ROLLED HIM AGAIN

When President Obama came to office, he thought that he could get together with the opposition and work out deals.  He slowly found out that to get 20% of what he wanted, the Republicans had to get 80% of what they wanted.  Worse, then they would beat him over the head with his compromises, i.e. delaying the end of the tax cut for the wealthy.  Finally the President realized he was being rolled.

So he then adopted a confrontational approach with the result that little got done.  Perhaps the biggest thing was when he stood up to the House about their threat to shut down the government, which they did.  Something I found to be odd was how important people felt about the National Parks, Monuments, etc. being closed.  At any rate, the government reopened at a considerable cost to the government.  Nearly as important was the "sequester" that he thought were so draconian that surely congress would act to avoid them, but they didn't and the automatic cuts began.  Well, at least the DOD budget was cut a bit.

Now to fund the Federal government through next September, the President has agreed to incredible compromises.  One awful one lessens regulation of financial derivatives.**  Another allows political parties to  get an order of magnitude more money from individuals.**  Rolled him again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget
** http://news.yahoo.com/sound-smart-2015-appropriations-bill-161002683.html;_ylt=A0LEVvztpJFUSnYAODEPxQt;
http://crfb.org/blogs/budget-gimmicks-cromnibus-bill

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SO KIND TO JOHN BOEHNER?

I don't understand why Democrats are so kind to John Boehner.  I haven't heard any Democratic Senator or Representative bad mouth him; yet every time I hear him speak he lets out one or more whoppers.  The Continuing Resolution supposedly being considered is the number wanted by Republicans.  The Republicans not only won that battle but the number is lower than the Sequester value.

Boehner says "This is not some damn game."  But I'm sorry Mr Boehner, it is some damn game you are playing. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101065750) and a dangerous one at that.  All that posturing by Republican Representatives in front of the WW-II Memorial when they voted to lower funding for the VA.  If it isn't a political game, what is it?   You and some other Republicans may feel this was the place to get rid of the Afforadable Care Act, but many other Republicans and conservatives warned against it.  A threat is no good if the other side isn't worried.

But I understand that some strategy is needed and to wait for the Debt limit and then allow an up or down vote will be the time to fall on your sword.  You don't want to do it too early.  Maybe in the end you will actually have missed the sword and survive.  I also have heard some Democrats trying to think of ways to bail you out.  What weird politics we are in when it is the opposing party trying to find a way to bail you out.

JOHN BOEHNER - THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY IN HIS HANDS

The issue supposedly is the Continuing Resolution.  There is no argument over the Continuing Resolution (CR).  The Democrats have agreed with the Republican figure.  So there is no argument.   The Republicans won that battle, and the agreed upon figure is actually below the Sequester level.  The argument has nothing to do with the CR and is actually over a law that survived a test in the Supreme Court, if narrowly, the so called Obamacare or Affordable Care Act law (ACA).  So the Speaker of The House, has refused to let the CR be voted upon unless the ACA is destroyed.  Oh yes, they have proposed delaying ithe ACA for a year, but then will demand another year, etc. In the meantime, the ACA is open for business and early returns seems very encouraging.

Most if not all Republicans would like to see this ACA law repealed; however, the president is not likely to let this law be destroyed, especially since everyone seems to agree that the House would approve the CR if allowed to vote on it.  So to prevent the CR from being passed and allow the Federal government to remain open, the Speaker Of The House, John Boehner, has refused to let the CR be voted upon.  Thus now, 40% of the government is shut down, except for essential positions.  I fully expect the government to remain closed for the next two weeks until we face the debt limit.  We are undergoing other cute maneuvers like trying to open the government piecemeal but, in the end, never funding the ACA.  Paying our soldiers on time has been the one exception that has been passed on a bipartisan basis, an exception with which I agree.

So will the Speaker refuse to let the Debt Limit be raised and destroy the Full Faith And Credit Of The U.S. Government because we will not pay bills that are already incurred?  Oh, perhaps if we let this go for a few days, it will not matter, but we don't know what our creditors will do.  And if you do this the first time, doing it a second time is easier, etc.  So Mr. Boehner holds the fate of America in his hands.  Will he keep the government closed and, in addition, destroy the full faith and credit of America?  It seems to be his choice.  Will he be the man who destroyed America or the hero that saved it?  Right now we do not know.  Is holding the Speakership worth destroying a great country?

[Warren] Buffett did provide a glimmer of hope if the Oct. 17 debt limit deadline is breached. "If it goes one second beyond the debt limit, that will not do us in. If it goes a year beyond that would be unbelievable." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083360

[Hank Paulsen] said he hates the whole concept of the debit limit—calling it a "flaw" in the system. "Congress has already approved the spending. And then say 'you have to then come back and agree to allow us to meet our obligations,' that's ridiculous."  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101083367

OH NO, NOT MEAT INSPECTORS

One problem with the Sequester is that it is "across the board," which means that every program in every agency must be cut a certain amount.  Another is that the fiscal year of the Federal government is more than 5 mo. old so a good deal of Federal money has already been spent, which means that the amount to be cut is cut from a smaller pot.  Thus those who say that the Sequester is nothing are wrong.  For example, consider just meat and poultry:

The inspection and grading of meat and poultry are two separate programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Inspection for wholesomeness is mandatory and is paid for with public funds. (Emphasis is from the reference)

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FACTSheets/Inspection_&_Grading/index.asp

So it is the law that meat and poultry MUST be inspected.  Inspection is almost entirely manpower so, if the budget for meat inspectors is cut (which it must be if the budget is across the board), a certain number of meat and poultry inspectors must be laid off in some way (If not some number of pay periods, then some number of days of the week.).  What this means is that no meat and poultry inspection, no meat and poultry in the market for you to buy.  In fact, it will probably be that less meat and poultry will be available for consumption because of fewer inspectors per work week.  What do you think that will do to the price of these commodities?

Budget cutters have tripped over this problem before, most notably when Rep. Newt Gingrich shut down the government which meant NO meat or poultry inspection so NO meat and poultry to the stores.  Fortunately, the shut downs were short enough to that there was no meat or poultry crisis.

The DoD apparently is going to get around this problem from a national security problem to some degree by just furloughing civilian employees.  One is already hearing cries from governors against this.  How in the world does anyone think you can cut the Federal budget without cutting employees?

DOESN'T THAT TAKE THE CAKE?

Normally, I don't comment on politically made crises until they are solved one way or another; however, Rep. Boehner and some other Republicans keep claiming that the Sequester is Obama's idea.  It turns out that Boehner himself proposed the Sequester in July of 2011!  I know that politicians play fast and lose with the truth, but really.  To blame someone else for what you proposed takes the cake.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpoint-that-proves-it-s-not-obama-s-sequester-after-all.html

In reality, I don't care whose idea it was first.  The reality is that this is where we are at or, as Sec. Clinton said about Benghazi, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/01/hillary-clintons-testimony-what-difference-will-it-make.html#ixzz2LXymwvJ2

Note added February 25, 2013:  Bob Woodward claims that the Obama administration did propose the Sequester first after all.*  The date given is July 27, 2011 "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."  But Boehner's PowerPoint was also in July so the dates are pretty close.  I reiterate, however, that I don't care who proposed it first, that it is where we are at the matters.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

WHAT THE SUPER COMMITTEE DECIDED

Did anyone think that the outcome of the Super Committee would be different from what occurred? Though the Super Committee is widely viewed as a failure, I don't think so. What they did was decide after considerable thought that the $1.2 billion automatic sequester of funds from the military and the discretionary budget was the best plan. After all, the Republican Party is all about increasing or at least preserving the wealth of the wealthy. So given the choice of having a tax increase on the wealthy or decreasing the military, neither of which they like, it is only natural that they would chose decreasing the military budget. The Democrats feature themselves as the party of the people so, given a choice of decreasing entitlements unless there is a tax increase on the wealthy or decreasing the discretionary budgets, neither of which they like, they would choose to decrease the discretionary budgets. All this was obvious from the beginning (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/08/debt-ceiling-compromise-effects.html). Why is anyone surprised?

Of course, now efforts will be expended to overthrow the sequester. President Obama, however, has said that he would veto any attempts to do so. This seems to be an indication that he prefers the sequestration also.

I think that at least the age for early Social Security should be raised from 62 to 64, now that the age for full social Security has been raised from 65 to 67. I think anyone would be a fool not to take early Social Security. For heaven's sake, you get five years of reduced Social Security payments to do something with. Say you are getting $1,000/mo at the reduced rate, you will have accumulated at least $60,000 (assuming no COLA) before you would be eligible for regular Social Security.