Running With Scissors

Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Debra J. Saunders

[Kaslin]

If you thought Republican presidential hopefuls were insane to refuse to raise their hands during a 2011 primary debate when asked whether they'd support a deficit reduction deal with $10 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, look at Washington today. In August 2011, President Barack Obama signed a debt ceiling deal that promised more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade and zero dollars in new revenue.

The package included $1.2 trillion in "sequestration" cuts -- $85 billion this year out of a $3.8 trillion federal budget -- which are supposed to begin March 1. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats told reporters they want to change the deal so that it also includes tax increases. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray wants to change the deal to 50-50 between spending cuts and tax increases.

Does it matter that Washington just passed the fiscal cliff deal, which raised taxes by about $600 billion?

Of course not.

Washington these days has no problem with not getting a job done. The 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration formula for cutting $1.2 trillion was an invitation to disaster. The idea was to propose cuts so painful that a 12-member supercommittee would have to work together to craft smarter cuts. But members couldn't agree on cuts; they could only agree to fail.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta correctly warned that the sequester formula cut too deeply into national security -- doubling defense cuts, to close to $1 trillion. Even as U.S. troops remained at war in Afghanistan and at risk across the globe, Panetta warned, the sequester cuts would "hollow out the force."

Still, the president and Senate Democrats have been saving their fire to push for more tax increases.

As Washington's most prominent budget hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushed legislation to direct cuts elsewhere to spare defense, but the House cannot pass bills by itself.

"We think these sequesters will happen, because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives," Ryan told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Now it turns out that gross domestic product shrank by 0.1 percent last quarter. White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the dip had something to do with the "uncertainty created by the prospect of sequester," especially in the defense sector.

This would be a good time to demand that Congress spare defense spending. Alison Acosta Fraser, director of economic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes that the president should push for entitlement reform to replace the sequester cuts.

Instead, Carney talked up the need to raise taxes on oil companies and "corporate jet owners."

Fraser believes that the Senate and Obama, with their "high-stakes brinksmanship, intentionally," are leading the country down the path of less economic prosperity, less opportunity for growth and less national security.

And: "When you have an administration whose own secretary says 'don't do this' but the president can't or won't lead on this, then we have a problem."

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Washington these days has no problem with not getting a job done. The 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration formula for cutting $1.2 trillion was an invitation to disaster. The idea was to propose cuts so painful that a 12-member supercommittee would have to work together to craft smarter cuts. But members couldn't agree on cuts; they could only agree to fail. .....
As Washington's most prominent budget hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushed legislation to direct cuts elsewhere to spare defense, but the House cannot pass bills by itself.
“We think these sequesters will happen, because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives,” Ryan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “

This is just GOP/Ryan spin.
The Dems never said they passed these to force themselves to cut spending. They always called for raising taxes, Ryan and CO knew this.

Ryan and company knew the Dems wouldnt cut spending and demanded raise taxes instead, so claiming that they put in these automatic Defense cuts to get Dems to cut other spending is just dishonest.

Reid is calling for tax increases to replace these. That is not news.

There is a common sense rule THAT Rs ignore time and time again:" Dont take a hostage unless you are willing to shoot him and the other side knows it"
In this case the GOP House cutting Republican defense pork as a threat to dems is like holding YOUR OWN kid hostage and threatening to shoot him if your neighbor doesnt give in.

[cuban leaf]

Does it matter that Washington just passed the fiscal cliff deal, which raised taxes by about $600 billion?

---

In their dreams. It will probably reduce tax revenue, kinda like the tax increase in New York on cigarettes.

The ol’ laffer curve really does have teeth, as California is figuring out right now.

[Gilbo_3]

again, we have to point out the bs that this whole deal was/is and how obvious that they [wonderboy ryan & co.] never were serious about gettin cuts to anything, as your child hostage example shows...

'if you dont cut your pork, we'll cut ours'...yeah right...

[sickoflibs]

RE “’if you dont cut your pork, we'll cut ours’...yeah right... “

If you dont take away your kids shoes and give them to me for my kid I will shoot my own kid in the head and no-one wants that,
So you will be forced to give in to me to keep that from happening because we wont allow that to happen.

That was the real budget boy wonder 'Ryan Plan' LOL

[Gilbo_3]

hehehehhe...better example, i just didnt feel like typing that much detail...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”hehehehhe...better example, i just didnt feel like typing that much detail...”

You know I enjoy coming up with these.

That was the Ryan act all last year, pretty sad,
esp for just another dull tool who we were lectured here (and FNC) was our next conservative Messiah to take on the liberal one O with his magical budget #s.

[norwaypinesavage]

The Republicans are finally doing something right, in my opinion. Obambi suggested the sequester, so let him have it. He has unilaterally surrendered in Iraq and Afghanistan, so military costs will dramatically drop. With good management, the Pentagon should be able to deal with the Pentagon cuts.

So the Republicans should simply sit back, and let Obambi lead on this one. What will happen is exactly nothing. He is simply too incompetent to do anything. The Pentagon can deal with the spending cuts along with the withdrawals, and Obambi's precious entitlements will be significantly CUT.