Jump to content
somenurse somenurse (Member)

President Obama HAS reduced the budget.

Politics   (6,512 Views 131 Comments)
article_pluralized; 14,878 Visitors; 478 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 7 of President Obama HAS reduced the budget.. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

It wasn't a poll done in Seattle, it was a Nationwide poll, a story about it was published in a Seattle paper.

well, then I wished they had called me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time for Obama to man up and own this:

It doesn't matter that Republicans and Democrats voted for it because the whole point was that it wasn't supposed to come to pass," Carney said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

As Congress faced a deadline in the summer of 2011 to extend the Treasury's authority to borrow money to pay the government's bills and avoid defaulting on the national debt, the White House and congressional leaders reached a deal that essentially kicked the can down the road.

Part of the agreement included a measure, known in Washington as the sequester, that would incentivize lawmakers to come up with a deficit-reduction plan or else face $1.2 trillion in government-wide spending cuts over the next decade. The first $85 billion in austerity would be felt through September 30, the end of the current fiscal year.

The idea for automatic broad-based cuts first came from the White House.

Read more: http://www.ketv.com/news/politics/Carney-Spending-cuts-were-never-supposed-to-happen/-/9674400/19048118/-/12ajsnv/-/index.html#ixzz2LgZwUbtU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the responsibility of the congress to legislate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President's role in the budget process:

The Federal Budget process begins the first Monday in February of each year and should be concluded by October 1, the start of the new Federal Fiscal Year. In some -- make that most -- years, the October 1 date is not met. Here is how the process is supposed to work.

The President Submits a Budget Proposal to Congress

Following the procedure required by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President presents a budget proposal for the coming Fiscal Year to Congress on or before the first Monday in February...

The president's budget proposal serves as a "starting point" for the Congress to consider. Congress is under no obligation to adopt all or any of the President's budget and often makes significant changes. However, since the President must ultimately approve all future bills they propose, Congress is often reluctant to completely ignore the priorities of the President's budget.

Presidential Budget Proposal - The President's Role in the U.S. Federal Budget Process

The role of the Senate and House in the budget process:

One of the most basic functions of government is to pass a budget – to decide how to use tax dollars based on the needs of the nation. The House of Representatives has passed a budget every year since Republicans won a majority, but the House cannot act alone. The Senate, which has not passed a budget in nearly four years, must also act to address our long-term deficit and debt.

The budget serves as a policy outline establishing guidelines for appropriations and other spending and revenue bills through the rest of the year. Federal law requires both chambers of Congress to pass a 10-year budget every year. Without an annual budget, Congress has been forced to pass a series of short-term bills to keep the government running. House Republicans have insisted on spending reductions in each of these temporary measures, but without a normal budget process, Congress has not been forced to address long-term deficits.

Both House and Senate Need to Pass a Budget | Congressman Adrian Smith's Online Office | Congressman Adrian Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has a proposed budget for 2013, even though the budget through 2013 was already defined in the budget control act of 2011.

Obama has submitted proposals yearly (if not always on time).

An administration official says President Barack Obama plans to submit his 2014 budget plan to Congress in mid-March. The budget was supposed to have been released last week but the White House says it's been delayed....

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50772511/ns/politics/t/obama-submit-budget-mid-march/.

But he has failed to shepherd those budget proposals thru the Senate, a remarkable lack of leadership, when his own party soundly rejects them. The House, in contrast, controlled by Republicans, has passed yearly budget proposals, but obviously can't act alone. This has forced the repeated use of short-term budget crisis measures to fund the government, an ineffective and inefficient method that fosters conflict in the budgetary process.

In 2011, a "Bipartisan Super-committee" was created by the debt ceiling compromise President Obama signed into law...to avert a default on U.S. debts. Co-chairing the group will be Republican Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington State. Their committee must find at least $1.5 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years and make its recommendation by Thanksgiving for an up-or-down vote in the House and Senate.

Failure to propose a deal or to win congressional approval will trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/supercommittee_08-11.html

Now Obama is trying to avoid responsibility for the very sequestration process that his team proposed and supported:

 

My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

Even White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney has acknowledged that the sequester idea came from the White House:

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

...the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story_1.html

Edited by Jolie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has submitted proposals yearly (if not always on time).

An administration official says President Barack Obama plans to submit his 2014 budget plan to Congress in mid-March. The budget was supposed to have been released last week but the White House says it's been delayed....

Obama to submit budget in mid-March - politics | NBC News.

But he has failed to shepherd those budget proposals thru the Senate, a remarkable lack of leadership, when his own party soundly rejects them. The House, in contrast, controlled by Republicans, has passed yearly budget proposals, but obviously can't act alone. This has forced the repeated use of short-term budget crisis measures to fund the government, an ineffective and inefficient method that fosters conflict in the budgetary process.

The most recent House budget proposal, "a path to prosperity", failed to get even all the Republican votes in the senate. It was really more of a policy statement than a budget, as the CBO was unable to actually score it given it's lack of actual numbers, all the CBO could do was put out a commentary on it. Even though it wasn't an actionable budget, it's still a good discussion starting point. As the CBO pointed out, privatization of medicare combined with deep cuts (all without reducing the actual cost of medicare any) would leave about 44 million people on medicaid and about 60 million on medicare unable to pay their healthcare bills and therefore potentially without access to care, or if we find some way of still providing care than that will actually greatly increase the cost of medicare and medicaid in total. While I applaud House Republicans for their effort, it doesn't mean much if they're only going to send bills to the Senate that won't even get the support of Senate Republicans. I think cutting costs is on the right track, cutting the basic care we provide to the elderly is more of a wrong track.

Realistically, any budget with a hope of passing needs to originate in the House. The President's budget could easily pass with a simple majority in the Senate, unfortunately this means nothing so long as Republicans control the House, which would a budget proposal to get break the filibuster in the Senate. He can send all the budgets he wants to the senate, they'll never get anywhere in the House, not even Republicans in the House can get House Republicans on the same page for any substantial legislation, much less an opposing party's president.

In 2011, a "Bipartisan Super-committee" was created by the debt ceiling compromise President Obama signed into law...to avert a default on U.S. debts. Co-chairing the group will be Republican Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington State. Their committee must find at least $1.5 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years and make its recommendation by Thanksgiving for an up-or-down vote in the House and Senate.

Failure to propose a deal or to win congressional approval will trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts.

Bipartisan Deficit Super Committee to Play by Different Rules Than Congress | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 11, 2011 | PBS

Now Obama is trying to avoid responsibility for the very sequestration process that his team proposed and supported:

 

My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

Even White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney has acknowledged that the sequester idea came from the White House:

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

...the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

Bob Woodward: Obama's sequester deal-changer - The Washington Post

My (lovely) wife at times has difficulty making decisions, about where to go to eat for instance. Personally, I despise Red Robin, but my wife has a sort of perverse obsession with Red Robin. If it's past time to leave for dinner and my wife still hasn't agreed on where to go, I'll suggest Red Robin, because my need to eat will exceed my dislike of Red Robin. So while I'm suggesting it, it's not because it's my preference. The Sequester trigger was the debt ceiling showdown equivalent of suggesting Red Robin, unless you believe that Democrats are all about making sweeping, potentially recklessly deep cuts to government spending, which I'm skeptical that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My (lovely) wife at times has difficulty making decisions, about where to go to eat for instance. Personally, I despise Red Robin, but my wife has a sort of perverse obsession with Red Robin. If it's past time to leave for dinner and my wife still hasn't agreed on where to go, I'll suggest Red Robin, because my need to eat will exceed my dislike of Red Robin. So while I'm suggesting it, it's not because it's my preference. The Sequester trigger was the debt ceiling showdown equivalent of suggesting Red Robin, unless you believe that Democrats are all about making sweeping, potentially recklessly deep cuts to government spending, which I'm skeptical that you do.

Then I have a question: Do you pull on your Big Boy pants and go to Red Robin in good faith, finding something to eat on the menu and a beverage to enjoy, while providing your lovely wife with graceful companionship? Or do you pull an Obama and pout, whine, go to the press and attempt to re-write the facts of the negotiations, get in the car and lock the door, and refuse to make good on your promise of taking your wife to dinner, all the while blaming her for what you proposed and agreed to?

Therein lies the rub...most people learn by adulthood not to make deals that they can't or won't abide. I don't care how bad this stinks... it's Obama's and I would have a tad bit more respect for the man if he would own up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I have a question: Do you pull on your Big Boy pants and go to Red Robin in good faith, finding something to eat on the menu and a beverage to enjoy, while providing your lovely wife with graceful companionship? Or do you pull an Obama and pout, whine, go to the press and attempt to re-write the facts of the negotiations, get in the car and lock the door, and refuse to make good on your promise of taking your wife to dinner, all the while blaming her for what you proposed and agreed to?

Therein lies the rub...most people learn by adulthood not to make deals that they can't or won't abide. I don't care how bad this stinks... it's Obama's and I would have a tad bit more respect for the man if he would own up.

When the main players in a serious budget discussion resort to yelling "he started it" over and over, I don't really get the impression that anybody has their Big Boy pants on.

If my wife actually wanted to eat and Red Robin, then yes I'd take my medicine, but if my wife only wanted to use Red Robin as a placeholder plan, so that she would have to come up with another plan before we got there and I'd happily go along with whatever plan she comes up with to take it's place, then fails to come up with a new plan leaving us eating at Red Robin, and she then complains that she didn't want to eat at Red Robin in the first place, then you bet I would pout and whine.

If my wife claimed Red Robin was my idea in the first place, then yes, I would protest. The Budget Control Act didn't have enough Republican votes in the house to pass until the triggered sequester was added, which then allowed it to pass the house with 174 Republican yea votes (only 66 house republicans opposed the bill after the sequester was added).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×