I intend to pay attention to this - will YOU?

swizzlee

RedWhiteAndBlue
Jan 8, 2011
727
124
28
on a mountain
Given this situation is the fault of both parties, I will be interested in what kind of spin, if any, will be coming out of the Senate and the WH. It seems the Senate is in agreement with the House but one never knows. And it's clear the burden is falling on the WH. How will they react?

July 24, 2012

Senate must pass sequestration transparency


By: Sen. John Thune and Sen. Jeff Sessions and Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Rep. Paul Ryan

Our country is headed for a fiscal cliff. We’re also headed for a national security crisis thanks to one large component of this fiscal cliff — the $1.2 trillion automatic budget sequestration due to go into effect Jan. 2, which would disproportionately cut funding for our defense needs.

The sequestration process was passed last August as part of the Budget Control Act, a last-resort measure to avert a fiscal crisis due in part to the Senate’s failure to pass a budget. Though defense spending makes up less than 20 percent of our budget, 50 percent of the cuts required under the act fall on programs and personnel charged with providing for our nation’s defense.

Even worse, these enormous defense cuts would come on top of a $487-billion cut in defense spending put in place last year. Defense will be cut by nearly a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

The Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has stated that the sequestration cuts “would do catastrophic damage to our military and its ability to protect the country.” The assistant commandant of the Marine Corps has testified that this would leave the corps without “adequate capabilities and capacities to meet a single major contingency operation,” while the chief of naval operations has testified that it would cause “irreversible damage.”

Despite this looming crisis, President Barack Obama and his administration have so far refused to level with the American people about the full impact of these defense cuts — though the cuts are due to take place in slightly more than five months. The White House has given conflicting reports on how the cuts will be implemented, and Congress’ requests for a clear outline of the administration’s plans are unanswered.

Sequestration will have far-reaching effects on the lives of all Americans. As Panetta and our military leaders have made clear, U.S. national security is at risk if another round of draconian defense cuts is carried out. The president and his administration must understand this. So why would they not want to be transparent about the size and scope of the required cuts?

The House passed our Sequestration Transparency Act last week by a nearly unanimous vote of 414 to 2.
This bill would require the Obama administration to submit to Congress and the American people a detailed plan as to how sequestration will be applied to defense and non-defense programs within the federal budget. Members of Congress from both parties agree that this information is essential.

The bipartisan support for our bill in the House should pave the way for a similarly strong show of support in the Senate, which recently agreed to a similar sequestration report requirement as part of the farm bill.

Had the Senate passed a budget in recent years, or had Obama submitted a responsible budget to Congress, we might not be facing these devastating cuts to our nation’s military. Sequestration was intended to be an action-forcing mechanism to get Congress and the president to act to bring the debt under control. It was never the preferred option for achieving more responsible federal spending.

Unfortunately, the supercommittee failed to reach an agreement on spending — and now we are left with the unbalanced and dangerous defense cuts under the Budget Control Act’s automatic sequester.

Given the seriousness of the situation, the Senate should immediately join the House in calling on the president to enter the discussion; release a plan detailing the effects of sequestration, and begin a debate with Congress on the need to replace this sequester with deficit reduction through sensible reforms — not arbitrary cuts.

Our nation’s security is at stake. The time to act is now.

Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) are the lead sponsors of the Sequestration Transparency Act in the Senate. Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are the lead sponsors of the bill in the House. Thune and Hensarling serve as chairmen of the Senate and House Republican Conferences respectively. Sessions and Ryan serve as the ranking member and the chairman on the Senate and House Budget Committees respectively.
 
Between when the article you cite was published and when you posted it the Senate did indeed pass the transparency measure: Congress forces W.H. to lay out sequester cuts - POLITICO.com

I think it is a very odd way of doing things. Rather than protecting its prerogative of deciding how federal monies are spent Congress is forcing the executive to take a greater degree of control over the process.

The Republicans who penned this missive are being extremely disingenuous when they claim the cuts fall disproportionately on Defense spending. Defense and non-defense spending make up equal parts of discretionary spending and suffer equally under sequester. Cutting non-discretionary spending would involve things like reducing interest payments on the debt (which would destroy the credit rating and be illegal under current law).
 
Here's an idea.

Let's pass a budget so the automatic cuts don't happen! Then we won't need to know what coulda woulda happened if those automatic cuts took place! We won't have to play political games like this "Let's Pretend" bill.





I know...I know. That's crazy talk.
 
Here's an idea.

Let's pass a budget so the automatic cuts don't happen! Then we won't need to know what coulda woulda happened if those automatic cuts took place! We won't have to play political games like this "Let's Pretend" bill.





I know...I know. That's crazy talk.

Tried that. It failed. Any other ideas?
 
Between when the article you cite was published and when you posted it the Senate did indeed pass the transparency measure: Congress forces W.H. to lay out sequester cuts - POLITICO.com

I think it is a very odd way of doing things. Rather than protecting its prerogative of deciding how federal monies are spent Congress is forcing the executive to take a greater degree of control over the process.

The Republicans who penned this missive are being extremely disingenuous when they claim the cuts fall disproportionately on Defense spending. Defense and non-defense spending make up equal parts of discretionary spending and suffer equally under sequester. Cutting non-discretionary spending would involve things like reducing interest payments on the debt (which would destroy the credit rating and be illegal under current law).


I think you are right in saying Congress should man up and do it's job. But I also think the Executive should be involved, even if he is acting in the best interests of his side rather than the country as a whole IMHO.

But where you're wrong is in blaming the repubs, you saw the vote in the House and the unanimous consent in the Senate. And yet you only blame the GOP. Don't you think that's being a bit disingenuous too?
 
Isnt it great............................

Liberal or conservative.

We just cant cut spending...............
 
I'm glad to hear that...........

It's unfortunate that our media is much more inclined to ballyhoo innocuous remarks made by Romney in the UK rather than report on the more serious aspects of our government.

But there is nothing disingenuous about the Pub remarks about the Defense cuts. While the sequester cuts may be identical for every department, did you miss the fact that DOD had already been hit with a $487B cut last year? That amounts to a double whammy on Defense. Or that very prominent DOD individuals, including Panetta, are lobbying against these cuts?

Be aware, too, that the vote in the House was overwhelmingly unanimous telling all of us that members of both parties do at least take the defense of our country very serious.

The burden is now on Obama to produce.
 
We wouldn't have this problem to begin with if the democrats would ever pass a f'n budget. The law requires a budget be approved by a certain time each year. Let's put some congerssmen in jail for not following the law. It's the law. Harry Reid should go for one.
 
I think Obama should call their bluff and make a 15% cut to Defense spending. That'll open up their eyes. You know what's awesome? NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY if the House approves the tax cut extension that the Senate handed them this week. Super easy, huh?
 
I think Obama should call their bluff and make a 15% cut to Defense spending. That'll open up their eyes. You know what's awesome? NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY if the House approves the tax cut extension that the Senate handed them this week. Super easy, huh?

So tax cuts pay the bills? Really?


Can you manage to hold this opinion or can we expect another change?
 
I think Obama should call their bluff and make a 15% cut to Defense spending. That'll open up their eyes. You know what's awesome? NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY if the House approves the tax cut extension that the Senate handed them this week. Super easy, huh?

So tax cuts pay the bills? Really?


Can you manage to hold this opinion or can we expect another change?

You don't really understand how things work, do you? The reason the tax cuts are important is because the "Fiscal Cliff" is triggered by the two sides not agreeing to whom to extend them to. Dummy, I'm not saying this on a ideological or fiscal policy level. I mean in the very immediate and real sense, they wrote this dumb fucking language into the last extension, and now it's coming home to roost.

Jesus you're fucking stupid.
 
I think Obama should call their bluff and make a 15% cut to Defense spending. That'll open up their eyes. You know what's awesome? NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY if the House approves the tax cut extension that the Senate handed them this week. Super easy, huh?

So tax cuts pay the bills? Really?


Can you manage to hold this opinion or can we expect another change?

Is avatar indicates he is a drone so I wouldn't expect too much.
 
I think Obama should call their bluff and make a 15% cut to Defense spending. That'll open up their eyes. You know what's awesome? NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY if the House approves the tax cut extension that the Senate handed them this week. Super easy, huh?

So tax cuts pay the bills? Really?


Can you manage to hold this opinion or can we expect another change?

You don't really understand how things work, do you? The reason the tax cuts are important is because the "Fiscal Cliff" is triggered by the two sides not agreeing to whom to extend them to. Dummy, I'm not saying this on a ideological or fiscal policy level. I mean in the very immediate and real sense, they wrote this dumb fucking language into the last extension, and now it's coming home to roost.

Jesus you're fucking stupid.

lol SO YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.

That 70 billion a year is going to plug a trillion dollar deficit.

You are a dumbass in every sense of the word.

Lets have a go though. You obviously have zero idea about accountability or responsibility.

BUT GO AHEAD EXPLAIN HOW THAT 70 BILLION COVERS A TRILLION IDIOT........
 
So tax cuts pay the bills? Really?


Can you manage to hold this opinion or can we expect another change?

You don't really understand how things work, do you? The reason the tax cuts are important is because the "Fiscal Cliff" is triggered by the two sides not agreeing to whom to extend them to. Dummy, I'm not saying this on a ideological or fiscal policy level. I mean in the very immediate and real sense, they wrote this dumb fucking language into the last extension, and now it's coming home to roost.

Jesus you're fucking stupid.

lol SO YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.

That 70 billion a year is going to plug a trillion dollar deficit.

You are a dumbass in every sense of the word.

Lets have a go though. You obviously have zero idea about accountability or responsibility.

BUT GO AHEAD EXPLAIN HOW THAT 70 BILLION COVERS A TRILLION IDIOT........

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I refuse to parlay with someone who doesn't even understand the point of why we're headed towards sequestration. Idiot.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top