King Sid the Great 87 wrote: tifosi77 wrote:
King Sid the Great 87 wrote:Or he could have attempted to lead and convened both sides to attempt to find a reasonable solution prior to March 1 rather than continuing his perpetual campaign and spreading fear about how bad things were going to be from a 2% cut.
1) "He could have attempted to lead"........ who, I wonder, from the GOP would follow?
2) It's a 2% cut in aggregate, but it's wildly disproportionate. For example, the defense cuts are actually on the order of 7%. If it were just 2% across the board, I doubt many would even notice.
The GOP is the side that made concessions from their original hard-lined position. They conceded on additional revenues over New Year's. In any good faithed negotiation, the next obvious step is for the other side to move towards the middle, not to demand more. The demand for more comes from Obama every time he speaks on the subject.
As far as the cuts, I work in defense, specifically for the prime on the F-35. If the rest of the defense world operates as Lockheed, trust me, 7% can be found easily. If it is as unbearable as some want to make it out to be, it's time for the Democrats to move on their position. Of course, when the head of the party is insistent that we don't have a spending problem, I guess you could suggest I **** in one hand and wish in the other.
And Obama conceded on a campaign promise to raise taxes on the top 2% (singles earning over $200k, couples over $250k), instead raising marginal rates on singles over $400k and couples over $450k. And in terms of spending cuts or entitlement reform, it came out from the dinner last week that none of the GOPers in attendance were even aware that Obama has consistently been in favor of things like chained CPI - which is essentially a cut in Social Security benefits - despite the support being publicly viewable at whitehouse.gov
. (Not that I think Senators and Representatives should spend their days trolling the President's website. The point is that this policy support
is not a secret, and when some of those dinner guests were told that the President supported chained CPI, they scoffed as if the reporter telling them was making it up.) That's the most recent proposal to Boehner. The proposal is roughly 2:1 spending cuts-to-taxes. So if the GOP leaders don't even know the President's actual negotiating position.................. well, it seriously undercuts their credibility is I guess how I'll say it. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
I don't doubt that finding 7% should be easy. I'm on record here saying that if you spent six months fine-tooth-combing the whole federal budget and targeting specific programs for waste and bloat you could probably make an across the board immediate reduction in double digit percentages, and in Defense in particular you could probably double that amount. Extend that combing period to a year and I don't doubt that you could cut the budget near as in half. But that's not what the sequester is doing; it's driving a staple with a sledge hammer.
Besides, no one has any interest in doing that. Boehner makes a lot of noise about "spending problem gar!!!" and then goes on to the House floor and votes for the $3 billion alternative engine from GE for your F-35.... that the Pentagon did not even want!
I wouldn't go on to me about working for Lockheed....... I'm liable to say something mean.