White House warns of airport delays, less secure borders due to huge spending cuts

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -3

    badsey3

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts.html

    Libs do not want to pull in the purse strings. 2-3% reduction is not enough and should easily be double that starting with "defense" cuts.

    The worst part is that the spending charts is not even accurate when you take in Federal Reserve (private) spending.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

    =you could be cutting $16 Trillion right there by not deleting the private Federal Reserve.

  • 2

    edbardoe

    Cabinet secretaries who threaten to lay off 1/3 of their staff due to cuts of no more than 5% of their budgets, should be fired for incompetence. The administration will not cut any spending as they are dependent on the parasite class of voters, and for the man at the top, have lived as parasites of the sweat of private sector taxpayers since birth.

  • 3

    fds

    the deal was suppose to be tax increases for spending cuts. obama got his tax increases. but when it comes to negotiating the spending cuts he now wants more tax increase. how anybody can trust him is beyond me.

  • -3

    Lizz

    Even if the sequester deal doesn't make a real or meaningful dent in the deficit, in a tactical sense for the first time I think we have the upperhand. Obama already got his 1% tax hike so he has lost that political capital. That argument has lost its power. We have another debt ceiling hike coming up and now the GOP has laid the precedent that the White House has to give something in return for that.

    The landscape has changed.

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    "...make the work of securing the country “awfully, awfully tough."

    No country is ever completely secure from anything, but I bet there's conservatives out there in the bush somewhere who are clinging to their guns and petrified by these words.... :-)

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    Lizz - "We have another debt ceiling hike coming up and now the GOP has laid the precedent that the White House has to give something in return for that."

    I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as to why it was ok for Republicans to raise the debt ceiling 17 times in a row under GWB - with no preconditions - but now, the same party thinks it's somehow "ok" to hold the entire economy - and the debt rating - hostage to do exactly the same thing.

    Lizz - "The landscape has changed."

    You're right. The conservatives have destroyed it all for the sake of scoring cheap political points and taking the economy down with them. 

  • 1

    Surf O'Holic

    What a load of doo from Napolitano and the potus.

  • 2

    Surf O'Holic

    The so-called sequester is yet another dose of the never-ending political theater that perpetually diverts the attention of iPod and sports addicts from such mundane matters as liberty and tyranny. By now, of course, all but the walking dead realize that if the sequester actually happens, it will amount to nothing more than a slight --make that very slight -- decrease in the growth of spending.

    Robert Ringer

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    Reality check:

    Even during this desultory economic recovery, one industry thrives — the manufacture of synthetic hysteria. It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester. He is actually crying “Hamster!”

    As in: Batten down the hatches —the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3 percent! Or: Washington chain-saw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7 percent of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of Hurricane Sandy! Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion! Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17 percent under President Obama must endure a 5 percent cut!

    Get over it already.

  • 2

    Surf O'Holic

    Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy. A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”

    Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.

  • 2

    Wolfpack

    Obama has no intention of reducing spending regardless of the circumstances. More debt for Obama is simply a means to an end; wealth redistribution for the sake of some unspecified notion of 'social justice'.

    America's annual deficits average over $1 trillion under Obama and he is terrified of slightly reducing an increase in spending of just $85 billion a year. Pathetic.

  • 1

    AKBfan

    Of the two things to choose. Airport delays are already ridiculous in US due to overzealous secvurity and surly immigration and check thru staff. Border security - you have to be joking? Just pick hot button topics and sling mud. Which is why the US continues to slide backwards towards disaster.

  • 1

    Laguna

    While I hesitate to nitpick, Obama's "tax increase" was technically a tax decrease. Bush, you see, had not the cojones to make his own tax cuts permanent as their effect on the long-term financial health of the government would have been all-too obvious, so he had them sunset after ten years. They were then extended temporarily, and then most of them permanently. Call it what you will, but even the GOP members who voted for making the tax cuts permanent portrayed it accurately.

    We are off now into uncharted waters, and I have mixed feelings about it. Sequestration will no doubt have a negative effect on the economy - some economists have said it will cost up to 700,000 jobs; at the same time, a large portion (though not the majority) of the American electorate demands a smaller government role. Now they will get one. Many on this board trivialize the cuts as only $58 billion while in reality it is $1.4 trillion over ten years - that is, the baseline budget for many departments is now permanently lower. Perhaps some will be able to do as much with less; perhaps some will not. We shall see.

    Of importance is that the Pentagon is sharing in the pain. Despite GOP protestations, the Dems have not caved on this point; let us hope that they stay committed to a balanced approach. After all, no department in the Federal government contains more waste than the Pentagon.

  • 2

    TheQuestion

    large portion (though not the majority) of the American electorate demands a smaller government role. Now they will get one.

    Smaller isn't the word I'd use to describe it. Spending will still be increasing and sequestration is merely a reduction in that increase. Total expenditures in 2013 will still be higher than they were in 2012 and while I understand that expenditures naturally go up as employees are promoted and receive raises and are forced to hire new employees to meet a growing population I have no doubt in my mind that the government could easily recoup the losses by streamlining their departments.

    Right now every level of government operates under the philosophy of use it or lose it with regards to budgeting, either they use every last cent of the amount their budgeted (plus cost overruns) and the objectives fall to the wayside. Education spending has, adjusted for inflation, increased every year for a long time but test scores and high school graduation rates have remained stagnate, the boarders remain unsecured, and the TSA is a colossal inconvenience and a waste of money.

    Departments no longer work towards any long term goals except for one, to get more money budgeted for them this year than they did last year. It's annoying how often I hear it on the news "If only we had more money" from every department at every level of government, they've stopped looking for ways to solve problems and they've been manufacturing them so that everyone will overlook their failures.

    Of importance is that the Pentagon is sharing in the pain. Despite GOP protestations, the Dems have not caved on this point; let us hope that they stay committed to a balanced approach.

    The Democrats didn't think this would ever happen so I wouldn't go around giving out brownie points.

  • 1

    kurisupisu

    Fiscal Cliff? Perfect Storm? Too big to Fail?

    Crisis after crisis after crisis.............

    Yet, Obama finds time to vacation in Hawaii?

    Something is not right,,,,,,,,,

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: Obama has no intention of reducing spending regardless of the circumstances.

    Bush raised government spending by 7.3% in his first term and 8.1% in his second term. Obama raised it by 1.4% in his first term. I still have no idea where you are getting your information from.

    More debt for Obama is simply a means to an end; wealth redistribution for the sake of some unspecified notion of 'social justice'.

    I'm not even sure what this means...? It sounds like some catchphrases were thrown into a blender. I can only assume it's something from AM radio that sounds good but is ultimately meaningless.

    fds: the deal was suppose to be tax increases for spending cuts. obama got his tax increases. but when it comes to negotiating the spending cuts he now wants more tax increase. how anybody can trust him is beyond me.

    Obama's plan offers spending cuts. It's all right there if you take the time to look. Again, I have no idea where you guys are getting your information from.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    TheQuestion: I have no doubt in my mind that the government could easily recoup the losses by streamlining their departments.

    That's the conversation we should be having.

  • 1

    Laguna

    Spending will still be increasing and sequestration is merely a reduction in that increase.

    TheQuestion, that depends on how you define spending. If you include mandatory outlays such as Social Security, then, yes, spending does increase - as would make sense with an aging society. Discretionary spending, though, will drop - this includes items such as defense, national parks, food safety, and all that. Take a look at the chart.

    http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/50620c07ecad04cc10000011-590/nearly-half-of-the-automatic-sequestration-under-the-fiscal-cliff-is-expected-to-come-from-discretionary-spending.jpg

  • -3

    Bgood41

    The staunch liberal Bob Woodward (Watergate) wrote in details of timeline in which the White house and Obama who initiated and responsible for their own idea of the sequester, therefore they should own it regardless the outcome. To count on a bunch of lawyers, Obama included, to handle economics problems and future generations are out of range. They want to win at all cost, thus spending even more to solidify their political base of voters in spite of biggest deficit.

  • 2

    Laguna

    The Democrats didn't think this would ever happen so I wouldn't go around giving out brownie points.

    Nope - no brownie points for anyone in Congress, that sorry, broken institution. But: "Senate Republicans are considering a proposal that could alleviate some impacts of the cuts by giving the president flexibility to decide where they would occur," a news report says. See how that works? - The GOP is trying to weasel out of the Pentagon cuts by giving Obama "flexibility" to shift them to domestic spending; if (and, likely, when) he does not, they will castigate him for cutting spending on defense.

    Of course, they will not specify to where they would like to shift these cuts; they'd rather watch Obama negotiate with himself. Sorry - ain't gonna happen this time.

  • -2

    sailwind

    Of importance is that the Pentagon is sharing in the pain. Despite GOP protestations, the Dems have not caved on this point;

    Oh the absolute sweet irony. The past few years of the continous howling as to how the Republicans have been hijacked by the Tea Party "extremists" in the party. The Tea Party "radicals" who have held the economy hostage and everybody else hostage to their insane priorities that we need to cut spending. These radicals that are so resolute in wanting to cut back on the endless borrow more, spend more, more, more cycle that they are willing to even cut the Pentagon budget with hardly any real protests about this happening from the tea party types with the sequester.

    Its the more traditional Republicans that have heartburn about the Pentagon taking the hit with the rest but it sure isn't the Tea Party Republicans pitching any real fits with it. They hold sway now and the fiscal majority view in the Republican party is that cuts have to happen and that the budget has to get back into fiscal sanity.

    The sweet irony here is by holding fast to their principles of cutting spending even in defense over the traditional Republican party position of never cutting defense no matter what, the are actually on the cusp of delivering a Liberals absolute wet dream. Severe Defense Department cuts that would never have happened if the Tea party had never came on the scene and got themselves elected to Congress. Of course Liberals will never acknowledge this gift to them or that it is being handed to them entirely on steadfast principles of bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington and that spending has to be cut if our nation hopes to ever prosper in the future again and this includes even the once sacred Republican cow of defense.

    Liberals will just continue to paint them as extremists who could care less about kids, grannies, airline passengers and just hate people so much that they are willing to even chop defense to make them suffer.

    To the long time liberals here that have advocated chopping Defense over and over again, it looks like its really going to happen and guess what? It''s you that owe the so called extremist "Tea Party" who "hijacked" the Republican party for making it possible.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Bgood41: The staunch liberal Bob Woodward (Watergate) wrote in details of timeline in which the White house and Obama who initiated and responsible for their own idea of the sequester, therefore they should own it regardless the outcome.

    Does the timeline include the point where this whole crisis was created by Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling? Blaming the manufactured crisis on Obama's response to the manufactured crisis seems a bit odd to me. This could all end tomorrow if Republicans would agree to do for Obama what they did for Bush 17 times.

    Make no mistake about it at all....this is part of a Republican plan to try to damage Obama in any way they can. We're all just collateral damage to them. They tried to score political points by making the debt ceiling an issue and now they have to deal with rabid members of their own party and they have absolutely no way out of it. At this point even agreeing to a compromise will have a Republican strung up and left out to dry by their own members. They're screwed, and as a result we might all be screwed.

  • -2

    bass4funk

    @super

    Does the timeline include the point where this whole crisis was created by Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling? Blaming the manufactured crisis on Obama's response to the manufactured crisis seems a bit odd to me. This could all end tomorrow if Republicans would agree to do for Obama what they did for Bush 17 times.

    Because Bush was a big spender, And now seeing what Obama is doing to the economy, Republicans learned from those mistakes and aren't willing to make them again.

  • 2

    gmann

    any excuse to have less secure borders. they should just have moving sidewalks and shuttle service from Mexico to the USA. oh wait that may slow people down. This is a perpetual problem supported by both political parties wanting to pander for votes. they have given away the sovereignty and strength of America all in the name of votes and the taxpayers are paying in excess of 200K for each one. What a great value. meanwhile the dilution of the intelligence quotient, the raising of the crime rate along with the overburdening cost of providing free medical and welfare skyrocket. Washington DC needs an enema. And now this posturing so one side can blame the other. We are run by a guv of traitors.

  • -1

    Tom DeMicke

    Epic Fail!

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Discretionary spending, though, will drop - this includes items such as defense, national parks, food safety, and all that. Take a look at the chart.

    The chart fails to take into consideration the more than 1 trillion dollars that have been exempted from sequestration. While discretionary spending is on those areas impacted by the sequester are set to drop by 995 billion over ten years when you take into account those discretionary programs that have been exempted net discretionary spending still increases by 110 billion dollars over the same 10 year period.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/02/19/the-995-billion-sequester-cut-is-actually-a-110-billion-spending-increase/

  • 1

    25psot

    Less secure boarders is bad news for Americans who still remember 9/11, but good news for the terrorists.

  • -1

    Elbuda Mexicano

    I am sure Mr.Boener, of the Tea Party is real happy with this mess! Republicans will only be happy when Mr.Obama is made to look like a doofus, like an ingoramus etc..thanks but NO THANKS Tea party!

  • 0

    Lizz

    I like the One Cent Solution that was talked about during the debt limit “crisis” two limit increases ago and hope Rand Paul offers it up again this time. The concept is beautifully simple: If the government cuts one cent out of every dollar of its total spending (excluding interest payments) each year for five years, and then caps overall federal spending at 18 percent of national income from then on, we can: Reduce federal spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years [and] Balance the budget by 2019.

    Every single American - even liberals - understand and know that a 1 cent per dollar reduction is reasonable. We ALL understand that.

    This will cut-off at the knees any language/demagoguery of “massive cuts” and will knock-down the paradigm now of base-line budgeting.

    It’s brilliant. And it balances the budget.

  • 0

    gelendestrasse

    Partisan politics masquerading as leadership then. A pox on both their houses.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    bass4funk: Because Bush was a big spender, And now seeing what Obama is doing to the economy, Republicans learned from those mistakes and aren't willing to make them again.

    Can you say that with a straight face?

  • -2

    realist

    Can more ordinary Americans not see the simple truth that the Obama Administration is destroying America, piece by piece? Their policies are insane.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Import and Export Trading Assistant

    Import and Export Trading Assistant
    ECO Resource、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M ~ ¥3.5M / Year 経験・前給与を考慮の上、要相談
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • IELTSインストラクター

    IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥3,500 / Hour Negotiable
  • Bilingual Administrative Staff

    Bilingual Administrative Staff
    Star Kids International Preschool、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Depending on experience

More in World

View all

View all