughed. And a shortage of junk-touching TSA agents.

The Obama administration has every incentive to make the sky fall, lest we suffer that terrible calamity — cuts the nation survives. Are they threatening to pare back consultants, conferences, travel and other nonessential fluff? Hardly. It shall be air-traffic control. Meat inspection. Weather forecasting.

A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.

Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It’s firemen first. That’s the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck — the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.

After all, the sequester is just one-half of 1 percent of GDP. It amounts to 1.4 cents on the dollar of nondefense spending, 2 cents overall.

Because of this year’s payroll tax increase, millions of American workers have had to tighten their belts by precisely 2 percent. They found a way. Washington, spending $3.8 trillion, cannot? If so, we might as well declare bankruptcy now and save the attorneys’ fees.

The problem with sequestration, of course, is that the cuts are across the board and do not allow money to move between accounts. It’s dumb because it doesn’t discriminate.

Fine. Then change the law. That’s why we have a Congress. Discriminate. Prioritize. That’s why we have budgets. Except that the Democratic Senate hasn’t passed one in four years. And the White House, which proposed the sequester in the first place, had 18 months to establish rational priorities among accounts — and did nothing.

When the GOP House passed an alternative that cut where the real money is — entitlement spending — President Obama threatened a veto. Meaning, he would have insisted that the sequester go into effect — the very same sequester he now tells us will bring on Armageddon.

Good grief. The entire sequester would have reduced last year’s deficit from $1.33 trillion to $1.24 trillion. A fraction of a fraction. Nonetheless, insists Obama, such a cut is intolerable. It has to be “balanced” — i.e., largely replaced — by yet more taxes.

Which demonstrates that, for Obama, this is not about deficit reduction, which interests him not at all. The purpose is purely political: to complete his Election Day victory by breaking the Republican opposition.

At the fiscal cliff, Obama broke — and split — the Republicans on taxes. With the sequester, he intends to break them on spending. Make the cuts as painful as possible, and watch the Republicans come crawling for a “balanced” (i.e., tax-hiking) deal.

In the past two years, House Republicans stopped cold Obama’s left-liberal agenda. Break them now, and the road is open to resume enactment of the expansive, entitlement-state liberalism that Obama proclaimed in his second inaugural address.

But he cannot win if “nothing bad really happens.” Indeed, he’d look both foolish and cynical for having cried wolf.

Obama’s incentive to deliberately make the most painful and socially disruptive cuts possible (say, oh, releasing illegal immigrants from prison) is enormous. And alarming.

Hail Armageddon.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

by on Mar. 1, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 10:03 AM
4 moms liked this

That's why Presbo was all over the media yesterday, saying it won't hurt right away, even though that's what I was screaming yesterday, forget what I said yesterday, these are not the droids you're looking for.

Obamabots Unite!

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM
2 moms liked this

 I'm kind of surprised that anyone still falls for the "The sky is falling!" rhetoric about anything.  The sky never falls.  We just adapt. 

rocketracer
by Gold Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM
4 moms liked this

How about ol' Maxine Waters saying 170 million jobs would be lost....

lylalane7275
by Silver Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 10:53 AM
1 mom liked this

You mean because she just made that number up.  LOL


Quoting rocketracer:

How about ol' Maxine Waters saying 170 million jobs would be lost....



MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The differences are around the edges.

The vast majority of us don't feel the sting.

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM
5 moms liked this

I don't know why some of you all are not taking this more seriously.

Here in my area they have closed the airport, shut down all the roads, turned off the power and shut down the Internet.

Wait...............

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Mar. 1, 2013 at 5:28 PM
2 moms liked this

Air traffic controllers are being laid off - and airplanes are falling out of the sky at LAX, as a result.  Police and FBI agents are being laid off - And therefore, serial killers have been released on to the street. Seniors are eating dog food in my area. And babies are starving.

Oops, they're not! Never mind.

All because of Obama's sequester, which HE brought up in 2011, and has blamed on the GOP, after HE failed to respond to the House's request to negotiate the "spending cuts" (decreases to increases) in domestic and defense spending - as detailed in the sequester agreement of 2011.

"Mom - Republicans took those sequester cookies from the cookie jar - not me!" - said O, brushing crumbs from his lips.

Hope they weren't Nutter Butters.

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Mar. 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM
4 moms liked this

 "A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester"

Didn't Barry promise in '08 and in '12 to do exactly this? To cut overlap, and "wasteful spending"?? Shocking..yet another broken campaign promise.

"Except that the Democratic Senate hasn’t passed one in four years. And the White House, which proposed the sequester in the first place, had 18 months to establish rational priorities among accounts — and did nothing. "

Of course the WH did nothing. They thought the scare tatics, panic and little pieces our country has become would be enough for Barry to push his agenda further..to raise the debt ceiiling. I'll just throw this out there: If it's a constitutional amendment to pass a balanced budget and Barry has sworn to uphold the constitution..why is impeachment such a far out thought? I mean, he's NOT doing his job, and well when one doesn't do their job..one gets...fired..

"But he cannot win if “nothing bad really happens.” Indeed, he’d look both foolish and cynical for having cried wolf. "

Barry's resembling the little boy crying wolf...more and more by the minute.

Are we moving forward yet?

 

 

 

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."---Thomas Jefferson

29again
by Gold Member on Mar. 2, 2013 at 12:40 AM
2 moms liked this

I heard Princess Nancy in a sound bite today.  Evidently I am in danger of losing my job.  I asked my boss about it, and he just laughed.  He just said, yeah, right.  So, that must mean that PN was correct, right?  Because my boss said, yeah?  I mean, he may have been sarcastic, but maybe he was trying to spare my feelings?

No, I am in no danger of losing my job, nor are the vast majority of the 170 million that Miss Maxine was so concerned about...  (WHERE did she get that number?)  She is losing touch, her exaggerations are way over the top, no one believes her anymore.

29again
by Gold Member on Mar. 2, 2013 at 12:51 AM
2 moms liked this

All the hype from presbo lately puts in mind of this....


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)