Exactly. Congress has approved this spending over the years. Congress was charged with finding a solution in order to avoid the sequestration pain. They FAILED. Congress is not one party or the other; it's been in both parties' hands over the years.

The bad part is that we reelected them anyway.

We deserve sequestration. MAYBE we'll learn something about our elected officials. I doubt it, though.

Amen.

No, it is now about Presidential leadership respecting the fact that dealing with a 16 trillion plus debt requires a budget, a plan for growing the economy and a respect for the effort of private sector workers to pay the public bill that includes billions in waste, fraud and abuse. Let's give all federal departments the authority to allocate the cuts so as to protect workers as much as possible, Also, keep in mine that we are talking 2 cents on the dollar of deficit spending. We are cutting the rate of growth and we need to do that if we are serious about permitting the private sector to drive future growth closer to 3.5% or 4%. Enough with the redistribution of wealth as it does not create jobs. Wealth creation, risk taking and a respect for the market will do more to mitigate future cuts than all the stage shows and props used by the President to campaign against Republicans. We need less campaigning and more leadership and for the President that means going to the center and leaving the left where it belongs - on the sidelines carping and bellowing about fairness whille priovate sector workers have already taken job loss, pay cuts and reduced hours. For federal workers, it is a cold hard slap of economics that should inform then about the need to energize the private sector to keep the public sector strong.

President Obama received his tax increases. Every *working* American is now paying more taxes. It's time to cut spending.

However, the 207,000 jobs is a myth to scare people. Worst case scenario: non-essential government employees GS-12 and above would could take 14 unpaid vacation days to meet the spending cut goal. Or, just cut the non-defense spending in the defense budget. Or, eliminate the federal Medicaid incentive payments to the states. Many ways to skin this cat, but since Obama and the Senate Democrats have not even proposed a budget in three years, sequestration is the only alternative.

You make a good point. Talking about "leadership" when the GOP has done nothing but obstruct business throughout most of Obama's term seems a bit naïve to me. Anyone can check the roll calls in congress to confirm this, they don't need to take anyone's word for it.

On the other hand, we never worried about a debt ceiling during the higher spending of our previous president, and this time it feels most definitely politically motivated. You want evidence?

218 Republicans voted for the sequester.

0 Democrats voted for the sequester.

I agree that both parties are to blame. The political "kabuki" dance we are sure to watch play out this week- will ensure that both sides can't be accused of losing any ground to the other in the event of any compromise. The original legislation was written by the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011. The committee was comprised twelve members of Congress, six from the House of Representatives and six from the Senate, with each delegation evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The draconian cuts were proposed because the writers felt certain that our Congress could SURELY we could come up with a better solution. It is indeed terrible legislation, but obstruction at all costs by the Republicans is not helping with finding any middle ground.
I have such little faith in our Congress, at this point. I do believe these 11th hour face offs hurt us all as a nation and do little to ignite our (too slowly) recovering economy.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: WHO WAS THE WINNER?

I am pleased to announce that after thorough analysis of all comments, there is a clear and unmistakable consensus that BARRACK OBAMA is the PRIMARY CAUSE of the sequester. :-))

The top dude is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen. Mr. President, please lead us out of this mess. I like my job! I want to keep my job!

Which is why both parties in Congress should be sequestered on the floor of the house. It is absurd that the failure of elected officials to do their job results in furloughs, lay-offs etc. to third parties. Congress should be forced to pay the salaries of the folks that Congress's inaction results in their loss of income.

The blame game needs to stop. Solutions are needed. However, politics seems to want to avoid solutions at the expense of others. Unfortunately, Republicans who compromised in the past lost the GOP's backing. Thus, no one wants to compromise. Thus, if Congress's failure to do their job results in job losses, the American people should demand that Congress (most of them have the money) pay for the income lost.

Fortunately, The GAO has identified billions in overlapping programs, waste, and inefficiency in the government. As head of the executive branch, it is President Obama's job to address this. So far, he has chosen to ignore this report from his own branch of government and attack anyone who wants to cut the administration's record spending.
As Bob Woodward pointed out in the Washington Post, the sequestration was Obama's idea and he was the one who proposed it and sold it to Congress. For him to now complain about it is hilarious.
It's time for Obama to man up and actaully manage the Exective branch. He is the one who decides where to cut. He is the one responsible for the management of the Executive branch. If he wants to cut airport services to save the waste and inefficiency cited by the GAO, that's his decision - not Jim Moran's, not Tim Kaine's, not Frank Wolf's.

Actually, the President does not decide where to cut. He submits a budget every year which is basically a wish list. The power of the purse resides in Congress only. The Executive branch can only administer the programs authorized and funded by Congress. You know all those duplicative programs? Where do you think they came from?

oh yeah, and GAO is not part of the Executive Branch.

We wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for this vote to even have a sequester. The republicans were proud of this at the time.
218 republicans and 0 democrats voted for this.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll677.xml

I think the issue with the President is he wants them to vote on getting rid of the tax loop holes. Exxon, that means you! I love the folks who cry about the feds and their jobs. As if we are at fault here. We are pawns in this game. Please, who put these jerks into office? Mr. Boehner with his suntan, I wonder how his golf game went last week? I am hoping we do shutdown then folks can see the impact...it will hit hard no matter what Faux news tells you.

Congress would rather snipe at each other and use scare tactics, like little kids. No wonder they have a 10% approval rating. Grow up and take the responsibility you are entrusted with.

The poll results so far seem to bear you out...

David Smith doesn't seem to be informed too well on who is going to be furloughed. I am workng at an Air Force Base as a flight instructor and we were all told that 100% of the civilian workers here WILL BE furloughed for 1 day a week for 22 weeks. When you take into account the unearned leave days, sick leave, 401k (TSP) non-contributions, etc. the end result is a cut in pay of approximately 23-25% for the sequester period. If the budget cut is 2% overall, why do we have to put up 23-25% of our pay? Let's cut everyone's pay starting with the welfare recipients all the way up to and including the president by 23-25% and we can fix things real quick. I have no say over mine why does anyone else???

It is fiscally impossibe to balance the budget without more taxes. You could get rid of the Dept of Education, Transportation, Commerce and you still are $800 billion short. No matter how much you cut, you cannot balance the budget without an additional $400 billion per year in increase taxes. That is a fact. People like Romney made $23.7 million in 2011, yet his tax rate was 10.7%. Unless we close the loop holes for people making over $500,000 a year, we will never have a balance budget. Lastly, what are you going to cut? Entitlement programs such as Soc. Sect, Mediare and Medicaid make up 40% of our budget. Our military make up 20% of our budget. Pick one, Soc Sec, Medicare or the military. To balance our budget without more taxes, you would have to get rid of the USA military, good luck with that.

@ Eric -

Wrong. You and I could balance the budget and get federal spending down to 3% of GDP overnight. All by getting the massive federal government to abide by the Constitution. Something the government has been doing less and less of over the last 150+ years.

But, all you really need to do is limit the growth of federal spending, something sequestration makes an attempt at.

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/01/04/how-congress-can-avoid-a-debt-ceiling-fight-and-balance-the-budget-video/

Hans is correct!

Hans, I would agree with you except that this was not how the republicans conducted themselves during W's term. Had they done so, maybe we wouldn't be in such a dire situation today.

218 Republicans voted for the sequester.

0 Democrats voted for the sequester.

Obama continues to play politics, blame others, and lie. When will he be held accountable for anything? Many if not most presidents have dealt with a divided congress. It is no excuse for failing to put forth compromise proposals and bring parties together. It is inconceivable Obama can't find spending reductions that amount to 2-3% of the largest federal spending budget in history.

IF Republicans were for less government spending and they are NOT, they would vote to end the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home. They would shut down all military bases throughout the world. And bring the troops home. They would end the $50 billion a year in foreign aid--money that we borrow from China to still "keep face" which we've lost long ago. They would allocate money ONLY for DEFENSE spending and zero-out ALL military spending. RON PAUL WOULD HAVE DONE THIS. And YOU kept this from happening. YOU listened to the corrupt US media who made RON PAUL look like an idiot, a fool, and went against the man who would have brought America back from disaster. Mind our own business. There's plenty to mind right here. Like China is doing. And getting filthy rich by leaving others alone.

Helene - Those who make more money are already paying more taxes. How much more do you want them to pay? Don't you think those who receive tax money in the form of Government benefits should give something back, even if it is just a token amount?

Have you looked at the tax rates for those high earners? Hovering around 50% already going to the government? If you were going to choose a place to live and open a successful business, it wouldn't be in U.S., because you can't re-capitalize what the government takes. Privately owned business, need those funds to re-invest in their business not, give to Obama or the Republicans.

With Obama, it is the middle class that will get hurt the most, & he tries to make us think he cares.............

Half the population pay no taxes. Many of the lowest earners pay no taxes but instead actually get a check. Why shouldn't everyone pay some taxes? It is a mathematically impossible for the budget deficit to be fixed even if you took 100%of top earners money. How much is enough taxes? You seem pretty eager to confiscate other people's money. What gives you the right to tell fellow Americans they can't invest their money overseas if they choose. Bottom line it is not your money! Keep your hands out of other people's pockets.

Seriously? No money, no beef, and homeless? You are talking about the wealthiest place in the country. And who told you there would be no beef? You either get your information from a messed up place or you are just fear mongering.

A pay raise for Congress was included in the contorted bill, but the Republicans voided it with a resolution last month.

The President did not win a landslide. There were fewer votes even cast this time than 4 years ago. There is no evidence of a mandate.

And the republicans voted for it.

People can finger point until they are blue in the face, but there is enough blame to go around. All parties are responsible for working together to get things accomplished and there is a fundamental failure to do so by both parties. Both the Senate and House act as if they are still in middle school. I find it embarrassing for this country in the manner in which they act.

*sigh* Boehner and McConnell proposed budgets and compromises until they got blue in the face, all rebuffed by the Senate Democrats and Obama. Yes, the White House has the better PR machine, but that doesn't change the facts.

You conveniently overlook that Boehner and McConnell are also elected by the people. The republican majority in the House was elected by the people. Obama was not elected to be dictator. I

The republicans in the house have TWICE passed budgets....the Senate Democrats will not budge an inch. They plan to BLAME republicans for the sequestration to get re-elected. It's a pity the people will likely fall for the ruse. Dishonest as all get-out.

I agree! The Republicans were so determined to get rid of Obama after 1 term that they chose to obstruct any progress that could lead to people wanting to reelect him again. Case in point - Obama's health plan was drawn from one that originally was used by Republicans, and yet when Obama proposed it, rather than coming to the table and trying to work out a compromise, they tried everything they could to jettison it. They're still trying the same old, same old now.

Clearly you are a Republican. As someone wrote here already it is BOTH parties fault, not one or the other. To say or believe otherwise is ignorant.

Just reading the title tells me enough. "Your about to lose your job"? Tell me that is not fear mongering.

GREAT POINT! Patch should do some research instead of repeating talking points and press releases. How hard is it to pick up the phone and ask whoever gave Patch this insane number how it was calculated.

It is everyone's fault. However the President bears the majority of the blame. He totally ignored the commission HE put together, Simpson-Bowles, and then kicked the can down the road till they came up with the super-committee in the debt-ceiling debate. Once I heard that I knew that nothing would be decided. Neither side is willing to compromise and then if they do they are vilified by their own constituents and the media for bending to the will of the other. The President just sits there and does noting but spin for his side. He hasn't lead this country, he has really just been a great and powerful PR machine for the Democrats and for the most part this has worked to cast the blame for everything on the Republicans. They all share the blame as do we for keeping the status quo when we voted in November.

So does this mean you're blaming Bush for the sequestration?

This is Obama's problem plain and simple. To go back 18 years is ridiculous.

Yes, while Bush was a Liberal on economic policy, which President has added more to the National Debt than the previous 43 combined?

President Obama is making the same mistakes both FDR did digging out of Hoover's mess in the 30's and Japan did in the 90's (they're still trying to dig out of that one) with the economy.

And why is no one talking about the real upcoming problem? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have somewhere between $86 - $132 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (or btw/ 550% - 900% of GDP - does not include the $16 trillion in National Debt)? The Government should have that money in a bank account somewhere earning interest. They have spent the money.

Under sequestration, while there is economic pain in the first year, federal spending still rises over ten years by about $100 billion less than pre-sequestration levels.

See the video at this link:
http://oldtownalexandria.patch.com/blog_posts/the-alexandrian-the-truth-about-sequestration-video

I chuckle at the fact that everyone is blaming everyone else when the only true denominator in all of this is the GOVERNMENT.

218 republicans voted for the sequester.
0 democrats voted for the sequester.

The GOP is proud to have people like you arguing for them.

FG - What world do you live in?

The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.

FG you are showing your ignorance of fact. Just another lib attempting to lie about fact. So typical.

Wrong. One of the powers of Congress under Article 1 Section 8 is to establish a military.

You and I could balance the budget and get federal spending down to 3% of GDP overnight. All by getting the massive federal government to abide by the Constitution. Something the government has been doing less and less of over the last 150+ years.

But, all you really need to do is limit the growth of federal spending, something sequestration makes an attempt at.

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/01/04/how-congress-can-avoid-a-debt-ceiling-fight-and-balance-the-budget-video/

You are incorrect, and worse, you are playing right into the President's hands of fear-mongering. There are a number of other places in the government from which cuts can be made besides defense, social security, or medicare to achieve budget reductions and arrive at a balanced budget. Here is the first one: foreign aid - we give a lot of it. We could cut foreign aid, which arguably we should be doing when we don't have enough money to meet domestic obligations, and that would get us to where we need to be in a short period of time. There is no need to expose ourselves to attack, to cut social security (especially since we funded it directly from our own money anyway!), or to reduce medicaid benefits to the most vulnerable folks in the country.

ummm, vote?

Eric wrote:

"Rex Nutting found that government spending has slowed dramatically under the Obama administration. From fiscal year 2010 to the present, government spending — including the stimulus bill — has risen at a 1.4 percent annualized pace, slower than at any time since the 1950s."

This claim by Nutting was disproven. See the facts at:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/

Or, have you not noticed that we have endured the only $1 trillion dollar + deficits in the last few years?

Oh my God, you cannot be serious! "The simple fact is that Obama has run a shockingly cost-sensitive administration."

Here is a simple fact: George W. Bush incurred more debt than all of his presidential predessors (including his dad) combined. Here is another simple fact: In his first term, Barack H. O'Bama incurrred more debt than all of his presidentila predessors PLUS that incurred by George W. Bush, combined.

You need to put that cup of Kool-Aid down - you obviously have a drinking problem!

He's hiding.

Perhaps Eric doesn't have his notifications on - which is a little different than "hiding", Brad L... careful, such reactions carry a danger of unsupported ego inflation. Father-of-three, hope you don't talk that way in front of your kids!

Having said that, I agree with you. Getting rid of the military is not an option, that is an utterly reckless idea and rest assured there is no way that would happen except after a complete collapse of our economic system. However, defense spending cuts are. I don't know why anyone's even talking about Social Security as it's totally irrelevant to the budget. SS is completely separate and all changes to SS would be irrelevant to the national debt. Anyone talking about changes there for the sake of the budget is a lying scumbag.

@FG you are wrong. Entitlements like SS need to be part of the discussion and solution to the national debt crisis dictator Obama has put us in.

Oh, the 2nd grade? You mean at the schools we are forced to attend that are funded and run by the government?

You really think that the government is OF US, BY US, and FOR US? It is representative of the whole? Give me a break.

@Rick -

Here are three ways Congress and the President can get around sequestration. 1) Stop sending money to people that hate America (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt recently got $1.5 billion in foreign aid). 2) Stop spending money on protecting countries that can protect themselves and 3) the GAO recently issued a report that said the GOvernment wastes $125 billion a year or more. Why not make the federal government smarter?

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/01/11/the-u-s-government-wastes-125-billion-a-year/

Michael, are you somehow comfortable with the debt? Looking forward to just leaving that for my grandchildren to pay? Heck, they can't afford college, and what will they pay it with? Neutraltax.com has one option most folks aren't considering because they haven't even heard of it...flat tax and fair tax are also options. But the current system is a joke that hurts the most vulnerable.

I am affected by that too. At least one or two days per pay period. All I was pointing out is that instead of harming the economy by hurting workers & the local economy, why not stop spending money on items that do the economy & our kids future no good at all? Why not clean up the federal government as the GAO suggests? Either of these suggestions would save money and lessen the impact of sequestration on workers.

But, that's not the way the President designed it when he and his aides (e.g. Jack Lew) drew it up. This is by design. Instead of focusing on creating jobs, the President is out to destroy the Republican party - the local (or national) economy be damned.

Is that why Obama's senate has failed to produce a budget to discuss and compromise? No budget in four years. Is that how you run your house soccer mom? Do you just max out every credit card you have and then try to get more? That's what the liberals are doing.

Brad, I'll answer for Soccer Mom, because your analogy is misplaced. Yes, the government maxed out the credit card (taking your analogy for what's it worth). Then, when it was time to increase the debt limit to pay for the maxed out credit card bills and not go into default, the Republicans in Congress threatened to put the US Government into default for the PREVIOUS SPENDING. That's what the Sequestration is all about - - it's about a mechanism to address a Republican Congress that refused to increase the debt limit to pay bills that had already been incurred. It was not about NEW SPENDING or, in your analogy, spending after the credit cards were all maxed out. So, you can rave and rant all you want, the fact of the matter is that, the current crisis is wholly manufactured by a Republican Congress that threatened to put the US Government into default by not paying bills for credit card amounts already incurred. You can blame President Obama all you want. Or attribute ill motives to him all you want. But the facts are the facts, and the whole sequestration thing is a manufactured crisis (sequestration) built upon a manufactured crisis (refusal to increase the debt limit to pay bills already incurred). The whole thing is ridiculous, and we ought to throw all of Congress out and elect representatives who are going to represent the people.

Sequestration was intended to make republicans look like bad guys. After entirely too many compromises for many, many decades, the nation is hugely in debt. The current administration is milking every ounce of uncertainty and playing on peoples emotions, forming a huge support group to suppress any mention of facts and logic.

Lee, I agree with the article you cited. What I don't agree with is your comment that the Republicans compromised by allowing the payroll tax reduction to expire. The payroll tax reduction was an Obama stimulus measure that was intended to temporary and the Republicans did not object to that temporary measure expiring. It was not part of the intensive compromise discussions about income tax rates. Your comment implies that Obama raised taxes on lower income Americans. That is very different from allowing a temporary stimulus measure to expire. Social security needs to be fully funded in the long run and that is why the measure was intended to be a temporary stimulus for the economy.

@soccer mom -

I'm glad they decided to end the payroll tax holiday for two reasons - 1) It steals from Social Security and 2) like the failed 2009 stimulus, Keynesian policies just like these don't work.

My only point being that raising taxes is still raising taxes and raising taxes in a struggling economy whether through the payroll tax or via income taxes is bad news for all of us. We suffered through 8 years of Bush and now we're left with George Bush on steroids (Obama) for another four years.

Fact is for about 150 years, government spending as a share of the economy hovered around 3% of GDP (until FDR came along...). It is now at its highest levels ever and projected to go even higher.

You and I could sit down and eliminate all the agencies and programs not covered under the Constitution and balance the budget over night to get us down to the 3% figure. This would eliminate the income tax. How's that for 'hope & change'.

The President plays class warfare (gee, where does that come from?) and fear mongers by saying we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund his redistributive economic policies.

Problem is, if you tax the wealthy at 100%, you take everything they earn, you only come up with $400 billion a year. Not much help when the annual deficit is $1.2-$1.5 trillion a year.

This is why the federal government has been making plans to come after your retirement accounts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_feds_want_your_retirement_accounts.html

Because after all, Democrats think they know how to spend your money better than you do. http://youtu.be/zISKoQegbxM

Wrong. The Republican Party has compromised or didn't most of America get a tax increase Jan. 1?

Regarding Lee Hernly's comment "The Republican Party has compromised or didn't most of America get a tax increase...". The Republicans were forced to compromise on taxing Americans with incomes over a certain level. Both parties compromised on the level of income. That level is a very small percentage of Americans. The tax increase on most of Americans was the return of the Social Security tax to its fully funded level. Obama had cut that tax by 2% as a temporary stimulus measure. Both parties reluctantly agreed that tax cut could not be continued. That tax does not impact the deficit directly. It impacts the funding for Social Security, which has a separate revenue source.

Actually soccer mom, middle class wage earners got a bigger tax hike under the fiscal deal than the wealthy did. So no, it was NOT a 'small percentage' of Americans but more like 80% of working households.

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/01/04/obama-congress-stick-it-to-low-wage-earners-in-fiscal-cliff-deal/

Lee, I was surprised by your reply to my comment, so I read the article you referenced in your note. The article supported the point that I just made. The compromise was on income tax rates, which only impacted higher income Americans. The tax increase you referred to on lower income Americans was specifically for the return of the Social Security tax to its original level. Obama cut that tax temporarily by 2% as a stimulus measure. Your own cited article says the following "For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does, and the payroll tax cut therefore – as [the Congressional Budget Office] and others have shown – was a more effective stimulus than income tax cuts were, because the payroll tax cuts hit lower in the income distribution and hence were more likely to be spent,’ he added. That was impact to lower income that the article referred to. Please fully read and understand the articles that you read.

The republican party has compromised us into this situation for decades and decades. Tea Party folk want that ended. Who stands for common sense and the rights of the individual??? Not the democrats. And the republicans have been compromising those principles for so long it's time they took a stand.

Again soccer mom, as the article notes, less than 1% -- actually only 0.7% -- of tax filers overall will see a income tax rate increase under the fiscal cliff deal while the vast majority of low and middle income workers will see a payroll tax increase.

This is why the article states: "the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does"

soccer mom wrote:

"The tax increase on most of Americans was the return of the Social Security tax to its fully funded level. Obama had cut that tax by 2% as a temporary stimulus measure. Both parties reluctantly agreed that tax cut could not be continued. That tax does not impact the deficit directly."

Actually, Social Security does have an impact on the debt. Currently, about $11.5 trillion of the national debt is public debt and the rest comes from bonds (IOU's) held by Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds. Money that the Government has already spent (like in the 90s when they balanced the books by stealing from Social Security). This does not include the $86-$132 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (not counting public debt) from Social Security & Medicare that the actuaries say is beyond unsustainable.

@FG - President Obama proposed it as the White House has admitted.

Yes, typical case of "do as I say not do as I do". Obama is a superb politician and a lousy leader. In my opinion, he has great disdain for this country for whatever convoluted reason and he wants to "teach it a lesson" as all of his policies so far have shown. THE ENEMY WITHIN!!!

Well said, Mr. Cuthbert.

@ Eric Cuthbert...your last sentence pretty much sums up your education. You may want to ask for a refund.

I'll have to go with @ Eric Cuthbert... comment. Sounds like he has some "Common" sense.

Don't fall for Obama's fearmongering. He's just using his bully pulpit, going around the country and holding staged photo ops at the White House, to get his way again.

The sequester idea came from the White House, Congress voted for it and Obama signed it into law. Obama proposed it as a cudgel to get his way over the debt ceiling and it worked, but they all thought they were smarter than they are, establishing a commission which was designed to fail (equal fiscal hawks and spenders), and now here we are.

Plus, Obama campaigned for $800B in more revenues (read taxes) and the Republicans gave him that right after his reelection, but then he wanted $1.3T, almost double, and made no substantive spending cuts in exchange for any of it.

The sequester's not the best way to make cuts (across the board with a meat axe rather than with a scalpel), but at least they are cuts, instead of just more spending, and they represent only 2% of the budget.

And Obama has plenty of latitude to move money around to avoid what he's been saying will happen, posing with first responders (most of whom are paid locally and not with federal funds anyway) and acting like Chicken Little. The sky is not falling and Obama, who can never seem to accept responsibility for anything or ever admit that he's wrong, should be more careful with what he bluffs with in the future, because it can turn around to bite him, as well as the Republicans, and us, just as his own sequester is doing right now.

@ Eric -

That statement is false. You can balance the budget w/o raising taxes simply by controlling the growth of federal spending. You do NOT need to cut either 1, 2, or 3 or all of them.

And where is Harry Reid's responsibility in all this? The only thing he's good at is obstruction! No matter what bills are sent to him from the House, he just ignores them. Daschle did the same thing and he got booted by the voters for it, let's hope the same will happen to "Dirty Harry"!

That statement is false Jonathan. President Obama has spent more time w/ Tiger Woods than he has spent reaching out to the Republican leadership.

You have got to kidding!
Obama as moved a inch from my way or no way on the budget deficit issue. Congress voted for the biggest tax increase in many years a couple of months ago after Obama's strong arm tactics. Despite this tax increase, that fell disproportionately on the so called wealthy, Obama has not put forth any serious proposal to reduce spending. The 1% rhetoric is a naive smoke screen. You could raise the top tax rate to 100% on the top1% and not even come close to solving the deficit.

@ConcernedCitizen: Harry Reid has been doing what you have said on other topics, but Boehner hasn't passed anything on the sequester. In this case Harry Reid is a reid harrying.

@Lee Hernly: I said nothing about time spent on the topic. Only that Boehner is thwarting compromise by refusing to consider taxes and loopholes.

@pete: Obama clearly ran on the idea of raising taxes on people making over 250,000. He hasn't got that yet. If Boehner would give him that, this would be settled tomorrow. Also, I didn't say that taxing the one percent would solve the deficit, just that it would solve the present logjam by opening the door to compromise. And why shouldn't they share the pain? The middle class are losing jobs!

"Only that Boehner is thwarting compromise by refusing to consider taxes and loopholes."

Both Mr. Romney and the Republicans have offered to close loopholes yet have been mocked for it by Liberal economists (even though those doing the mocking think the economy would grow at 0%..).

Mr. Obama created a deficit reduction commission in his first term. One of their recommendations was to lower the rates across the board and close the loopholes. Did Mr. Obama listen to them? No, Like Steny Hoyer, he wants to raise taxes higher on everyone.

http://thealexandrianva.com/2013/02/22/steny-hoyer-wants-to-raise-taxes-on-99-of-americans-again/

@Lee Hernly: "Both Mr. Romney and the Republicans have offered to close loopholes."

Indeed they have, but not as part of the present sequester debate. If they would do so, a compromise would probably be reached pretty quickly.

Scarlett: You are correct. And it starts and ends with the Republican Congress. Boehner should indeed resign. Thank you for your prescient comment. It's refreshing to hear from someone as astute as you.

Cutting Social Security would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the national debt or the budget. Zero. Because it's managed separately from the budget. Please keep this in mind and stop talking about it in terms of the sequester.

I was thinking the same thing when you began your personal attacks on those who were expressing their opinions. That, my friend, it a better indicator of your lack of a good argument. My favorite part is how you seem to set the options, as if there is nothing else possible except the options YOU, the almighty Eric Cuthbert, have set forth. You stink of elitism and I am pretty sure if people knew what you did for a living, you would lose all credibility.

@FG -

Social Security does have an impact on the debt. Currently, about $11.5 trillion is public debt and the rest comes from bonds held by Social Security, Medicare and other trust funds. Money that the Government has already spent. Not to mention the $86 trillion in unfunded liabilities that both the actuaries of Medicare & Social Security say is beyond unsustainable.

"For every $3 dollars government spends, they receive $2 back in taxes"

Eric Cuthbert, I think you have your sequence of events a little out of order. Did you mean to say this:

For every $2 in taxes that the government takes from us, they turn around and spend $3.

If anyone would like to challenge that logic, be my guest.

AMEN!!!!
Obama proves that over and over again! The ONLY things he's good at is: Lying, demonizing, distorting facts, stealing credit, diverting blame, and last but not least, wasting taxpayer dollars for his personal entertainment.
The emperor has no clothes!!!

I thought Saudi Arabia was our number 1 ally in the middle east. Nothing against Israel (and I don't support cutting their aid).

Scarlett is correct. Boehner's failed leadership in the house allowing his caucus to be hijacked by the tea party guarantees that nothing will be accomplished in this congress. Hopefully 2014 will bring about changes that will allow us to go forward.

McEnearny from McEnearny Real Estate? Remind me never to do business with you and your ilk!

BSD Guy showing that you know nothing about economics. Additionally you need to learn your history son. Just another liberal dreaming of the utopia that dictator Obama offers those who drink his cool aid.

I'm afraid the BSD guy is right. The vast majority of money and wealth is distributed not to "job creators" but others, like Mitt Romney, that simply shift money around to make a profit. If jobs are created, so be it. If jobs are eliminated, so be it. If jobs are transferred overseas, so be it. It has to do with money manipulation, not the creation of companies, and certainly not the implementation of ideas.

I spent 8 years working for a company that was controlled by these types of people, and after they eventually blew all the investors money and took what was once a reasonably successful company and turned it into a shell of what it was capable of being, they just walked away from it, giving themselves bonus after bonus after bonus. This is the model the Republicans support.

@The Analyst, you state that BSD guy is right based on what? Your perception when you worked for a company? I too worked for a company and I say you are wrong. The simple fact is, the govt does not create lasting jobs. Dictator Obama and his crew think otherwise and therefore unemployment stays high and the economy is in the dumpster. This is what you all want I guess.

As another Conservative, who used to be a Liberal....I would love for someone like you to run for office. You have a handle and great responses to those that have the view that we are "tea party crazies" Good for you! What changed my mind also had to do with big government being part of the problem, however, as I see my children growing up surrounded by children that want everything without doing anything...it has opened my eyes...and most of those kids ran up to Jim Moran at a football game hugging him and telling him how great he is....made my stomach turn that that is the upcoming generation.

Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Walsh, Todd Akin....will the list never end?

What an airhead fest!

Cheryl -

78 million people are on the verge of retirement with 10,000 people are retiring every day which means they stop paying into the system and start drawing benefits.

This means the Government, in an account somewhere, has to have about $100 trillion dollars to make these payments.

Sadly, our leaders have spent the money which is why, as the actuaries for Social Security and Medicare have reported, both have unfunded liabilities in the neighborhood of $86-$132 trillion dollars (or 550% - 900% of GDP). Some economists peg that figure about $60 trillion higher.

Cheryl wrote:

"We all need to put the rhetoric away and press our Members of Congress to get to work."

Exactly HOW long has it been since Jim Moran or Mark Warner held a townhall so he can listen to his constituents? Exactly how long has it been since the Senate Democrats (like Mark Warner) have passed a budget? On number 2, since before the iPad was invented.

Scarlett - I think you are mistaken. The failed leader left the White House four years ago, after taking a surplus and turning it into massive deficit by simultaneously waging two wars (one of them unnecessary) and cutting taxes. Despite Republican efforts to hamper voting in key states, the president was re-elected. Get over it.

Bottom line Tracy is that this country is MUCH worse off now than when dictator Obama took office.

Like John Kerry with the war in Iraq (voted against it before he voted for it), don't forget Obama was for sequester (in fact, his idea) when it was useful to get Republicans to cave on the debt ceiling, but is against it now that it's inconvenient for him. Be careful what you bluff with, Mr. Prez.

Republicans are not "embracing" sequester. That's why they've proposed two other options for making cuts in spending, whereas we're still waiting on the Democratically controlled Senate, which has not passed a Constitutionally mandated budget in over four years, to make any kind of proposal including actual cuts, rather than fuzzy math and taking double credit for cuts already made. With this president and the Demo Senate, Republicans may be willing to accept sequester as the only way they will ever see some of the cuts which economists all over the place say must be done, even if it's not the best way to do it.

Sorry Fairfax County, where I also live, will be hurt by sequester but then Fairfax County reelected Obama and all Democratic reps to both houses of Congress, so those of you who voted them all back in are perhaps about to reap what you've sown.

Rick Gamble, if you believe some liberal professor you are as loony as dictator Obama and his assistants Reid and Pelosi. Sequestration is a 2 PERCENT CUT! OMG the sky is falling. This is not rocket science. Cut your spending liberals.

Rick...The cuts are tiny in comparison to the total budget. Businesses go through this all the time when they lose a big customer. My guess is that most agencies will cut contracts rather than cut employees. This will lead to a more bloated federal workforce.Once a program begins it's harder to kill than a vampire - check out the Rural Electrification program. It was a good idea and it did its job but why is it still in existence? today some of its biggest beneficiaries are ski resorts! Do you think killing the entire program, including all its employees and contractors, is going to hurt our country? Maybe our county but that's a small price to pay to save our country!

Anoneemous - Obama cut your payroll taxes over two years ago. He said it was a temporary stimulus measure. It was never intended to be permanent.

I guess you were not around during the Vietnam war. The country was on the brink of rebellion. The assasination of Martin Luther King left many of our cities in flames. I guess your little snipes at the intelligence of others is a good defense mechanism.

Scarlett, I agree our government is broken, but that is because both parties are gridlocked. It does not help that the Republicans set their top priority to make sure that Obamsa would not be reelected during Obama's first term. That is insulting to the American people and Obama. Their top priority should have been to work on the economic mess that Bush left. The president cannot bring the country together if the primary objective of the opposition party is to make him look bad by refusing to work with him. I think we should do what Iceland did. They got rid of all of the politicians in power during their economic crisis and put some of the bankers in jail that profited from it. The people elected new politicians that actually worked together on their problems.

test

Compromise works two ways. When he was President, Ronald Reagan had a hostile Congress to work with yet he often invited the Democratic leadership over to the White House to get things done.

Why then, in 2013, has President Obama had more face time with Tiger Woods than with the Republican leadership?

Why then have the Senate Democrats not even had a vote on a myriad of bipartisan jobs bills passed by the House?

Note, Boehner is a BIG government Republican, not a Tea Party person. I believe the Tea Party put up a candidate against him in the last primary.

Which is the same as his last two budgets - both of which got zero votes from Democrats in the House and in the Senate.

When Democrats won't vote for it, it can't be a very serious plan.

EXACTLY. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. Well said. You are a shining light in a sea of obfuscation on this board.

"however, it was the Republicans that forced his hand in not allowing the debt ceiling to be raised and wanting the Federal Government to go broke."

This is a FALSE statement. If the government went broke (hint - since we're btw/ $16 & $132 trillion in debt - we're already there) Government would have to drastically cut back but, it could still pay it's bills.

"After all, wasn't it President George W. Bush that lead us into a war under false information. "

Actually, if you read the Wikileaks dump on Iraq, there was more truth then false information that lead up to the war. The dishonest state-run media couldn't be lying now could it?

"Not to mention, our financial problems began during the summer of 2008, well before President Obama took office."

Coincidence that the financial problems occurred after the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress?

Fact is, BIG Government politicians on both sides of the aisle are to blame. We can't keep spending $3.5 dollars for every $2 that we take in and we can't keep borrowing $.43 of every dollar that is spent. Our kids deserve a future and for us to stop committing fiscal child abuse upon them.

Lee, I believe that you are missing my point. The sequestration would have never been on the table had Congress allowed the debt ceiling to be raised. In all of the instances that I mentioned regarding the other Presidents, do you recall Congress stiffling the increases to get what they wanted? I do not think so. I do agree that the spending needs to be handled more efficiently but blaming our President for everything is not appropriate. For the war in Iraq, Colin Powell went on record and stated the the information provided by President Bush used in justifying the war was inaccruate. Our concern should have been on hunting down the man that attacked our country not Saddam Hussein. President Bush went into Iraq to finish what his father couldn't.

Dictator Obama has led the largest deficit increase in the history of the US. If you ran your house like the president tries to run this country you would declare bankruptcy. That's where the US is heading if this spending nut continues. He pushed for the sequestration and now he's got to deal with it. And you know what? It's a whooping 2% cut! Any imbecile could cut 2%.

"The sequestration would have never been on the table had Congress allowed the debt ceiling to be raised. "

The President proposed it as a way of getting the debt ceiling raised by having the Super Committee figure out how to balance the budget. However, Democrats knew that would fail miserably.

The budget can be balanced by limiting the growth of Government, something 'sequestration' takes a stab at.

As I said earlier, BIG government politicos on both sides are to blame.

"For the war in Iraq, Colin Powell went on record and stated the the information provided by President Bush used in justifying the war was inaccruate."

Again, the Wikileaks dump on Iraq proved that Powell's statement wasn't necessarily true.

"Not to mention, our financial problems began during the summer of 2008, well before President Obama took office."

Coincidence that they started occurring after the Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress? Fact - Fannie & Freddie had a BIG role in the meltdown of the housing market. Two agencies that the Democrats refused to let President Bush revamp.

Taxpayers give $83 billion dollars + each year to BIG banks. Tell me again why the Government has to furlough federal employees?

Hold tight wait till the party's over
Hold tight We're in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house

Tracy, do you mean like liberal Democrats saying the same thing about Bush?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk

James - Justifying bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior is not really good policy.

Obama wishes.

Actually, he's a Totalitarian like just about all of the modern-day Democrats.

No, a totalitarian would say something like: "The conversation about revenues is over!"

And don't forget that President Obama proposed it.

When a Democrat like Bob Woodward calls the President a liar...that can't be good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

I am sure the president signing in into law has no bearing whatsoever. If this was SOOOOO bad, why didn't he just veto it?

And it wasn't a vote on just the "sequester". It was a vote on the entire bill which included the sequester if an agreement wasn't reached. I'm sure if we threw massive tax increases in there, the Dems would have gladly voted for it.

Don't forget about the Republicans who voted against...and they probably did that because they knew it wasn't enough to make a difference in the budget and debt. This sequestor cuts are a joke. We BORROW more than the sequestor amount in a month of government operations. Thats just borrowing, not overall. Sad.

No, it's great, it sells books!

Yawn.

Republicans = losers.

Is there much difference between an elementary school playground conflict and your assertion that Republican's are losers?

By the way, I think the GOP is worthless. The only difference between you and I is that I can pull my head out of my butt and see that there are solutions beyond the two-party dominated system. Dems are just as bad, if not worse than the GOP.

Actually, according to the polls, a vast majority of Americans think Government is too big. So which party is "utterly oblivious to what people want"?

"Lee Hernly
9:07 am on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Actually, according to the polls, a vast majority of Americans think Government is too big. So which party is "utterly oblivious to what people want"?"

Would you care to enlighten us with a little evidence?

Most people in the U.S. aren't quacks. They don't think the "blue helmets" from the U.N. are coming to indoctrinate them into a worldwide socialist agenda, they don't think social security numbers are actually devious tracking devices for the govt. to keep track of you, and they don't think the health care law will implement government controlled "death panels." These are all simply idiotic notions generated by Fox News,Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the host of other "IQ Meisters" that now fuel the Republican agenda.

The notion that the American people all wake up every day saying," Boy, that gosh darn government is bloated, too big, and out of control" is utterly idiotic.

What people want are simply results. They pay taxes, they want something in return for them. If there are problems with the government, fix them. Is that REALLY so difficult?

What they don't want is to adopt some crap-shoot, unproven economic theories and policies dreamed up by a bunch of nuts and the special interests paying them. Republicans can kid themselves all they want to, they can saturate this post to make it look like Democrats are a minority, but the writing is on the wall.

@BSD -

You can see the 'evidence' you requested from various news sources by doing a simple Google search:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=poll+government+too+big&oq=poll+government+too+big&gs_l=hp.3..0i30j0i5i30.1010.5884.0.6412.23.16.0.7.7.0.513.3069.0j12j2j1j0j1.16.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.dGSwKFeYPAk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.dmQ&fp=1337454d792dbd00&biw=1280&bih=682

@BSD Guy...typical left response. Ask for evidence, then turn around and spew out the same garbage with absolutely no evidence yourself. Just because you wake up thinking the government isn't big enough doesn't mean the rest of the country does. I don't even know where to begin with your post.

What? The party with the former leader who was heard to say 'Deficits don't matter?' believes that Government is too Big? That guy was cheerleading record deficits without the help of a recession.

Now, how what was their proposal for getting to smaller government. (Hire politicians with smaller brains?)

Bob! Oddly, I find myself in agreement with you yet again! Well said!

Thank you, thank you...

Jonathan -

Sequestration was an idea/plan put forth by the President (something the White House admitted to). So, your statement is patently false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0f9WxGNT6Y

Patently false? You mean no one in the TP Caucus voted for Sequestration??

That's quite a scoop you have there, better call Woodward (I don't think he included that in his book).

"What we have now is one national party (Republican) being spoon fed ideas by quack special interests (like the Koch brothers) and another (Democrats) that are now learning how to abuse constituents on behalf of special interests (think Hudgins and Developers)."

As opposed to the modern-day Democratic party which is taking its cue from crony capitalists w/ special interests like Jeffrey Immelt at GE (so they can pay $0 in taxes) and from the likes of George Soros?

Let's be honest - Like Bob McDonnell who proposed a massive tax hike on Virginians this session,Chris Christie is NOT a Conservative which is why I believe he was left off the guest list.

Lee Hernly and other Republicans should kick Chris Christie out of the party ASAP. Just kick him and any other moderates or reasonable people out. Focus on the Rebublican's strengths:

1. Blind devotion to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
2. Make believe economic policies
3. Using the government to regulate peoples social lives
4. Using the government to impose radical right wing pseudo Christianity on America
5. Trying to fix and rig elections

I can just see it now at a CPAC meeting:

Sarah Palin giving a rousing speech talking about the Kenyan born socialist president that "pals around with terrorists", babbling about fictional death panels, fighting for automatic weapons in everyone's house, denying global warming, and I can envision all the radical right wing extremists at the meeting going wild with enthusiasm until finally, finally, in her closing remarks, Sarah raises her fist in defiance ahd shouts out:

"WE'RE STUPID AND PROUD OF IT!!!!!!"

The CPAC conference goes WILD with applause!!!!!!

Going through these threads, for those interested in how Republicans think and analyze things, I suggest you read all the posts by "The BSD Guy" and the responses from those that are clearly Republicans. I then suggest you go to reston.patch.com and read "The BSD Guy's" comments on numerous development issues. What you will see is "The BSD Guy" continually slamming the Democratic party in VA for its ties special interest ties to developers, and it's been going on for at least 2 years.

This is a classic example of todays Republican intellect: assume everything, verify nothing. All of the ludicrous conspiracy theories listed in the post above by BSD Guy are the result of media talking heads making things up and spoon feeding it to their listeners. People with brains VERIFY, people with no brains NEVER VERIFY. It hardly takes any effort to look up the "terrorist" Obama was "palin' around with" and find out it was a 10 minute meeting on a tour of several Chicago area regions. It also takes no effort to look up the background of the Koch brothers and find out that their father was a radical member of the John Birch Society that believed Pres. Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent - NO, THAT IS NOT A JOKE!

This is the way this party now thinks, or perhaps I should say fails to think.

By the way, BSD Guy, you forgot to mention the vast conspiracy school teachers are using to turn our tiny tots into socialist, homosexual, atheistic, Christmas hating Obama puppets.

Actually, BSD Guy, most of the non-establishment Republicans don't believe in any of that. BIG Government Republicans (Liberals in reality a.k.a. RINOs) do. But, you're not interested in the truth now are you?

A great op-ed in the Washington Post from last November on how austerity cured a great depression.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/warren-harding-curing-a-depression-through-austerity/2012/01/19/gIQA5VEsEQ_story.html

Which poses the question "austerity" for whom? When a depression is cured, who gets selected to take the pain, and how?

Actually, Mr. Hernly, you seem to be picking and choosing and defining Republicans to suit your own vision of them, rather than what they are.