I'm Going With The Guppy

Matt Drudge has a classic headline: 

WASH POST Guppy Says Legend Is WRONG...

And the link is to a Wonkblog column by Ezra Klein disputing a claim made by Bob Woodward.

The topic is the origin of the sequester idea currently vexing Washington; the specific point of dispute is this claim by Woodward:

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

And Klein's rebuttal is pretty straightforward:

I don’t agree with my colleague Bob Woodward, who says the Obama administration is “moving the goalposts” when they insist on a sequester replacement that includes revenues. I remember talking to both members of the Obama administration and the Republican leadership in 2011, and everyone was perfectly clear that Democrats were going to pursue tax increases in any sequester replacement, and Republicans were going to oppose tax increases in any sequester replacement. What no one knew was who would win.

“Moving the goal posts” isn’t a concept that actually makes any sense in the context of replacing the sequester. The whole point of the policy was to buy time until someone, somehow, moved the goalposts such that the sequester could be replaced.

I think that is right. The sequester was meant to be a grim alternative to continued negotiations. To hold the attention of both parties it was designed to include components unappealing to both parties. At one point, the Democratic proposal was that Republcians would agree to automatic tax increases if the negotiations to replecae the sequester failed; Republicans hated that too much (and the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts was still in the future as of July 2011, which assured that taxes woiuld be re-negotiated), so Democrats agreeed that the Republican repellent would be automatic cuts in defense spending.

The NY Times provides their history of the sequester. They admit it was a Democratic idea but also provide a link to Obama's announcement of the deal, in which it is perfectly obvious that everything would be on the table as yet another newly formed committee pondered the alternatives.

Here is their description of how we arrived at the sequester:

So both parties started negotiating for a trigger, as they called it — an undesirable, automatic action that would slash deficits if Democrats and Republicans could not. Mr. Obama and Democrats wanted a trigger mandating automatic spending cuts and tax increases; Republicans insisted on spending cuts only.

Democrats conceded, and that is when Mr. Lew — along with Gene Sperling, director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council — proposed the Gramm-Rudman sequestration. Given that law’s Republican parentage, the Obama advisers figured this kind of trigger would appeal to Republicans, and it did.

One might say that the Republican insistence that the sequester only include spending cuts was a continuation of their view which had led to the stalemate, and that by agreeing to cuts only, Obama was accepting their view. I suppose Woodward is taking that line in saying that Obama is now moving the goalposts. The guppy claims, I say correctly, that the proper football metaphor is "punt".

Here is Bill Kristol describing the deal back in 2011 (my emphasis):

Whatever one’s ultimate judgment on the deal, it establishes a terrible precedent in treating defense as a pot of money to be slashed if various spending-control mechanisms don't work. It will thereby make it more difficult to have a serious discussion of the military spending that’s required for our national security needs. I assume the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 will run on a platform of re-doing this deal when he's in office to improve it considerably.

I infer that Kristol did not consider the goalposts to be set in stone.

As to the merits of the two positions, well, Obama got his tax increases to start the new year.

ERRATA: We were certain that the sequester was a Democratic idea a few days ago when we read this history of the sequester from Krugman:

There’s a silly debate under way about who bears responsibility for the sequester, which almost everyone now agrees was a really bad idea. The truth is that Republicans and Democrats alike signed on to this idea. But that’s water under the bridge. The question we should be asking is who has a better plan for dealing with the aftermath of that shared mistake.

We've all passed a lot of water since then.

Comments

[MarkO]

Apparently, in one construction or another, the entire Progressive movement has adopted the slogan, "What difference does it make?"

[daddy]

From Amity Shlaes new Calvin Coolidge Bio:

Page 110. Calvin to his dad:

"It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones."

[narciso]

Here we go,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_bating_game_obama_doubles_down.html

[matt]

I just going to throw this out there but what the hell is so sacrosanct with the Defense budget?

DoD is bleating the same BS that every other Department is bleating, and yet is one of the most incredibly wasteful bureaucracies in the world.

They can't seem to build an air defense tank (Sgt York/1980's) or a LCS or a fighter plane these days without huge screwups and cost overruns by 100-200%.

The Pentagon is more dense than the Byzantine bureaucracy, and interservice rivalries get in the way of sensible decision making every day.

So what's to cutting the budget by 10%? I am as pro- defense as anyone, but we still will not recognize that our government has become one of the most highly inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies in the world, creating layer after layer of new and unnecessary management like a coral reef.

It is the Great Barrier Reef of government.

[MarkO]

Of course, even a moderately competent administrator could make due with less. Anyone can run an enterprise with infinite resources.

[Jack is Back]

Doesn't all this mean that Obama was for the sequester before he was against it?

Now where have I heard this before?

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

I agree Matt, altho I know a lot less about it, than you.

My choice is to cut 100% of DC.

[peter]

Thank you Narciso. My brain is still on vacation, and when I checked the American Thinker, the piece by our very own Clarice was not up yet. It did not compute very well with me, but apparently AT is having some glitches.

[narciso]

Yes the F-35, is overpriced, and don't get me started on the paper boat, that is the LCS,

[matt]

I'll have you know, JiB, that El Presidente Maximo Double Plus is an excellent marksman, is against gay marriage, and would never repeal Don't ask, Don't tell. He said so so it has to be true.

[Jack is Back]

Anyone else following the Italian elections?

Italy is about to do its version of Al Franken but in much more expotential way - like electing a comedian as its PM.

Google Beppe Grillo for the LOL details. But in the end it will be sad, demoralizing and solve nothing jut putting Italy one more meter into the grave.

[narciso]

Bewildering, JiB, as are some of the reactions;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/beppe-grillo-italian-elections

I tried a whole host of crossreferencing to find the column,

[Old Lurker]

Matt you are so right. And like you I am a hawk. Seems to me we could still have the best equipped, best trained, most advanced (DARPA) military on earth and not have to have it large enough to replace the defense budgets of the entire Western World. Dial it back big time then freeze it.

Then do the same with ALL transfer payments on the Fed, State, Local budgets, means test every one of them, right size all admin layers for the reduced missions, develop a one size fits all pension plan for ALL public servants, and...problem solved.

[narciso]

So Clarice's discovery of Dowager empress, who appears in Diana Preston's account of the Boxer Rebellion, and the stone fleet, seem to be the model.

[Chubby]

what a terrible insult to guppies.

[Threadkiller]

FNS is not on in San Diego. The local Fox station is playing an infommercial.

Watching Jindal on Meet The Press.

[narciso]

Here is the piece on Lincoln, I guess it's no surprise coming from Kushner, who had Roy Cohn
fingered as a bete noire, because of his politics

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/oscar_watch_lincolns_opening_should_have_been_its_end.html

I know it's typical, that they embellish the truth with these films, Fiennes Count Al Masy in the English Patient, Crowe's Russell Nash,

[Captain Hate]

what a terrible insult to guppies.

I agree; the power went out in my neighbor's house when I was watching it while he was on vacation and his guppies died. I assure you I felt a lot worse about that than if Ezra froze to death.

[Captain Hate]

FNS is better than average today, TK.

[narciso]

Well he rarely dissapoints, by that I mean always;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/john-kerry-plugs-argo_703183.html

[Chubby]

has Ezra Klein ever been intellectually honest enough to disagree with his party's line, and to agree with a rightie?

[Captain Hate]

A Facebook friend of mine is slattering Argo. He liked my comment that the only way I'd watch the Oscars would be if I got an accurate heads up that used kitty litter would rain down on the attenders.

[Threadkiller]

I just looked at the program guide for the local Fox station. They played FNS at 6:00am instead of at 8:00am.

Daytona starts at 9:00am.

My guess is they bumped it so our local hillbilly crowd didn't get a glimpse of it, should they have tuned in early for the race.

Weird.

[Chubby]

the link to the article about "Lincoln" that narciso linked to above says that it is lefty propaganda from beginning to end. Not in those exact words, but that is the basic gist of the article.

[Rick Ballard]

CH,

I'm amazed you're not all a tremble in anticipation of discovering which brand of progfodder gets the little statue. Must be a malfunction in your GASmeter.

I know I'll be rereading the last of my Guareschi books this evening in anticipation of selecting the next author to reread. Otherwise I'd be glued to the screen.

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

If you want to see delusion at its grandest watch the Chris Matthews show. The current topic: Will the president give in on sequestration because he cares so much about the country's defense?

I kid you not.

Oh and it's all the horrid tea party's fault - which should be motivation alone for every person to join a tea party.

[daddy]

Have to break it in half again in order to post arghhhh!

Since so many here are reading the new Amity Shlaes Bio on Calvin Coolidge, thought I might comment since I am at page 113.

I am glad she wrote it, and that I am reading it, but, we all bring our personal biases to these things and I think mine would be from a few things:

1) I am spoiled. My last 3 History reads (not including internet) have been Lincoln/Grant stuff:

"Team of Rivals", Grant's "Memoirs", and Catton's "Grant Takes Command".

Even if full of plagiarism, they are all decently to excellently written, interesting and informative, and of a similar, easily understandable time period, with easily delineated challenges and topics to deal with. In my view all 3 of those are way more entertaining, understandable, and readable than Shlaes. So far her's does not flow anywhere near those in readability.

2) I know much less about Coolidge's Time Period and the players so perhaps the fault is in me:

But I keep finding that I have to go back and reread certain paragraphs of hers over and over to try to decipher her meaning. I find various topics poorly explained and then Coolidge's opinions on them poorly explained, so that I have to try to google for enlightenment as to exactly what the topic was that was in question and what exactly Coolidge's position was about the darn topic.

[daddy]

Continued:

Mildy frustrating that Shlaes keeps calling his father John, so that when she says Calvin writes a letter to his dad she will say something like, "He wrote to John..", or "John did such and such", and you are scratching your head trying to figure out who John was, whereas if she simply said "He wrote to his father" or "his father did such and such" and referred to him as his father, you would do a lot less head-scratching and the narrative would flow. (Plus Calvin's own 1st name was John) . She's also relatively lousy in keeping you informed on what year it is. What year he was born or went to college or graduated or got married,...beats me. It's in there somewhere, but like needles in hay-stakes and I'm less than exuberant than I once was to hunt for needles in haystacks.

Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there for anyone else reading it to state their opinions. I am happy to be contradicted, as I know I don't know much of the particulars of that age, but I do feel, even by page 110, that I need to be reading more than simply this book for a decent understanding of the era.

[narciso]

Guareschi, interesting Rick, I didn't know him, does anybody really watch Matthews except Newbuster and Hoft, to fisk him.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

I mistakenly thought we already had the tax portion of this debate and concluded it with a bill that the Dems in congress passed and the clown in the WH signed.

I guess this is the "two for me and one for you" method of counting money the Dems love so much.
It usually ends up getting somebody shot in the real world; I still hold out hope it might in DC as well.

[Captain Hate]

If you want to see delusion at its grandest watch the Chris Matthews show. The current topic: Will the president give in on sequestration because he cares so much about the country's defense?

I kid you not.

Mrs H puts that on the tv on Saturday mornings so she doesn't miss the dunces on the Today show. Watching Tweety amidst those fawning quislings gets me in a good aggressive mood to go play basketball.

[narciso]

There is something to that, daddy, perhaps she relies so much on letters of the period, aother artefacts from the archives, one doesn't get
a real feel for the period,

[DrJ]

daddy,

FWIW I thought much the same about Shaes' "The Forgotten Man." I found it very unsatisfying, and sought a better suggestion for the basic economics from jimmyk. He didn't have a good one that wasn't heavy-duty economics though. Shame.

[narciso]

It comes off a little dry, in part because she is trying to show Coolidge's evolution from eager progressive to the more free marketer that he became,

[Old Lurker]

Kid you not. Last summer one of my DC pals who has a place on Nantucket wanted to know if I would be interested in participating in a group charter of a plane each Friday and Monday between DC and Nantucket. With him, Matthews, and Gregory he thought they only needed two more DC couples to make a go of it. I muttered something about I would rather walk.

[narciso]

Even before I knew Kushner was the screenwriter,
there was a wretehed feel to the production, as if it was DeadWood East;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341242/ilincolni-s-lost-opportunities-mark-joseph

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

--With him, Matthews, and Gregory he thought they only needed two more DC couples to make a go of it. I muttered something about I would rather walk.

Posted by: Old Lurker | February 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM--

You know I think the world of you OL, but you wouldn't consider inquiring whether the deal's still available, would you?
Shouldn't be hard getting some exploding underpants aboard a charter.
Take one for the team and all that. :)

[Janet]

I muttered something about I would rather walk.

Hah!

[Old Lurker]

Would almost be worth it I agree Iggy.

[daddy]

Slightly OT:

My co-pilot noted today that todays Sunday Times Of India has some excellent marriage opportunities for our single's, so I thought I'd list a few to show how right he is:

1) WELL REPUTED, Punjabi (Arora) family invites matrimonial alliance for their 27 year old son. 5'8'' tall, MBA, Marketing, working in Aviation industry, Delhi, is looking for a well qualified, beautiful, cultured Punjabi girl from respectable family. Details as req...

2) A Delhi based Bureaucratic/Academic family seeks alliance for their tall, pretty, modern, well educated daughter (SPV,BITS, & MS from Ivey League, USA),28. 163. Currently setting up her own business. Looking for a highly educated, well settled boy from a good family. Reply with...

There a a few others, but essentially you simply have to be gorgeous and handsome, healthy and intelligent, which sounds to me like pretty much everybody who posts here, so if you're interested just say "Hey" and I'll play the middle man.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

Yeah, but you also have to be from a good family (the old casteing couch don't you know) which sounds like it leaves at least half of us out, daddy.

[narciso]

Heck of job, whoever it was who had this portfolio;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/24/Report-Obama-s-Secret-North-Korea-Talks-Failed-Hagel-Approach-Ineffective

[Jack is Back]

daddy,

Two summers ago we were staying with friends in Vermont near Woodstock and one day we drove to Plymouth Notch and did a walking tour. The guy was just a plain, ordinary guy with a common sense dedication to frugality in words and deeds. The "notch" is just a collection of a few white shingled buildings, a barn and the historical center. Not much to see but full of history.

A highlight of that visit besides all he historical significance was a visit to the Plymouth Cheese Company and watch them make their product. They make a fine chedder that you can order online. We ate that for a month afterwards.

[rse]

Gregory is very vain about his height.

And it would be great eavesdropping.

So what do those guys think is an appropriate charter?

I was doing a coke bottling deal in middle of nowhere Michigan years ago and the coke execs flew 1st while complaining the G3 was not available.

[AliceH]

--casteing couch--

LOL, Ignatz!

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

--Gregory is very vain about his height.--

He didn't build that.

[Old Lurker]

I told the story before about flying back to DC in the seat next to Gregory. I pretended to have no idea who he was and it drove him nuts.

[Jack is Back]

Gregory is very vain about his height.

Why? Because it makes him the biggest prick among his ilk?

[Clarice]

OL, you're handsome and smart but very wicked.

Yeah, the Dowager Empress and her use of the naval budget seems a fitting metaphor, narciso.

[matt]

You just don't understand OL and rse! It's hell! Hell I tell you to fly first or, God forbid, coach, if one is a member of the oligarchy.

One must always dine in the private dining rooms in the back and use the VIP lounge when clubbing or one might find oneself face to face with one of those dirty plebes who don't believe what one does.

One might just find oneself faced with the decision to demand the 2 liter bottle of pop when ordering one's Margherita pizza in Manhattan if one must hole up in one's condo at the Dakota because of the lack of proper conveyance to the Hamptons or the Vineyard.

[Old Lurker]

"OL, you're handsome and smart"

OK, I will pick up the tab on our next dinner Clarice.

[narciso]

I can just imagine, OL, since it is his status, that he lords over all,

So, Zombie Motors is not at all well, I couldn't have imagined

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

Would almost be worth it I agree Iggy.

I think you should do it. Surely they will brag about their insider knowledge which you can email to Clarice and she can write about in Pieces. Send me the personal stuff so I can Alinsky them. No one will ever know.

[Clarice]

It's a deal, OL.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

--I think you should do it.--

Jeez I was just joking Jane.
You do realize I was proposing they, including OL, die in a fireball at 35,000 feet, right?

[jimmyk]

Do they know your politics, OL? If not, I'm sure you could lead them into all sorts of embarrassing Ezra Klein-like embarrassing statements. Wear a wire.

[Clarice]

I agree DoD could cut its diversity and enviro and other extraneous programs without any harm to us, but you know that shmuck Obama wants to threaten maximum injury..so it''ll be something like making Marines in war zones turn in their ammo.

[Janet]

Here's a good post at DiploMad - The Hammering Yammering of The Buffoon Elites

"It is getting harder and harder to write anything worthwhile about the domestic and international political scenes. Everywhere one looks, one sees mountebanks, liars, fools, evil doers, and just plain dopes at work--and all aided by a grotesquely incompetent, lazy, and leftist mass media."

[Janet]

..so it''ll be something like making Marines in war zones turn in their ammo.

Exactly right, Clarice. No ammo...but they'll still hire a guy to lead chants about the Pilgrims being illegal aliens...& throw a trangender appreciation day fiesta. :(

[Laura]

Clarice the diversity and enviro programs are a feature and keeping them ensures maximum harm to our readiness. Why would he give them up?

[boatbuilder]

Those Republican bastards crossed up Obama by agreeing to the sequester he proposed--so it's their fault?
In truth their is no "fault" for the sequester; Obama's problem is that he has exhausted the political utility of the sequester as a club to beat the Republicans, because he already got the tax increases that he insisted they were being obstructionist about and now he's stuck. Especially because he proposed it in the first place. Payback's a bitch.

[Captain Hate]

Although I regularly blast Boehner, I think he played the JEF pretty well in setting him up for this sequester stuff while not completely giving away the farm on the earlier tax deal. That these aren't real cuts is another matter for another discussion...

[Jane - Mock the Media!]

You do realize I was proposing they, including OL, die in a fireball at 35,000 feet, right?

Nah, I was responding to something else.

[Chubby]

((It comes off a little dry, in part because she is trying to show Coolidge's evolution from eager progressive to the more free marketer that he became,...))

maybe the object lesson here is that the reaction to Shlaes book is similar to how LIV voters feel about tax cut and free market rhetoric ... dry and perhaps incomprehensible

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

This intolerable, draconian sequester will take us nowhere near the sainted Clinton's spending of around 18% of GDP so how can anyone take these criminals seriously?
It's like living for fifty years at one level until your wife decides she's going to go to Tiffany's every year and spend an extra 50 grand on jewelry.
Suggesting she cut it back to forty grand is somehow seen as the madness of a pinch-penny lunatic, so of course the thought of going back to normal is never even broached.

[Chubby]

((Although I regularly blast Boehner, I think he played the JEF pretty well ...))

I'm reserving judgment because it ain't over till it's over, and I still wouldn't put it past the pubbies to be out-manipulated and cave ...

[Old Lurker]

Iggy, JiB on the other thread posted a link to Candy Crawley interviewing Ray LaHood. Deep in the interview she mentions that "Domestic flights are down 27% from pre 9/11 levels but the FHA budget is up 41%". In another part she notes that the budget after the sequester is still inflation adjusted at 2008 levels ($500M higher before cpi adjustement).

So flight will be delayed why?

That pretty much sums it up, does it not?

[Extraneus]

I'm with daddy and DrJ on Shlaes. I thought the same thing while reading The Forgotten Man, and complained about it here. Good topic, nice facts, but not a very good writer. I kept finding myself going back a few pages to figure out what she was talking about. Think I'll skip the Coolidge book.

[Extraneus]

But, like Jack Cashill says, it takes a lot of practice, continual writing over a period of years, for even a talented writer to be able to come up with something as good as Dreams From My Father.

[narciso]

Well Sobel's bio from a decade ago, probably is a decent sort, as one of the Amazon reviews point out, W.A. White, and Schlesinger, really did a number oo him,

[maryrose]

OL; I listened to the interview and LaHood came off like a moron with his repetition of talking points. How did he get so twisted in just 4 years. Its the Obama curse. Once normal people become raving lunatiics
As to the sequester, Obama owns it lock stock and barrel. And yes payback is sweet, because now according to Woodward he is a liar and a thief.

[narciso]

I'm reminded of that line from the late Robert Jordan in 'Clear and Present Danger' when he says, when 'I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollypops,'

[zf]

"I just going to throw this out there but what the hell is so sacrosanct with the Defense budget?"

It's not so much that it's "sacrosanct," it's the timing and the unbalanced nature of how the cuts are going to be done. Why does defense get the bulk of the cuts when so many other areas of spending are eating up much more of the deficient and are much less necessary? Hell, we should get rid of half the EPA and drop the Department of Education before we touch defense.

"DoD is bleating the same BS that every other Department is bleating, and yet is one of the most incredibly wasteful bureaucracies in the world."

Oh, c'mon, one of the most wasteful? The fact is, compared to the other departments it's one of the more efficient. The reason people think like you is because most of the media are anti-military, so waste and fraud at the DoD gets the most press and therefore people get the impression it's the most wasteful.

As for what the DoD is "bleating", they have a point. Defense spending has dropped significantly and has led to all sorts of crippling problems on our ability to defend. And this is while the rest of the world is getting more dangerous.

Also, one of the reasons that waste happens is because of the unbalanced way the government handles the Pentagon budget as opposed to everything else.

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/04/defense-that-does-not-add-up

"They can't seem to build an air defense tank (Sgt York/1980's) or a LCS or a fighter plane these days without huge screwups and cost overruns by 100-200%."

Again, you're focusing on stuff that the media has put a focus on, the Armed Forces builds and makes things all the time that don't have "screwups" and massive overruns. Also, many of the supposed screwups and overruns aren't that bad.

"The Pentagon is more dense than the Byzantine bureaucracy, and interservice rivalries get in the way of sensible decision making every day."

It's not any more dense that any other government agencies, and the so-called rivalries are overblown and also can be helpful. Would we rather all armed branches just go allow with each other and not put forth alternatives that might be better?

I'm all for cutting waste in the DoD, but let's make targeted cuts, not wild overarching 10% cuts when the military is already being squeezed and while we are facing growing threats. Other countries like China are massively building up their military forces and they could care less about how waste and bureaucracy goes along with it.

[zf]

"Yes the F-35, is overpriced,"

No, it's not. It's vital and has the potential to save tons of money down the line.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/22/f-35-slowing-down-production-makes-no-sense/

"and don't get me started on the paper boat, that is the LCS,"

Oh, I don't know, the LCS has some interesting possibilities and some innovative features.

[zf]

"Matt you are so right. And like you I am a hawk. Seems to me we could still have the best equipped, best trained, most advanced (DARPA) military on earth and not have to have it large enough to replace the defense budgets of the entire Western World.

First off, it is the largest, but it's not large enough to replace the defense budgets of "the entire Western World." Second, the reason it's the largest is because the rest of the world is either unwilling or unable to commit to defense and are also not as big a target as the US. The common cliche about how our defense budget is too big because of how it compares to other countries totally lacks perspective. As one article put it:

"...U.S. defense budget “is about 43 percent of the world’s total military spending—more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations.” To put this argument in perspective, Americans spend 14 times more money on charitable giving ($307 billion in 2008) than the Italians, seven times more than the Germans, and three-and-a-half more times than the French. Does this mean that Americans should discontinue their generosity because it far outweighs similar spending in other nations? Also, Americans spent approximately $48.3 billion on pet care in 2011. This figure is higher than the individual defense expenditures of France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Australia, and Israel.

In the end, the U.S. defense spending should be based on what is needed to defend Americans and not on arbitrary comparisons to other countries."

"Dial it back big time then freeze it."

With all due respect, that would be insane and ignorant.

[zf]

"One might say that the Republican insistence that the sequester only include spending cuts was a continuation of their view which had led to the stalemate, and that by agreeing to cuts only, Obama was accepting their view."

That's BS. The stalemate to begin with was Obama's fault, because he refused to do any cutting despite the GOP agreeing to raise taxes. So the GOP caved, our taxes got raised, no spending was cut, and now Obama is fighting even the minor cuts that would come from sequestration!

And in point of fact, Sequestration does not in the end reduce government spending, it only slows its rate of growth very modestly. Which is why Obama proposed it in the first place, because he knew in the end it wouldn't stop his tax and spend agenda in the least, although he could get some good optics from it by pretending to fight it and it's supposedly evil effects on the country.

Obama hasn't accepted the Republican viewpoint in any way, shape or form, so don't give me that crap.

[Chubby]

it is my understanding that the sequester cuts don't even apply to the base budgets, only to proposed increases.

[Captain Hate]

I'd like to know what we have to do to get actual cuts in federal spending, which is unsustainable at it's current level and with less large increases. Probably have a removal of everybody in office who's gotten too comfortable with this situation.

[zf]

You're missing the point when you defend the Guppy. You're defense is full of irrelevant info. None of which actually disputes the fact that sequestration was Obama's idea, by the way.

It's irrelevant whether the GOP, Kristol or anyone else thought the sequestration was set in stone. It's also irrelevant what the NYT says because it's the NYT.

It's irrelevant as to why the GOP and DNC signed on to Obama's sequestration idea. BTW, I don't think it's "grim" to the Democrats at all.

What is relevant is whether Obama said that it was set in stone. If he did, that means now he is indeed moving the goalposts. And from his comments, up to now of course, Obama did say it was set in stone. He even threatened to veto any effort to stop the sequester.

Also, sequestration can't be a "punt" because it was part of the fiscal deal that WAS MADE, not a condition on a deal to be made later. And now Obama is trying to renege on that deal.

[zf]

"which almost everyone now agrees was a really bad idea."

Yeah, if almost everyone = me and my fellow elites.

[zf]

"maybe the object lesson here is that the reaction to Shlaes book is similar to how LIV voters feel about tax cut and free market rhetoric ... dry and perhaps incomprehensible"

Well, it's not "rhetoric" it's fact. What I don't get is what is so exciting about dogmatic Marxist rhetoric? And if you want incomprehensible, try Keynesian economics. If LIV's don't find the freedom, opportunity and dynamism of the free market exciting, something is very wrong with them.

Also, can we stay on topic here? It's hard to follow conversations when people are talking about 500 different things at once, not to mention it's making it very cluttered and confusing. Don't they have open threads on here for those who want to talk about random things?

[zf]

"it is my understanding that the sequester cuts don't even apply to the base budgets, only to proposed increases."

You are 100% correct, sir. That's Obama's idea of a "cut" to government spending.

[AliceH]

--Don't they have open threads on here for those who want to talk about random things?--

No.

[narciso]

Some threads tend to stay more on topic, but rarely.

[daveinboca]

Does mini-guppy still run that mini-DNC talking point crib sheet called the JournoList?

[daveinboca]

P.S. For this mini-guppy to call a Great White like Woodward 'my colleague' is the skyscraper of presumption.

[Chubby]

((P.S. For this mini-guppy to call a Great White like Woodward 'my colleague' is the skyscraper of presumption. ))

totally, totally agree

[Neo]

Obama goal right now is to get the sequester a bad name so it can’t go on.
If it turns out to produce no pain, the public will want more of it.

[jimmyk]

If it turns out to produce no pain, the public will want more of it.

The MSM will find pain whether it's there or not. Sob stories of laid-off workers who can't pay their rent, yada, yada. Of course there are never any sob stories from tax increases, because those are not so obvious. Who knows why some schlub gets laid-off because higher taxes cost his employer a lot of business? Or some guy who can't find a job because the entrepreneur who would have hired him decides against trying to start his business?

[squaredance]

No, Obama's goal is to demonize the GOP so that the Democrats get the House and hold the Senate in the 2014. The so called "cuts" are minimal, and in fact in the main are only "cuts" in increases in spending in the first place, and the "revenues" he wishes to raise, or at least can raise, will not cover the spending anyway. They will increase spending no matter what. They do not even give us a budget, for crying out loud. As an objective, rational matter, Obama has not a argument at all, But that is not the point. Just as the last 4 years was about one thing: re-election, all now is aimed at taking back the House so that this communist coup can be made complete and final.

Right now it is a good bet that he will succeed.

The level of blatant and obvious lies are ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the gullibility of the American "public". Yes, he is most certainly moving the goal posts. Klein is engaging in the most bald sort of sophistry. It is just a preposterous argument, and can be easily debunked.

Whatever one imagines is the "intent" of the actors, the fact remains it was signed into law, and done so as a sequester, which by definition exists to limit the federal budget. Parsing "intent" or arguing about where it "originated" are rather beside the point as it was (and is) clear as crystal what the fact of the sequester was (and is) about. To hold otherwise is to say that they were all just lying and now we should lust ignore the law. But irrespective of that unavoidable legal and procedural fact, there is the obvious rational background: Yes, Obama clearly indicated it was "written in stone". If not, why bother to do it in the first place? Moreover, it is absurd to claim that it was not a trade off between cuts and taxes--what are we to imagine it is all about: taxes now and taxes later too? No trade off on spending?

Klein is saying because there was an understanding, this does not meann that there actually was is an understanding, and, more to the point, the Democrats are not obliged to keep their word at all because they had their fingers crossed. He is just begging the question. Ii is completely dishonest. It is casuistry, and of the most sophomoric sort, but no doubt he will get away with it.

The Democrats are liars and completely dishonorable, pure and simple. They never keep their word.

(and no, there will never be rational "cuts" in the DoD under a Democrat administration. They mean the end of the USA, and in particular its power. Opening that can of worms by way of the notion that "rational cuts could be made" is as foolish as could be.)

A prediction: Obama will get more taxes, very few cuts will be made outside of the DoD. whatever happens the GOP will be pilloried, and they will lose the House in the next election.

The GOP (and some at JOM) will be scratching their heads at the whole lying absurdity of it all, and whine about it, and the American people will be completely clueless about what is going on, who they have been lied to and how they have been manipulated.

With the House and the SCOTUS in tow, America will head twoards her doom.

[Chubby]

the only way to counteract lies and dissembling is to tell the truth about both the lies and the liars, over and over again. if the Republicans are failing to counteract lefty lies, it means they are not being truthful enough.