Tag Archives: GOP

Sequester week: 5 excuses the GOP is using to crash the government

Posted on by

Marc Ambinder looks at 5 reasons why the GOP might risk the sequester, which could also be called 5 excuses the GOP is using to crash the government (emphasis, parenthetical comments below are mine):

(PRIDE, HURT FEE FEES) 1. The White House may have oversold its victory in convincing Republicans to jettison Grover Norquist’s tax pledge and for winning tax hikes with a correspondingly miniscule amount of spending cuts when the issue first came to the foreground at the end of the year. Democratic triumphalism made Republicans feel like they had lost big-time, when in fact, there really was no alternative…

(LIES) 2. The sequester, many GOPers have come to believe (have they?), was Barack Obama’s idea. Therefore, since it was his idea, if it happens, Republicans will be able to blame him for its consequences…

(SHIRKING) 3. The sequester does not directly hit GOP constituencies at first. It hits government workers, primarily, in terms of layoffs and furloughs. Actual pain will first be felt by people who rely on government services that aren’t entitlements. So maybe, (maybe?) soft Republicans won’t be disgusted…

(HOSTAGE TAKING) 4. Maybe: The best way to force the White House to make a deal is to let the sequester happen, and then let its effects swirl around a bit, and let panic set in.

(STRAIGHT UP LAZINESS) 5. Spending has to be cut. The sequester does it summarily, but it does indeed accomplish a core goal of the revanchist wing of the GOP.

There’s actually a new excuse! #6 –

(STUPIDITY) 6. One of the new John Boehner sequestration talking points is that Republicans couldn’t possibly accept any new revenue, even the revenue he was publicly offering two months ago, because there are still wasteful government programs. As Boehner wrote Wednesday, “no one should be talking about raising taxes when the government is still paying people to play videogames, giving folks free cellphones, and buying $47,000 cigarette-smoking machines.”

Guess what?

  • The $47,000 smoking machine… turns out to be a piece of medical research equipment used by the Veteran Administration: “VA Researchers are using the smoking machine to cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in mice by the same mechanisms by which the disease occurs in Veterans and others who smoke cigarettes,” 
  • Paying people to play video games is not some federal grant to mail checks to good-for-nothing slackers to lounge around playing their newfangled machines while honest God-fearing Americans go to work. It’s a grant from the National Science Foundation to test the hypothesis that some cognitive loss owing to old age can be slowed through certain video games.
  • Giving folks free cell phones [to the poor] has existed since 1984, and obviously moved from landlines to cell phones, on the theory that a phone is vital for things like being able to contact police or fire departments, get a job, and so on. Recipients get 250 free minutes a month — which, at less than ten minutes a day, doesn’t leave room for lots of chatting about Justin Bieber.

Yep, you’d have to be a complete idiot to take anything the GOP says at face value – especially when they talk about “raising taxes.” In the current debate over revenue and sequestration cuts, it sounds like the President and the Democrats want everyone’s taxes raised. Nope. In reality, it means that the President wants to close tax loopholes for the wealthy to acquire some additional revenue to put towards the deficit, which would make the spending cuts less deep. Reality and the Republican Party is the difference between information and disinformation.

Bush’s tax cuts on capital gains are the biggest contributor to rising income inequality

Posted on by

While we consider how we are just days away from devastating sequestration cuts (which the Republican Party has decided is superior to closing tax loopholes for the super rich), take a look at why there’s such a huge gap in income inequality in America today:

Changes in tax law that reduced the federal tax rate on capital gains income is “by far the largest contributor” to rising income inequality in the United States, according to a new paper from Thomas Hungerford, an economist at the Congressional Research Service: By far, the largest contributor to this increase was changes in income from capital gains and dividends. Changes in wages had an equalizing effect over this period as did changes in taxes. Most of the equalizing effect of taxes took place after the 1993 tax hike; most of the equalizing effect, however, was reversed after the 2001 and 2003 Bush-era tax cuts. [...] The large increase in the contribution of capital gains and dividends to the Gini coefficient, however, is due to the large increase in the share of after-tax income from capital gains and dividends, and to the increase in the correlation of this income source with after-tax income. 

###

We’ll stop talking about George W. Bush when the things he did while he was president for eight years stop affecting us today.

Doesn’t matter who’s at fault for the sequester. Here’s the REAL issue we’re faced with…

Posted on by

Republicans in Congress passed the sequester and President Obama signed it. The problem isn’t who’s to blame for the sequester, a disagreement that’s received enormous attention in the media. The actual problem we’re faced with is summarized excellently by JOSH MARSHALL:

Each party’s plan to avoid it is dramatically different, a fact that’s gotten virtually no attention. While the President wants a mix of cuts and new revenue through closing loopholes, the Republican plan is to replace draconian cuts to military spending with draconian cuts to social insurance programs.

Boom. There it is.

The sequester, furloughs and shutdowns: let people see what government really means

Posted on by

Matthew Cooper believes that if there’s one silver lining to be found in the “buffoonery” of the sequester, it’s that at least it will be a teachable moment for the public:

But if agencies and departments can’t or won’t juggle their books, hey, let people see what government really means. …There’s something sobering about aircraft carriers that won’t sail and forest rangers who won’t be paid to protect. The last time I can think of such an educational moment was not the short-lived government shutdown on the ’90s, but the Oklahoma City bombing. Who died in the blast? IRS officials, Secret Service agents, General Services Administration workers. President Clinton offered a reflection on the victims, “many there who served the rest of us, who worked to help the elderly and the disabled, who worked to support our farmers and our veterans, who worked to enforce our laws and to protect us. Let us say clearly, they served us well, and we are grateful,” he said.

In 2001, looking back on the bombing, Clinton said: “And I had, like every politician, on occasion, gotten upset by some example of government waste or something the way we all do, and referred derisively to government bureaucrats. And I promised myself that I would never use those two words together for the rest of my life. I would treat those people who serve our country with respect, whether they’re in uniform, in law enforcement, firefighter, nurses, any other things.” I’m not comparing the tragedy of Oklahoma City to sequestration. One is evil; the other buffoonery. But they each have the effect of making you realize what government employees do.

Some examples of what’s at stake: 

Few corners of the federal government directly touch the public as do the 398 parks, monuments and historic sites, which draw 280 million visits a year. The system would feel the effects immediately of a $110 million slash should budget cuts take effect March 1 — from a three-week delay of Yellowstone’s spring opening to save money on snow plowing, to shuttered campgrounds and visitor centers along the Blue Ridge Parkway. [..] The prospect of dirtier restrooms, sporadic grass mowing and litter pickup, and a shortage of rangers to answer questions and patrol has set off a furious campaign by a coalition of park advocates, tourism officials and businesses from to Maine to Wyoming. Their plea: The reductions would not just set back conservation efforts but also undermine local economies around the parks that rely on tourism.

The Defense Department will notify Congress as early as Wednesday of plans to furlough almost 800,000 civilian employees starting in April if automatic budget cuts take effect, according to a defense official. [...] By law, however, DoD must give lawmakers 45 days notice of employee furloughs. If the spending cuts, formally known as sequestration, begin as scheduled March 1, the Pentagon will likely send most civilians home for one day per week for up to 22 weeks through the end of the fiscal year in September, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told a House committee last week. The furloughs would save DoD about $5 billion out of the $46 billion total it will have to cut under sequestration, Carter said. Military personnel would be exempt.

Jessica Wright, acting Defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said that while the impact of sequestration on “military personnel would be devastating, the impact on civilians is catastrophic.” [...] “The first-, second- and third-order effect will be felt in local commands and communities. It’s not a Beltway phenomenon,” she said, noting that 80 percent of defense civilian employees work outside the Washington area. The 20 percent decrease in pay would affect business and communities and confront “many families with tough decisions.”

The Army estimates automatic budget cuts scheduled to take effect March 1 will have a $15 billion economic impact and affect more than 300,000 jobs nationwide. Hardest hit states include Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Among the least affected: Delaware, Wyoming, Montana and Rhode Island. [...] The cuts will affect every Army installation, according to the documents. States with large bases and military contractors are taking the biggest hits. Texas, for instance, would face a $2.4 billion economic loss from the Army’s budget cuts. Nearly 30,000 Army civilian employees will be furloughed if the cuts go into effect. They will lose $180 million in pay.

If across-the-board budget cuts take effect as scheduled next month, every FBI employee, including special agents, will be furloughed for almost three weeks by the end of September. Ditto for many law enforcement officers at the Department of Homeland Security, where layoffs are also a possibility. Furloughs for Agriculture Department food safety inspectors will mean temporary shutdowns of meat processing plants. At the Social Security Administration, more than 1,500 temporary workers and re-employed retirees will be shown the door.

Budget cuts could result in up to 20 percent pay cut for federal workers:

Agriculture: Plans to furlough about one-third of its workforce, which would lead to “a nationwide shutdown of meat and poultry plants during a furlough of inspection personnel.”

Commerce: “Up to 2,600 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) employees would have to be furloughed, approximately 2,700 positions would not be filled, and the number of contractors would have to be reduced by about 1,400.” Census vacancies would remain vacant.

Justice: “The Department estimates that it would lose the equivalent of more than 1,000 federal agents . . . as well as 1,300 correctional officers.”

“These employees aren’t some fat cat bureaucrats in a plush Washington office. They are the firefighters who safeguard our bases, the health-care professionals who treat injured soldiers in military hospitals, the mechanics who repair our tanks and planes, the logistics personnel who ensure supplies make it to our troops, the acquisition experts who prevent big defense contractors from ripping off taxpayers. Congress [needs] to find a solution to this manufactured crisis that does not punish our hard-working federal employees, cripple our economic recovery or gut federal programs and services.” — J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees

In addition to all the lost hours that went towards serving the public in one way or another – you never miss it until it’s gone! — imagine the lost commerce locally and regionally because of lost income. Civilian employees with the DoD (among others) stand to lose 8 hours in pay per week through September — that works out to a 20% pay cut. Could you afford that? Not to mention the lost incomes of all the people who will be sent home permanently or who could have been employed and who won’t be now.

All this manufactured crisis and upheaval because Republicans won’t agree to close some tax loopholes for the wealthiest to balance massive spending cuts (in a fragile economy!) with new revenue. In addition to March 1, we also have March 27 to look forward to. That’s when the government’s continuing resolution (funding to run the government) expires and when Republicans will undoubtedly threaten another government shutdown when they’re asked to ‘compromise.’

Let’s not forget two important things: right now the economy is improving and the deficit is shrinking.  And maybe that’s why Republicans are so unhappy. As former GOP Virginia governor Jim Gilmore said recently: “They think spending is the most important thing. It’s not.”

(Graphics above via the NYTimes)

This is not the President’s sequester. This is a GOP-manufactured crisis. Again.

Posted on by


questionall: Remember this when the shit hits the fan. If 218 House Republicans hadn’t voted Aye on ROLL CALL 677, the sequester would have died in Congress. ~ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll677.xml

WITH NINE DAYS TO GO before $85 billion in automatic federal spending cuts begin, some Democrats on Capitol Hill are calling on Republican leaders to reconvene the House immediately and find a way to avert the spending reductions known as the “sequester.” Both the House and Senate are in recess this week. “This is an unnecessary self-inflicted wound on the United States economy,” Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.) said in a conference call with other House Democrats to highlight some of the fears and adverse affects of the sequester they’re hearing about back home. “Congress should come back to Washington to fix the problem.”

###

Anyone want to bet that the Republicans don’t come back before Monday? And before you drink the Fox propaganda tea about this crisis being “Obama’s sequester,” let’s take a look at some FACTS from recent history:

STEVE BENEN: So, if we’re stuck in the argument GOP leaders insist on having, we might as well note they’re wrong about this, too. For Republicans, President Obama “proposed and demanded the sequester.” We know this isn’t true. Indeed, at the time, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) bragged about Republicans getting the sequester into the Budget Control Act.

JOHN AVLON:  I happened to come across an old email that throws cold water on House Republicans’ attempts to call this “Obama’s Sequester.” It’s a PowerPoint presentation that John Boehner’s office developed with the Republican Policy Committee and sent out to the Capitol Hill GOP on July 31, 2011. Intended to explain the outline of the proposed debt deal, the presentation is titled: “Two Step Approach to Hold President Obama Accountable.” It’s essentially an internal sales document from the old dealmaker Boehner to his unruly and often unreasonable Tea Party cohort. But it’s clear as day in the presentation that “sequestration” was considered a cudgel to guarantee a reduction in federal spending—the conservatives’ necessary condition for not having America default on its obligations.

130215-Avlon-Boehner-Sequester-embed
A slide from the final page of Speaker John Boehner’s Powerpoint to House Republicans on July 31st, 2011, obtained by The Daily Beast. Click to download full pdf.

GREG SARGENT explains why GOP leaders are repeating falsehoods and spinning desperately:

Republicans may simply be putting on a game face about the politics of the sequester because they may view it as a necessity at this point. As you may recall, a top GOP aide told Politico recently that a government shutdown fight might be necessary for Republican lawmakers to get the need for an apocalyptic confrontation with Obama “out of their system,” i.e., for “member management purposes.” But The Hill reports that Republican aides have revised this strategy; they have decided the sequester is a better target than the government shutdown to stage this confrontation. And so the sequester is apparently necessary for rank and file lawmakers to get the need to stick it to Obama “out of their system.” Republicans have defined victory as agreeing to no new revenues whatsoever, so it’s unclear whether there’s any other way out of this for them.

And finally, and most importantly, MICHAEL TOMASKY points out something that almost everyone seems to forget: Congress passed sequestration before the president signed it, and the whole self-defeating exercise was carried out in response to Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that we play chicken with the debt ceiling, which ultimately cost America its AAA credit rating:

So fine, the White House proposed it. It did so only after months of Republicans publicly demanding huge spending cuts and refusing to consider any revenues and acting as if they were prepared to send the nation into default over spending. In other words, this was the administration’s idea in much the way that it’s a parent’s “idea” to pay ransom to a person who has taken his child hostage. There was a gun to the White House’s head, which was the possibility of the country going into default. And then, when it was all put into legislation, it was the Republicans who passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the House, with 218 of them voting yes. So even if administration officials proposed it, it would have remained just a proposal if those 218 Republicans hadn’t supported it (no House Democrats backed it). Most Republicans agreed at the time that the sequestration trigger was a good thing—that it would force everyone to get together and agree to a path forward and a long-term budget deal.

We all have such short memories. And by we, I mean our mainstream media and conservative base-rubes.

Related: 15 Republicans Who Want The Damaging Sequester To Occur

Why do Congressional Republicans want the Sequester to happen? Some theories…

Posted on by

STEVE BENEN explains that this week Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican House leadership made two arbitrary and ridiculous demands: 1) they stated they’d do absolutely nothing until Senate Democrats acted first, and 2) when Senate Democrats then acted and unveiled a plan to replace the Sequester (a plan that should easily be supported by both sides), Boehner responded with: “The sequester will be in effect until there are cuts and reforms that put us on a path to balance the budget in the next 10 years.” Pure bullshit — balance the budget by 2023 using spending cuts only. Benen elaborates:

“It’s important for the political world to appreciate just how insane this is. First, according to Republicans, any agreement has to give the GOP 100% of what it wants, without exception. Second, the same people who turned a large surplus into a massive deficit are now making demands that Democrats clean up the Republican mess in the way Republicans want. [...] as Greg Sargent explained, the new rule that Boehner just arbitrarily made up — no deficit in 10 years — is truly laughable. [...] And when the sequester begins in two weeks, as now seems unavoidable, the usual suspects in the media establishment will be outraged that “both sides” allowed this to happen by refusing to compromise. That one side offered a balanced deal while the other side demanded a 100% / 0% alternative will be deemed irrelevant.”

The Republicans and their leadership are doing nothing to avoid sequestration. Actually… it’s worse than nothing, since they voted on Friday to give themselves a week-long break – in spite of angry Congressional Democrats, all of whom voted ‘no’ to a break at this time. The Republicans won’t have to deal with anything until they return on Feb. 25, which is four days before sequestration goes into effect. Obviously the GOP wants the Sequester to happen. Why? What’s in it for them?

SOME THEORIES: 

A. IT WILL HURT DEM DISTRICTS & DEM VOTERS MORE, a Bloomberg study finds: The study shows that Democratic congressional districts will be harder hit by the military cuts than Republican ones, and that eight of the top 10 districts that will experience the deepest cuts are represented by Democrats. — Business Week

B. THE PUBLIC WILL BLAME OBAMA: “Let me be very clear,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) told CNN’s Candy Crowley on Sunday. “These spending cuts are going to go through on March 1st ….The Republican Party is not in any way going to trade spending cuts for a tax increase.” Pressed by Crowley on the consequences of the across-the-board cuts, Barrasso initially dismissed their impact before blaming Obama for any deleterious effects. “I believe the president has a lot of authority that he can decide how this works, and, yeah, he can make it very uncomfortable, which i think would be a mistake on the part of the president, but when you take a look at the total dollars there are better ways to do this, but the cuts are going to occur,” he said. — Think Progress

C. BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIR PAUL RYAN (R-WI) PLANS TO USE THE AUTOMATIC CUTS IN HIS NEW BUDGET: According to two senior GOP aides familiar with Ryan’s thinking on the budget, the Wisconsin Republican and former vice presidential candidate will use the so-called sequester as part of the baseline level of spending for his budget. — Buzzfeed, Think Progress 

D. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT (BY TEA PARTY STANDARDS): These cuts, which will cost the economy more than one million jobs over the next two years, are the direct result of the Republican demand in 2011 to shrink the government at any cost, under threat of a default on the nation’s debt. Many Republicans say they would still prefer the sequester to replacing half the cuts with tax revenue increases. But the government spending they disdain is not an abstract concept. In a few days, the cuts will begin affecting American life and security in significant ways. – NYTimes Op-Ed

E. SMASH AND BURN: I don’t think it’s because of some grand negotiating strategy by House republicans, I just think the teabaggers need to smash a few things and get it out of their system. – Eschaton

F. ALL OF THE ABOVE 

I’m going with F. On March 1st, because of GOP game-playing, we’re all going to learn what austerity feels like.

Various and sundry reasons why we can’t have nice things

Posted on by

Feds spend $7 on THE ELDERLY for every $1 on KIDS: Funny how the blame is always on the (nonexistent) welfare moms who keep pumping out kids for more government cheese. (via) »»»»»» SENIORS TAKE NOTE: it’s impossible for the GOP to draft a budget that balances in 10 years without eating into entitlement benefits for people older than 55. »»»»»»  House GOP leaders want Obama to own the automatic cuts — the sequester (the OBAMAQUESTER) — but their budget chief, PAUL RYAN, is expected to count those cuts toward his 10 year plan.   

Kerry: Budget cuts may force reduction in aid to ISRAEL: Some $3 billion goes to Israel annually in US military aid, 74 percent of which must be spent in the US. »»»»»»  Incomes rose more than 11 percent for the TOP 1 PERCENT of earners during the economic recovery and declined by 0.4 percent for everyone else.

After a METEOR struck RUSSIA, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology announced Friday that it will hold a hearing over asteroids – that committee is chaired by THIS GUY, so maybe they’ll try to pray them away.   »»»»»»  ”The REPUBLICAN PARTY was always an uneasy marriage between the Jesus freaks and the plutocrats.”  »»»»»»  Why a $9.00 MINIMUM WAGE would NOT lead employers to shed jobs or increase prices and pass the costs onto consumers. 

The NRA says regular Americans can’t protect themselves without high-capacity magazines.  »»»»»»  We’re at war, but… why did Senator JOHN MCCAIN claim he wouldn’t filibuster CHUCK HAGEL, then go ahead and do so anyway? Because Hagel hurt his feelings over five years ago.  »»»»»» SEAN HANNITY: “It’s the first time a filibuster of a cabinet nominee has been used. And needless to say, this marks a major win for the GOP, and pretty embarrassing defeat for the president.”  »»»»»»  FreedomWorks produced a video of a fake GIANT PANDA having sex with a fake HILLARY CLINTON. Seriously.  

Minimum wage vs. CEO pay: things that never increase vs. things that increase exponentially

Posted on by

“Working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up, while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so it finally becomes a wage you can live on.” — PRESIDENT OBAMA

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama surprised Washington with a bold plan to raise the federal minimum wage, arguing that “in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”

“Today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong.”

His proposal would guarantee workers at least $9.00 an hour by 2015—a 25 percent increase over the current $7.25—and index the minimum to inflation so that wages grow in tandem with rising prices. That would allow a full-time worker making the minimum wage to earn $18,720 a year—more than enough to support a family of three, according to the government’s official poverty guidelines.

via benjaminlandy

###

CEOs make 380 times what the average worker receives in pay. Imagine the comparison to minimum wage workers: 2011 average CEO pay / compensation: $12,935,475 — average American worker pay: $34,053.

AFL-CIO: The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010.[2] Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker’s pay.[3]

CEOs supposedly deserve all this money for increasing shareholder value. However, while the average CEO pay increased 13.9 percent at S&P 500 Index companies in 2011, the S&P 500 Index ended the year at the same level as it started.

…In 2011, average wages increased just 2.8 percent and average worker pay totaled $34,053.[4]

Another day, another GOP bill aimed at punishing feds and protecting the wealthy

Posted on by

The GOP must see the federal workforce as an easy punching bag that they can use and punish as their base demands:

Over the objections of the White House and unions, the House plans to vote Thursday afternoon on a bill to deny federal employees a 0.5 percent pay raise scheduled to take effect in April. [...]

Federal employee salaries were not increased in 2011 or 2012, and the freeze was extended another three months by the temporary funding bill that will expire March 27. Under a presidential order, the 0.5 percent increase—which the Obama administration had originally proposed to become effective last month—will be paid effective April 7, according to the Office of Personnel Management…

“The President’s announcement, which will cost taxpayers more than $10 billion over ten years, comes at a time when automatic spending cuts are scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2013,” says a summary of the bill by the House Republican Conference.

But HERE’S the INTERESTING part:

In moving the bill to the House floor, the Rules Committee rejected an amendment proposed by Democrats to replace the planned sequestration with a package of cuts in agriculture direct payments and oil company subsidies and increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year.

Also defeated was a proposal to extend the salary freeze only for members of Congress…

Take away corporate welfare, oil subsidies, and $77,000 deductions on dancing horses? That’s outlandish! Everyone suffers for the good of the wealthiest: that’s simply the Republican way.

See also: H.R. 273—To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees.

More government will hold you back! (unless you’re a Republican)

Posted on by

  
  
  
via sandandglass

But my point is: f*ck you.

The immediate impacts of the Sequester: this should be GREAT for our economy!

Posted on by

Remember 10 years ago, when George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and moved many established bureaus and agencies to DHS (along with hiring many, many, many new federal employees)? The same political party who thought that was a great idea at the time now, 10 years later, wants to burn it all to the ground because a Democrat is in the White House — and because they refuse to even consider closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Here’s how the GOP’s fickle political ideologies will affect us all in just two short weeks:

Federal Times reports that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano outlined how the Sequester will affect her department on March 1: “Sequestration would roll back border security, increase wait times at our nation’s land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster response time and our surge force capabilities, and significantly scale back cybersecurity infrastructure protections that have been developed in recent years.”

Here’s a list of where the immediate impacts will hit first:

  • Frontline DHS law enforcement officers would be furloughed for up to 14 days
  • Layoffs at DHS
  • FEMA’s disaster relief fund would be cut by more than $1 billion (that fund had $7 billion in 2012)
  • The Secret Service would have to undergo furloughs and cut down on overtime, which would reduce agents’ availability and hinder ongoing criminal investigations.
  • Congressionally mandated levels of Customs and Border Protection officers and Border Patrol agents could not be maintained.
  • The Transportation Security Administration would have to cut its frontline workforce, which would “substantially increase passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints.”
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not be able to sustain its current operations to detain and remove illegal immigrants, and could not maintain the 34,000 beds for detained immigrants that Congress now requires.
  • The Coast Guard would have to cut back its air and surface operations by almost 25 percent. This would hurt its maritime safety and security efforts, drug and migrant interdiction, fishing law enforcement, navigational aid efforts, and other law enforcement operations.
  • Homeland Security would not be able to move forward on critical management programs such as modernizing its financial systems.

And it’s going to cost us a lot of lost revenue:

Washington Post: National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen M. Kelley said in the statement that the cuts for Homeland Security would “have a ripple effect throughout the government, since Customs and Border Protection is the second-largest generator of federal revenue, behind only the Internal Revenue Service.” The NTEU president said furloughs for Department of Homeland Security personnel would increase wait times at ports of entry by nearly two hours, ultimately affecting the national economy. She pointed to a 2008 Commerce Department report that said border delays at that point were expected to cost the economy $86 billion by 2017 in the form of lost jobs, wages, economic output and tax revenue.

GovExec: The White House outlined some of the government-wide “severe impacts” in a fact sheet:

  • Loss of more than 1,000 FBI and other law enforcement agents
  • Justice Department furloughs of hundreds of federal prosecutors
  • Furloughs of all Agriculture Department Food Safety and Inspection Service employees for approximately two weeks
  • An unspecified number of furloughs at the Internal Revenue Service that would lead to more fraud slipping through
  • Reduced hours at Social Security Administration offices
  • Taking Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors “off the job for some period of time”

See also:

  • JANET NAPOLITANO’S Feb. 13 letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.
  • WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET: Examples of How the Sequester Would Impact Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security, 2/8/2013

22 Republican men against The Violence Against Women Act

Posted on by

VAWA was passed in the Senate yesterday, despite 22 Republican men who voted against it:

VAWA Vote

Senate Passes Violence Against Women Act, With No Help From 22 Republican Male Senators: The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization passed through the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, by a vote of 78 to 22. Of those opposing the legislation, all 22 were Republican men. Every female Senator supported the bill. Among the most notable votes against the bill were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

ABL: Listen to FreedomWorks keen about how VAWA is unfair to men: FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men. “The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence,” the organization wrote. “A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn’t the same thing as violence towards her.” — Which is complete horseshit.

Steve Benen: It’s unclear whether House GOP leaders will even consider the Senate bill, but it’s worth noting that some House Republicans are tiring of their party’s games on this issue: More than a dozen House Republicans sent a letter to their party leaders on Monday night urging them to “immediately” reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with a bipartisan bill — something the House failed to do in the last Congress.

Related: Let’s all watch Marco Rubio’s panicked drink of water in extreme slow motion with musical accompaniment » 

Recap / GIFs from the SOTU and the GOP response

Posted on by

Obama’s State Of The Union Address (FULL TEXT) » The President spoke about the policies and issues on which he campaigned AND WON a second term.

PDF from the White House of the policies that the President outlined.

State of the union address: Obama lays down gauntlet »

  • Second term to focus on immigration, gun control, economy
  • Obama: ‘We must pay our bills on time’
  • President announces pullout of 34,000 troops from Afghanistan
  • Calls for increase in minimum wage for US workers


via @Ronc99

Ezra Klein: Imagine, for a moment, that President Obama managed to pass every policy he proposed tonight. Within a couple of years, every four-year-old would have access to preschool. The federal minimum wage would be at $9 — higher than it’s been, after adjusting for inflation, since 1981. There’d be a cap-and-trade program limiting our carbon emissions and a vast infrastructure investment to upgrade our roads and bridges. Taxes would be higher, guns would be harder to come by, and undocumented immigrants would have a path to citizenship. America would be a noticeably different country.


Daily Intelligencer: Joe Biden loved it when Obama suggested that Congress “pass the rest” of his jobs legislation.

“We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.” — President Obama, SOTU 2013


via workingamerica

JM Ashby: While I will praise this announcement, I expect the Far Right will say it’s too soon, and the Far Left will say it’s too late.

President Barack Obama Blows a kiss to first lady Michelle Obama,
  
via obama2016


via krispycrustacean

###

And the GOP’s response, courtesy of their best hope (this week) for 2016:


via inothernews


via theatlantic

Full transcript of Sen. Marco Rubio’s response to the State of the Union »

The State of the Hydration, in “slow-mo” (notice Rubio NEVER loses eye contact with the camera):

Embedded image permalink
Embedded image permalink
Embedded image permalink
via @jedlewison


…said no one but Fox Nation. (via)


via myhappymachine

FACT CHECK: Under President Obama, federal spending has grown at the slowest rates since President Eisenhower » (via occupy-my-blog)

Other:

Twenty-two Congressmen invited people whose lives have been touched by gun violence, in an effort coordinated by Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island. Counterbalancing those invitees is a Texas congressman who invited Ted Nugent. Nugent was investigated by the secret service after saying that if President Obama were reelected he, Nugent, would end up “dead or in jail.” Turned out the answer was c) at the state of the union. — guardian.co.uk

Photos of Shitty Pants Nugent during the SOTU here and here and here.

The GOP’s short term memory loss on the Sequester

Posted on by

Republicans on the sequester: then and now –

…

Jed Lewison says Eric Cantor has outlined the GOP position on the sequester:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he hates the sequester:

I don’t want to live with the sequester. I want reductions in spending that make sense. These indiscriminate reductions do not make sense.

But he doesn’t hate it enough to repeal it or replace it with something Democrats and Republicans can agree on. As a result, he says, Republicans will move forward with the sequester.

And we’re going to hurt a lot of people. And it’s up to the president, really, to act now.

So Eric Cantor, who voted for the sequester in the first place, now says it doesn’t make any sense. He says he’d like to replace it, but only with spending cuts that target Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social insurance programs. Cantor says that unless Democrats agree to such cuts, Republicans will move forward with implementing the sequester—even though doing so will “hurt a lot of people.”

Steve Benen felt the need to annotate Eric Cantor’s remarks about the sequester: 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) appeared on “Meet the Press” yesterday and presented an interesting argument regarding looming, automatic sequestration cuts. It’s so amazing, let’s annotate this one paragraph.

“You know, the problem is, David, every time you turn around, the answer is to raise taxes [1]. And, you know, he just got his tax hike on the wealthy. And you can’t, in this town, every three months, raise taxes [2]. And again, every time, that’s his response [3]. And, you know, we’ve got a spending problem. Everybody knows it [4]. The House has put forward an alternative plan [5]. And there’s been no response in any serious way from the Senate or the White House [6].”

Ready for this?

[1] Democrats aren’t proposing a tax increase; they’re proposing a compromise including spending cuts and new revenue through closing tax loopholes.

[2] The new revenue from a slight increase in top marginal rates was the first increase in income tax rates in two decades. Once every 20 years is not the same as once “every three months.”

[3] “His,” in this case, refers to President Obama, who’s repeatedly offered congressional Republicans overly-generous offers on debt reduction. Indeed, that’s what he’s done “every time.”

Read the rest…

Roll Call: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California has urged Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio to cancel the planned district work period next week so both sides can work out a deal to avert the $85 billion automatic spending cuts under sequester. “Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to find solutions, not sequesters,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to Boehner on Monday.

White House spokesman Jay Carney: “The notion much propounded by the spin doctors on the Republican side that the sequester is somehow something that the White House and the president alone wanted and desired is a fanciful confection. The fact of the matter is, as I think you all recall in the wake of the passage of the Budget Control Act, it was the Republicans, including the Republican Leader of the House, who celebrated it as getting 98 percent of what they wanted.”

From the White House Fact Sheet: Sequester (click to read it all): 

The GOP’s rebranding effort continues to fail miserably: Ted Nugent’s SOTU invite

Posted on by

Texas Republican invites Ted Nugent, an aging rocker and the official spokesman for Impotent White Male Rage, to the SOTU: 

TPM: Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), who threatened President Obama with impeachment over his plan to reduce gun violence, has offered a ticket to the State of the Union to Ted Nugent — whose criticism of the president once resulted in a sitdown with the Secret Service. “I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama,” Stockman said in a statement Monday. “After the Address I’m sure Ted will have plenty to say.”

image source: UTMB (yep, created here)

“If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” — Ted Nugent

Still alive. Still free. We’re still waiting, Ted.

Republican Rep. Stockman apparently finds the following Nugent facts admirable: 

  • HOW NUGENT BRAVELY SHIT HIS PANTS TO AVOID THE VIETNAM DRAFT: In a July 15, 1990, Detroit Free Press interview, Nugent crowed about how he managed to dodge the draft. He claims that 30 days before his draft board physical, he disavowed personal hygiene. The last ten days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and with a week to go until the physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether. When the big day came, he had been living in excrement-caked and urine-stained pants. Always the hero, however, Nugent reassured the Free Press, “But if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody.” (via: campusprogress.org)
  • FAMILY VALUES: Ted Nugent fathered SEVEN kids with FIVE different women, to which only two of whom he was married.(via: debbieschlussel.com)
  • RICK PERRY’S 2007 INAUGURAL BALL:  The Motor City Madman played his scorching set draped in a confederate flag shirt – a symbol of slavery in just about everyone’s book – showing his pride for the South and his disrespect for African-American heritage in one crushing blow of 70’s-era guitar force. Perry danced on stage in his tuxedo, grinning contentedly. (via: austinist.com)
  • NUGENT ON SUPPORTING PERRY’S 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: “If I’m not given an authorized position in the campaign [it’s] because I’m too divisive,” Nugent told Billboard.com “I don’t know if I’ll get a stamp of approval because I am so volatile and because the line in the sand in a political campaign can be so ambiguous — and I’m anything but. […] on a rock ‘n’ roll stage, I can tell Hillary Clinton to straddle my machine gun.” (via: Rick Perry blog)
  • COMPARED GUN OWNERS TO ROSA PARKS’ CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION: “There will come a time when the gun owners of America, the law-abiding gun owners of America, will be the Rosa Parks and we will sit down on the front seat of the bus, case closed,” said Nugent in an interview to WorldNetDaily.
  • THINKS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR: “Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.” — Seattle PI
  • NUGENT, BORN IN 1948, is now 64 years old. An old man with no wisdom.