The Potential Impact Of Sequestration
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-25/potential-impact-sequestration
The U.S. is bracing for steep, across-the-board cuts in the federal budget. If implemented, they could mean furloughs at the Pentagon, longer airport security lines and delays in food inspection. Diane and her guests discuss the potential impact of sequestration.
Guests
Jared Bernstein
senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and former chief economist and economic policy adviser for Vice President Joe Biden.
David Wessel
economics editor for The Wall Street Journal and author of "Red Ink: Inside the High-Stakes Politics of the Federal Budget."
Mackenzie Eaglen
research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies.
Susan Davis
chief congressional reporter for USA Today.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
billtmore wrote:
"I feel conservatives would prefer Grandma lose benefits, schools lose teachers, cities lose police personnel and unemployed lose benefits so they can build more aircraft carriers or stealth fighters the divide is great"
Well, let's break that down, shall we?
"Grandma lose benefits"
It is not the Federal Government's job, under the Constitution, to provide Grandma with benefits, or to make "benefit" payments to any individual. The Constitutional requirement is to the GENERAL welfare. Providing for Grandma is Grandma's family's job, or Grandma herself. Instead, we have a government-sponsored Ponzi scheme providing for Grandma.
"schools lose teachers"
It is not the Federal Government's job, under the Constitution, to provide anyone with an education. That can certainly be done at the State and local levels.
"cities lose police personnel"
It is not the Federal Government's job, under the Constitution, to provide state and local governments with police. That is the job of the state and local governments.
"and unemployed lose benefits"
See "Grandma benefits" above, FG payments to individuals, and the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.
"so they can build more aircraft carriers or stealth fighters"
Well, at least you've finally gotten around to something that is the Constitutionally mandated duty of the FG; to provide for the common defense. No question, the DOD is bloated as is every other aspect of the FG and much cutting can take place ... which, by the way, the sequester will provide for, and disproportionately in the DOD, therefore, your premise that other cuts must take place to provide for "more aircraft carriers or stealth fighters" is false.
Nice going, billtmore! Great post!
Some crisis to get our elected officials to lead on this? How about throwing them out on their butts on the street and then forcing them to have to work two or more (or no) jobs like cleaning comodes or working at McDonalds just to TRY to make ends meet? Then they can exercise their obviously superior decision making and money managing abilities on such questions as whether they should pay rent OR pay for their kids schoolbooks, (can't do both). Then *MAYBE* they'll have part of a clue as to what some people are going through today. They are way too detached from many others who are seriously hurting today. I think a number of them need to feel what's been going on VERY personally.
Sequestration? Bring it...
Please comment on the following: Is there any doubt that individual members of Congress are behaving in exactly the manner their constituents desire? If so, who is to blame for the dysfunction in government?
DC has been talking about this for years, and the only thing accomplished so far is the agreement for across the boards cuts. Nancy Pelosi is the best example of why nothing else has worked. This multi-millionaire is worrying about her income, which greatly exceeds the income of the vast majority of Americans. Nancy Pelosi is the 1%! How dare she complain about her pay cut. If the rest of us can take a cut in income, so can Nancy.
fingerpicker8 wrote: "A factor that most Republicans apparently fail to comprehend is the Multiplier Effect of government spending. For every dollar government spends in the American economy, there is generally a significantly greater return."
A patently WRONG statement that the POTUS and cronies have been trying to pawn off on the gullible. Take a dollar bill out of your left pocket and put it into your right pocket... What you left out of the equation is that .42 cents of the dollar bill you started out with was borrowed from China and the interest clock is still ticking...
“So it’s the voter’s fault?”
Yes. (In a sense.)
Our nation was born on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” - Declaration of Independence
That is the principle of majority rule, the basis of our democracy. It doesn’t guarantee us the best government, just the government we vote for.
Now other factors play a part. Gerrymandering which creates “safe” districts. The poisonous effect of money on politics. (We now have a “money primary” before any votes are even cast in a real primary.) The even more poisonous effect of the campaign ads the money pays for.* And the failure of the media, the “punditocracy” and “commentariat” to do their jobs. Instead they treat politics as a “horse race”, focusing more on “tactics”, stumbles, and gaffes, than on the candidates’ policies (and forget about principles).
But, in the end, the blame rests with US. We allow this to happen, many of us thrive on it. We are a deeply divided country, partisan and ideological, because too many of us like it that way! (Just look at the Comments to this show - everyday, not just today.) Until that changes, we will get the government we vote for: partisan, ideological, divided, and broken!
Pogo was right: We have met the enemy, and they are us!
* P.S. - I’ve often thought one solution to the problem of money in politics would be to have our T.V.’s and Radio’s equipped with a “P-Chip”, whereby each of us could choose (by turning it on) to block all campaign ads. Not only would that provide blessed relief, but it might lower campaign spending and contributions. After all, no one will pay for advertising that no one watches!
“The Constitutional requirement is to the GENERAL welfare. Providing for Grandma is Grandma's family's job, or Grandma herself.”
Sorry, my conservative “friends”, but that’s as false as it gets, for three reasons.
1) Social Security, and other programs, provide assistance to the general population. It’s not just restricted to the “lucky” few. Ditto for education: the money spent benefits everyone. (And, of course, such spending also benefits society as a whole. Itself an example of providing for the general welfare.) Try applying your “logic” to the clause you love (“common defense”). Is that limited to expenditures that benefit everyone “in common”? What if Canada invades Maine, or Mexico invades Arizona? What if Easter Island invades Hawaii? Will we say: “Sorry, that’s your problem. When they threaten the rest of the nation, that’s when we’ll act in the common defense, instead of just in your defense”? I don’t think so.
2) Many of the effects from the sequester will be a case of “trickle down”. As Federal spending decreases the economy slows. As that happens State revenue will decline. That’s part of how the Police, Fire Departments, education, etc., will be affected. It’s not just a direct link!
3) The Founders didn’t agree with your notions. What you are talking about is known as Federalism: the division of power between the state and national governments. But the division isn’t as rigid as you believe. (An early example of Federal support for education was the Morrill Act of 1862, which provided for creation of the land-grant colleges. By the way, it was signed by that noted “commie” - Abraham Lincoln.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
And on this subject, James Madison had something instructive to say.
“It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. . . . in like manner as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.”
- Federalist Paper #45, page 286 of the Signet Classic Edition (2003) - emphasis added.
So even the “Father of the Constitution”, felt that “States’ Rights” should be sacrificed to the “happiness of the people” - and by that word (“people”) he meant all of us as individuals, not just as some corporate “gestalt”. (After all, it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, meaning every individual member of that group, not the right of the nation as a whole.)
We can have a productive debate about whether there's too much spending throughout the Federal government, but aside from the simple fact that you won't get the votes to "dump Grandma", rigid (and erroneous) ideology from either side is not useful
P.S. - Oh, and the Social Security insurance program is no more a "ponzi scheme" than any other form of insurance. Ditto for other social programs.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "(And, of course, such spending also benefits society as a whole. Itself an example of providing for the general welfare.) "
It does not take long for you to dredge up your old and totally wrong talking points.
Thomas Jefferson asserted that “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
So who are we going to believe, a big government liberal that only appreciates the Constitution when it can be twisted to advocate for more government or James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
Federalist Paper #45, James Madison IN CONTEXT
The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?
We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.
ES, I'm not going to go through several pages of tit for tat posts to get to the same questions we always get to which you are unable to answer. I'm just going to cut to the chase.
As for DOD and Canada invading Maine, national defense is part of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in A1S8, so it is quite fitting for the FG to defend Maine, though it not benefit California.
So the question is, "Why are there enumerated powers in A1S8"?
Most (if not all) Federal social programs, including ED, are not part of those enumerated powers. If you want to argue the Commerce Clause, as it has been used and interpreted to justify most Federal social programs, then there was NEVER a need to enumerate powers in A1S8. It would have only needed one provision; Congress may do anything it wants.
On SS "insurance" program, you can call a pig a cow, but it's never going to give you any milk. In fact, SS is the DEFINITION of a Ponzi scheme.
In a Ponzi scheme, "returns are generated for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors."
billtmore wrote:
@ the Last Moderate..Sorry I am going to disagree looking at the list of conservative names associated with it..I am going to lump it with all the other Right wing organizations
But the AEI "big guy" is Norm Ornstein ... a hardline moderate who maybe even leans left.
ES, NTGA has already dealt with your out of context Madison quote, but this one almost slipped by me.
" The Founders didn’t agree with your notions. What you are talking about is known as Federalism: the division of power between the state and national governments. But the division isn’t as rigid as you believe."
Yes, thanks for pointing out the meaning of Federalism. We would not have known otherwise. You just continue dropping those nuggets of information, ES. In fact the Constitution is quite clear on the "division of power between the state and national governments". You see, the Founders were afraid that people like you would come along to try to expand the powers of the Federal Government at the diminishment of the powers of the States, that is why they insisted on Amendments 9 and 10 to limit that ability (the other amendments as well, of course).
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, yes, 'the division IS as rigid as I believe' as envisioned by the Founders - in fact it couldn't be any clearer - to the chagrin of the liberal Progressive.
"(An early example of Federal support for education was the Morrill Act of 1862, which provided for creation of the land-grant colleges."
First, a clarification. The Morrill Act of 1862 did not "provide for creation of land-grand colleges". It provided land grants, the proceeds of which, the states could use to create colleges for their states. In other words, the FG did not indebt or tax one dime for these schools. It provided to the states out of its ASSETS of land which cost it and the taxpayers nothing.
Quiz question: How is that different than what happens today?
Some suggested reading material:
mchaun,
I ask you to give up your logic. Don't you know that Soc Sec is illegal under the US Constitution and is unsustainable no matter what you say or how much you use math or logic? There is no way to support elderly legally and they should either figure out how to invest privately or meet their just desserts. We could even turn Soc Sec into private accounts, just make sure that those old ones are not allowed to vote like ordinary shareholders and mistakenly force corporations to change back to defined benefit pensions and not allow the pensions to be shredded.
mchaun, the logic will overwhelm you. or at least the repetitive allusions to FG role (short for federal government, which despite numerous court cases, is illegally taking over state functions).
You must be a liberal (or a moderate Republican) to even suggest that actuarial tables don't point to the ruination of our civilization. And do not pretend that increasing the minimum wage would be the fastest way to lower the deficit and improve the stability of Soc Sec, Medicare, etc. despite how obvious it may seem.
yours,
beaten into submission to the "new reality" and "newspeak"
mchaun,
I suggest you go back and read the comment of jlynwood.
In fact, I will provide it for your convenience.
"I wish all the pundits would stop the talk of Social Security being a drain on the U. S. Treasury. What they don't tell us is that the program wouldn't be a drain if the people in congress had not squandered the money and left treasury notes in the till. It becomes a drain because the treasury notes will, of necessity, have to be repaid to the program.
They stole the money, now they are blaming the recipients for the government deficits. Please, stop the lies about Social Security."
SS uses the contributions of current workers to pay the benefits of former workers. That's a Ponzi scheme Also, just like a Ponzi scheme, its managers take the money out to benefit themselves (a la pork). Which is why we are short 2.5+T in cash.
If you would like to contradict any of those statements, please feel free to try without using expletives, racist, or biggoted comments ... if you can.
cc, I suggest you read your own links. They are not kind to your arguments. Now ... I only got through the first four, but thanks for the reinforcements.
For example:
Supremacy Clause
" If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, THOUGH LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, is supreme within its sphere of action." (my emphasis, not anger).
Commerce Clause:
"The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states... The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce".
Which is precisely what I have said all along. The purpose of the CC is for Congress to make the states play nice together, not direct commerce a la, most Federal Departments.
So thanks for continuing to make my points.
... and so on.
mchaun,
Give up now. Don't you know that only flimsy IOU's are holding up Soc Sec? It not like those treasury notes earn interest to supplement future payouts. And of course, it would be easy for the govt to default on those IOU treasuries and not default on bonds held by the Wall Street investors. And SSA is filled with misinformation about how safe and secure the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund because they earn those fabulous GS level salaries, not like those hedge fund managers that rake it in for their investors, yet must beg for alms.
And unfortunately our so-called democracy does not have provisions to not-reelect members of Congress who would ever vote to cut benefits (except on occasional first Tuesdays in Nov). And Greece and Spain are just minutes away from bringing us into their spiral downward, despite all the false evidence and statistics you might hear.
So give up as the discourse here rivals debates at Oxford.
yours,
beaten again into submission by Playdough's logic and Socrates' cat
ECGBERHT,
Yes, I say as I knock myself on the head. Yes, you are right. Which is why it sooooo perplexing why the Supreme Court just doesn't get it. Should I write an amicus brief for us explaining how they are wrong to allow most of the departments of the federal government?
Yes, these were points made on your behalf, despite how most silly, uneducated people might read them as, well instructive generally, and not just see them as definitive proof positive of anything they assert.
Got it. Man, your iron clad logic, like a steel trap. Going to protest those black robed villains per your superior knowledge of the law.
yours,
beaten into submission by repetition and repetition and ....
@cc,
I get your frustration. Often, when posters who have to deal with the cognitive dissonance that arises from facing the fact that ideas that they have held sacred their entire lives are wrong, the language turns sarcastic. Often, sarcasm drifts into straw man arguments ... for example:
"They are not kind to your arguments." becomes "Yes, these were points made on your behalf".
Oh, and as for vaunted opinion of SCOTUS, I can only again mention Korematsu v United States, Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, or Buck v Bell in which Justice Holmes upheld forced sterilization of the mentally ill, saying “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
I would make one unrelated point, however. I couldn't help note that your insistence that my use of the occasional captilization for emphasis should be interpreted as "anger or shouting", yet the filth spewed by mchaun, which with which you seem to concur, raises nary a mention. Huh!
ECGBERHT,
Thanks for your help. Explaining my previous vaunted estimation of the Supreme Court as being wrong, because of the cases you bring up, I now will become a strict constructionist and disavow all cases you believe are wrong (please post the full list, Brown v. Topeka, Miranda, Roe, Bush v. Gore, etc.). And I will go back to the original version of the Constitution prior to the XIIIth Amendment which had nooooo problems with it. Planning my 2020 census, so who should I count by three fifths?
I should become like you, impervious to the weak thinking that allowed me to believe that our federal government should assist its citizens and the states are the only place to do things. So can we raise the minimum wage to $35/hour in our new state or can we sink it to 5 cents/day (plus charge for uniforms and needed equipment)? Can we ban the silly Library of Congress regulations from allowing me to reprint and sell in a truly free market, start our new McDonalds to compete freely, ....
yours again,
beaten into submission from repetition and wise men touching elephants
mchaun,
I have a modest proposal for you: keep on that serious tact and continue to lose the debate as you are clearly outmatched here. You do not have the stamina that the keepers of the light of Ayn Rand and John Birchers have. Oh, to remember the halcyon days of Buckley's Firing Line when it was only necessary to base arguments on facts and reality.
I instead will continue to munch on my Soylent Green, sorry grandpa, and learn to love the state (state govt that is). 2 plus 2 is whatever I want it to be, and no government paid union teacher whose pension is bleeding us all dry will force me to answer four.
I will join them in their fight for reaction to the liberal reality of Stephen Colbert's warning.
yours,
beaten into submission by fear of fear itself
mchaun wrote:
"When a Man who, by his own admission, uses these "Debates" in his struggle to arrest his descent into Dementia,..."
Gets you flagged. That is a personal attack and violates DR Show Code of Conduct.
@cc
"who should I count by three fifths?"
You can't be that clueless. Read about the Three Fifths Compromise here which LIMITED (emphasis, not anger) the power of the slave states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
Perhaps you feel that slaves, who could not vote, should have boosted the repesentation of their southern masters beyond what the compromise provided?
flagged, red flagged, and sighing.
bye mchaun
ECGBERHT,
Yes, so obvious, it was the bad free states that limited the power of the chattel slave states. And the slave states were bound to keep those properties as bound property rather than increasing their state's political power. Now that is sacrifice. If only the slave states could have gotten around that 3/5ths counting. Can't think of any? Can you? Nope, the slave states were honor bound to keep their slaves enslaved instead of stopping their corrupt and inhuman treatment.
And this proves?!? your point that the US Constitution was perfect as first enacted? Yup, you got me there.
yours,
beaten into submission by my master
"citizencontact wrote:
mchaun,
I have a modest proposal for you: keep on that serious tact and continue to lose the debate as you are clearly outmatched here. You do not have the stamina that the keepers of the light of Ayn Rand and John Birchers have. Oh, to remember the halcyon days of Buckley's Firing Line when it was only necessary to base arguments on facts and reality.
I instead will continue to munch on my Soylent Green, sorry grandpa, and learn to love the state (state govt that is). 2 plus 2 is whatever I want it to be, and no government paid union teacher whose pension is bleeding us all dry will force me to answer four.
I will join them in their fight for reaction to the liberal reality of Stephen Colbert's warning.
yours,
beaten into submission by fear of fear itself
February 25, 2013 - 5:52 pm"
Did you catch my recent reminder of Buckley's Confession?
Did you notice that BB would tilt his head so that he could get a bigger image on the screen by filling in the corners and sides with his lovely mug?
Soylent Green!!!! One of the better Series on this Site that went completely over the heads of these Trogdolytes.
I do not have the Stamina, but had some at one time. See the Links below.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
cc, I am sorry that you did not understand the rmaifications and history behind the 3/5's Compromise. That's not my fault.
"your point that the US Constitution was perfect as first enacted?"
Sorry, cc. Gonna need chapter and verse on that straw man.