How the present fiscal ‘crisis’ rolls right into the next one
I don’t know about you, but I haven’t had any pieces of sky falling on my head today.
The automatic spending cuts known as sequestration take effect beginning today. It’s a little early to gauge whether doom is truly upon us, but the way Americans sense the cuts have affected them — or not — will help determine how the next serial “crisis” is teed up.
We already know what that crisis will be: the debate over a new continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government. Because congressional Democrats have given up on the budgeting process, which would force them to commit in black-letter documents to the kind of tax-and-spend plans they desire for the coming years, the government ends up being funded for a few months at a time. The latest CR expires later this month, so it would seem the debate will now shift to that fight.
It would seem so, except that that fight is the one the White House has been waging for a couple of weeks now.
The intent of the scare stories about sequestration, in all likelihood, were only partly about sequestration. President Obama no doubt would have loved for congressional Republicans to back down and either kick the cuts down the road a bit further, as they did in the “fiscal cliff” deal, or even agree to some new taxes in place of, say, defense cuts. But he was also fully aware that leverage was ultimately on Republicans’ side if they were resolved to let sequestration proceed — as was the case for him in the fiscal-cliff talks, when taxes were scheduled to go up if no one did anything.
So, it’s altogether likely that Obama wanted to talk up the effects of the sequestration cuts not just to pressure them to cave now, but also to build leverage for the CR discussions. After all, if Americans do feel pain from sequestration, he can argue for higher spending in the CR. If they don’t, he can claim to have taken all possible measures to avoid pain now — but to be without any such protective options if spending falls further in the CR.
The talk about “balance” — i.e., raising taxes — will become even louder when the CR is debated. Never mind that the tax hikes in the fiscal-cliff deal are double the spending cuts under sequestration.
The question now becomes: What do most Americans think about the changes wrought by both deals? Will they feel more affected by the tax hikes or the spending cuts? And will they then balk at going further down one road or the other — or maybe find themselves willing to keep going down both?
One would think the fact that everyone’s payroll taxes went up would trump the far less universal spending cuts. But there will be a lot of argument-by-anecdote about spending cuts in the coming weeks to try to negate that.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
499 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
March 1st, 2013
11:56 am
stealing from our children and grandchildren
(c) 1835-2013. All rights reserved.
southpaw
March 1st, 2013
12:02 pm
“The only crisis is the gop self destructing and Americans do not care about that.”
Good news indeed. Now maybe the President and other political folks can take JF’s advice, shut their mouths for a while and let these “cuts” stay in place.
Finn @10:42
You may want to take some aspirin before you start, to head off the headache that will certainly try to come. My sympathies.
getalife
March 1st, 2013
12:10 pm
The gop are job killers so they want to kill thousands of more jobs and cut more pay.
cons call that winning to prove they are out of touch with reality.
I do enjoy watching the gop self destruct but hate that the American people have to pay for their ignorance.
It is time to end the gop party.
What good are they for the American people.
Grasshopper
March 1st, 2013
12:13 pm
Did you see Obama and his sock-puppet Carney yesterday back-peddling on all the predictions of doom and gloom yesterday? “OK, so maybe planes won’t exactly fall out of the sky and prison doors automatically spring open…but the sequestratin will be somewhat, unpleasant maybe?”
Too funny.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
March 1st, 2013
12:13 pm
Do Republicans comprehend what sequestration is? The warped, alternate reality depicted by WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan and GOP operatives actually explains a lot
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/01/do_republicans_comprehend_what_sequestration_is/
Stephenson Billings
March 1st, 2013
12:14 pm
Bloomberg: Don’t Panic, USA Has ‘Infinite Amount of Money’…
indigo
March 1st, 2013
12:16 pm
These sequester cuts will, sooner or later, cause many families in America to suffer.
Republican politicians would rather see middle and low class familes suffer than ask their political patrons to pay a little more in taxes.
Naturally, they are counting on you gullible cons to believe it’s all Obama’s fault.
Unfortunately for our country, many of you will.
Grasshopper
March 1st, 2013
12:18 pm
“These sequester cuts will, sooner or later, cause many families in America to suffer.
Republican politicians would rather see middle and low class familes suffer than ask their political patrons to pay a little more in taxes.”
No, just you.
We just want to see you suffer and rot in moldering filth. That’s all.
Stephenson Billings
March 1st, 2013
12:19 pm
“Obama: sequester is ‘a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts’”
“OBAMA VOWS VETO OF GOP BILL TO EASE CUTS… *
Just more proof that it’s all political
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:19 pm
to just toss out a phrase like that to besmirch fiscal wonkery–well, it seems like the cheapest of shots, at best
One mans cheap shot, is another mans cold hard unvarnished truth!
I will apologize to Barry, when he apologizes to Romney for some of the cheap shots he took at him. Remember when Romney wanted to close loopholes to raise revenue, and how Barry scoffed at what a pitiful attempt at raising revenue that would be. Now who wants to close loopholes?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
12:23 pm
“These sequester cuts will, sooner or later, cause many families in America to suffer.”
First, Indigo, define “suffer”. Is it that some families might have to tighten their belts a bit? Some people might lose their jobs? Some funding will have to be found locally or something the Feds shouldn’t have paid for in the first place? Some Army private might not get trained?
Define “suffer”.
Centrist
March 1st, 2013
12:25 pm
The small surtax on just investment unearned income above $250K is a very minor change – especially in comparison to tax rates made permanent for those earning less than $450K of taxable earned income.
The static revenue increase projections are totally bogus since many high income earners can have their compensation packages changed from the higher earned income rate to much lower unearned income rates (including the surtax). Furthermore, dual income families will cut back on higher taxed work for untaxed time off. Taxpayers react to tax changes – those who make revenue projections ignore this to make their projections look higher.
Sequestration is a spending issue, not a tax issue. Except Democrats are (so far) unsuccessfully trying to force added taxes in exchange for less spending cuts.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:25 pm
The gop are job killers so they want to kill thousands of more jobs and cut more pay.
When the Dems want to cut DOD, why don’t we have a pity party for all the jobs that will eliminate? Dems preach cuts to DOD everyday, but the next sentence is GOP wants to kill jobs by cutting.
Which is it gitalife? When are you lying, when you say you don’t want cuts because cuts kill jobs, or when you say you want to cut DOD?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
12:29 pm
“When the Dems want to cut DOD, why don’t we have a pity party for all the jobs that will eliminate? Dems preach cuts to DOD everyday, but the next sentence is GOP wants to kill jobs by cutting.”
Exactly, Rafe! The libs on here whine about the GOP being job killers, then in the next sentence want to cut the military in half.
But they never seem to get around to the “cutting” part, do they?
btw, I’m all in favor of cuts to our military and I have no problem with sequestration, except that it doesn’t go far enough.
getalife
March 1st, 2013
12:33 pm
“Income Posts Largest Drop In 2 Decades”
The gop want to cut income more.
Americans are not self defeatists like you cons.
The gop are going down for good.
Half Century Dawg
March 1st, 2013
12:33 pm
“Did they go up. Or was a always meant to be temporary cut allowed to expire ?”
either way Cheesy, they went up for those of us that work
Stephenson Billings
March 1st, 2013
12:33 pm
As the Sequester Looms, Obama Backpedals
After weeks of warnings about the financial cliff, President Obama pumps the breaks.
http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2013/02/28/commentary-as-the-sequester-looms-obama-backpedals.html
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:35 pm
“These sequester cuts will, sooner or later, cause many families in America to suffer.
Our rising national debt will, sooner or later, be passed on to future generations, that will suffer immensely, because of their ancestors shortcomings.
Only something like 45B of the 80 something B take effect this year, the rest are phased in down the road, so we are talking about a 1.5% reduction in projected growth. The budget for this year, with the sequester cuts, is still 59B more than last year. So, we have to settle for a new Mercedes this year instead of the new Lamborghini, we had planned to buy. Cry me a river, progs!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
March 1st, 2013
12:40 pm
BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!
FAST AND FURIOUS!!!!!!!!!
Did that wake up the Cons on here?
Stephenson Billings
March 1st, 2013
12:41 pm
I blame Obama’s tax increase on 77% of taxpayers. Gotta love the low-information voter who are shocked their taxes went up…
From the CNN article:
“Meanwhile, economists are closely watching consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
They’re waiting to see how the payroll tax hike will affect the broader recovery.
Spending increased $18.2 billion, or 0.2%, in January. Some economists, like Chris Christopher, Jr. of IHS Global Insight, called that “anemic” and pointed to weak retail sales at low-end and mid-tier retailers as proof that consumers are being squeezed.
The payroll tax cut “hurt many Americans where it counts — in their pocket books,” he said.”
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/01/news/economy/income-spending-saving/
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
March 1st, 2013
12:42 pm
Our rising national debt will, sooner or later, be passed on to future generations
Yeah, just like it did for the generation before us, and the generation before them, and the generation before them. We seem to be doing ok, all in all.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:43 pm
getalife
Are you going to attempt to answer or just move on to some more Obama defensive talking point?
Which is it gitalife? When are you lying, when you say you don’t want cuts because cuts kill jobs, or when you say you want to cut DOD?
Jefferson
March 1st, 2013
12:43 pm
The GOP caused the deficit, don’t forget.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:45 pm
Jefferson
The GOP caused the deficit, don’t forget.
So, the current Dem talking point is that spending and financial responsibility are the Congress’ responsibility. They approved all that spending, not Obama, right.
So splain to me how GWB caused this mess?
Retired Soldier
March 1st, 2013
12:50 pm
Jefferson-
Really? Please tell us how it is just the GOP or this another silly comment by you that you won’t defend?
Aquagirl
March 1st, 2013
12:50 pm
The libs on here whine about the GOP being job killers, then in the next sentence want to cut the military in half.
Cutting the Defense budget =/= “cutting the military in half”
We could certainly cut our R & D military budget considering how many toys are stuck in the military budget even when the military says they don’t need those toys. There’s a terrible disconnect between what we need and programs in some Congressman’s district.
If we don’t want to cut jobs we could spend that money on NASA and technology which provide all sorts of expansion and jobs for the private sector like the GPS system did.
indigo
March 1st, 2013
12:52 pm
Grasshopper – 12:18
Thinking isn’t your strong suit, is it?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
12:54 pm
“Yeah, just like it did for the generation before us, and the generation before them, and the generation before them. We seem to be doing ok, all in all.”
Yeah, ’cause constantly spending what we don’t have will never catch up with us, will it, Finn?
indigo
March 1st, 2013
12:54 pm
Tiberius – 12:23
I believe losing your job would qualify.
Of course, a rich, homeschooler like you has no clue as to just how serious and painful that could be.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 1st, 2013
12:55 pm
No military development program is started without specifications for it first being issued by the military, so when you hear a lib say that the military “doesn’t want” one of it’s development programs, just remember The Pathological Lie that they think you believe, just because they said it.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
March 1st, 2013
12:55 pm
Yep, after WWII when I was born, Finn, the debt was 257B, a more manageable debt than the soon to be 17T. We fought the great war and paid down our debt afterward, what an incredible example of leadership and financial responsibility.
Oh, to have an Eisenhower again, rather than a Spenderiser.
Retired Soldier
March 1st, 2013
12:57 pm
AQ-
There is plenty of money that could and should be cut from DOD and still maintain, train and equip the current force. I wish the Dems would join me and push the President to withdraw immediately and completely from Afghanistan. Think of the saving!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
12:57 pm
“We could certainly cut our R & D military budget considering how many toys are stuck in the military budget even when the military says they don’t need those toys.”
Well instead of just whining, why doesn’t President Incompetent do just that? It’s not as if he hasn’t used executive authority before. He has that capability RIGHT NOW under the sequester rules.
But it’s so much easier for that pathetic excuse of a President to whine and blame others than to lead.
getalife
March 1st, 2013
12:59 pm
cons cheering for going back to a recession is just another of the million reasons why our country must marginilyze these self defeatists for our country.
Kyle and the cons want the EU recession.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
March 1st, 2013
1:00 pm
Yeah, ’cause constantly spending what we don’t have will never catch up with us, will it, Finn?
No, they won’t until our economy is non-existent and I don’t foresee that happening for hundreds of years.
getalife
March 1st, 2013
1:01 pm
And no I will not answer any ignorant question from you self defeatist cons.
If you want the EU recession move there.
Good riddance.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:01 pm
“I believe losing your job would qualify.”
And just how many people are actually going to lose their jobs, Indigo?
Or is their Federal funding just going to get cut (like all those alleged cuts for teachers and police)?
And if they’re so darned important to the local community, why don’t they find a way to fund them on their own nickel instead of on ours?
Why should my taxes in Georgia pay for a teacher in Michigan?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:03 pm
“No, they won’t until our economy is non-existent and I don’t foresee that happening for hundreds of years.”
Someone hasn’t bothered to see the debt projections vs. GDP lately, have they?
indigo
March 1st, 2013
1:08 pm
Tiberius
I don’t know how many will lose their jobs.
It may be, that if things get rough, both parties will kick the can down the road for a few months.
However, I would not, like you, smugly suggest that all is essentially well and nothing bad will happen.
Don’t worry about your taxes going to Michigan. They are going to lawyers here for defending those DeKalb School Board members who got canned and are going to sue to get their jobs back.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:12 pm
Nice admission that you don’t know how many jobs will be lost, even though you used that metric to make your claim of future “suffering”, Indigo.
And nice deflection on the question about why local communities can’t pay their own way and have to rely on others.
But you want to know the best indicator of whether this sequester will be the gloom and doom you libs keep claiming it will be?
The markets.
Not even a yawn this week.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 1st, 2013
1:12 pm
“Wanted: Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam,” the page reads. The list includes: Molly Norris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Flemming Rose, Morris Swadiq, Salman Rushdie, Girt Wilders [sic], Lars Vilks, Stephane Charbonnie, Carsten Luste, Terry Jones, and Kurt Westergaard.
Notice how obozo’s name isn’t on the list?
“Yes We Can,” the image reads. “A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away.”
Very nice, signing off as dummycrats.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
March 1st, 2013
1:15 pm
Obama’s “Jedi mind meld” mixes up “Star Trek” and “Star Wars
Ok, I guess we can rule out that he was born on another planet??
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:16 pm
Now THIS is the way you fix the mess liberals get you into:
http://news.yahoo.com/governor-declares-financial-emergency-detroit-170227133.html
“He (Republican Gov. Snyder) also said there is no “big bailout coming” from the state. Emergency managers have the power under state law to develop financial plans, renegotiate labor contracts, revise and approve budgets to help control spending, sell off city assets not restricted by charter and suspend the salaries of elected officials.”
That last one is pretty telling. You ought not get paid for consistent stupidity.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:18 pm
Well, we can rule out he’s not a “Trekkie”, Finn.
Fascinating . . . .
Aquagirl
March 1st, 2013
1:23 pm
He has that capability RIGHT NOW under the sequester rules
The sequester was never intended to give the President such a single-handed power, Congress effed up because they couldn’t even write the legislation properly.
I have no idea what particular R& D program Obama could cut, but it doesn’t seem like a good idea because the funding almost certainly would be restored by Congress, and that would mean MORE money to re-hire everyone and get it running again. That would increase waste, not cut.
If the President doesn’t have the permanent power to fund or eliminate programs then I don’t blame him for making a few broad exemptions like military pay and leaving the rest as across-the-board cuts. It’s not his job to sort this mess out, it’s Congress’. That’s why Kyle and other conservatives are so busy with 1,000 reasons it’s Obama’s fault.
wallbanger
March 1st, 2013
1:27 pm
Saying the sky will fall if we cut the budget is only an admission that the federal government is way too much into our lives. The government NEEDS to back off, and let the states continue to care for their people at their people’s will. The government NEEDS to pay attention to its actual scope of authority under the Constitution. That doesn’t entail Head start programs, free cell phones, food stamps, disability payments, etc., etc.
Retired Soldier
March 1st, 2013
1:30 pm
wallbanger-
well said
sailfish
March 1st, 2013
1:31 pm
tiberius
For someone who seems to be very knowledgeable about gov’t, your constant berating of the president doesn’t add up. I mean, put yourself in his position; he walks into an almost great depression, an opposition that declares their number one goal is to defeat him and they use that cudgel every which way but loose. People who blame him for the debt when intelligent people know that 2 trillion would be added to it as he walked through the door from tarp, ongoing wars and the massive drop in unemployment with lower tax receipts. As a former politician all of that is a formidable high hurdle and as you well know the congress and specifically the house, appropriates money.
In reality, he has very little leverage to solve these massive problems but the quickest way is to focus on employment. More workers = more revenue. No matter who is president, it’s a thankless task.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 1st, 2013
1:31 pm
“The sequester was never intended to give the President such a single-handed power”
Doesn’t matter – he’s still got it.
If he has the stones to use it properly instead of his stupid “Let’s pre-release more illegal immigrants than we need to” move.
“It’s not his job to sort this mess out, it’s Congress’.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, Aquagirl, but it is ENTIRELY his job to sort this out. Congress appropriates funding and gives initial direction where it is to be spent. But when you are running under a set of continuing resolutions that are over 3 years old and you can’t decide where to spend your shrinking resources, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE gets to make that decision.
It’s too bad Obama wanted a job he was completely and totally incapable of handling.
I’ll tell you one thing: Mitt Romney would have had a deal months ago, or had these cuts ready weeks ago if he had been elected.
That’s what leaders do.
The job they were elected to do.
Politico
March 1st, 2013
1:34 pm
if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts………………..