Lawmakers looking to shift blame as huge budget cuts loom
WASHINGTON (AP) - Across-the-board spending cuts all but certain, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are staging a politically charged showdown designed to avoid public blame for any resulting inconvenience or disruption in government services.
The two parties drafted alternative measures to replace the cuts, but officials conceded in advance the rival measures were doomed.
At the White House, President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to discuss the issue with him on Friday - deadline day for averting the cuts, which would slash $85 billion from the military and domestic programs alike.
Democrats controlling the Senate are pushing a $110 billion plan that would block the cuts through the end of the year. They would carve 5 percent from domestic agencies and 8 percent from the Pentagon but would leave several major programs alone, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps, while limiting the cuts to Medicare to a 2 percent reduction to health care providers like doctors and hospitals.
The Democratic plan proposes $27.5 billion in future-year cuts in defense spending, elimination of a program of direct payments to certain farmers, and a minimum tax rate on income exceeding $1 million as the main elements of an alternative to the immediate and bruising automatic cuts, known in Washington-speak as a "sequester."
Republicans were sure to kill the Democratic alternative with a filibuster. They were poised to offer an alternative of their own that would give Obama the authority to propose a rewrite to the 2013 budget to redistribute the cuts. Obama would be unable to cut defense by more than the $43 billion reduction that the Pentagon faces and would be unable to raise taxes to undo the cuts.
The idea is that money could be transferred from lower-priority accounts to accounts funding air traffic control or meat inspection. The White House says such moves would offer only slight relief, but they could take pressure off Congress to address the sequester.
Democrats are sure to vote the GOP measure down. Both the House and the Senate are set to send their members home Thursday afternoon, even as the deadline to avoid the cuts looms the next day. Though bound to fail, the rival votes will allow both sides to claim they tried to address the cuts even as they leave them in place and exit Washington for a long weekend.
Obama on Wednesday summoned top congressional leaders for a White House meeting on Friday. Given longstanding, intractable differences over Obama's insistence that new tax revenues help replace the cuts, the meeting was not expected to produce a breakthrough.
Another topic for Friday's discussion is how to avoid Washington's next crisis, which threatens a government shutdown after March 27, when a six-month spending bill enacted last year expires.
Republicans are planning for a vote next week on a bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the government through the Sept. 30 end of the 2013 fiscal year, while keeping in place the $85 billion in automatic cuts.
The need to keep the government's doors open and lights on - or else suffer the first government shutdown since 1996 - requires the GOP-dominated House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to agree. Right now they hardly see eye to eye.
The House GOP plan, unveiled to the rank and file Wednesday, would award the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department with their line-by-line budgets, for a more-targeted rather than indiscriminate batch of military cuts.
But it would deny domestic agencies the same treatment, which has whipped up opposition from veteran Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee. Domestic agencies would see their budgets frozen, which would mean no money for new initiatives such as cybersecurity or for routine increases for programs such as low-income housing.
"We're not going to do that," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "Of course not."
By freezing budgets for domestic agencies, the Republican plan would also deny additional money to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to build new Coast Guard cutters. GOP initiatives such as more money for the Small Business Administration or fossil fuels research would be hurt as well, but there's little appetite for the alternative, which is to stack more than $1 trillion worth of spending bills together for a single up-or-down vote.
The GOP move to add the line-by-line spending bills for the Pentagon and veterans programs to the catchall spending bill would give the military much-sought increases for force readiness and the VA additional funding for health care.
But that approach has few fans in the White House, which is seeking money to implement Obama's signature efforts to overhaul financial regulation and the nation's health care system, or the Democratic Senate, where veteran members of the Appropriations Committee want to add a stack of bills covering domestic priorities like homeland security, NASA and federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
"You need balance," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We feel as strongly about the domestic side as we do defense."
The two parties drafted alternative measures to replace the cuts, but officials conceded in advance the rival measures were doomed.
At the White House, President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to discuss the issue with him on Friday - deadline day for averting the cuts, which would slash $85 billion from the military and domestic programs alike.
Democrats controlling the Senate are pushing a $110 billion plan that would block the cuts through the end of the year. They would carve 5 percent from domestic agencies and 8 percent from the Pentagon but would leave several major programs alone, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps, while limiting the cuts to Medicare to a 2 percent reduction to health care providers like doctors and hospitals.
The Democratic plan proposes $27.5 billion in future-year cuts in defense spending, elimination of a program of direct payments to certain farmers, and a minimum tax rate on income exceeding $1 million as the main elements of an alternative to the immediate and bruising automatic cuts, known in Washington-speak as a "sequester."
Republicans were sure to kill the Democratic alternative with a filibuster. They were poised to offer an alternative of their own that would give Obama the authority to propose a rewrite to the 2013 budget to redistribute the cuts. Obama would be unable to cut defense by more than the $43 billion reduction that the Pentagon faces and would be unable to raise taxes to undo the cuts.
The idea is that money could be transferred from lower-priority accounts to accounts funding air traffic control or meat inspection. The White House says such moves would offer only slight relief, but they could take pressure off Congress to address the sequester.
Democrats are sure to vote the GOP measure down. Both the House and the Senate are set to send their members home Thursday afternoon, even as the deadline to avoid the cuts looms the next day. Though bound to fail, the rival votes will allow both sides to claim they tried to address the cuts even as they leave them in place and exit Washington for a long weekend.
Obama on Wednesday summoned top congressional leaders for a White House meeting on Friday. Given longstanding, intractable differences over Obama's insistence that new tax revenues help replace the cuts, the meeting was not expected to produce a breakthrough.
Another topic for Friday's discussion is how to avoid Washington's next crisis, which threatens a government shutdown after March 27, when a six-month spending bill enacted last year expires.
Republicans are planning for a vote next week on a bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the government through the Sept. 30 end of the 2013 fiscal year, while keeping in place the $85 billion in automatic cuts.
The need to keep the government's doors open and lights on - or else suffer the first government shutdown since 1996 - requires the GOP-dominated House and the Democratic-controlled Senate to agree. Right now they hardly see eye to eye.
The House GOP plan, unveiled to the rank and file Wednesday, would award the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department with their line-by-line budgets, for a more-targeted rather than indiscriminate batch of military cuts.
But it would deny domestic agencies the same treatment, which has whipped up opposition from veteran Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee. Domestic agencies would see their budgets frozen, which would mean no money for new initiatives such as cybersecurity or for routine increases for programs such as low-income housing.
"We're not going to do that," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "Of course not."
By freezing budgets for domestic agencies, the Republican plan would also deny additional money to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to build new Coast Guard cutters. GOP initiatives such as more money for the Small Business Administration or fossil fuels research would be hurt as well, but there's little appetite for the alternative, which is to stack more than $1 trillion worth of spending bills together for a single up-or-down vote.
The GOP move to add the line-by-line spending bills for the Pentagon and veterans programs to the catchall spending bill would give the military much-sought increases for force readiness and the VA additional funding for health care.
But that approach has few fans in the White House, which is seeking money to implement Obama's signature efforts to overhaul financial regulation and the nation's health care system, or the Democratic Senate, where veteran members of the Appropriations Committee want to add a stack of bills covering domestic priorities like homeland security, NASA and federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI.
"You need balance," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We feel as strongly about the domestic side as we do defense."
"... Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are staging a politically charged showdown designed to avoid public blame for any resulting inconvenience or disruption in government services."  This is 90% of the problem right here!  And we the public are not fooled by any of you, either R or D.  We don't pay you losers to avoid public blame--we pay you to make hard decisions.  Time to quit paying these morons, including benefits, until they do the job we pay them to do!  You or I wouldn't get paid for not doing a job, why should they?
Don't panic, the 84 Billion equates to about 2% of the budget. Good new, why do you think the stock market is going UP. Less government, less spending, less deficient, lets do this again in the fall.
I guess there is no longer a budget problem since Obama released all the illegal alien criminals from jail and John Kerry just promised the Syrian terrorists $60 million to help them kill each other.Â
This is ALL smoke and mirrors people, they are DOING this to divide us. This is OUR money and WE should have a say in it. Â My GOD the 85B is what they BORROW every 28 DAYS! This IS MADNESS! We need a HECK of a lot MORE cuts. Â Time to tighten our belts, this is gonna be a rough ride. Â Remember WHO they work for. The Constitution doesn't limit what WE can/cannot do, it limits what THEY can/cannot do. Â It would be good for us to remember that inconvenient (to them) fact.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)Â claimed today that "over 170 million jobs" could be lost due to sequestration.Â
Interesting because there are only 140 million jobs in America. She is what is "leading" the country. But it's ALL the Republicans fault.
Ok, folks, this, THIS, is what happens when you elect party idealoges into office. Yes, Tea Party fans, I pointing RIGHT AT YOU.
To quote one Tea Party Congress-puke... "I hope the country does go into default. That'll show Obama that we're serious."
Politically, I'm a moderate. I represent the vast majority of Americans who vote for who we think will do the job, not their political party agenda. Ideals are all fine... when your 5 years old. But when you actually have get down to the business of government, your ideals had better take a back seat to your duty to the nation, NOT just your constituency. And I say that to BOTH sides of the aisle... The pseudo-Socialist One-worlders on the left AND the religious zealot tax revolutionaries on the right. BOTH of you have no place in government.
Exactly WHAT GOOD comes from cutting funding for everything across the board? These Tea Party pukes [and their prophet Grover Norquist] say they want to reduce the size of government. They would literally cut every social program out of government, even ones of proven benefit... like Social Security, the Dept. of Veteran Affairs, and student loan programs. And when they're done with that, they'll start on the DoD, cutting troop strength across the board [Norquist said he envisions a Navy 'that doesn't need carriers'].
@svensson If you represent the majority of the people "moderates" than you picked the wrong person for President.
I have alway found that people who say they're "Moderates" are nothing more than Liberals in sheeps clothing.
@Tacobender50 @svensson Taco, I'm a proud Centrist/Moderate. And you, sir, are a typical Right winger, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a liberal. Am I more liberal than you? Perhaps. Am I fan of the Kennedys and Pelosi types? Not on your life.
You should check and make sure your membership in the John Birch Society is up to date.
@Tacobender50 @svensson I voted for Obama as President, McKenna as Governor, Cantwell for Senator, a Republican for Congress [NOT Tea Party, thank you] and split the two for State offices.
Why did I vote for Obama? Simple. I was unwilling to let one of the corporate fund managers who looted our economy into the White House. And, to be honest, I have a problem with Romney's Mormonism. I'm not proud of that, but there it is.
And if *I* voted for an idiot in Obama, kindly explain to me why *you* voted for Dubya? I mean didn't you see Cheney's hand up his butt to make the puppet talk?
@svensson @Tacobender50 Still doesn't explain the reason why you voted for an idiot.
Your Moderate meter swings to the left.
@svensson No such thing as liberals and conservatives any more, they are all socialists. They just believe in diferent forms of socialism. The left wants everything socialized, the right wants to keep war socialized. Both attitudes have driven us to the brink of collapse. Then we left leaning politicians that are really neocons, like Obama. Its time to do away with the fake 2 party system because it really is just one big old grand party now.
@svensson  These Tea Party pukes
So very "moderate." No one says "pukes" except Left Wing ideologues. House Republicans have passed budget after budget only to be ignored by Obama and his democrats in the Senate so they can keep Obama's name off everything and you know it. There has been NO budget from the Senate since Obama took over. Stop lying.
@Goodwin @svensson Exactly where did I lie? Both parties at this point are dug in like they're in foxholes and both deserve my [and your] scorn.
I've been calling Congressmen and -women 'pukes' since AT LEAST Hillbilly Bill Clinton's tenure and I reserve the right to call them 'pukes' now. My politics are in no-wise lefty or righty... they are solidly Centrist/Moderate.
For example, why are Republicans screaming about the Bill of Rights now, when it was Dubya that  prosecuted the single greatest attack on individual liberty in the history of this nation with the so-called 'Patriot Act'?
Why do Democrats decry the Republicans playing 'budget chicken' when they were the ones that started that tactic back in DDE's tenure?
Why do the BOTH parties get all whiny about the bailout when it was Clinton that deregulated the banks and Republican supporters that made billions off it?
Oh, no, Goodwin, there plenty of dung to be tossed about on BOTH parties... and the idiot voters on both sides of the aisle who keep electing idealogues as their Congress-puke AND THEN complain that nothing gets done.
@hologram5 @svensson @Goodwin Holo, I'm not just blaming the Tea Party. I'm blaming the idealogues of both parties.Â
The art of governance is the art of negotiation. One side gives a bit, another side gives a bit and they arrive to a mutually agreed upon middle. The pseudo-Socialist One-Worlder types on the left and the religious zealot tax revolutionaries on the right serve no one in their 'take no prisoners, not one step back' approach. When we the People elect such knuckleheads into office damages good government in two ways: a] it validates their stupid ideas and b] creates the very gridlock we all say we despise.
There are three very good episodes of PBS' 'Frontline' program that do a very good job explaining the nonsense we find ourselves in. Hit pbs.org/frontline and check out 'Inside Obama's Presidency', 'The Untouchables', and 'Cliffhanger'.
@svensson @Goodwin OMG the horror, this "Sequester" is what they BORROW every 28 days. TO say it's ALL the tea party's fault is intellectually DISHONEST since they want to CUT spending.  Gain some bearing there man, MY minor children are 52K in debt and RISING. BOTH parties are the blame and the Tea Party is DOING what we sent them to do. Reign in spending.  Cut something, is that too much to ask? Really?
@Goodwin @svensson  So what if the senate hasn't passed a budget? That doesn't even matter. Our deficit has been shrinking each year since 2009 in real world dollars, as a % of GDP, anyway you measure it. Too bad only 6% of Americans seem to know that our deficit is shrinking. And the funny thing is that our defict is shrinking the fastest since the years after WWII.Â
@the unvarnished truth Spending isn't ever shown on a balance sheet - it is on a P&L (profit & loss) statement.  A balance sheet shows your assets & liabilites
@the unvarnished truth@lakeview Read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/january-surplus-shrinks-2013-us-budget-deficit/
Then read this:Â http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
You can search easily for more information as well if you don't believe Fox News.Â
It's always someone's "problem". Instead of blaming, let's do a little bit of solving. It will probably mean that both sides have to give a little for the common good but isn't that the definition of the word "compromise". I am not sure the people in Washington DC can spell it, much less apply it to everyday, workable solutions. I agree with Freespeech, perhaps if countries want our protection/help they should be required to pay for it. I read this thread and it is so back and forth with neither side seeing the ridiculousness of it: my side is right, no...my side is right. Perhaps you are both wrong. There is obviously a lot of waste in government...on both sides...that needs to be addressed. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Target and excise. How about only paying our representatives for actual time worked. How about making them part of the social security and medicare system so that we are ALL on the same game page. I would imagine that things would be a lot different if they felt the same pain as the rest of the nation in terms of the laws they pass. I don't mind paying more taxes if I make more money...as long as it actually goes to address real problems. After all, "to whom much is given, much will be required". No subsidies to corporations unless they can prove need.
@dentalgirl57Â I think you should be elected - you make more sense than anyone in DC
There needs to be an equal cut in the congressional budget too.
BTW I'm sure the subsidies to big oil companies won't be touched. Lord knows they need their money.
The DoD budget needs to be cut - veteran programs should be exempt from cuts though and some now have medical bills to deal with their stupid proxy wars! The US should be concerning ourselves with protecting our shorelines because seriously you have to cross the Ocean to get us so that means we keep a strong navy, air superiority and honestly look to train each citizen for five years mandatory service so we have a completely trained population if the ground war is necessary! I do not see the over 50% of our GDP being spent on defense alone! If countries want our presence there then have them pay for it not our future generations!
So if I get a 1% increase in my pay instead of a 3% increase, does that mean I have taken a "HUGE" pay-cut?
Yes, if you use the government definition.
@Woodswalker  more than the government use that definition.Â
We hire / vote these politicians basically to spend money. It's to bad there like a water faucet that won't shut off.
All the finger pointing and those doing it forget that when you point at someone three fingers are pointing back at you.
The sequester was Obama's idea, and now that it's finally going to hit he's trying to lie and say it wasn't.Â
It's so bad that the White House is attacking Bob Woodward for reminding everyone that the sequester was Obama's idea!
There is video on youtube of Obama, last year, saying that he would veto any attempt to stop the sequester from going into effect.Â
@NW-EconomistYou're absolutely correct. The sequester came directly out of the White House as an idea to avoid a government shutdown over the debt ceiling in 2011. At the time, nobody could agree to a "grand bargain" of how to do the cuts. So they "kicked the can" and figured that by now Congress would have figured out a deal to do the cuts.
Well, they haven't. And it's hard to blame Obama for that in my opinion. Congress creates legislation and the president can sign or veto that legislation. This more than anything is another example of our dysfunctional Congress. And both sides share blame. Â
Polls show that Americans will blame Congress for sequestration, not the President. And while the sequester idea came directly from the White House in 2011, it is Congress that seems unable to get any deal done. They after all are the "legislative branch."@lakeview @NW-EconomistThe problem is that Congress DID try to fix it but then Obama got on TV and said he'd veto any attempt to fix the sequester. Go look it up on you tube.Â
@lakeview @NW-Economist Don't know who's poll your looking at.
@Mike @lakeview @NW-Economist  45 to 32 latest Pew Research Poll. Look it up for yourself.Â
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth @lakeview  This has nothing to do with a budget. That Fox News talking point is getting pretty old. The American people had an opportunity to vote for the guy who authored those House budgets and they rejected him anyway.Â
@NW-EconomistFrankly I don't care if Obama or someone in his staff came up with the idea.  It was something that was put in place in hopes that congress and the executive branch would see it as a really bad thing and work together to keep it from happening...and they all signed off on it.  So everyone in congress who voted yes for the sequester are equally guilty for anything bad that happens as well equally share in the glory if, for some unforeseen reason, the sequester actually makes things better down the road.Â
@NW-Economist The Washington Post would disagree with you in their opinion piece: "Republicans rewrite history on the sequester."
@Fooey Patooey! @NW-Economist Bob Woodward writes for the Washington Post as well and blames Obama. He was wrong when he claimed that the president has no plan though. Everyone deserves some blame here though.
Its OBAMA fault plan and simple.
@Tacobender50Â Â It's Congresses fault plan and simple.
@Murigen @Tacobender50 Wrong,  Its was Obama's plan and he set up the super committee.
Patty Murray is on that Committee, you would think she would take care of our Military and Civilian DOD workers in the Puget Sound area. Wasn't that her promise when she got re-elected?
At the end of the day its the President who signs the checks. Its his polices and its his Fault!
@Tacobender50 @Murigen  Congress agreed, they are just as much at fault and the President.  Congress...all of them.  Â
This is a show at your expense more smoke and mirrors no mater what happens in the next 5 yrs were all going to be paying 50% tax plus health care +gas tax +road tax + green energy tax+ car tab tax +++++++++. And you are worried about fixing the problem. Your not going to have any money left who's going to fix that problem.
Lack of personal responsibility? They are "...of the people, by the people..."! Too many in this world feel that someone else is responsible for everything in their lives.
I hope they just go home today and let the sequester happen. Its the only way any meaningful cuts will happen to the military. And its a very small cut even at that. Close down at least half of the 1000 bases we have around the world would be a good start.
Instead of fixing the "BLAME", they should just be fixing the problem! Too much spending! Addiction to the Government Coffers is the worst thing any society can have. It may cost a lot of people their jobs, and leave a lot of "Government" managers out of work, and on unemployment support BUT in the long run our Society will be STRONGER!
if you look at the budget increase for 2013,the cuts are barely the same. The spending is still more. Totally sickening.Â
I'm curious where all this conservative ire over spending and deficits was during the administrations of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
@Mikeftm We were not looking at what we are dumping on our kids back then. the numbers are way different now, it has nothing to do with who' doing it.
@MikeftmOh see then it wasn't bad to over spend, to increase the deficits and debt.  See then the trickle down theory sounded like it should work.  I mean really whoda thunk that all those tax breaks wouldn't be reinvested in new businesses, new jobs, new infrastructure.   Bush the first did, before he was offered the VP position.Â
@Mikeftm Pointing to one wrong to justify another ? Or are you saying it is a Socialist Democrat over spending it is alright.Â
@Maynard G Krebbs  Neither, actually. Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP. Seems they're perfectly okay with out of control spending and runaway deficits as long as there's an R in the Oval Orifice.
I completely agree with your point..
However...please note CONGRESSMAN Obama's thoughts on deficit spending while GWB was in the Oval Office. It is a symmetrical hyprocrisy.
@Mikeftm @Maynard G Krebbs The same hypocrisy is in the Democrats also. As you so believe. it is alright for Obama,and just blame Bush saying he did the same .