The Buck Stops Somewhere Else

BUCK STOP


White House issues veto threat on GOP fiscal plan

The White House is threatening a presidential veto of a Senate Republican measure that would give President Barack Obama more authority and flexibility to find $85 billion in spending cuts this year. The measure is intended to replace the automatic across-the-board cuts scheduled to kick in Friday.

The White House says it instead backs a Democratic measure to replace the cuts with tax hikes on millionaires and spending reductions over 10 years.

[...]

The White House says there is no way to cut $85 billion over the remaining seven months of the fiscal year without “drastically affecting national security and economic policies.” A statement by the White House budget office says Obama’s advisers would strongly recommend he veto the Republican proposal.


Once again Obama demonstrates bold leadership. Rather than take responsibility for deciding where to cut 2% of the 2013 federal budget, Obama bravely passes the buck to Congress.

Can you really blame him? According to Maxine Waters those cuts will cause 109% unemployment.


draconian


About these ads

About The Klown

I have the right to remain silent, but not the ability.
This entry was posted in Sequester. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to The Buck Stops Somewhere Else

  1. HELENK says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/sequester-railroads-bidens-pricey-plane-travel/

    well joey gaffes will not be flying home to Delaware now, he will go back to taking the train.
    wonder how many cats he will let out of the bag

  2. HELENK says:

    #breaking: Senate rejected a GOP bill giving Obama broad discretion to implement $85.3B in cuts over the remainder of this fiscal year.

    the senate saved his a$$ again

  3. myiq2xu says:
  4. myiq2xu says:

    Here’s the cold hard truth: Neither side wants to take the credit/blame for any budget cuts or tax increases.

    Every single item in the federal budget has a constituency that benefits from it. Everyone is generally in favor of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” but nobody agrees on the definition.

    There is an old saying – “One man’s pork is another man’s bacon.”

    • wmcb says:

      This is why I’m all for the sequestration cuts. Is it the ideal way to do things? Nope. But uniform across-the-board cuts seem to be the ONLY way to get them to cut anything at all.

      As I think votermom said, it’s like telling a teenager who refuses to clean his room, “Okay, then I will do it FOR you. But you won’t like it much when I am the one choosing what to throw away.” Of COURSE it’s much better if they could sit down and reasonably find where to cut. But they won’t. They flatly refuse. So I’m all for making them do it the hard way. They brought it on themselves.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    I’m bringing these two comments up from below:

    HELENK, on February 28, 2013 at 10:24 am said: Edit Comment

    http://freebeacon.com/ryan-woodward-is-right-obama-moved-goalposts/

    Paul Ryan says woodward is right
    Reply

    wmcb, on February 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm said: Edit Comment

    He’s correct. They couldn’t come up with an agreement on where and what specific things to cut, so Obama came up with (his idea) the automatic sequester cuts. In return, the GOP already gave him his tax increase. That happened 8 weeks ago.

    So, we have a balanced approach. The cuts are generic across the board, and the tax increase is done. We had a BIG tax hike 8 weeks ago.

    NOW Obama wants to move the goalposts, ask for more tax increases, and whine that the sequester itself is not a “balanced approach”. Bullshit. It is HALF of a balanced approach. The other half was the fucking tax increase that you already got as part of the deal.

    But Obama wants to lie to the public. He wants to act as if the tax increases just disappear down the memory hole, and the issue now is ONLY the sequester cuts, with nothing to “balance” them. He’s a liar.

  6. SHV says:

    “Once again Obama demonstrates bold leadership. Rather than take responsibility for deciding where to cut 2% of the 2013 federal budget, Obama bravely passes the buck to Congress.”
    *******
    I wonder if that would be Constitutional? Would President “pick and choose” face the same fate as Clinton”s line item veto?

  7. SHV says:

    “But Obama doesn’t really care. ”
    *******
    True and the other irony of the Uni-Party street theater is that, assuming some Constitutional equivalency, the Repubs. were the ones who sued to have line item veto overturned.

    • wmcb says:

      Actually, I myself have a problem with line-item veto being a permanent part of presidential power. I didn’t used to. I thought it a good idea when both Reagan and Clinton touted it.

      But after Bush then Obama I no longer trust ANY president to not use it as a weapon. To just approve all his cronies expenditures and yank the funding out from under the other party’s projects, regardless of merit. I have a decidedly more sceptical view on granting more power anymore, based on the venal selfish assholes who keep getting elected.

      It’s the assholes on both sides who keep getting elected that make me more and more a small-govt person. I simply do not trust any of them with power anymore. They fucking abuse it, every chance they get.

      Keep abusing power, and I go all stubborn and say NO when you want more. Fuck you. NO. No more power.

      • wmcb says:

        I feel like this when they come asking for more power (always for ever such good reasons of course.) NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

        • myiq2xu says:

          Our Founding Fathers were very wise men who feared the power of government.

        • wmcb says:

          I might also feel better about granting govt more power if I thought that the American public/press would function to keep them in line.

          But they won’t. The press has proved they will sell their mother and their infant daughter for access and peer approval, and the public has proved they will sell their souls, their neighbor, and their dog for a $9 pack of birth control pills and “safety”.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Actually I’m not too keen on giving Obama or any other POTUS more power. I just think it’s funny that this is the first time he didn’t want it.

        • wmcb says:

          You’re right. He does not want power that is publicly coupled with responsibility and evaluation for performance. He wants back door power, and unnoticed coups. He wants arm-twisting and threats behind the curtain. He doesn’t even deserve the respect of a dictator, because at least a dictator, however egomaniacal, wants to step up and do the job.

      • 49erDweet (D) says:

        Honk!

  8. myiq2xu says:

    Ace nails it:

    Review: “Brand X” With Russell Brand

    It’s a 30 minute long filmed seizure of an epileptic who isn’t funny.

  9. yttik says:

    The President refuses to take any responsibility, congress refuses to pass a budget, and the Pope has simply thrown in the towel.

    All in all, none of this is good.

    • myiq2xu says:

      “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”

      The Pope is choosing option 3

      • DandyTiger says:

        The cry baby in chief follows. No one is leading.

      • Constance says:

        I’m sick of the big boys woman hating club in government and religion running the world anyway. I have a hard time believing that the people who were dumb enough to get us into this mess are smart enough to get us out of it.

        • DandyTiger says:

          I’d say it’s a pretty good bet the aren’t smart enough to get us out. They certainly don’t want to get us out of a mess, as being in a mess and dependent and fearful works in their favor. But I doubt they can change the direction of the freight train any more either. And they probably don’t know they can’t.

    • elliesmom says:

      The Carville quote is chilling.

      • DandyTiger says:

        Indeed.

        Though I’d say really the same is true of Repubs when they’re in power. The frustration of trying to tell BushBots that Bush wasn’t the greatest president evah was a bit much. Now we see the flip side.

        Neither party is on your side. But a strong minority party and an adversarial media is critical. And we have neither.

        • wmcb says:

          The Libertarian party in this environment could kick ass and take names if they would get their noses out of their theoretical purity navels and learn how to compromise a little and inch toward at least some approximation of what they want. That, and stop with pot legality being THE PRESSING ISSUE OF OUR TIME!!!

  10. SHV says:

    “Our Founding Fathers were very wise men who feared the power of government.”
    ********
    One thing that those old white men understood from history and human behavior is the concept of “What goes around, comes around”. This fundamental principle has been forgotten by the Repubs. who cried Treason when people opposed the Bush/Cheney proto-police state and now the Obots who want to rule by EO and eliminate those who oppose their Dear Leader and want a Stalinist police state.

  11. wmcb says:

    Our press has not covered themselves in glory over this Bob Woodward thing. I’ve been looking at the various responses, and it’s quite revealing. There are those who merely try to write him off as old and senile. Those are the hardcore Obamabots. But the response of some of the “fairer” press is also interesting.

    A lot of the that response has basically been: “So? This administration yells at all of us, tries to kill stories, calls us up and berates and threatens us with losing our WH credentials as well! Chill, dude, wassabigdeal? Say what the administration wants you to say, don’t step on any toes, and you got no prob. Don’t you know how to do this game? Derp.”

    I’m not sure they thought out in advance, in their zeal to shut Woodward up, how that defense makes them look, or what it reveals about them.

  12. HELENK says:

    off topic
    just came back from a thrift store.
    bought some books. one is a memoir from James Michener called
    the world is my home

    did you ever want to just sit and talk and listen to someone that you admired but never met.
    two people that I always want to do that with are
    James Michnener and James Cagney

    the stories they could tell, the things you could learn.

  13. votermom says:

    Think about it – by admitting that WH threats are not news to them, they publicly shredded their veneer of credibility.

  14. HELENK says:

    Bob Woodward says he never characterized White House adviser’s email as ‘a threat’ – @washingtonpost

    a little backtracking here????? can’t take the heat????

    • DandyTiger says:

      Actually I noticed yesterday and today, Bob never used the word threat. Others did. So I don’t think he’s backtracking. He only said the email and phone conversation made him uncomfortable.

  15. HELENK says:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/28/184471/as-sequestration-nears-federal.html

    do not want to seem cold hearted but join the crowd. private industry workers have been hurting for a while

  16. HELENK says:

    off topic

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/0

    Egypts opposition leader refuses to meet with John Kerry over backtrack’s pro morsi stance

  17. yttik says:

    Off topic, but one of the side effects of Seattle’s ban on bags and insistence that you bring your own, is more shoplifting. In the olden days, you weren’t really allowed to go into a store with a bunch of bags. Today you’re practically mandated to do it. Shoplifting has now increased dramatically.

  18. Simofish says:

    Oakland just passed a no plastic bag law. If you want a bag you can buy a paper sack for a dime.

Comments are closed.