Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-01/friday-news-roundup-domestic
A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine; recipient of the 2012 George Polk Award for Political Reporting; and author of "47 Percent: Uncovering the Romney Video That Rocked the 2012 Election."
Lisa Lerer
White House correspondent for Bloomberg News.
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist and author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Related Items
Friday News Roundup Video
The Supreme Court has taken up briefs challenging the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. Lisa Lerer, White House correspondent for Bloomberg News, said the high court's decision is a big step for the Obama administration, which urged the justices to strike down bans on gay marriage. "The speed in which this has taken place has just really been remarkable," she said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It's being widely reported on media sources that President Obama is deliberately using the "sequester" to cause unnecessary hardship and worry upon the American people in order to push forward the notion that any reductions in federal government spending are intolerable. It is reported that federal agencies under the Presidents direction are making the cuts as reckless as possible for the sole purpose of creating yet another wedge issue to divide the country against the republicans, using the people as pawns in order regain the House in 2014.
The President has made no effort to manage the decreases in projected spending growth through sequestration and is obviously letting it happen in the most public and painful way possible, he, the President is putting Americans at risk through his legislation, the Sequester. The federal budget for this year will still be larger than last year’s ($3.553 trillion in 2013 vs. $3.538 trillion in 2012).
" If the president is deciding how to spend money in order to hurt us, rather than in order to provide us with the services for which we have paid and for which we have hired him, he is doing the opposite of what he has taken an oath to do”
http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Judge-Napolitano-Almost-An-Impe;recentl...
USDA Food Inspection Threatened by U.S. Budget Cuts
Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries.
DHS to release thousands of illegal immigrants, blaming budget cuts
Budget cuts might mean fewer air traffic controllers
First Responders Sound Alarm on Loss of Grant Money
Preschoolers to discover what budget cuts mean
Blame Game Rages On over Looming Sequester
Even with the sequester, the 2013 budget will be larger than last year’s. Is that really doomsday?
By Jonah Goldberg
February 22, 2013
"House leadership is reportedly working on legislation that would force Obama to choose where the $85 billion in cuts should come from. Both the president and Boehner agree that the across-the-board cuts required by the sequester make no sense, given that most agencies can find less painful ways to trim a few pennies out of every dollar.
It’s unlikely that Obama will take such a deal, since he and the Democratic-controlled Senate twice rejected legislation that replaced sequester cuts with more reasonable ones. Obama wants more tax hikes and thinks he can convince the country to accept them if the choice is between what he calls reasonable revenue increases and catastrophic cuts that will let people die in the streets, leave children to go hungry and illiterate, and allow poisoned food to sit rancid on supermarket shelves.
And he’s not crazy for it. This strategy has worked time and time again. If an agency has a billion-dollar budget and someone proposes cutting a dollar from its scheduled increase in funding, that dollar will be the one earmarked for the screw needed to keep a bridge from collapsing on a grade school’s Thanksgiving parade."
You don't need a gun like that
You don't need a semi automatic rifle
You don't need a magazine with more than 10 rounds to hunt
You don't need a semi automatic handgun to protect yourself
You don't need more than one revolver
You don't need more than one bolt action rifle
You don't need to hunt
You don't need a gun that uses those kind of bullets
You don't need a gun to protect yourself
You need to register those guns
We need to take them all away
Bob Woodward reports that President Obama is "moving the goal posts" in asking for more revenue as part of a solution for sequestration and the budget negotiations.
- Mr. Woodward is a great journalist but is not immune to persuasion nor infallible in his research or judgments.
- Since the Financial Cliff situation was only partly averted by getting PART of the revenue needed to meet needs stated by various economists, the President, and the Simpson-Bowles Commission, where were the "goal posts" set to begin with?
- Should we criticize Mr. Woodward's direct usage of the talking points phrase "moving the goal posts" - a direct quote from Republican negotiators?
- Isn't it realistic to still INclude revenue as a means of closing the debt? (e.g. families look for extra income, jobs, etc. when a debt crisis comes along)
- Some say 42 Billion is not a big deal - only 3% - but isn't it the focus of that 3% that is the rub? And isn't it the imprecise method itself that was supposed to be the impetus for solving the sequestration?
Maybe this issue should be called "Equestration"
- that is, a lot of horse leavings mixed with the recent flap over substituting one animal product for another - not so much whether one way (or meat) is superior but whether one plug in the race wins vs the other. Failure goes to the glue factory.
203cc wrote:
"moving the goal posts"
You have a good memory, 203cc, it's just short.
Republicans offered to close loopholes in the "fiscal cliff" negotiation late last year. Obama refused and said he wanted rate increases on the top 2% in exchange for spending cuts. He got that. NOW he wants to close loopholes? Yes, that's moving the goal posts. Woodward is right.
Topic: Republican Scorched Earth Policy.
With the constant bringing of our country to the brink of financial disaster with fiscal cliff, sequestration and repeated budget deadlines, it's become obvious that the Republican-Tea Party (R-TP) is practicing a scorched earth policy against America. The pretext is to put “our financial situation in order”. Yet, when these “scorch-earthers” refuse to listen to financial advice from CBO, almost all economists and even refuse to see what similar policies have done to Greece and Spain, it becomes obvious that their agenda is not putting this country on sound financial footing.
This country lost billions to trillions in lost revenue through geometric increases in unemployment, business bankruptcies, and, in general, people's lost incomes. What would any business do to stay afloat? Decrease losses (cuts) and increase revenues through increase costs for services (taxes to make up for lost revenue). We know who overwhelmingly lost jobs during the Recession, those earning less than $250k. Those with more than $250k were much less likely to incur such dramatic loss on their income and financial security. And these relatively more financially secure citizens are being asked to pay a small percentage increase in their taxes on their income above $250k, which were cut from previous higher rate, to help increase revenues.
So it's sound business practice vs. R-TP scorch-earth policies. Which have successful businesses practiced? Which would dogmatic people do?
Statman- there are tens of millions of conservative voters who do not want the Republicans to give into more taxes, we realize that far from a scorched earth policy they are doing their constituents business. We also understand that this is only A SMALL CUT IN THE RISE OF SPENDING, not a spending cut. If we cannot make small cuts across the noard we will never cut the budget.
The Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act proposed by Rep. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) would raise more than $350 billion over 10 years through a miniscule fee — 0.03 percent — on Wall Street transactions. Both parties should support this fair and easy way to increase revenues by taxing economically useless, and often harmful, speculative activity.
liberty or welfare wrote:
It's being widely reported on media sources
Are these the same media sources that are the reason Romney wasn't getting a fair shake from? The ones that have such a huge liberal bias that we cannot believe?
Can't have it both ways here
liberty or welfare wrote:
Blame Game Rages On over Looming Sequester
Even with the sequester, the 2013 budget will be larger than last year’s. Is that really doomsday?
By Jonah Goldberg
February 22, 2013
"House leadership is reportedly working on legislation that would force Obama to choose where the $85 billion in cuts should come from
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I'm pretty sure that the CONGRESS has to decide where the money goes not the President. Check Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution for verification. Really if Congress (both parties) would step up an do the job they were elected to do, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. We can argue about the details, and that is what Americans do, but Congress needs to pass a budget, Congress needs to make cuts to their pet programs, Congress needs to eliminate earmarks, Congress needs to stop passing the buck and kicking the can.
David Corn has no clue. It is as though in his mind, Government spending takes place in a vacuum. Government spending does not create wealth. Every dollar spent is either taxed or borrowed. If we were in boom times and receipts exceeded expenditures, the spending would be fine - it would be the voter's choice of what they want to do with the surpluses - take it back in the form of reduced taxes or spend it on programs. But, that's not the case now. The FG CANNOT SPEND US BACK TO PROSPERITY.
Great comment. Unfortunately, that bill does not seem to be widely reported in the news. That would be one good way to accomplish getting more much-needed revenue for the federal government while not hurting the average American.
Great comment. Unfortunately, that bill does not seem to be widely reported in the news. That would be one good way to accomplish getting more much-needed revenue for the federal government while not hurting the average American.
How about a resurrection of the ERA Amendment to include all people.
"I am not a Constitutional scholar but I'm pretty sure that the CONGRESS has to decide where the money goes not the President. "
They can cede some of that power to the President, but it would be a mistake. The decision of where to cut should take place at the cabinet level. Department heads should have flexibility to decide where to cut (there's a technical name for this that slips my mind), but EVERY department, Defense included can find 2.2% in cuts. Wasn't Obama the one who was going to roll up his sleeves and go through the budget line by line?!
It's all about the omissions on the D.R. show. Where is the conservative voice? What about Bob Woodward? What about the fact that there are NO cuts, just curtailment in spending growth. What about the exploding federal debt? How about the fact that as the federal government grows the chances of a private sector rebound is more and more less likely?
Wasn't Obama the one who was going to roll up his sleeves and go through the budget line by line?!
Yes, and he should do that, and in all reality so should I so should you, so should everyone, it's our money here. With that said these statements do not absolve the Congress from their primary duties. These are the people who NEED to go through the budget line by line and are not. It is their job to do this
Cabinet level cuts are great as suggestions and outlines for Congress to follow. It gives them an insight into how much can be spent and how much could be cut. It should not be a way for Congress to dodge their responsibility by saying "the President" isn't cutting the budget through the cabinet.
The great Gramm-Rudman oversight was that if sequestration is ever reached the entire Congress would be forced to resign at the end of their current terms and never be allowed to run for public office again. Things may actually have gotten done before it reached this ridiculous point.
The great Gramm-Rudman oversight was that if sequestration is ever reached the entire Congress would be forced to resign at the end of their current terms and never be allowed to run for public office again. Things may actually have gotten done before it reached this ridiculous point.
The great Gramm-Rudman oversight was that if sequestration would ever reached, the entire Congress would be forced to resign at the end of their current terms and never be allowed to run for public office again. Things may actually have gotten done before it reached this ridiculous point.
Chris Christie sold out the future tax payers of New Jersey with an unsustainable medicaid expansion for reelection. He is not a "conservative" he represents the dead end of the republican party.
David Corn: The Republicans don't have anyone in their leadership that can lead them to a more enlightened point of view. Meaning the Democrat view.
Enlightened? Really?
This is the HEIGHT of arrogance and why so many people despise the hard-left.
The private sale of guns is not a loop hole.
If the government wants to open up the NICS system for the public to run anonymous back ground checks to ensure that they do not sell guns to felons I think that would be a great idea. You could even enforce this through ATF sting operations by having them attempt to purchase guns through sites like gunbroker or craigslist from private sellers.
As things stand now, the amount of guns that are recovered in crimes that are obtained through private sales is very small, with most guns being through straw purchases.
Also as long as gun control advocates try to make universal bacground checks actually mean central gun registry, it will get little supportt from pro gun supporters.
If this is the only way cuts can get through congress then maybe the sequester is a good thing. Revenue and cuts are necessary and maybe next time it will be done in a smarter way.
Thank you for opinion, I kindly disagree.
with what?
@Mike Sergeant
The problem is NO ONE wants to make the call. The President is supposed to propose a budget. But he doesn't want to get near it with a 10 foot pole and hasn't for 5 years now.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budget_page1.htm
But here's the thing. The President b-ched about how draconian these minimal 2.2% cuts in SPENDING INCREASE were because it was a meat cleaver aproach, but when offered the chance to change that, he wanted no part of it. He has offered no leadership in this whole process. Asking for tax increases on the wealthy which do nothing but foment class warfare and then standing aside is NOT LEADERSHIP.
To Liberty or welfare. ( interesting name for being pro gun control )
Your opinion on guns. Sorry, I thought it would pull your comment into my response like other forums.
I heard David Corn say on this show that due to gerrymandering (on the republican side, because of course it doesn't happen on the democrat side) there has been a hardening of positions and no compromise, so nothing gets "done".
Why should there be compromise? What needs to "get done"?
Let's translate liberal partisan assertions: No compromise means liberal issues of great import to libs (like VAWA) don't get passed, getting things done means even more important liberal issues like gun safety (yes, he actually said gun safety, instead of gun control, because he is the complete lib, even to using their new BS propaganda terms) which most don't want, because they no longer trust the government.
Nothing needs to get done, it's all BS, just like Corn himself, who has made a nice living for himself carping about liberal BS, just like Rush Limbaugh has about con BS.
We don't give a rat's behind. I'd like to see congress and Obama paid to stay home, we'd all be better off.
David W wrote: "To Liberty or welfare. ( interesting name for being pro gun control )"
Pro gun control? not hardly. That was meant to be instructive and a warning of the path that all total bans take. There is no satisfying the left on any issue, especially guns. We are one vote away in the supreme court for my outline to become reality.