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

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

SEQUESTER JESTERS WARN OF AIRPLANE TERRORISTS, PRISON RIOTS, COCAINE FLOODING STREETS...

Posted by on Mar. 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM
  • 39 Replies

Sequester: Democratic theory of the case

  • From left, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid are pictured in this composite. | AP Photos

Democrats are looking a little like they’re rooting for bad news. | AP Photos


The public has largely tuned out the Democrats’ repeated warnings about mid-air plane crashes, troop deaths and mass illness from tainted meat if the sequester cuts stay in place.

But Democrats aren’t dropping the threat of disaster, seizing now on the line they think can beat the Republicans: law and order.

Sequester scare: Obama team drives home message

Prison riots, cocaine flooding the streets, terrorists on board airplanes — even hurricanes and tornadoes left undetected by budget-slashed agencies — have moved front and center as Democrats try to get the public behind blaming the Republicans.

Spending cuts undermine the ability to “catch the bad guys, whether it’s white-collar crime, like mortgage fraud, or street crime, or despicable things like trafficking women and children,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski said in a recent floor speech.

The Maryland Democrat noted that the spending cuts hurt local law enforcement officials who rely on federal grants to help in staffing and equipment purchases. “It’s not the biggest thing in the federal budget but it’s the biggest thing to cops,” she said. “Why? Because it buys bullet-proof vests.”

The whole thing leaves Democrats looking a little like they’re rooting for bad news— though they insist that they’re only saying what is likely to happen if the money isn’t replenished.

“A significant event would certainly alter the mindset,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), of the public attitude toward sequester.

So to make their case, many of the warnings have taken on the air of emergency, particularly when it comes to public safety. Politically, it could be just as tough a sell as the tainted meat: There have been no reports of anyone purchasing bad products, so it’s hard to convince voters that that’s an immediate and dangerous threat.

Polls meanwhile show roughly half of Americans say they can’t make up their minds about sequestration because they don’t know enough yet about the effects of the cuts.

“I really think this is a fascinating case of wait and see,” said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief.

So Democrats are hoping that warning about increased crime and other dangers will hit home.

Federal prison union officials pointed to past budget cuts and continued staffing shortages — and what’s ahead from sequestration — after a federal prison inmate stabbed a guard to death last month in Canaan, Pa.

“I’m hopeful we see the signs before so we don’t have a full blown riot or get somebody killed or have one of these prisons burn to the ground,” said Deshotel, who has worked for 27 years as a maintenance worker at the Federal Correctional Complex in Oakdale, La.

Warnings are also growing that the spending cuts will open the floodgates for more illicit drugs reaching U.S. soil. At a hearing last week before the House Armed Services Committee, Southern Command chief Marine Gen. John Kelly said sequestration means he could end up without critical air and water surveillance to monitor for cocaine trafficking.

“If I lose those assets, if they go to zero — and there are some that are predicting they will go to zero — then all of that cocaine, all of it, will get ashore, and more, I would predict, would get ashore and be on the streets of New York and Boston and Portland, Maine," Kelly said.

Public health experts have also issued their share of warnings tied to the spending cuts, from fewer nurses in hospitals and clinics to less money for the state and local laboratories that monitor for whooping cough outbreaks and bioterrorism attacks.

“They’re the ones that check out that unknown white powder that shows up and you don’t know what it is,” Mary Selecky, secretary of Washington state’s Department of Health, said last month during a hearing organized by House Democrats.

Air safety also remains a concern — both in keeping terrorists off airplanes and keeping watch on the skies.

The TSA — already known for its high employee turnover — is instituting a hiring freeze that will result in an additional 1,000 vacancies by Memorial Day and 2,600 openings by the start of the next fiscal year. And the FAA faces an April 7 deadline to close some of the nearly 150 control towers that made it onto its cut list.

“We’re gambling the lives and safety of our citizens in doing this,” said Rep. Bill Enyart, a freshman Democrat whose Southern Illinois district has two airports on the FAA list for possible closure.

Weather and storm forecasting faces its own problems as the Commerce Department considers a two to three-year delay in launching its newest satellites for tracking severe events like hurricanes and tornadoes. Add that to an aging satellite system and spending cuts that slice into the number of flight hours for NOAA aircraft, and many worry that meteorologists won’t have the best data to share with their audience.

“Think about the next community that gets hit with a super storm like Sandy,” said Marion Blakey, the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association.

Forest fires also will be a high-profile threat as the fire season begins this spring. Already, the country is coming off one of the worst years on record in 2012, with the third-highest number of acres burned in U.S. history.

National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis said in an interview that federal firefighting efforts will be under deep stress later this year because of sequestration.

Preparations take place all year, but the $1 billion budget will be hit immediately. And with 1,000 fewer seasonal employees on the job because of the spending cuts, Jarvis said he won't have the capacity to move firefighters into position and keep them there for "sustained attacks."

It's just that kind of talk, though, that has drawn criticism from Republicans who say too much is being made out of spending cuts that Obama signed into law in 2011. “They need to be very careful on the messaging,” said former GOP Hill leadership staffer John Feehery.

Conservatives also note the private sector and many state and local governments have already had to absorb spending cuts during the recent recession; now it’s only right for federal funding to dry up too.

“What’s unthinkable and horrible is if we don’t address our spending problem and we actually have a debt crisis,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Added Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), “And that’s not a hypothetical."

Kate Brannen contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/sequestration-democrats-theory-of-the-case-89447_Page2.html#ixzz2OzrVt5Ip


by on Mar. 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM
4 moms liked this

They should have a TV show called "Sequester Jesters", where they put up the latest doomsday allegations - with its counterpart, "Sequester Arresters", where they prioritize spending, to keep the important things and to cut wasteful spending.

Reminds me of "Conjunction Junction, what's your function," from Schoolhouse Rock.

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM
5 moms liked this

 They're trying to incite riots so Barry can enforce martial law and become our "king"...he (and the dems) are really trying hard.

Gloom and doom, airplane crashes, cocaine in the streets and prison riots. But let's charge decent taxpaying Americans to send Shelly and the girls to the Bahama's for a week..Two faced fucktards.angry

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:05 PM
3 moms liked this

 I wonder..if cocaine will be so readily available on the streets, more will be dipping into the powdery stuff, maybe people won't care there are plane crashes and prison riots...?? (**sarcasm alert**)

29again
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2013 at 9:30 PM
4 moms liked this


Quoting SallyMJ:

They should have a TV show called "Sequester Jesters", where they put up the latest doomsday allegations - with its counterpart, "Sequester Arresters", where they prioritize spending, to keep the important things and to cut wasteful spending.

Reminds me of "Conjunction Junction, what's your function," from Schoolhouse Rock.

Reminds ME of "Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me....." from HeeHaw.

Blondie378
by on Mar. 31, 2013 at 12:40 PM

The Sequester Superhero

Why the Republican Party’s sequestration strategy only makes Obama stronger.

The last halfhearted hopes of a sequestration fix died Thursday afternoon, with Senate Republicans voting to give more power to President Obama. The plan was anonymously titled S. 16—a missed opportunity, after Democrats spangled their bill with stars and called it the American Family Economic Protection Act. Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey were less interested in a name than in details. Their bill replaced the meat-axe cuts of the Budget Control Act with flexibility: “The Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense by the Continuing Appropriations Resolution.”

This plan failed. Thirty-six Republicans and two Democrats backed it, leaving them 22 votes short of cloture. But why were most Republicans ready to put $85 billion worth of spending cuts on the president, asking his agencies to make the choices? Why not make that call for themselves? Surely they, and not Barack Obama, know which planes need to be built and which military bases need to stay open.

After the vote, Inhofe reminded me that the bill would have required the president to preview his cuts for Congress. Congress could have overridden the cuts, if it came to that.

“For those people who think I’m giving the president more power, they don’t know me or my relationship with the president,” he said. “Our bill merely gives the administration the capacity to rearrange the cuts, so that they’re not so devastating.”

Republicans have one goal, running through all of these negotiations. They don’t want sequestration to be replaced by tax revenue. Any tax revenue. Forcing the president to swallow $85 billion in cuts this year would do that. They’ve got no obvious alternatives.

But a plan like this exposes a quirk of Obama-era fiscal hawksmanship. Republicans want specific cuts. Some of them—total repeal of Obamacare!—they’ll put on the record. The rest of them, they try to put on the White House. As soon as the “supercommittee” failed and sequestration looked real, it became “the president’s sequester.” The 2011 debt-limit deal delayed real action until after the 2012 election, betting $1.2 trillion of chips on its results and giving them to the president. Even the first great structural victory of the Tea Party, the ban on legislative earmarks, handed more clout to the White House. “The power to make thousands of spending decisions, on everything from which flood control projects will be funded to how spending on military bases will be distributed, to President Obama,” warned two political scientists at the time. Republicans ignored those particular political scientists.

Vote by vote, accidentally, Republicans are endorsing an imperial vision of the presidency. Perhaps they’re picking this up by osmosis. The default position of the punditocracy is that the president must lead. The lazy pundit invokes Harry Truman’s desk ornament, “The Buck Stops Here,” as a totem of great wisdom. Brendan Nyhan, who isn’t lazy, calls this “the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency,” after the D.C. Comics superhero and his ring that runs on willpower. Bob Woodward offered a sterling example of the theory this week, when he suggested that the president’s willingness to obey the Budget Control Act (the law that mandates sequestration) was “madness.”

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?’” asked Woodward. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander in chief and employs the force.”

Indeed he is, but when the president does it, it’s not always legal. The president can only spend what Congress appropriates. Prior Congresses, just as aggressive as this Republican-run House, have used that power to cut off money, like the Nixon-era Democrats did when they stanched the budget for the Vietnam War. And when they took over the House in 2011, John Boehner’s Republicans immediately introduced a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But this assortment of Republicans is less sure how to exercise power.

“I think there’s a realization among House Republicans that Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton,” said Ohio Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of the conference’s leading tax-reform voices. “If Bill Clinton were president, giving him flexibility would be an OK thing. Unfortunately, the trust level between House Republicans and this administration, how they’ve politicized almost everything? Gee, he might use flexibility to make sequestration worse than it could be!”

So a mile-wide gulf cracks open between that theory of the president and the dominant, make-him-own-the-cuts theory. “Frankly, I think the administration will have very few options,” said one Republican member of Congress who favored the “flexibility” bill. “You have to go to administrative costs and overhead, procurements that aren't working—you have a limited number of things to work with. If they're going to do something like shut down Guantanamo, it's going to cost more money, not less.”

After Friday, when the sequestration becomes a real thing, Republicans will get another, harder choice between the theories. At the end of March, they need to pass a new appropriations bill to fund the government. They can pass an omnibus bill, combining all the spending plans they need. That would put the onus on Congress to define how the money gets spent. Alternatively, they can pass a continuing resolution, spending numbers based on the Budget Control Act. That would keep the onus on the White House; that’s the plan most likely to rise to the top.

But that’ll happen later. On Thursday, Democrats helped defeat the “flexibility” plan, then denounced Republicans who filibustered the Democrats sequestration fix—a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. “[A fellow senator] mentioned the president’s budget as if that is controlling!” said retiring Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat. “Are we now hearing from the other side that we should just carte blanche rubber stamp the president’s budget? I hope not!”

All but four Senate Democrats backed the “balanced” sequestration fix. (Sen. Harry Reid, one of the four, opposed it as a procedural measure, as a way to reconsider it later.) Republicans rushed out with statements pointing out that they had wanted to give the president the power to re-order sequester cuts but that Senate Democrats refused to lead and pass a bill. Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the forgotten member of the forgotten “Tea Party Caucus,” took his place on the floor to denounce “a reliance on ridiculous gimmicks to solve our problems.” He was referring to the Democrats.

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM
2 moms liked this
Quoting Blondie378:


The Sequester Superhero


Why the Republican Party’s sequestration strategy only makes Obama stronger.




The last halfhearted hopes of a sequestration fix died Thursday afternoon, with Senate Republicans voting to give more power to President Obama. The plan was anonymously titled S. 16—a missed opportunity, after Democrats spangled their bill with stars and called it the American Family Economic Protection Act. Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey were less interested in a name than in details. Their bill replaced the meat-axe cuts of the Budget Control Act with flexibility: “The Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense by the Continuing Appropriations Resolution.”



This plan failed. Thirty-six Republicans and two Democrats backed it, leaving them 22 votes short of cloture. But why were most Republicans ready to put $85 billion worth of spending cuts on the president, asking his agencies to make the choices? Why not make that call for themselves? Surely they, and not Barack Obama, know which planes need to be built and which military bases need to stay open.



After the vote, Inhofe reminded me that the bill would have required the president to preview his cuts for Congress. Congress could have overridden the cuts, if it came to that.



“For those people who think I’m giving the president more power, they don’t know me or my relationship with the president,” he said. “Our bill merely gives the administration the capacity to rearrange the cuts, so that they’re not so devastating.”



Republicans have one goal, running through all of these negotiations. They don’t want sequestration to be replaced by tax revenue. Any tax revenue. Forcing the president to swallow $85 billion in cuts this year would do that. They’ve got no obvious alternatives.



But a plan like this exposes a quirk of Obama-era fiscal hawksmanship. Republicans want specific cuts. Some of them—total repeal of Obamacare!—they’ll put on the record. The rest of them, they try to put on the White House. As soon as the “supercommittee” failed and sequestration looked real, it became “the president’s sequester.” The 2011 debt-limit deal delayed real action until after the 2012 election, betting $1.2 trillion of chips on its results and giving them to the president. Even the first great structural victory of the Tea Party, the ban on legislative earmarks, handed more clout to the White House. “The power to make thousands of spending decisions, on everything from which flood control projects will be funded to how spending on military bases will be distributed, to President Obama,” warned two political scientists at the time. Republicans ignored those particular political scientists.



Vote by vote, accidentally, Republicans are endorsing an imperial vision of the presidency. Perhaps they’re picking this up by osmosis. The default position of the punditocracy is that the president must lead. The lazy pundit invokes Harry Truman’s desk ornament, “The Buck Stops Here,” as a totem of great wisdom. Brendan Nyhan, who isn’t lazy, calls this “the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency,” after the D.C. Comics superhero and his ring that runs on willpower. Bob Woodward offered a sterling example of the theory this week, when he suggested that the president’s willingness to obey the Budget Control Act (the law that mandates sequestration) was “madness.”



“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?’” asked Woodward. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander in chief and employs the force.”



Indeed he is, but when the president does it, it’s not always legal. The president can only spend what Congress appropriates. Prior Congresses, just as aggressive as this Republican-run House, have used that power to cut off money, like the Nixon-era Democrats did when they stanched the budget for the Vietnam War. And when they took over the House in 2011, John Boehner’s Republicans immediately introduced a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But this assortment of Republicans is less sure how to exercise power.



“I think there’s a realization among House Republicans that Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton,” said Ohio Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of the conference’s leading tax-reform voices. “If Bill Clinton were president, giving him flexibility would be an OK thing. Unfortunately, the trust level between House Republicans and this administration, how they’ve politicized almost everything? Gee, he might use flexibility to make sequestration worse than it could be!”



So a mile-wide gulf cracks open between that theory of the president and the dominant, make-him-own-the-cuts theory. “Frankly, I think the administration will have very few options,” said one Republican member of Congress who favored the “flexibility” bill. “You have to go to administrative costs and overhead, procurements that aren't working—you have a limited number of things to work with. If they're going to do something like shut down Guantanamo, it's going to cost more money, not less.”



After Friday, when the sequestration becomes a real thing, Republicans will get another, harder choice between the theories. At the end of March, they need to pass a new appropriations bill to fund the government. They can pass an omnibus bill, combining all the spending plans they need. That would put the onus on Congress to define how the money gets spent. Alternatively, they can pass a continuing resolution, spending numbers based on the Budget Control Act. That would keep the onus on the White House; that’s the plan most likely to rise to the top.



But that’ll happen later. On Thursday, Democrats helped defeat the “flexibility” plan, then denounced Republicans who filibustered the Democrats sequestration fix—a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. “[A fellow senator] mentioned the presid
ent’s budget as if that is controlling!” said retiring Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat. “Are we now hearing from the other side that we should just carte blanche rubber stamp the president’s budget? I hope not!”



All but four Senate Democrats backed the “balanced” sequestration fix. (Sen. Harry Reid, one of the four, opposed it as a procedural measure, as a way to reconsider it later.) Republicans rushed out with statements pointing out that they had wanted to give the president the power to re-order sequester cuts but that Senate Democrats refused to lead and pass a bill. Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the forgotten member of the forgotten “Tea Party Caucus,” took his place on the floor to denounce “a reliance on ridiculous gimmicks to solve our problems.” He was referring to the Democrats.






Idiotic and desperate article, Davis Weigel.


Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Mar. 31, 2013 at 3:40 PM
1 mom liked this
Quoting SallyMJ:

They should have a TV show called "Sequester Jesters", where they put up the latest doomsday allegations - with its counterpart, "Sequester Arresters", where they prioritize spending, to keep the important things and to cut wasteful spending.

Reminds me of "Conjunction Junction, what's your function," from Schoolhouse Rock.





Damn left wing Terrorist Pigs!
Friday
by Platinum Member on Mar. 31, 2013 at 3:47 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting 29again:


Quoting SallyMJ:

They should have a TV show called "Sequester Jesters", where they put up the latest doomsday allegations - with its counterpart, "Sequester Arresters", where they prioritize spending, to keep the important things and to cut wasteful spending.

Reminds me of "Conjunction Junction, what's your function," from Schoolhouse Rock.

Reminds ME of "Gloom, Despair, and Agony on me....." from HeeHaw.

Reminds me of 2004 and Cheney warning us about we would be attacked if Kerry won.

Fear mongering to manipulate and/or gain political advantage isn't new.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

Blondie378
by on Mar. 31, 2013 at 5:16 PM

It's no more idiotic and desperate article than :


By DARREN SAMUELSOHN


pvtjokerus
by Gold Member on Mar. 31, 2013 at 11:50 PM
1 mom liked this

Actually, Obama and Reid are doing their damnedest for the above to happen.  Obama had a choice to be a leader here and instead he has belittled himself to acting like a 2 yoa that lost his pacifier and throwing a tantrum.  He is now stripping monies from important agencies but yet spending money like a Imelda Marcos did.  Obama has made this about the upcoming 2014 elections instead of figuring a way out of this mess.

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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN