» News

Sequestration – Threat or Strategy?

Home - by - February 13, 2013 - 19:30 America/New_York - 2 Comments

by: Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor), Flopping Aces

obama-oopsSenator Dick Durbin (D-IL), on Sunday’s (February 10, 2013) Meet The Press, told host David Gregory, “David, sequestration was designed as a budget threat, not as a budget strategy.” That is certainly a shocker, a Democrat telling the truth. Durbin continued, “And, I think all of us understand that if it goes forward in less than three weeks it’s going to have a dramatic negative impact on several agencies.” That is an understatement, to say the least. Sequestration, an Obama administration idea (be sure to read these references), is a result of the budget process of 2011. Sequestration is a mandatory budget cut of $1.2 trillion over ten years, half from domestic (discretionary) programs, half from the defense budget, resulting from the so-called “SuperCommittee’s” inability to agree – on anything.

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in October 2012, said, during a presidential debate, “First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.” That was our first hint that sequestration was a threat. And, Obama had the chutzpah to lie about its origin on national TV. As Curt says, Obama has “No Shame.” But, Democrats/liberals/progressives (DLP) and low-information voters believed him. And the lap-dog MSM didn’t call him on it.

[snip]

Read here.

» 2 Comments

  1. bitterclinger

    February 13th, 2013

    Rush had an entire show today about Zero’s strategy of “not appearing to govern” so as not to be connected to all the fit hitting the shan daily. I say we start connecting him to everything, every day, to everyone we talk to.

    Pelousy was at one time panicked about the constant reference to “ObamaCare” while Repubs were linking it to disaster. Then she and Zero backtracked. I have no problem beeyotching about it daily to everyone I meet. Medical (clerical) staff say they hear complaints about it a million times a day.

    Thumb up +1

     
  2. Kenny Sullivan

    February 13th, 2013

    This is how I see it:

    Sequestration is not a cut, but a good start in the right direction of reducing the increase in spending. I do disagree that the Pentagon should take the brunt, but we must start somewhere. Just keep in mind that not spending $1.2 trillion over ten years ($120 Billion/year) only equals about 1 year of Obama’s annual deficit, and that is every year. Also keep in mind “Base Line Budgeting” increases our spendin by over 5% every year, and any legislation that does not give the automatic increase is called a “cut” in Washington. For example, If you got $100 bucks from DC this year and next year you get $104 bucks, you got a 1% cut in DC math, not a 4% increase. OK, So lets look at total spending. It’s about $4 Trillion. That means if the spending next year isn’t $4.2 Trillion, the budget was cut. The 0.2 represents $200 Billion bucks. Now you look at sequestration and it comes to $120 Billion in “cuts” each year, but the automatic increase is $80 Billion a year more than that, so there are no cuts in spending. We are being lied to. Another way to look at it is that it would take 10X the sequestration just to balance the budget.

    I hope my math is right…but anyway, sequestration is just a very, very small part of what we need to get the USA back on track to prosperity.

    Thumb up +2