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.
ecgberht,
Lost your train of thought?
After I eviscerated your arguments about the US Constitution which fly in the face of almost every legal document and court case, you got caught up by a small point about how the Supreme Court should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases. I rebutted that easily pointing out that the Supreme Court is capable of interpreting the Constitution and the rest of the government, feds to states to localities, follow their lead. I pointed out even the US Constitution had flaws like various references to slavery, but that does not mean it should be likewise condemned in its whole.
You, based on who knows what, jumped to the conclusion that I was unaware of the 3/5s compromise despite that I was the one to mention it.
And I made the novel point that the slave states could have won full census counts by just freeing the slaves. Finally, the former confederacy got their full political power thanks to the XIII Amendment and the sacrifice of millions of slaves and soldiers.
But since facts do not trump repetition here, I concede that you are always right. Fortunately, other readers will figure it out despite your powers of persuasion.
yours,
beaten into submission from assertions of grandeur
cc wrote:
"Lost your train of thought?"
Heh heh!
"you got caught up by a small point about how the Supreme Court should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases."
Really? Where, cc? What I said was that sometimes SCOTUS gets it wrong. And that is a fact. And I listed several examples which you cannot possibly defend. I said, "As for the judicial process, it is what it is. The process is far from perfect, but it is what we've got, yes". Do you see how that is different than "SCOTUS should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases"? That is called the "strawman" argument, cc. You take the other person's argument and change it, then argue against that.
So, here they are again ... based on your view of SOTUS, still waiting for you to explain; 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.”
At the risk of being repetitive, until it sinks in, I'll make my point again. SCOTUS can get it wrong. And it has.
What cc claims:
"You, based on who knows what, jumped to the conclusion that I was unaware of the 3/5s compromise despite that I was the one to mention it. "
What ecgberht said:
"cc, I am sorry that you did not understand the ramifications and history behind the 3/5's Compromise. That's not my fault."
See. That's the strawman again, cc. I never claimed you were unaware of the 3/5's Compromise, I said you did not understand the ramifications or history behind it, and clearly, you do not.
In terms of your analysis of that compromise, "I made the novel point that the slave states could have won full census counts by just freeing the slaves", I would not brag about that statement cc. But, yeah, it's novel all right!
Really, really sorry, but you strain credulity. Stipulating a point is not a straw man argument.
Stipulated, that the Supreme Court has made decisions which are reprehensible. That does not make those decisions unconstitutional, except and only until a later court decision strikes them down or an amendment to the constitution is ratified.
Stipulated, that Paul Baran, did create a breakthrough that made the Internet possible. That does not mean that all evidence of others participation and enormous funding was not also necessary for the Internet to be available to the public and private sector.
Stipulated, that Social Security is not projected to be able to sustain current payouts forever as configured. That does not mean making small changes like lifting the cap on FICA for above 100k income wouldn't be a solution.
Claiming that all evidence proves your points just makes you boring and persistent. Claiming that others are not able to understand history makes you boorish. Claiming that people that have different viewpoints are making straw man arguments and non-sequitors, makes you a poor judge of arguments. I have bent over backward to give credence to some of your points, even to accept some conclusions. Just trying to figure out what makes you so incapable of openness to other ideas and viewpoints.
yours,
beaten into submission by a recalcitrant
Please discuss budgetary constraint versus spending cuts. I've heard the actual spending cuts will be considerably less than the budget cuts.
It's hard to believe that $42 billion of less spending growth can have such a negative impact when government is spending $4.7 T. Or is this just fear mongering by big gov types?
Bernstein's "get the economy growing again" is pathetic. How much more deficit spending would be required to create sustainable economic growth?
hainc,
Not sure what you mean by distinguishing budgets from spending cuts? Are referring to different proposals?
Anyway, $42 or $85 billion in cuts from this years already planned for spending is disruptive if nothing else. And although one billion dollars may not sound like a lot for you, it is a substantial amount of money if it is taken from a program that is would have allocated that money to a specific thing. And the cuts are not a small percentage across the entire appropriations/authorizations, but instead across a much smaller discretionary spending programs.
As deficits have been shrinking for the last couple of years, I am not sure what you are referring to? Most proposals for additional spending were "pay as you go" aka deficit neutral.
I think it may be budetary authority versus spending cuts. The cuts won't be nearly as bad because there is left over budgetary authority from the previous fiscal year.
The compromise was the tax increases in December for the spending cuts now.
Actually, the compromise in December was for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Just reminding you.
Perhaps, we can move forward with a similar mix of both which is actually a good compromise.
Or Congress could repeal the sequester and just finish its work on spending/appropriations for the rest of this fiscal year with an overall deal.
Yes, the president agreed to the sequester. And not having the US default and ruin the world economy was worth it. His bad to have allowed the sequester to be included.
What spending cuts? I must have missed them. I heard about $200B in tax increases. How much in cuts?
What strains credulity is your lack of the ability to type a quote mark and put someone's words in between it. Instead, we get your restatement of history. Now that's boring, persistant, boorish, and close-minded. I asked you for this on the other board, you couldn't do it there either.
Find MY WORDS (emphasis, not anger) put quotes around them, and post them here. Then respond.
"Stipulating a point is not a straw man argument. "
No, but "you got caught up by a small point about how the Supreme Court should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases" is. Because I never said anything close to that.
So, let's break this post down ... (seemingly ad infinitum)
"That does not make those decisions unconstitutional,"
Chapter and verse. Quotation marks, cc, quotation marks.
"That does not mean that all evidence of others participation and enormous funding was not also necessary for the Internet to be available to the public and private sector."
Chapter and verse.
"That does not mean making small changes like lifting the cap on FICA for above 100k income wouldn't be a solution."
Chapter and verse.
You know, I couldn't put my finger on it until today, but NTGA nailed your down.
"How can you identify a partisan hack who is trying to come off as an intellectual non partisan arbitrator of the truth?"
If you were anything but, you would be framing convincing arguments, not just bastardizing what someone else has said.
hainc: The first part of the spending cuts occurred in Budget Control Act agreement in 2011. Over $900 Billion. Funny how the Republicans seem to forget that happened and keep coming after Obama saying he never gave in on ANY spending cuts so far. Fact: The GOPTP got $900B in cuts, the Dems got $600B in tax increases (all over 10 years). Now we have the sequester. It's reasonable to ask - at this point - for a Balanced approach.
Great, we solved all of world's problems in 2011, which is when Nabors & Lew came up with the sequester; so I guess we should just live with it. Then we raised taxes anew in January. So a balance approach would be to come up with some additional spending cuts on top of Obama's sequester.
ecgbehrt,
I don't put quote marks around quotes when the actual text shows up on the same web page. My bad. Thought folks would just look at the post above. I did put numerous links to supporting material, but they apparently only supported your points according to you. Not interested in finding them for you.
By saying that the SocSec system, Medicare, Medicaid, Depts of Labor, etc. that you have referred to being illegal-find your own posts to verify-since the Supreme Court has found all these programs legal, you are questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Don't need to find Chapter or Verse on which Supreme Court cases were constitutionally valid, as all of them from Marbury v. Madison on are by definition the final word of what is constitutional.
Yes, I am a partisan hack by virtue of being being name called. My arguments here are not convincing, could be me, could be the audience. NTGA and ecgberht are interesting names by the way. Keep up the onslaught and may be you will convince others.
yours,
beaten into submission by curiousity
The blame game has become the operative political strategy for both parties, and while it is certainly not preferable to a cooperative government, these games of chicken are all that impels our government to act. Productivity is now met by paroxysm rather than long-considered compromise. My hope is this is not the new standard of getting things done in Washington, but for now it certainly looks that way.
http://22oftheday.blogspot.com/2013/02/sequestration-and-blame-game-us.html
"I don't put quote marks around quotes when the actual text shows up on the same web page. "
I hope you don't, because I don't think you've quoted me ONCE! A quote means, you repeat what the person said, word by word, letter by letter. Instead, you PARAPHRASE what I say to suit your argument. That's DISHONEST (emphasis ... and a little bit of anger).
For example, (and this is just one, there are plenty of them)
"you got caught up by a small point about how the Supreme Court should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases"
No. I didn't. I never said SCOTUS was illegitimate, nor did I imply it, nor did I say anything CLOSE to that. See?
"By saying that the SocSec system, Medicare, Medicaid, Depts of Labor, etc. that you have referred to being illegal-find your own posts to verify"
You're kidding, right? First, I didn't say that any of these departments were "illegal". To say otherwise is, well, a lie. You misrepresent what I say and then want me to defend what I ACTUALLY said? Does that seem right to you? How about if I just misrepresent your statements in every post and then demand that you go back and find the actual quote and defend yourself?! Would that seem reasonable to you?
I've officially lost patience with you.
For those that might find the above statements seem a bit defensive, here is this guy in full context..
Here is not just a quote, but also a link to one of the places where this person indicated under the law that most of the federal government would not be allowed --textbook definition of illegal, so not a misrepresentation:
"If today's FG were limited to its Constitutional duties and powers, it would be a fraction of its current size..."
Another quote and link saying that a specific program is not legal under the constitution:
"I'm not saying there is no place for NCLB ... but not at the FEDERAL LEVEL (emphasis, not anger). The States can do what they want, but the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (emphasis, not anger) are enumerated for a reason, and Article 1, Section 8 exists for a reason, and that makes those powers, yes, LIMITED"
Here are quotes and link to examples of claims of alleged illegitimate decisions of our Supreme Court:
"but I would maintain that SCOTUS decisions expanding the power of the FG with respect to the Commerce Clause have been far more damaging."
"Read Wickard v Filburn. Ridiculous stretching of FG power. As was Gonzales v. Raich which was supported by Scalia and Kennedy."
People should own what they say and the direct implications.
cc, you are singularly dishonest.
YOU SAID ILLEGAL. I NEVER DID. ILLEGAL means AGAINST THE LAW. Both of your examples are BOGUS. People should own what THEY say, and I do ... but I don't own YOUR implications. That's the dishonest part. You could also say that I am implying therefore that SCJOTUS or Congress for that matter are all criminals and should be behind bars. They're doing something illegal, right? Which of course is absurd. The only direct implication of following the Constitution to the letter is that government would be a lot smaller ... which is what I said.
You want the government to be some sort of super-provider. Can I imply that you're a Communist? A socialist? No. That would be dishonest. Those terms carry a certain connotation that I'm sure you would not own.
As for the SCOTUS decisions being "illegitimate", again, that's YOUR word. There are connotations that certain words carry that I WILL NOT OWN. If I wanted that connotation I WOULD HAVE USED THE WORD. That's why I don't paraphrase other people's statements which is what you did and you are STILL DOING.
Sorry, bub, you are over there backed in a corner trying to justify your screw up. Better to say, "oops", drop the subject and move on than make yourself look like a weasel.
Duh. Yes, you never said illegal. And I guess you may not be aware the difference between the words illegal and criminal/crime. Always happy to teach vocabulary.
The word illegal means ": not according to or authorized by law".
Yet the word crime means: ": an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law"
And as the law of the land, (check Article VII of the US Constition), anything that is not allowed by the Constitution is by definition illegal (although not necessarily criminal).
I understand you getting confused by the terminology or ascribing pejorative meanings to words, but I use words accurately. I never said that you thought it was criminal to allow the various parts of the govt to exist, just clearly implied illegality. You should know that when the Supreme Court has found various programs illegal under the Constitution, the country has sometimes ratified amendments to make those programs legal. Soc Sec and many other programs are so popular that if ruled illegal, the society would change the constitution.
yours,
beaten into submission by the benighted
cc wrote
"just clearly implied illegality"
Oops, there's that word "implied" again, cc. It's all you've got to hang your hat on. Aren't you the one who "uses words accurately"? How about using my words, not yours for a change? As a communist/socialst (I implied that from your love of big goverment) and as a racist lover of slavery (I implied that from your apparent endorsement of the legality of the Dred Scott case and others), how are things looking over there in that corner where you painted yourself?
And as for being confused by terminology, you are the definition. "anything that is not allowed by the Constitution is by definition illegal (although not necessarily criminal). "?
Really? I think you mean anything not prohibited by the Constitution is by definition legal - unless you want to enumerate every conceivable activity of man. Actually, I think you are conflating legal/criminal with legal/moral as we are clearly talking about ciminal violations, not torts.
Now ... I expect the goalposts to move again with your next post (it is, after all, an amateur's debate technique), but I'm getting nostagic, so I thought I'd just bring up a few reminders of your previous specious arguments - enough strawmen to build a bonfire, to put this whole thread in perspective:
"you got caught up by a small point about how the Supreme Court should be judged as being illegitimate based on a few bad cases"
"your point that the US Constitution was perfect as first enacted?"
"You, based on who knows what, jumped to the conclusion that I was unaware of the 3/5s compromise "
"Stipulated, that the Supreme Court has made decisions which are reprehensible. That does not make those decisions unconstitutional," (stated where?)
"By saying that the SocSec system, Medicare, Medicaid, Depts of Labor, etc. that you have referred to being illegal" (stated where?)
I'm done with this thread, cc. So you get the last word again. Try to bring something other than rhetoric and your famous "implications" this time, 'k?
In my opinion and experience, an open discussion of an issue depends on a few things. First, is a common vocabulary and understanding of terms being used. Anothe is the openness to delve into the implications and logical outcomes of any assertion. Looking back on dozens of threads on this board, there seems to be an inability of most parties to even use common terms, much less do more than restate points.
I think the DRSHOW shows and board would do better to first educate the audience to the background and understanding of the issues. Constantly I've heard "balanced budget" applied to both to comparing US and state budgets as if the things being balanced in both were the same when they are not (both go into debt, but because the states separate their budgets into operating and capital, as opposed to the federal which has a general budget). This is a distinction of terms, not an argument for or against governments borrowing.
In the context of the word illegal, it is often confused with the word immoral or criminal. But although there is overlap, the distinction is important to a conversation about the Constitution and Supreme Court opinions and states rights. From Henry David Thoreau to MLK Jr., there is a rich history in the US in distinguishing the law from morality. Is nullification of US law moral or acceptable or legal or a combination? HDT and MLK both accepted that breaking immoral laws did not mean foregoing the consequences.
cont.
The Dred Scott decision was the law of the land for a while. Separately, one could consider whether the ruling was legitimate or a reasonable interpretation of the US Constitution, or if the Court could have decided the case on the morality, and then if it is possible that the court invalidate a provision of the constitution. The court asserts that its opinions are based on the constitution, not on their personal preference. Although many might argue that is not always the case, the decision, nevertheless, is by definition the law of the land for that moment.
Lincoln, understanding these distinctions realized that the Emancipation Proclamation was not enough to end slavery considering cases like Dred Scott. Anticipating such an adverse, but legal, ruling, he opted to lead the charge to change the constitution. Later, when the Commerce Clause and other provisions were not enough for all of the alphabet programs of FDR, he considered packing the court. Perhaps he should have, like Lincoln, changed the constitution so that the power to tax was not the main grounds for various social insurance programs.
Discussing these issues where the legitimacy, moral, ethical, efficacy and sustainability arguments are confused along with a common understanding of terms is difficult. Doing it when even the ability to draw out the logical conclusion of an argument loses to rote or literal arguments and quotations makes discussion impossible.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate." (quoting as homage to a great film, Cool Hand Luke)
No one is perfect or always right, especially me (which is why I often refer to dictionaries, encyclopedic volumes, academic and source materials). But lost in these threads is accommodation and opportunity to fully appreciate the ideas of others.