Skip to main content

House Speaker John Boehner and other House Republicans hold press conference aimed at blaming President Obama for the sequester with a sign reading
House Speaker John Boehner hates the sequester enough to blame it on President Barack Obama, but he doesn't hate it enough to actually get rid of it. Instead, he's on vacation.
In ten days, on March 1, the first installment of the automatic across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester will begin to take effect. The indiscriminate cuts will slam domestic programs and military spending alike, hitting virtually everything the federal government does other than Medicare or Social Security benefits. The best programs and the worst programs will be treated alike and the steep drop in spending will slow down the economy and jobs growth.

So what does Congress do? It takes the week off, naturally. Because even though everybody in Washington, DC says they hate the sequester, nobody actually wants to get rid of it.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:13 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  "Obama's sequester, Obama's sequester" (7+ / 0-)

      Was all I heard on the talk shows yesterday.  

      "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

      by Navy Vet Terp on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:27:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because it was the White House's idea (10+ / 0-)

        That's not disputed.  It's in Woodward's book.  

        The Republicans voted for it, of course.  So their fingerprints are on it.  

        But it clearly was the proposal of the White House in 2011 as a way to give the Republicans the spending cuts Republicans wanted in exchange for a vote to raise the debt ceiling.  

        The White House proposed it, I think, because they believed that Republicans would agree to almost anything so as to stop the defense cuts.  They miscalculated, it seems.  

        •  I think that's true (6+ / 0-)

          Bur I think it's so important to have Republicans sign on to defense cuts that the sequester is worth it.  

          You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

          by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:53:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  well if Woodward put it in his book (3+ / 0-)

          it must be absolutely true!

          •  It has not been denied by the White House -- (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jds1978, nextstep, VClib

            that's  the more important part.  If the account Woodward gave, which was based on interviews with the people involved (including the President) were inaccurate on that point, somebody from the White House would have disavowed it.  

            They have not.  

            •  have they denied anything in his book? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Navy Vet Terp, askew

              I think you're setting the bar quite low on that one.

              Saying the White House wanted the sequester is ludicrous.  Maybe they proposed the sequester as a means of keeping the Republicans from executing their prisoner, but that's a different thing, no?

              •  They apparently proposed it as a bluff (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                if what they are saying now is accurate.  In other words, they did not want it to actually happen, but proposed it because they thought the Republicans would never let the defense cuts happen.  

                The Republicans called their bluff.  

                If the sequester was unacceptable to the White House, they should not have proposed it in the first place.  

                •  sigh, the perfect as the enemy of the good (0+ / 0-)

                  The sequester agreement successfully forestalled the House Republicans using the debt ceiling to force the federal government into default.  The way the negotiations were going, they felt at the time that they had to give the Republicans something.  So they gave them the sequester.

                  But you already know all this, I am sure.  You just want to vent your spleen on the President.

                  IMHO, I think the miscalculation of the sequester wasn't that the Republicans would "call their bluff".  (I expect that Congress will cobble together a bill to punt on the sequester for a couple months and then quietly disassemble it altogether).  It was that the Republicans would be more interested in governing after the election.

                  The idea behind the sequester was to make doing nothing more painful than negotiating a compromise.  Unfortunately, the Republicans backed themselves into a rhetorical corner that made negotiating a compromise the most painful thing imaginable.

                  •  sweatyb - I don't think coffeetalk is venting at (0+ / 0-)

                    anyone. In fact, she vents infrequently, if at all.  I think her only point is that the White House proposed the sequester and that it passed Congress with bipartisan support so everyone has some ownership of the sequester.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:20:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  No, I think it's dawning on the republicans that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vigilant meerkat

          they actually calculated correctly. That is, they'll get their social spending cuts and will have the White House in a possition of looking weak on defense if they don't agree to emergency defense spending to offset a weakened military in this 'time of great threat'. Meanwhile, the economy crashes again and the democrats look really, really bad coming into the midterms and later in the general election of '16.

          That has to leave one wondering if either the White House stepped in to it by mistake or were part of this social spending massacre to come.

          Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

          by Pescadero Bill on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:38:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can you say Secretary of Defense? (0+ / 0-)

            If the Republicans want to present themselves as strong on the defense of America and supporting the Armed Services, then ask them why they believe America is better off without a Secretary of Defense.  

            The White House nominated a Republican (for what that's worth) and they would not/could not support our military.   Then they ran out of town...

            In God we trust, All others we monitor -AFTAC (-2.75, -2.67)

            by lcs on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:49:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if Woodward wrote it in a book..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Are you serious?

          Bob Woodward was not in the room and John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted.

          What you are describing now is not how John Boehner presented it to the public.

          Should we believe Bob Woodwards book or John Boehners words and deeds?

          •  Are YOU serious???? (3+ / 0-)

            Woodward interviewed, and got the story from, people like the President, Gene Sperling, Jack Lew, and Harry Reid:

            The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.

            Page 215 (July 12, 2011):
            They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.
            “A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.
            “Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.
            “If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”
            “This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.
             Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester,” though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.

            Page 326 (July 26):
            At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.
            “We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.
            “What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.
            Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”
            Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.
            What would the impact be?
            They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.
            Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.
            “This is ridiculous,” Reid said.
            That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.
            “I get it,” Reid said finally.
             Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.

            Page 339:
             Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seems tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs. There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.
             Short version: This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

            Page 344 (July 30):
             The president and [White House chief of staff William] Daley were on the patio outside Daley’s office with [adviser David] Plouffe, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Lew and Sperling when they got word that Biden was making progress with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. It looked as if Republicans were ready to agree to a Defense/non-Defense sequester in the trigger.
            Plouffe couldn’t believe it. These guys were so afraid of increasing revenues that they’re willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans’ revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.
            “This is a deal we can probably live with,” Obama said, willing to do almost anything to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.
             Short version: Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.

            Page 346 (July 30):
             At 9 p.m. on Saturday night, Boehner’s staff got their first real look at the proposal negotiated by Biden and McConnell.
            [Boehner policy director Brett] Loper had been in regular contact with [McConnell deputy chief of staff] Rohit Kumar about the progress of the negotiations, but now he had paper, so he drafted the Republican staff from the House Budget Committee and they pulled an all-nighter trying to understand the plan and to identify its shortcomings.
            It was a challenge, because nobody in the office had operated under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules, which dated back to the 1980s. Loper spent the night trying to get his arms around the proposal.
             Short version: Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.
             We asked the White House if officials disputed any part of Woodward’s narrative and did not get a response. Spokeswoman Amy Brundage issued the following statement:
             “The only reason that a sequester is in place is because both sides in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — voted for it in the Budget Control Act to force Congress to act. In fact, 2 out of 3 Republicans in Congress — including Congressman Ryan — voted for it and many praised it at the time. The President was making the point that the sequester was never intended to be policy, and that Congress must act to replace it with balanced deficit reduction. They can and should do that.
             “In addition, the notion that we wanted the sequester is false. The fact of the matter is that we wanted a trigger that included balance and specifically asked more from the wealthiest individuals on the revenue side. Congressional Republicans refused.”

            Woodward interviewed all those people --- including the President --  for the book, and quotes them in the book.  That WaPo link that this comes from is from before the election.  

            Please provide me ONE LEGITIMATE SOURCE that contradicts what Woodward wrote.

            And read the conclusion of that article:  

            No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was “something that Congress has proposed.”
             Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.
            In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O’Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it.
             Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end.”
             This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.
             “After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper,” Woodward said.  “Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record.”
             We had been wavering between Three and Four Pinocchios. But in light’s of Lew’s decision to doubledown on Obama’s claim, we agree it’s a whopper.

            Four Pinocchios

            Boehner's "we got 98% of what we wanted" does not contradict what Woodward wrote.
      •  It's been the Republican talking point since the (0+ / 0-)

        State of the Union, or maybe before.  Boehner's been all over the tv screens with it.   I want Luntz's job.  I can come off just as ignorant and self involved, maybe even moreso.

        "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

        by AnnieR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:11:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Boner got 98% of what he wants (17+ / 0-)

      And what do I and my fellow workers get from Boner at our Social Security offices?

      Well, starting April 1st, we're going to be furloughed one day each week.

      I love my 20% pay cut from Boner and his fucking GOP. And I also have a very warm spot in my heart for spineless Harry Reid.

    •  "98% of what I want" and a stiff drink too. (0+ / 0-)

      Cryin' John's family ran (or runs) a bar in Ohio.

      I'm surprised he didn't buy a round for all of the Republicans, to celebrate how well they are doing.

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:00:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  & Congress is less popular than tarantulas (16+ / 0-)

    If only we could put this congress in a big clear plastic box and feed it cockroaches.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:29:06 AM PST

  •  How weak a speaker is Boner?...we're about to find (5+ / 0-)

    out......Welcome to the Majors John.

  •  Nothing so big it can't be run away from (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, jck, cactusgal, sethtriggs

    Why is anyone surprised at this after they drove off the fiscal cliff?

    Happy just to be alive

    by exlrrp on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:41:42 AM PST

  •  Starve the beast (8+ / 0-)

    That's the sequester for you. The GOP has reached the point where they will cut defense in order to cut domestic stuff.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:47:56 AM PST

    •  Or win big in 2014 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill, blue aardvark

      Perhaps they're banking that forced austerity will win them the senate in 2014. They're already unlikely to lose the house. Plus 2016 and the WH.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:13:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe not. Guess where a whooole lotta those cuts (0+ / 0-)

        are located, thanks to decades of R pork in southern states. A lot of the affected are going to be in R jurisdictions, and then and perhaps only then will we see whether they feel they can ignore their constituents as Boehner said they would when he was sworn in this time. A lost government job is a lost job, not a virtue, when your community and you are the ones who lose it.

    •  I wonder if anyone thought that perhaps they (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      -- they being the republicans -- already have a plan to offset the defense spending cuts and that's why they're confident enough to go on vacation until last minute negotiations are underway.

      Again, they likely have the White House by the...testicles.

      Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

      by Pescadero Bill on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:50:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bwa ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha Ha ha ha! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Plan?  Not so much because you see that would imply they have a place they want to get to. THEY positively adore the limbo they have created.

        American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

        by glitterscale on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:51:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Devastating defense cuts"- give me a break. (10+ / 0-)

    If I want Very Serious People I'll turn on the TV.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:52:08 AM PST

    •  It would be sweet if the Very Serious People (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Stude Dude, cybersaur

      weren't dumber than hammers.....

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:03:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      White Buffalo, VClib

      Both sides are claiming that it'll be devastating to the military. Not sure how true that is, but it's not just a GOP complaint. But it is only within the GOP's power to do something about it in a responsible way.

      But I've got to believe that, worried that it might end up being implemented, the people who drew up the sequester made sure that cuts would mostly not harm national security. There's massive waste there, obviously.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:12:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It will be devastating to the existing... (0+ / 0-)

        ...conception of the military as an entity that should have every capability it fantasizes about, regardless of cost.  That is a conception that I'm eager to devastate.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:11:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  defense cuts = jobs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gentle Giant

      the sequester will be devastating.  Of course, it's one attribute is that the pain is shared across the board.  

      But that's like saying throwing yourself into a vat of boiling oil is better than a bullet to the brain because it's fairer to your body.

  •  im surprised they're this close to (9+ / 0-)

    defense spending cuts.  Shocked.  I was one of many here who celebrated that cudgel over their heads.

    In retrospect it seems more risky, but that's how the game is played- go with what you know and hope it works.  

    I now understand their stance. They have nothing.  They lost a huge election, counting on the Ryan Budget, fear, and racism to turn the progressive tide.  They can't cut the safety net without losing more huge elections.  They can't agree to sensible tax changes.  They can't agree that the debt is not the most important problem.  People are starting to get it that when Republicans run states everything goes to shit.  

    They're praying Obama and the Dems will bail them out so all they have to do is keep whining.  What they still don't get is gerrymandering don't save you when your own voters think you're a loser.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:58:24 AM PST

  •  "Obamaquester," LOL (10+ / 0-)

    Reminds me of being called names in elementary school.  

    Yet this shit works.  They repeat it on Fox news enough times and the rubes believe it.  Sad.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:37:59 AM PST

    •  Haha that's the only thing I saw (0+ / 0-)

      kind of like Romney and his attempt at word play: Obamalogna.

      Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

      by hulibow on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:57:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I suggest "Sequestergate" before it happens. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gentle Giant, DSPS owl

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:04:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the sad thing is that it doesn't work at all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Preaching to the choir and taking hostages doesn't work, in terms of approval ratings or getting your preferred policy.  But I'm pretty sure the Republicans don't know any other way to be.  

      So even though it's self-defeating, they just go on with the kabuki.  They are stuck in the echo-chamber they built and it goes Fox News Talking Head -> Republican Party Leader -> Fox News Talking Head -> Republican Party Leader ... ad infinitum.

  •  Who pays for those cute countdown (10+ / 0-)

    clocks they are so fond of?  I hope my tax money doesn't pay for them while those worthless grinning a$$es drag this country further and further into the 3rd world.

    "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medication to the dead." Thomas Paine

    by My two cents worth on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:38:30 AM PST

  •  Are they really in "Recess"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, Gentle Giant

    Can the President make a few "recess appointments"?  There a lot of judgeships open, and about half the Cabinet.

  •  Theres my own Congresswoman Cathy-McMorris (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jck, hulibow, kovie, cactusgal, pamelabrown

    Rogers, smirking in the background. The only thing she does best. UGH.

  •  Unemployment and housing assistance is keeping (8+ / 0-)

    me afloat. Guess I'd better learn to hold my breath.

  •  The Rs are evil & agents of the evil 1%; they win (4+ / 0-)

    We lose.

  •  Yeah but (0+ / 0-)

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:06:09 AM PST

  •  Obamaquester? Really? (4+ / 0-)

    For those of us who may end up furloughed or even entirely laid off because of these "ax to the budget" sequester cuts, let's use the time off to stomp around  / phone voters in t-party/gop congressional districts and expose the weasel congressbaggers who signed off on sequester legislation, and now refuse to take ownership.  (No offense intended to actual weasels).

  •  Watching the lineup on MSNBC, which I've (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    done for years, we're finally hearing them called out - just last week on Hardball and the Ed Show - for doing nothing.  We're paying these people to do nothing, and what's worse we're paying some of them who profess to hate government.  Why shouldn't we get a say in what we're paying them, along with benefits.  So many of them think we should live on less than minimum wage and drop dead if we get sick.  I think it's time to turn the tables on them.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:09:56 AM PST

    •  If everyone has to share in the cuts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      How about a cut in pay for Congress and an end to their privileged benefits and perks.

      Let those lowlife lying scumbags climb into the same boat they want to put everyone else in.

    •  AnnieR - why are we paying them? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Probably because it's required in the Constitution. There is nothing that requires any member of Congress to vote for any specific piece of legislation, at any time, for any reason. Members of Congress surely don't have to vote in favor of legislation that advances any agenda of a POTUS and can actively work to stop all his proposals. Voters make the final call and members can be replaced every two years in the House, if they find their obstructionism objectionable. The way we stop paying them is to beat them at the ballot box.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:07:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  am aware of all you've said, of course. (0+ / 0-)

        Just frustrated seeing people who "hate" our government trying so hard to be a part of it so they can destroy it.  And yes, sadly, we vote for them, because of hate and fear and lies, which is a whole other story and travesty.

        "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

        by AnnieR on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 04:59:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  no worries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they will avoid the sequester. maybe they will delay it. or maybe they will pass a super-sequester. or maybe they will realize that even if it passes, they won't implement it.

    whatever happens, nothing will happen. that seems to be the rule of thumb.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:16:06 AM PST

  •  Some Wingnuts May Applaud Obama Not Blame Him (0+ / 0-)

    It sure sounds like Boehner is tossing the Tea Party under the bus on this one.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:16:42 AM PST

  •  Uh, Obama already won re-election (5+ / 0-)

    Is it just me, or does it seem like Republicans don't realize that Obama already won re-election and is not running for office again? "Obamaquester"?  First of all, if Boehner got 98% of what he wanted with the sequester, then not sure how Obama owns it.  Secondly, trying to tie it to Obama isn't going to do anything.  He is already in his second term.  It seems like they are still in anti-Obama campaign mode.

    •  Whatever they can stick on Obama will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      spill over on the Democratic Party in 2014 and 2016, is their hope and a good probability.

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:45:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are a funny lot...

    May today be greater than yesterday, and tomorrow be greater than both! Go Ravens!

    by secret38b on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:17:56 AM PST

  •  What's really going to happen here is (0+ / 0-)

    the Republicans will go thru with this sequester.  Once it hits - their leeches who are the Defense Contractors will cry us all a river.  Facing the loss of all their absentee military votes in the next election - they will be forced to do tax reform and additional revenue in order to keep their pigs fed.

  •  Call their bluff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky, fille americaine

    I say that the Republicans have played this card so many times, that we ought to call them on it.

    Go ahead.  Let the cuts happen.  Then we'll see how many Republican Presidents, Senators, and Representatives we have over the next 50 years.

    Yes, it's destroying the village to save it, but that's what they want, isn't it?

  •  Here's how this thing plays out: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gentle Giant, aitchdee

    There will be much meaningless kabuki right up to the sequester deadline with each party trying to give the appearance of being reasonable.  Nobody will agree to anything and the sequester deadline will pass.  The GOP-controlled House will then pass a series of bills restoring funding to defense and whatever else they think is a priority but will omit restoring the funding for Dem priorities.  The Dems will then have to decide if they want to be seen to kill the defense funding when GOP refuses Reid's amendments.

    Anybody else have any predictions?

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:21:27 AM PST

    •  I think the GOP can no longer sustain (0+ / 0-)

      the facade of reason or rationality and has given up on trying. That may work to there advantage with much of the voting populace. or not.

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:47:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm. I think I'll call it (0+ / 0-)

    "The Republiquester."

    Yeah. Nice ring to it.

    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

    by Gentle Giant on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:30:56 AM PST

  •  I don't believe the GOP can sustain the political (5+ / 0-)

    and economic fallout from the sequester for more than 1-2 months at most.  This is essentially going to be a replay of sequel to the Gingrich led government shutdown.  The President doesn't need to be reelected and he made it clear in the SOTU that it's on the Congress to fix this and that he will make sure that Congress is blamed if they screw it up (which they will).

    The President and the Democrats have an opportunity to use GOP overreach to extend and expand the argument that Obama has been making for months about the importance of government and the need to have a healthy level of government spending, even to increase it, in key areas while demonstrating the moderate restraint and discipline needed to get our fiscal house in order.

    We'll see how this plays out. I, for one, believe the American people are a bit sick of the GOP House.  Redistricting will not protect them in 2014.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:31:53 AM PST

  •  Didn't these deadbeats just come back from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    •  Rs and the House have been part time workers, (0+ / 0-)

      less than thirty hours, for a very long time. And their salaries cannot be changed under a constitutional provision which says that it cannot be done in mid term, only now for the guys and gals elected in 2014.

  •  "ObamaCare", "ObamaNomics", "ObamaQuester"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, aitchdee

    It's never "DemoCare", "Demonomics", or "Demoquester".

    It's always about tying the problem (or the unwanted solution) to the black man in the White House... dizgusting.

    If I had OFA's money I'd be running "John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted" TV ads all over Ohio and Kentucky.

    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:56:07 AM PST

  •  MoveOn.Org???? (0+ / 0-)

    Where are the 30 second spots showing Speaker Boehner saying, "I got 98% of what I wanted."????

    Call your Congressman.

  •  Life’s too short (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Is anyone else fed up with these count-downs until the Republicans do something stupid or threaten to do massive harm?

  •  Obamaquester? (0+ / 0-)

    They aren't even trying anymore.

  •  Is the Pedophile Party talking ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... to Clint's chair again?

    It's time for an intervention.

    It's time for BonerQuest 2013!

    Inspired by the speaker.

    Fueled by mendacity and greed.

    Brought to you by lazy drunken morons.

    ... what so proudly we exhaled ... "

  •  Talk about useless (0+ / 0-)

    I think the GOP should take off permanently.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:04:11 AM PST

  •  As though they have worked hard to earn any time (0+ / 0-) is just so damn galling.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site