The Republicans’ latest stratagem is to argue that the cuts in discretionary spending that will kick-in when the Sequester hits us next Friday will be insignificant and cause no noticeable damage to anyone. I suppose this represents a little momentum for intellectual consistency from people who have been telling us for years that Keynesian Economics don’t work and that the government is spending too much money on social programs. If government spending can’t create jobs then slashing spending can’t destroy them. And if we are wasting money on social programs then people don’t actually need those programs. Of course, both arguments are the stupidest nonsense.
The advantage we have in this argument is that it will not be resolved by the relative success of both parties’ talking points and spin, but by the response of the American people. It is assumed in Republican circles that their politicians are in safe seats and that they can easily absorb a big dip in their popularity and come out unscathed. They ought to remember that scene from the second presidential debate when the president told Mitt Romney to “please proceed” with his erroneous argument about the administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks. If the president isn’t slamming his fist on the table to get them to avoid the Sequester, perhaps he knows something that they don’t. Sure, he would like the Republicans to strike a reasonable deal to avoid the Sequester, but he has no worries about who will suffer politically if they do not.
This has led some in the press to blame the president for not showing more urgency even as they argue in the next breath that the House won’t accede to anything the president suggests. But you can’t have it both ways, and “urgency” is relative anyway. The president has made the same case for three years. He will agree to large cuts in return for modest revenues. He will give a lot to get a little. The Republicans, in turn, have maintained for three years that they will give absolutely nothing and that all their demands must be met or the economy gets it in the head.
That some of them are now arguing that the bullet wound to the cerebellum won’t actually hurt or cause any lasting damage is kind of a joke.
My union worked out an agreement with management; no furloughs in our area. I don’t know about the rest of Commerce, though. We could still expect furloughs if there’s a government shutdown, however.
My dad’s area within DoD is expected to go through the furloughs for every Friday. In the car on the way home from the train station (I take the train into work), I try to emphasize who is at fault here just in the far-away hope that maybe mom will realize what she voted for. I’m not sure anything’s getting through, though. They live in another world within that “bubble”.
I trust that the overall American people know where the blame lies, but I just can’t get over the “bubble” when your own livelihood is now taking the beating. Especially when it’s all I hear them complaining about.
I would take far more satisfaction out of knowing that republicans will pay a political price for this if the sequester wasn’t going to cause so much damage.
Are there internal polling numbers floating around the West Wing that reassure the administration that the people will blame the Republicans? The President is being very low key about this whole thing.
I don’t know about internal White House polls, but there have been a number of recent public opinion polls showing 1) people like and trust the president more than they do congressional Republicans; 2) people favor a “balanced approach”, not just spending cuts as Republicans insist.
Here’s one: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/sequestration-poll-republicans-to-be-blamed-most-87914.html
This is in keeping with recent history, in which the Congressional GOP has been blamed by the public for the debt ceiling debacle and the fiscal cliff.
Yes, but at what point does it lead to voting for the Democrat even in less-gerrymandered districts?
It did so in 2012.
That’s why we’re not looking at the pretty-well-gerrymandered districts – because even the somewhat-gerrymandered districts swung blue last time.
Er, “NOW looking at…”
This is the flip side of the belief that (contrary to all the evidence) Republicans are ‘strong on defense.’ I’d bet that 60% of Americans haven’t heard the word ‘sequester’ and 90% of us couldn’t define it .. but people hear that someone’s trying to slash budgets, they know it’s not Democrats.
Actually, I don’t think the President has been low key about this at all. Almost every day he is making some kind of statement saying Congress has to act on this. And every time he does the Republicans say he is playing politics and isn’t really serious.
Republican governors are begging to disagree with their Congressional colleagues. In fact, they are reported to be begging.
Really? Since a lot of them are Teahadist assholes like their brethren in Congress.
I guess those guys are begging on the Q.T. and the down-low.
THIS would not be happening, if not for the GOP bringing this country to the brink of default in 2011.
period.
that is why this is happening.
no other reason.
Keep it up, Republicans. They’re working even harder to neutralize the gerrymandering they worked so hard to institute last decade. Proceed, gentlemen.
Again with the trying to blame Obama! it’s absurd. At the most fundamental level, what needs to happen to avert the sequester is that Congress needs to pass something. The president doesn’t get a vote. The Senate is on board, so the only obstacle is the House of Representatives. It’s as simple as that.
As, apparently, Chris Hayes said this morning. Congress could pass a one, or two, sentence bill repealing the sequester if they wanted to. Will they?
I understand that Republicans have their own political pressures to respond to—the threat of a right-wing primary opponent perhaps being first among them.
But this point: “Sure, (President Obama) would like the Republicans to strike a reasonable deal to avoid the Sequester, but he has no worries about who will suffer politically if they do not” can’t be emphasized too strongly.
The president doesn’t have to run for re-election. He’ll leave office having ended two wars and the Great Recession, and having implemented Obamacare along with the most progressive agenda (legislative and executive) of any president since the mid-1960s.
If Republicans want to continue their unreasoning obstruction on the sequester, budget and other issues for the next four years, then they should expect that President Obama’s response will generally be along the same lines: “Please, proceed.”
If Republicans want to continue their unreasoning obstruction on the sequester, budget and other issues for the next four years, then they should expect that President Obama’s response will generally be along the same lines: “Please, proceed.”
But the next Congressional elections aren’t for another 18, or so, months,
True. Two thoughts about that:
The problem w/ worrying about who takes the blame is how are you going to use it to your advantage. The issue is that the Taliban is embarked on is nullification as a tactic to achieve their goal of limiting the government’s ability to make economic change w/ social implications just like in the 1800’s. The correct response is to let the sequester go through as immediately as possible. The damage wrought and the contradictions of the Taliban as to fixing it should clarify in the Americans publics minds that a very hard discussion has to take place over how the US government spends money and takes it in. It is an argument that liberals will win.
Think on the mere fact that income has gone down for the past 40 yrs on a median basis so if you have worked why shouldn’t you receive Social Security and Medicare and if it means telling Europe, Japan and Israel to defend themselves w/o our money do you think the populace is going to argue for nation building at home or wasting it abroad. It is no different than the issue of fire arm violence and how to control it. Make people responsible for their firearms through registration to arrest criminals who steal or straw buy. you can reach consensus quickly and most of all popularly.
And after nullification comes secession. Only this time we don’t fight to keep them in the union.
In fact, my wife and I were wondering whether it’s time to start an expulsionist movement. Well, she’s more into it than I am. The idea of expelling states that are trying to strangle the federal government is tempting, but God forbid the Neoconfederate States of America should have nuclear weapons.
Still, I’m entirely open to the approach that Bill Lockyer suggested in California a couple of years ago: Those that want less government get less government. For instance, Paul Ryan’s constituents clearly don’t want Medicare, or they wouldn’t have reelected him. So by suspending Medicare payments in his district, you’re respecting the people’s wishes. Everybody wins!
Does that expulsion program include Anoka MN, Long Island NY, and Southern California?
As a matter on note, you probably better do something about Oak Ridge Laboratories, the Savannah River Nuclear Processing Plant, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Charleston Naval Base, Norfolk Naval Base, Camp LeJeune, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, ….before you start that expulsion program. There is a reason that Southern politicians get re-elected forever–committee seniority.
Not just the facilities but in my contacts with service people when I was with DoD and now with ex-service people with the USPS, I have noted the preponderance of Southern accents. And they are not all conservatives by any means. Most have what would be called a conservative inclination, but quite a few are politically Liberal. One very good friend from Mississippi, a 20 year Navy man tells me that he grew up with the usual prejudice and provincial outlook, but his years in the Navy widened his horizons. He is, in fact, more Liberal than I. And he moved back to Mississippi (still with the USPS) with an Obama bumper sticker on his van. When he arrived, his brother had a “No Bama” sticker for him, but he told his brother, “You have to forget your ignorant redneck ideas.” His brother started talking to him again two weeks later.
I do like the trend of your thoughts. Try this one: We propose legislation that no state can receive more benefits from the Federal government than they send in taxes. What could be more conservative and states’ rights than that? Surely states shouldn’t be “takers” and accept more than they pay for? Isn’t that the fiscally prudent thing to do? (Tongue firmly in cheek)
Is there anyway the spending cuts, cuts could be limited to Republican Congressional District. For example, Paul Ryan’s district the Social Security Office and Meat Inspectors get a 4 day furlough, while in Chicago the SSN Office gets to run at a full staff 5 days a week.
To some degree, decisions like that can be made. If they have to cut down on office hours for the SSA, rural offices will likely take the first hit because they serve the fewest people, and that is likely to disproportionately effect people in Republican districts.
At the Pentagon, they could take into account the political affiliation of the House members when making tough choices about cuts. I wouldn’t recommend that decisions be made that way, but it could be done.
But it’s really a cynical enterprise that would be of limited effectiveness or simply not possible in most government accounts.
I have pretty detailed information from the WH on the impact of these cuts. Unfortunately, it is embargoed until this evening, so I can’t discuss them. Let’s just say that Democratic constituencies are going to get a brick to the head, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Being petty and mean, like making most of the cuts to Republican Districts is sometimes the only thing a group of people will understand.
Being petty and mean, like making most of the cuts to Republican Districts is sometimes the only thing a group of people will understand.
Never mind. The embargo was lifted last night. I misread the date.
Here’s in my home state of Pennsylvania.