Bob Woodward: Yes, the sequester was totally the White House's idea

[Hauldren Collider]

Which is utterly irrelevant. Woodward hit a gold mine, and he's been hard pressed to come up with anything since, so he's veered more partisan. He seems to "attack" if you can call it that, those who don't give him inner circle access.

That's bull****, MTG. And nothing Woodward has said here is false, even if you're inclined to believe Woodward is anything other than liberal.

[Elok]

will take place automatically if Congress and the President can't agree to replace, postpone, or undo it.

My money's still on "postpone, Thursday night at 10 PM."

I hope that clarifies things.

Yep, insofar as such a daft situation can be called "clear." Thanks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's bull****, MTG. And nothing Woodward has said here is false, even if you're inclined to believe Woodward is anything other than liberal.

How much access has he gotten from the Obama administration? How much access did he get to GWB's administration in the runup to Iraq and the early days there, so he could write his book? How hard does he chomp the hand that feeds (directly or otherwise?).


It's interpretation. Woodward has been in the beltway long enough to know better. It's a big ol' game of charades, where nobody quite comes out and says the "S" word, but the Republicans gesture and dig in, gesture and did in, "you're getting warmer" "nope, getting colder" and won't come right out and say it. And the Dems dance around it, not saying the "S" word either, but "you mean doing something sorta like this so if don't negotiate, then this will happen" and the Repubs bobble their heads up and down. End of the day, both parties fully participate in the charade, both get "plausible deniability" (love that Poindexterism) and the beat goes on. Realistically, Obama can point the finger at the Republicans, and make a (lawyer's) case for that, and likewise, the Republicans can point the finger at Obama. Both sides win, we lose, same **** different day.

[giblets]

My god Kentonio. I'd ask if you were stupid, but we already know the answer to that.

PS: For the inevitable oerdinism "WELL BOB WOODWARD IS A CONSERVATIVE HACK", this is the guy that brought down Nixon. You know, the Watergate guy?

No one can change their political views in forty years, right? :troll:

[Tupac Shakur]

In the interest of fairness (and hilarity), here's Ezra Klein's rebuttal to Woodward.

I don’t agree with my colleague Bob Woodward, who says the Obama administration is “moving the goalposts” when they insist on a sequester replacement that includes revenues. I remember talking to both members of the Obama administration and the Republican leadership in 2011, and everyone was perfectly clear that Democrats were going to pursue tax increases in any sequester replacement, and Republicans were going to oppose tax increases in any sequester replacement. What no one knew was who would win.

“Moving the goal posts” isn’t a concept that actually makes any sense in the context of replacing the sequester. The whole point of the policy was to buy time until someone, somehow, moved the goalposts such that the sequester could be replaced.

Think back to July 2011. The problem was simple. Republicans wouldn’t agree to raise the debt ceiling without trillions of dollars in deficit reduction. Democrats wouldn’t agree to trillions of dollars in deficit reduction if it didn’t include significant tax increases. Republicans wouldn’t agree to significant tax increases. The political system was at an impasse, and in a few short days, that impasse would create a global financial crisis.

The sequester was a punt. The point was to give both sides a face-saving way to raise the debt ceiling even though the tax issue was stopping them from agreeing to a deficit deal. The hope was that sometime between the day the sequester was signed into law (Aug. 2, 2011) and the day it was set to go into effect (Jan. 1, 2013), something would…change.

There were two candidates to drive that change. The first and least likely was the supercommittee. If they came to a deal that both sides accepted, they could replace the sequester. They failed.

The second was the 2012 election. If Republicans won, then that would pretty much settle it: No tax increases. If President Obama won, then that, too, would pretty much settle it: The American people would’ve voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.

The American people voted for the guy who wants to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.

In fact, they went even further than that. They also voted for a Senate that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes. And then they voted for a House that would cut the deficit by increasing taxes, though due to the quirks of congressional districts, they didn’t get one.

On the sequester, the American people ‘moved the goalposts’

[Guynemer]

It comes down to this:

If you are a person who believes the national debt is a major issue, and you do not support both tax increases and major spending cuts to nearly everything in the budget--including "Defense", Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare--you are a fundamentally, profoundly, inexcusably stupid and inane human being, and should be thoroughly ignored on this and every other issue.

[-Jrabbit]

I understand Klein's point -- that the total popular vote in House races actually favored the Democrats (iirc, by about a million total votes nationally). But to suggest that the "quirks" of House districts is somehow illegitimate denies a political reality that both parties have wielded to great effect throughout our lifetimes and beyond.

[Tupac Shakur]

It comes down to this:

If you are a person who believes the national debt is a major issue, and you do not support both tax increases and major spending cuts to nearly everything in the budget--including "Defense", Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare--you are a fundamentally, profoundly, inexcusably stupid and inane human being, and should be thoroughly ignored on this and every other issue.

Very true. Unfortunately almost all national politicians and most Americans are fundamentally, profoundly, inexcusably stupid and inane human beings.

[Guynemer]

Government we deserve, friend. The government we deserve.

[Tupac Shakur]

Totally.

[DinoDoc]

Let the sequester go through already.

Obama to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability to Reach Debt Deal

President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span.

“There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference where he laid blame squarely on Republicans who refused to bend in their defense of tax cuts for the wealthy during debt talks. “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure.”

He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.” He included the roughly $1 trillion in cuts approved in August.

"The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion," he said. "They've still got a year to figure it out."

These automatic spending cuts are designed to fall evenly on the military and domestic government programs beginning in 2013.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as lawmakers in both parties have warned the impact on the Pentagon could be devastating.

"In my four decades involved with public service, I have never been more concerned about the ability of Congress to forge common-sense solutions to the nation's pressing problems," Panetta, a former House budget committee chairman, said in a statement.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a statement about the mandatory cuts to defense, calling the sequester of $600 billion in defense spending a “threat to the national security interests of the United States and cannot be allowed to occur.”

After months of talks, the Super Committee announced it was unable to agree on terms to save $1.2 trillion over 10 years by tonight's midnight deadline.

"Despite our inability to bridge the committee's significant differences, we end this process united in our belief that the nation's fiscal crisis must be addressed and that we cannot leave it for the next generation to solve," a statement from co-chairs of the committee read.

About a half hour after the committee's announcement, Obama said Republicans were the main stumbling block to reaching agreement on deficit.

"There are still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington," he said.

The panel had until midnight to come up with a plan for reducing the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over 10 years or face automatic cuts, called "sequestration."

Failure to do so would violate the law that demanded that the Congressional Budget Office come up with a fiscal evaluation of the plan and give Congress two days to review it before the Nov. 23 deadline. The task was supposed to be wrapped up by Dec. 23 with an unamended vote on the package.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a panel member, called the committee's outcome an "opportunity missed" in a statement.

"Many will portray this failure as the inevitable consequence of two partisan sides refusing to give ground," Van Hollen said, suggesting blame should lie with Republicans. "Blaming both sides equally will be the simple storyline and the path of least resistance."

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., another panel member, said Republicans offered their colleagues a revenue compromise that Democrats demanded, but he said in a statement that Democrats refused to agree to any meaningful deficit reduction without “$1 trillion in job-crushing tax increases.”

A last-ditch meeting of lawmakers ended Monday afternoon with no smiles, no comments, but some vivid body language. Even a visit to the White House by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., co-chairwoman of the panel of 12 came and went without comment.

For some, the latest news comes as no surprise.

The sequester was designed and voted on by both parties and signed by the president, "specifically to be onerous," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "It was designed so that it never came to pass."

Lawmakers are looking for alternatives to a plan that is designed to chop equally from domestic and entitlement programs on one end, and defense on the other.

McCain and Graham said they are writing legislation to prevent what they say would be devastating cuts to the military. Democrats maintain they won't let domestic programs be the sole source of savings.

The committee could do its work in halves. For instance, if the panel produces less than $1.2 trillion in savings, automatic cuts are activated to make up the difference. So $800 billion in savings from the Super Committee would trigger $400 billion in automatic cuts.

By law, 18 percent of the automatic savings are assumed to come from interest costs the government would save from reducing the debt. If the Super Committee fails completely, out of the $1.2 trillion in automatic savings, $216 billion would be assumed interest savings.

That would leave $984 billion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years. That works out to around $55 billion annually each from defense and domestic programs though a CBO analysis shows that comes out to 10 percent of the Pentagon budget in 2013 alone, a huge hit.

On the domestic side, the law exempts Social Security, Medicaid and many veterans' benefits and low-income programs. It also limits Medicare to a 2 percent reduction. That leaves education, agriculture and the environment programs exposed to cuts of around 8 percent in 2013, according to the CBO. For many Democrats, those are cuts worth fighting against, especially if Republicans try protecting defense programs.

For those on the outside, failure is not a terrible outcome.

"Ordinary Americans should breathe a sigh of relief because we dodged a bullet," Greenlining Institute General Counsel Samuel S. Kang said in a statement. "We could achieve most of the deficit reduction goal by simply shutting down offshore corporate tax havens ... We should make America's richest companies pay their fair share before even thinking about slashing vital programs."

"Given the alternatives, which were phony spending cuts and higher taxes on producers and job creators, sequestration is by far the better deal," said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson. "There should be no discussion of revenue reform until there are actual spending cuts on the table. All we see now are reductions in the growth of spending. What a farce."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz2LmDuTKgV

[regexcellent]

I hope the sequester goes though because then the army would not only massively expand National Guard units because the states pay for them, but they would receive less training and therefore the time commitment would be way way less. So more openings and promotion opportunities for junior officers + less work to actually do. It's pretty much a win for me across the board.

[kentonio]

My god Kentonio. I'd ask if you were stupid, but we already know the answer to that.

You're a reasonably intelligent kid, but I really wish you were actually as smart as you think you are. You get the black and white stuff, but the nuance flies over your head every time. I'm hoping it's down to age.

PS: For the inevitable oerdinism "WELL BOB WOODWARD IS A CONSERVATIVE HACK", this is the guy that brought down Nixon. You know, the Watergate guy?

The same Woodward who Reagan called a liar, yes I know who Woodward is.

[Hauldren Collider]

In the interest of fairness (and hilarity), here's Ezra Klein's rebuttal to Woodward.



On the sequester, the American people ‘moved the goalposts’

wat

I mean, Klein's always been absurdly partisan (the only time he ever says anything interesting, Nate Silver got there first), but...wat

[Hauldren Collider]

Very true. Unfortunately almost all national politicians and most Americans are fundamentally, profoundly, inexcusably stupid and inane human beings.

The problem is, the tax increases that the Democrats claim to want wouldn't do a single ****ing thing for the budget. "Corporates Jets loophole". "Oil and Gas subsidies". Seriously? Those are peanuts. It's more of a "ha ha I win you lose" policy than an actual prescription for the deficit.