Now both sides are doing the traditional Washington dance of scrambling to blame the other for the disaster.

I think it will save a lot of time if I just blame everyone.

As of Tuesday’s press briefing, the President’s sacrificial lamb to use to avoid the sequester cuts is the “chained cpi”:

Here’s the exchange:

Q Yesterday he talked about budget cuts. What are those cuts that he is proposing?
MR. CARNEY: Well, you can go to whitehouse.gov and look at the President’s budget, look at his submission to the sequester and look at all the reporting — ample reporting done and information that we provided on the offer that the President made to the Speaker of the House in December that in great detail put forward the spending cuts that the President supported and put forward, as well as the savings from entitlement reforms — significant savings from entitlement reforms.
Here’s to me a fundamental aspect of this — like if we all agree that in Washington, Republicans, if they lived in a perfect world and there were nothing but Republicans in Washington and in the country, they would only cut spending and never raise revenue to reduce our deficit. And Democrats — let’s just say this were true– Democrats would only raise revenue and never cut spending, especially not entitlement spending. So what’s the test of leadership? What’s the test of making tough choices?
You might say it’s Republicans agreeing to go along with some revenue and Democrats agreeing to go along with some spending cuts and entitlement savings. Well, what has happened? The President has led and put forward repeatedly proposals that are balanced, that include spending cuts — tough spending cuts for Democrats to agree to — that include savings from entitlement reforms — very tough decisions for Democrats — including we’ve talked about a technical change in our CPI that is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Democrats, but in the context of a bigger deal that includes revenue, reasonable revenue that asks the wealthiest and large corporations to pay their fair share, the President is willing to go along with it.
What have seen from Republicans? Not a single, similar kind of tough choice. All we’ve seen is no revenue, no revenue, no revenue. We’d rather see those jobs lost. We’d rather see the border less secure. We’d rather see our national security undermined than corporate jet owners, God forbid, give up their tax break. That is not a position that represents courage, leadership or common sense.

That’s where I’m leaning too.

The idiots in DC have apparently never heard the adage “you need to spend money to make money.” Apparently one of the world’s largest economies is supposed to grind to a halt because they bleated to the American people that the government who controls the world’s reserve currency is just like the family who makes $20,000 a year.

The chained CPI? Better stock up on cat food. I’ve already started.

I’d rather go through the sequester than the chained CPI. I think the damage to the economy would be smaller over the long term.

Is this a bad thing?

The sequestration would result in a 9.4 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf

I haven’t heard many FDL commenters asking for 9% defense cuts, more like 50% or 90%. This seems like a baby step to what most call for.

Heh, now we’ll only be spending more than 9 countries I guess. woohoo

The undefined spending cuts and revenue (closing loopholes and cancelling deductions) create a Heads they Win, Tails We lose situation. If they avoid the sequester through the proposed alternatives, the middle class gets hit through changes to the social insurance programs, and or through losses of tax deductions. Proportionally, the rich and corporations have successfully avoided any significant rise in taxation under the Bowles-Simpson and Obama cuts.

Heh, now we’ll only be spending more than 9 countries I guess. woohoo

Now we can blow them up 20 times over instead of 30!

There will be an 11th hour deal.

Amazing how as soon as anybody talks about cuts to the defense budget, they go straight for the employees and the troops. DoD never says “hey, we’ll have to cut some of our fat defense contracts! Waahhh!” because most of the country would say “Good!” They always hold the federal employees and/or services/benefits for troops hostage. It’s like extortion.

Even though Congress is still on vacation, I have no doubt that these cuts will not go through. An amazing piece of last minute legislation will show up at the last minute, imho. Question is, who wrote it? Bah, technicalities, technicalities, expecting Congress and committees to write legislation, expecting the House to initiate bills that involve revenue, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, it looks like they will be increasing the amount of money pledged to keep the Afghan forces and U.S. troops “advisors” and contractors going for another few years, to the tune of ~ $20 billion.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/22/nato-wants-us-to-buy-22-billion-sofa-in-afghanistan/

How many furloughs can you avoid with $20 billion?

Let the sequester begin…. anything to downsize the military!

As to the cuts for schools, they should be funded locally anyway, as they were before the DOE was created. At one time, we were the world leaders in educating our children. Educational levels have vastly deteriorated since the Federal Department of Education was created and we are now having a problem just keeping up with third world countries. Give control of schools back to the parents, who really care about their children’s education.

Hey, we’ve only conservatively wasted 60 BILLION so far in the ME over a decade.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44346958/ns/politics-more_politics/t/more-abuse-warning-more-waste-fraud-war-spending/#.USeP492fu6Y

We need to add to that total.

I guess that means kids that live in poor neighborhoods should practice saying “Do you want fries with that?” then. Nevermind that it may mean that our nation misses out on a cancer treatment or another developement. Rich kids get good schools, poor kids not so much.

Funding by locality is an awful idea unless the intended result is to continue inequity.

In response cwalz…

You think rich kids don’t get better schools now? Everyone who can afford it send their children to private schools. The only children left in public schools are the poor kids and the education they are getting is worthless. If poor children finally do get accepted to some college, they have to spend years in remedial studies to make up for the education they did not get in public schools. Surely this is not “equality”? The quality of public education has been going steadily downhill ever since the Department of Education was created. Centralized planning simply hasn’t worked. For the sake of our children, think again.

The corresponding loss in scientific grants is also considerable virtually guaranteeing a continued American decline in innovation.

This is what I’m watching. The worst part of it is that a lot of the DoD research and development money is only tangentially connected with the military although justified by potential military applications.

Most of the time when the ship runs aground you blame the captain.

Leaving Afghanistan??? I believe the correct description is our combat troops are leaving. Everybody else stays. (See- S.Korea, Okinawa, Germany etc.)

We need to add to that total.

I am sure we can match that between now and 2020.

The U.S. Defense Department said Wednesday it will furlough almost 800,000 employees — essentially its entire civilian workforce — beginning in late April…

If that is true, it’s only because that Obama’s DoD doesn’t play hardball and simply tell the Haliburtons and Xes and Whackenhuts and Lockheed-Martins and other defense contractors that “hey’, we’ll still buy the same stuff from you like you said, but only pay you at 10-20 % less. You’ll just have to eat said shortcoming *from your profits*.

Obama’s Dod: Corporate profits rather than jobs must be protected *at all cost*!

-stewartm

The country is like a car headed over a cliff and everybody in the front seat is fighting over the radio station while those of us in the back seat are bug-eyed and scrambling to get the hell out.

Give control of schools back to the parents, who really care about their children’s education.

If they cared enough they would be voting higher property taxes and bond issues. Not much evidence of that.

DSWright, are you going to address the comments at some point?

It seems several things are clear that most Dem pundits/loyalists/operatives/whatever are trying to gloss over.

1. Defense cuts are good.
2. Austerity is so nebulous a term it has no meaning.
3. The only alternatives that the Serious People are putting on the table are even worse.
4. The Serious People who have talked about cliffs and brinks for years have been lying each time.
5. There is lots of non-defense spending that should be cut, too.

“we’ll still buy the same stuff from you like you said, but only pay you at 10-20 % less.”

This is exactly how the private sector operates. GE and the auto companies are famous for this as are HMO’s.

I especially love the White House line about cuts hurting the FBI’s ability to go after financial crimes.

Why, without that funding, we might have negative corporate prosecutions!

Best thing is to bankrupt DC that way they can’t give the money to their criminal friends on Wall Street and those war profiteers.

Really? I grew up in Metairie, La in the 50′s and 60′s. W-O-R-S-T education in the country.

“1. Defense cuts are good.”

There are plenty of us, reaching well to the center politically, who recognize that the only way defense will ever see cuts is through wholesale cuts like the sequester rather than any sort of thoughtful surgical approach.

Defense has more than doubled its budget since 2002. Has any other dept of the Federal Government even come close?

I also expect much of the funding to be restored through small appropriation bills that can be hidden in other legislation.

Once again the alternatives were not rational alternatives but simply ways to keep on the austerity track.

The student loan system is a huge boondoggle scambubble and should be scrapped with amnesty for all young people made permanent slaves to the system. Education should be free, and if the universities can’t do it any longer because they are hellbent for bloated administrative costs and high roller stadiums, let the people do it.

As for the military letting go those civilians it employs – would that include mercenaries? I say way to go! Downsize the blighters and upsize a civilian conservation corps!

Well said.

Is the economy really that suseptable to a reduction of 84 billion. People really can’t do math. The sequestor is less than 2.5% of the economy. I bet there is more error in the measurement than 2.5%.

Exactly. The same people who want to cut TRICARE or shutter the VA entirely so they can funnel more money to private contractors get all teary-eyed about The Troops.

Yup. Tying school funding to property taxes has always been a recipe for inequality.

Let it happen. Just a necessary step to a blow up. Let the rage begin. The sooner the better. Obama is determined to go through with it. I know everyone will say it is the Republicans. But he is part of the problem in not having fought hard enough against it. And his willingness to put SS and Medicare on the chopping block as a sacrifice to the Gods of austerity is disgusting. Don’t forget after Hoover came FDR.

Defense has more than doubled its budget since 2002. Has any other dept of the Federal Government even come close?

A good lawyer knows the answer before he asks the question.

Healthcare
2002 $427B
2012 $846B

Pensions
2002 $497B
2012 $819B

Education
2002 $77B
2012 $153B

Welfare
2002 $229B
2012 $452B

alan, you make us proud to be Texans. Good job and thanks.

OTOH, we are really digging ourselves a hole here aren’t we?

The rise in welfare is from lack of jobs. The rise in education and health “care” are due to massive money making scandals that is now the status quo in America. And pensions? Let the oldsters just starve instead.

Healthcare
2002 $427B
2012 $846B

How much of this was Bush’s prescription drug plan?

A good lawyer knows the answer before he asks the question.

I call bullshit. For one thing, from these graphs (which probably doesn’t include ALL defense spending) defense spending does outpace everything else.

Since inflation between 2000 and 2012 is calculated to be about 33.3 %, what I think that these graphs really call into question is not out-of-control guv’mint spending, but the fact that even the non-chained CPI *understates* inflation, as a result of Reagan’s and Clinton’s tinkering with it to lower it. The chained CPI is nothing but a lie.

(Of course, that would lead to a conclusion that 30-plus years of conservative economic policies resulted in barely rising, flat, or even negative economic growth–something that everyday citizens experience every day as very possibly true. The Beltway pundits can’t allow that).

-stewartm

Looks like about half = $215B.

Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost, giving hope to backers of the new health insurance law that it, too, could beat budget expectations.

The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.

The lower cost – a result of slowing demand for prescription drugs, higher use of generic drugs and fewer people signing up – has surprised even some of the law’s most pessimistic critics.

“I’m perfectly willing to say I was wrong,” said Robert Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who fought the 2003 bill as an inevitable boondoggle. “I projected these costs would go through the roof on prescription drugs. I also did not believe private plans would come and offer their wares. Frankly, I’m perfectly willing to say I was wrong.”

The prescription drug program, known as Medicare Part D, was enacted at the urging of Mr. Bush, and the full drug benefit took effect in 2006.

You can call BS if you want, but that’s the same site I got my numbers from. Scroll down to “View Data Series” and it provides the exact numbers I inculded in #35.

I think you’ve confirmed my answer to:

Defense has more than doubled its budget since 2002. Has any other dept of the Federal Government even come close?

was accurate.

You can call BS if you want, but that’s the same site I got my numbers from. Scroll down to “View Data Series” and it provides the exact numbers I inculded in #35.

The same site also shows that Defense has grown at a faster clip than save about everything but health care. And the Pentagon budget is not all the defense budget too, some is tucked away in State Department, NASA, foreign aid, and Homeland Security.

The other part which you ignored is that what the “growth” may really show is the inaccuracy of the current CPI, that the government is not going out spending like a drunken sailor, that merely purchasing the same articles year after year requires a nearly 2x doubling of spending when the official inflation rate says it should be only 33 % more. That means that SS is actually falling behind inflation, and that conservative economics is a MASSIVE FAILURE that neither provides jobs nor controls inflation.

-stewartm

Meanwhile 8 billion a week goes down the rat hole in a stupid war.

Each of the items listed in #35 (from your link) is about double, what are you looking at?

I’m not sure what the last para says, but it doesn’t surprise me that spending doubles while inflation only increases 33%. The gov doesn’t buy exactly the same things year over year so CPI doesn’t factor in. If I buy 10 tanks last year and 20 this year it doesn’t much matter what the cpi is, spending will double.

“From Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In”…

It may be a stupid war but it’s the only one we’ve got.

IMO, wew needed a “Drug Program” but what we got enriched BIG PHARMA and saved sedniors only minimally.

Corrrect me if I am wrong.

I don’t often comment, but I thought I’d throw my “two cents” in. My husband and I are both Dod employees, we work in California. I understand people’s frustration with how the Pentagon spends money; A case in point: I can look on the Internet and find a tool for 70 dollars, but I’m not allowed to buy it from outside sources, I HAVE to buy it from the Dod contractor who charges the Dod 167 dollars for the exact same tool. Another point: I can get FREE surplus items returning from overseas, but I need authorization from 3 superiors, while if I BUY items though the system, I have very little oversight. As a lifelong military family (husband retired Navy; me, Navy 4 years, daughter of WWII vet), I have to say that I just can’t figure out how the only way the Dod can find to cut the budget is to cut my family’s pay 20%. That, combined with the hundreds of hateful comments I have heard and read about how all Government employees are lazy and stupid. I consider myself a liberal (voted for Stein), but some of the comments made by “caring Liberals” break my heart. I use the analogy of being in the Navy and pulling into port in the Phillipines. The water in the port area is as foul as anything you can imagine; if our personnel come into contact, they have to undergo medical treatment, but the tradition is that sailors throw their pocket change in the water, and the local (poor) kids dive in to retrieve what they can, that’s how they survive. I feel like in this country, the 1% are just throwing their pocket change into that foul mess, and all the rest of us are those kids, fighting over the change for their amusement.

You might take some consolation that FDR understood this situation: “It is an age old strategy of tyrants to delude victims to do their fighting for them.” Paraphrased from his speech in 1936, link below.

LINK HERE.

I’m not sure what the last para says, but it doesn’t surprise me that spending doubles while inflation only increases 33%.

You’re assuming the government is buying *more* when from what I’m seeing it’s providing *less* (in non-military spending, and even in military spending, often less)

And not all your data is representative. Welfare for instance only spiked during the last 10 years as a result of the depression. Sans that, it would have been holding fairly steady. There’s no real comparison with and the constant upward path of DoD.

-stewartm

some of the comments made by “caring Liberals” break my heart

Care to elaborate? I’m not sure whether that’s a remark about people who advocate cutting the defense budget or people who pretend to ‘support the troops’ (like most DC Dems and GOPers).

Generally speaking, the people who advocate outsourcing government functions and increasing defense spending are the same people who imply, or say outright, that government employees are lazy and stupid.

You may be correct, I wasn’t doing an analysis, just answering the question at #28:

Defense has more than doubled its budget since 2002. Has any other dept of the Federal Government even come close?

And the answer is yes.

As far as constant upward of DoD, compair it agains GDP. I think you’ll be surprised. Kennedy was a big spender.

No correction needed. I don’t know much about Big Pharma. I take an asprin about once every 3 years and that’s it.

And the answer is yes.

Ho, not in the same way, save health care costs. Other government spending does not show the same constant upward slope. You gave “welfare” and “pensions” in your example but they either have no constant upward slope (welfare) an the growth of pensions is about 30 % less than defense (which has more like *tripled* since 2000, not doubled). And that defense figure may not account for the non-Pentagon defense spending nor account for the fact that the Iraq and Afghan wars were taken off budget!!!

As for “why the other programs doubled w/o no discernible effect?” then I would say it’s because the government has been lying about the true inflation rate since Reagan. Anyone who actually works for a living would agree with that observation. I know that I make more money now than early in my career after numerous promotions up the career ladder yet it doesn’t seem I can buy anything more than then and when I look at comparable prices (then and now) they eat up about the same proportion of my budget (and no, I’ve not gone pricier in my tastes). This also means that the entry-level workers of today are getting paid far less.

So who needs the chained CPI? We already have it in-place.

The reason this is a no-no in your official beloved Beltway wisdom you constantly espouse is because it says that St. Reagan’s supposedly great achievement–that he slayed the 1970s inflation beast–is all based upon smoke and mirrors. Can’t have that.

-stewartm

Reply to #53

You seem to have all the excuses why the long answer to the original question should be “yes, but”. But the short answer to the question is still “yes”.