Ryan: Yeah, the sequester’s probably going to happen

posted at 2:01 pm on February 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this morning, I was asked by Jim Vicevich on his radio show whether I thought the sequester would go through.  I said yes, especially since there wasn’t any alternatives being offered by the Senate yet, and because the lack of follow-through by House Republicans would eliminate any credibility in future negotiations between the two chambers.  Paul Ryan made similar points this morning on CBS, telling Charlie Rose that while Barack Obama complained about his own budget demand now that it’s about to hit, he hasn’t offered any alternatives:

Congressman and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said he expects the drastic round of automatic across-the-board spending cuts – known as the sequester – to be implemented despite the fact that both parties largely agree they’re a bad idea. the House Budget Committee and spoke out on “CBS This Morning,” Wednesday, to share his reaction to the president’s State of the Union address.

In an appearance on “CBS This Morning” Wednesday, the chairman of the House Budget Committee condemned what he calls economic “brinksmanship” practiced by the president and Democrats in the Senate.

Ryan said the sequester, which would go into effect next month, is likely, “because the president hasn’t put a budget on the table. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years … Don’t forget that it’s the president who first proposed the sequester and it’s the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed.”

“We have acted in the House. The president has not. The Senate has not and therefore … I think it’s going to happen.”

The media would like to forget that this was Obama’s idea all along. In fact, six months ago Obama accused Republicans of “trying to wriggle out” of their sequester agreement:

It’s not Republicans wriggling now.  Politico reports this morning that the GOP has reached a consensus that the sequester needs to take place as an opening round of spending reductions, especially in the absence of any action from Senate Democrats:

Top congressional Republicans predicted Wednesday that the sequester will hit at the end of the month – the latest chapter in the series of budget battles that have stymied Washington in the last few years.

Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of Senate Republican leadership, said “I think the sequester’s gonna happen” and said the Pentagon needs more discretion to target the budget cuts so they don’t hit defense programs indiscriminately.

“The right thing to do is reduce spending,” Blunt said at POLITICO’s post-State of the Union event. “The wrong way to do it is with across-the-board cuts.”

And Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, said at POLITICO’s event that there is a “greater chance that they’ll be implemented than not at this point.” He argued that the GOP-led House has been out front on the sequester conundrum, noting that it twice passed legislation in the last Congress to avert the budget cuts.

“Obviously nothing was done” by the Senate and the White House, Lankford said. “We’re in the same boat now.”

There are only 15 days left before those cuts automatically go into effect.  Without a serious proposal from the Senate to consider, the House will apparently stand pat, and it will be the White House wriggling until then.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good

gophergirl on February 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Obama made the rope, let him hang from it.

GarandFan on February 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Stand Firm…DO NOT GIVE IN!

trs on February 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Obama invented it, to postpone the topic, until after the election.

He won, he owns it now.

The rest is charlatanry, pure, as is all with Obama.

See Woodard, if you need any proof.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM

B
U
R
N

hillsoftx on February 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Fluke Obama. LET.IT.BURN!

jawkneemusic on February 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Don’t cave, GOP. Everything about the next 2 years needs to be put on Obama.

sauldalinsky on February 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The sequester idea was Obama’s. Congress passed the bill, and Obama signed it into law. It should go into effect on March 1st as intended by Obama himself.

Dasher on February 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

“Down goes Frazier”

jake-the-goose on February 13, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Yep.

Coulda predicted this long ago.

Now, what has Ryan learned?

I would hope that first of all, never ever be so afraid of being labeled the “bad guy” when federal funds run out and government has to shut down. Should have been all over John Boehner like stink on poo-poo the first moment Boehner caved. That, Mr. Ryan, should have been the” hill on which to risk the entire Republic.

[We would have won, too.]

Instead of allowing that to happen…we somehow were offered this un-Constitutional “sequester” thing instead, so as to make it look like we were all being bipartisan or something.

Never allow that to happen, ever, again.

Obama and reid are all suddenly against “sequestration.”

Wonder why?

Oh, yeah, a lot of their favored spending/give-away p[rograms are gonna take hits. Screw the Republic, they gots to have them Obamaphones and more free stuff.

One has fundamental Constitutional principles or one does not.

Can’t be just a little Constitutional, now and then.

Mr. Ryan, if you can remember that, then you might be able to help out the Republic.

The big thing I would hope Ryan learned is that never ever ever again trust one damn thing a Progressive or Dem says. Follow only their actions. Never their words. Apply honest blame when necessary…like almost all the time…but offer positive Constitutional real Conservative alternatives at every juncture.

Never allow again the Progressives the advantage to set the agenda.

We got along just fine before they came along, and we will get along just fine long after they are gone.

It is their very existence,today, however, setting the agenda, that is the ultimate peril for the Republic.

Know this.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Every few months, when some new mania starts up, I think “Barry knows he can’t keep dodging responsibility”

…and then, he does it.

What’s crazy, is a large portion of his base knows what he’s doing, but they also know he’s bombing as prez, so they back alibi because, simply, what choice do they have?

budfox on February 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

The “Press” will run stories of crying hungry children and destitute elderly rummaging through trash cans for food, and then blame the GOP…

… Count on it.

Seven Percent Solution on February 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Good. I heard Kevin Brady this morning on a local AM radio show and he seemed confident that the sequester would go through. Any defense spending the GOP wanted to restore would then be done in future negotiations with the Dems. Sounds like the best way to go.

BTW, the host asked Brady why not just shut down the entire government in order to stifle all the spending and he seemed hesitant to commit to that. So it looks like this is really the only card the Republicans are willing to play.

Doughboy on February 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM

actual consequences? ’bout time.

tomg51 on February 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Great news!

tomshup on February 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

hmmm…Am I sensing a backbone by the GOP?…[fingers crossed.]

Don’t blow this GOP.

WisRich on February 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Don’t you cave GOP…And, I work in the defense industry.

Static21 on February 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

This sequester should absolutely happen. We need TEN more of these to happen all over the bloated dead whale of a government we have now to EVEN MAKE A DENT.

We’re so screwed.

Meople on February 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Well, guess we will see if Ryan/r’s will have the guts to let it happen? I would love for this to finally hand it to bho/d’s but one never knows about OUR bunch?
L

letget on February 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM

“Down goes Frazier”

jake-the-goose on February 13, 2013 at 2:11 PM

That’s the thing – he won’t.

Unless Rand and Rubio hammer the message home, in and on every outlet, that Barry is responsible for all of this, then 0 will skate on owning it.

I don’t mean Sunday shows, but one of them has to go on with Stewart and Morning Joe, Charlie Rose, Today Show, maybe even Maher.

One of them has to really pound Stephanopoulos on This Week, because he’s become the admin’s media narrator.

budfox on February 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Limbaugh is saying o wants to be exempt from responsibility . Doesn’t want to govern just wants the
title etc. etc. etc.
How true . Let it burn .

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

It would be a good start.

Drained Brain on February 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Russia, China and Nor Korea approve of the sequestration as well.

Don’t worry I tell myself. Republican Chuck Hagel will figure it all out with the help of John Swiftboat Kerry guiding him.

This is freaking madness.

FlaMurph on February 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Let the cuts happen! Seriously, who cares if the GOP gets blamed. President Obama doesn’t want cuts and he will never put an offer on the table. I’d rather the GOP get blamed than let this President get one more dime to spend.

davemason2k on February 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I say good too Across the board cuts for every area. The only place I dont want to see cut is soldiers pay and benefits and veterans benefits. The rest of the government needs to work towards a balanced budget and privatize everywhere they can

ldbgcoleman on February 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Don’t cave, GOP. Everything about the next 2 years needs to be put on Obama.

sauldalinsky on February 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
Sure, thats what the (Democrat Party) Media is gearing up to do – put the blame on President Revenge. They can’t wait.

Tar and feathers…… I’m sure.

FlaMurph on February 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Woodward

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Se–Quest Away! They wanted it…let them have it! This is the hill to fight on or lose every skirmish in the future!

Marco on February 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Limbaugh is saying o wants to be exempt from responsibility . Doesn’t want to govern just wants the
title etc. etc. etc.
How true . Let it burn .

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Well, that’s not entirely true. Obama wants to be President. He wants to fundamentally change this nation. But he doesn’t want anything that goes wrong to be pinned on him. And he certainly doesn’t want to waste his time fixing serious problems that he feels are distractions(i.e. the economy).

Doughboy on February 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

It’s way more complicated then he’s saying. I’m stunned it took him this long to understand the tactic, but the farther you’re removed from the street, the harder it is to see the hustle.

Barry explained it once, in a clip from his community organizing days.

He was yelling at some group that when they flood a bank’s lobby, that he won’t be out front, but behind him, and that the results reside with them. So on one hand, he was manipulating the crowd into conflict, while on the other, dodging responsibility for their actions.

budfox on February 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I just e-mailed my Congressman who, representing the DC suburb that includes the Pentagon, is especially interested in sequestration.

He’s also a filthy liar. Reading his statement, the Republicans are the ones who want to kick federal employees to the curb despite the best efforts of the Democrats. I made the same points that Paul Ryan made, especially the part about this being Obama’s idea in the first place, but perhaps not as politely as I could have. I have no tolerance for Irish-Catholic drunks who pull strings after thier sons push a woman’s face into a trash can and commit voter fraud.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Oh God, does this mean we’ll all loose our free birth control pills and Obamaphones???!!11!!!!1!

RMOccidental on February 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

If the sequester does happen, it will be the closest thing to a responsible thing Obama and the Congress have done for years.

VorDaj on February 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The GOP wants cowboy poets out on the street eating cat food!

mudskipper on February 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

We need to keep saying “Obama’s Sequester will happen” since he proposed it and signed it.

Can we make him own it? Well, LSM continues its teflon(tm) coverage….maybe not.

But it is the meme we need to generate.

ProfShadow on February 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I have to agree. It really is important that the GOP call Obama’s bluff and stand firm on this. And they need to keep hammering home the reality that this was Obama’s idea. This was Obama’s game and he deserves the lion’s share of the blame. Stay strong and make that case repeatedly.

cicerone on February 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Random thought: Maybe ammo will become more available if the gov’t can’t buy up all the supply because, you know, “sequester.”

ProfShadow on February 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

All the GOP has to do is absolutely nothing. And they can still F that up.

Chuck Schick on February 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Stand Firm…DO NOT GIVE IN!

trs on February 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM

You might as well ask the tide not to come in.

rrpjr on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

La la la blame gop…it’s their fault they won’t meet with dear leader
-lsm

cmsinaz on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I disagree with Blunt on the across-the-board cuts. Frankly, they’re probably more politically palatable than ones targeting JUST social programs, and probably a little easier to stomach for the broader public as a whole. I don’t want to see our military decimated, but it makes sense to ask the Pentagon to do a little belt tightening too.

changer1701 on February 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

How’s this for an idea.

Supposedly with sequestration the DoD civilian employees are going to be forced to take 22 days of furlough. One day a week for 22 weeks. That’s two days less pay every pay period. There will be hardship for those living paycheck to paycheck or just getting by.

Why shouldn’t the entire Congress from the lowliest staffer to the most senior politician be forced to do the same? The politicians will be fine but most of their worthless staffers don’t make a lot in the first place. Why not force Congress to feel the economic pain of their arrogance firsthand when their own people can’t pay the rent?

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

We’ll see if it happens. So far Prince Charming has been far better at talking the talk than walking the walk: No Child Left Behind, TARP,the auto bailout, debt ceiling increases, etc.

bw222 on February 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

BTW, the host asked Brady why not just shut down the entire government in order to stifle all the spending and he seemed hesitant to commit to that. So it looks like this is really the only card the Republicans are willing to play.

Doughboy on February 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM

March 27th is the GOP’s opportunity to shut down the government by refusing to authorize further continuing resolutions. I’d say it is too early to put those cards on the table and a lot of what the GOP does is going to depend on sequestration.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Ryan: Yeah, the sequester’s probably going to happen

Good. Enough with the chicken budget hawks.

Resist We Much on February 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I can’t get too upset. I was at a heavily civilian Air Force base and know first-hand how hard many DOD civilian employees work (or should I say don’t work).

bw222 on February 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Sequester is not a problem. It’s only a small step in the right direction. A very, very small step.

ButterflyDragon on February 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

“because the president hasn’t put a budget on the table. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years … Don’t forget that it’s the president who first proposed the sequester and it’s the president who designed the sequester as it is now designed.”

“We have acted in the House. The president has not. The Senate has not and therefore … I think it’s going to happen.”

This should be the first thing out of the mouth of every Republican interrogated interviewed by a member of Comrade O’s Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine.

It needs to be repeated over and over and over again. And little else should be added. The only “negotiations” Dear Leader and his Party lackeys engage in is through the media. Constant repetition of lies is their tactic. Constant repetition of the truth must be the response. And keep it as simple as possible.

farsighted on February 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I don’t want to see our military decimated, but it makes sense to ask the Pentagon to do a little belt tightening too.

changer1701 on February 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Yeah, but if you are going to cut the defense budget in particular, give the DoD more latitude about how to do it. That was the point Blunt was getting at.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The Secretary of the Air Force should immediately ground the VC-25′s and all other aircraft operated by the 89th Airlift Wing out at Andrews.

For emergency use only should be the threshold of their being rolled out of the hanger.

Real emergency. Like the Chinese Red Army marching up Constitution Avenue. Not Michelle wanting to see Martha’s Vineyard or maybe heading out to Aspen, or the President wanting to hang out with his choom gang. He wants to go to Hawaii for vacay? Charter his own aircraft, at commercial rates, out of pocket…his pocket, not ours. A number of US airlines would leap at the chance to get paid to fly out to Oahu at the rate we, the taxpayers, are paying for our Air Force to play glorified aerial chauffeur. And, maybe he would be spending all his time, and our money, schmoozing with the celerity classes…who honestly only like him because he gives them stuff. [If he weren't President, they wouldn't give him the time of day.]

The Secretaries of the several armed services should recall to actual active duty with line units all but a skeleton crew of military, to include the White House Communications Agency, from White House assignments, or as aides-de-camp to the President or Vice President or any member of Congress, or any other Cabinet post.

They enlisted or were commissioned to be American fighting men (and women) not glorified nursemaids and bottle washers, or concierges.

All service secretaries should demand that all defense contractors/weapons manufacturers go back to the early model…which worked well for over a century. Develop the weapon first, on their dime, not ours, test it, work out all the bugs, market it, approach the federal government to see if they are interested in buying it. End the incest between recently retired defense officials and defense contractors.

And, lets end all the positions and jobs, agencies and such that cannot be pegged directly to one of the enunciated limits of power as written in the US Constitution.

If the “people” want something, either set up a Constitutional convention, propose a real amendment, or let the people in their individual states take care of whatever need in their own states or communities.

Above all, get the federal government out of our daily lives.

Being a free, responsible and independent citizen is something to cherish. Having government taking care of all our needs, real or imagined, just makes us slaves to government.

In what other society do the slaves pay their masters in order to be slaves forever?

[Sorry for the rants today. Trying to catch up after being pretty much confined for the past several months. Health issues, pretty bleak as they were, appear to have been successfully resolved.]

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The media would like to forget that this was Obama’s idea all along. In fact, six months ago Obama accused Republicans of “trying to wriggle out” of their sequester agreement…

What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build a mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the idea put forward, yes by the president’s team.

- Jay Carney, Special Report, last night

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/12/jay_carney_admits_sequester_was_the_presidents_idea.html

Resist We Much on February 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM

No, the sequester is not going to happen.

They made the rules, they can change the rules.
The point is to kick the can down the road until the 2014 elections.

albill on February 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Here’s what will happen if sequestration cuts in: The administration will stop Social Security payments to show how bad a deal this is, even though those payments have nothing to do with sequestration. And the MSM will chime right in resulting in a panic firestorm of wailing and gnashing of teeth by seniors. Then, the welfare mammas will be cut off and all hell will break loose. LET. IT. BURN! It’s going to affect me, but I don’t care. I want to see this finally come to a head.

HiJack on February 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM

You might as well ask the tide not to come in.

rrpjr on February 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Thought that was supposed to be Obama’s job.

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Oh God, does this mean we’ll all loose our free birth control pills and Obamaphones???!!11!!!!1!

RMOccidental on February 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Sorry. But everybody’s got to have skin in the game.

Solaratov on February 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

It is only is cut in growth. Let it happen and push for MORE.

landowner on February 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Oh God, does this mean we’ll all loose our free birth control pills and Obamaphones???!!11!!!!1!

RMOccidental on February 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

No. It means they’ll give away even more of them, just not quite as many as they would have.

Fenris on February 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM

It is only a cut in growth not current spending. Do it and then go for much much more.

landowner on February 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Sorry for the dup response….browser died.

landowner on February 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Doughboy , budfox ,
I believe that’s the point of reducing everything to obserdity .
Actually , I just think he wants the da plane .
It’s not all that complicated . Duck and weave , fire up and follow .
The man wants no responsibility so he fights for nothing . He
let’s other people do the heavy lifting . And the msm falls in line .
Easy !

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM

For once, I’d love to see the GOP embrace sequestration. If you really wanna back up your screeching rhetoric, GOP, back it up by doing nothing. And thats the beauty of the sequester. The GOP doesn’t have to lift a finger to see it through. At the same time, never underestimate the defense hawk GOP’ers and the defense industry which, whether you admit it or not, has lot of undue influence on the GOP. So lets see what actually happens in the end.

tommy71 on February 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Gop will cave

cmsinaz on February 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

HiJack on February 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM

They always threaten to cut off social security and medicare payments…but they cannot. Those are separate from any budget and won’t be effected by the sequester.

Of course, I wouldn’t put it past the dog-eater to try it.

Solaratov on February 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Ben Ghazara? Sea Quester?

/LIV

Christien on February 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM

My gut tells me that even if this happens, the GOP will still get blamed by Obama and the MSM, the GOP won’t call him/them out on the lie and the (D) faithful will buy the lie hook, line and sinker.

Decoski on February 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Burn baby burn! I wish he had been more aggressive about going after firearms…then we could have a real party.

Doomsday on February 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Sequester is not a problem. It’s only a small step in the right direction. A very, very small step.

ButterflyDragon on February 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Step towards what?

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Sequester is not a problem. It’s only a small step in the right direction. A very, very small step.

ButterflyDragon on February 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Step towards what?

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Containing spending and the size of government ?

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Republicans need to point out in every single media appearance they make that this is Obama’s sequester. It can be repeated enough, because the media will keep trying to put the blame on them.

supernova on February 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM

The GOP wants cowboy poets out on the street eating cat food!

mudskipper on February 13, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Not at all. Cat food is darn expensive!

dominigan on February 13, 2013 at 3:15 PM

I’m a federal employee (I know, I’m the enemy), and will likely lose my job when the sequester hits. My safety net is both narrow and thin.

Bring on the sequester, even at the cost of my job. I’ll find a way. I always have.

We all know sacrifices will have to be made to save this country. Let it begin with me.

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 3:15 PM

OT Oh dear. someone who has “ObamaLuver69″, I kid you not, in their Twitter handle is following me on Twitter. I’m not sure this will end well.

totherightofthem on February 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

hell yea and glad you’re well!

DanMan on February 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Containing spending and the size of government ?

Lucano on February 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I don’t think that sequestration does that. It just slows the rate of spending growth. I might be wrong.

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Debt on 01.20.01: $5,727,776,738,304.64

Debt on 01.19.09: $10,628,881,485,510.23

An increase of: $4,901,104,747,205.59
.
.
Debt 01.20.09: $10,626,877,048,913.08

Debt 02.11.13: $ 16,489,930,650,594.15

An increase of: $5,863,053,601,681.07
.
.
Bush was in office for 2,921 days and he deficit spent per day: $1,677,885,911.40.

Obama has been in office for 1,484 days (through 02.11.13) and deficit spends per day: $3,950,844,745.07.
.
.
Public debt on 01.20.09: $6,307,310,739,681.66

Public debt on 02.11.13: $11,628,591,907,992.80
.
.
Obama has increased the debt held by the public by $5,321,281,168,311.14 or 84.37% – EIGHTY-FOUR POINT THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT INCREASE in 1,484 days.
.
.
Debt-to-GDP = 105.69%
.
.
Every man, woman and child’s share of the national debt is now $53,193.33. – that’s a 77.31%— SEVENTY-SEVEN POINT THIRTY-ONE PERCENT INCREASE since Barack Obama’s Imaculation 1,484 days ago.

Resist We Much on February 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM

[Sorry for the rants today. Trying to catch up after being pretty much confined for the past several months. Health issues, pretty bleak as they were, appear to have been successfully resolved.]

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Glad you are feeling better and this post, especially, I liked. Is it a rant if it makes sense and contains truths?

totherightofthem on February 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Of course, I wouldn’t put it past the dog-eater to try it.

Solaratov on February 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM

check the stories at the end of July 2011 to the first week of August 2011. Obama did just that. Threatened to with hold SS checks if he couldn’t get the house to raise the debt ceiling. That negotiation gave us sequestration. Straight out of the White House.

Obama forever destroyed the lockbox lie and expected to benefit from a crisis of his own making.

DanMan on February 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

[Sorry for the rants today. Trying to catch up after being pretty much confined for the past several months. Health issues, pretty bleak as they were, appear to have been successfully resolved.]

coldwarrior on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Good to hear. Hope the country can take the same path. :)

Mimzey on February 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again;

10% across the board cut to each and every federal agency/department, no exceptions not even DoD believe me when I say they won’t even feel it.

D-fusit on February 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Ducreux says to let it burn.

…stupid posting button…

The Schaef on February 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Ducreux says to let it burn.

…stupid posting button…

The Schaef on February 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Great picture! Can I tweet it or have you done that already?

totherightofthem on February 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Should have asked, “may I tweet that. . ..”

totherightofthem on February 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I thought Paul Ryan did very well. Good job!

OxyCon on February 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM

These are decreases in the growth in spending. These are not CUTS!!!

Boehner needs to take a page from Obama and let him know “I get those for free.”

can_con on February 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I’m becoming more and more comfortable with “letting it burn” as time goes on.

Mr. Prodigy on February 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM

While I wouldn’t put it past some career employees to delete programs in red states as punishment, the point is that this will probably be the firs real cut to ever happen. And it would surprise me to see money quickly allocated to make this just another reduction in the increase that Congress planned all along.

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM

totherightofthem on February 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Please pass on anything that qualifies as entertainment, we don’t get to laugh enough.

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I can’t believe that even the GOP is referring to it as “The sequester’s” not going to happen, is precisely the language of the far more cunning left. Please, wake up folks: It’s “Obama’s sequester’s not going to happen..” Haven’t you watched his propaganda machine trying to blame the GOP for creating it? Why help him win? Are we really that unaware of those simple word weapons of the left?

Don L on February 13, 2013 at 4:31 PM

For all of you saying sequestration is no big deal here is the testimony from the CMC on what the impact is;

Resources and Readiness
Struggling under the CR funding levels for operating and investment accounts, which are much lower than the request, the prospect for even deeper reductions from sequestration in this fiscal year is alarming. There should be no misunderstanding; the combined effect of the continuing resolution and sequestration will have a significant effect on the global security climate, the
perceptions of our enemies, and the confidence of our allies. In a new normal of brushfire instabilities, violent extremism, non-state threats and struggling sovereign entities, the role of the
United States as a leader in the protection of the international order is central. The effects that our armed forces create in this global environment are measured in ready crisis response forces, ships at sea, planes in the air, partnerships on the ground and trust among our allies. In a word, our propensity to remain a global leader in a challenging world is measured in READINESS.
Readiness is the aggregate of the investment in personnel, training, and equipment to ensure that units are prepared to perform missions at any given time. Our ability to project a ready force is measured by friend and foe alike. Their reactions, and the impacts on the international order upon which our prosperity and security depend, are a direct reflection of the readiness of our forces.

The linkage between resources and readiness is immediate and visible. While I think all can agree that defense resources must be highly scrutinized as our nation finds its fiscal footing, the scale and abrupt implementation of prospective resource changes have the potential for devastating impacts on readiness. This is not a temporary condition. Impacts on readiness have primary, secondary and tertiary effects. While the primary effects on short-term readiness will be observable immediately, the longer-term effects may be even more devastating. Under the continuing
resolution at FY12 resource levels, I have already been forced to realign funds from longer termactivities within the O&M account to protect the short-term readiness of our combat deployed Marines, and those on the forward edge of our nation’s ability to respond swiftly when crisis erupts. While these short term adaptations are possible, the short-term readiness of our current forces comes at the expense of those who will follow in their footsteps. In a sense, we are eating our ‘seed corn’ to feed current demands, leaving ever less to plant for the enduring security demands of the nation.

Without action from Congress to address the magnitude of defense resource changes, the abrupt nature of the imposition of reductions, and the severe inflexibility in their implementation, the nation will experience significantly degraded defense readiness. The strategic impacts will be immediate and global.

Marine Corps Readiness Degradation
The Defense Strategic Guidance remains a clear articulation of future threats, challenges, and opportunities – I continue to support its full implementation. In the event of an annualized CR, the Marine Corps faces a $406 million reduction in its Operation and Maintenance budget relative to the President’s FY 2013 Budget. This will create immediate challenges in maintenance, training,
and base operations accounts. Given the looming specter of sequestration in addition to the CR,we face an extended period of severely constrained spending driven by rules that provide little
flexibility to efficiently apply the mandated reductions. Analyzing and applying constrained resources requires decisions now; decisions that will have strategic impact. By the will of the 82nd Congress, the Marine Corps is mandated to be the nation’s expeditionary force in readiness. Having been dubbed “America’s 911 Force,” we are our nation’s hedge against uncertainty…a national insurance policy of sorts. As such, deployed forces, and units in training alike, are poised to swiftly respond to crisis and disaster, giving immediate options for strategic decision-makers…all while buying time for the generation of the larger joint force. We mitigate the risk inherent in an uncertain world by being ready to respond to today’s crisis – with today’s force – today. Even when not deployed, Marine units are required to maintain higher levels of readiness, so they can deploy on short notice. “Tiered readiness,” where resources from non-deployed units are paid-forward to ensure that deployed and next-to-deploy
units have sufficient personnel, equipment, and training to accomplish their mission, is a recipe for a hollow force. Over time, tiered readiness leads to an unacceptable degradation in unit
readiness. This is not compatible with the ethos, role, or missions of our nation’s expeditionary force in readiness.

Our Marines on the forward edge of our nation’s security remain my number one priority. The forces that currently support the Afghanistan mission, those engaged in countering terrorism
globally, and those preparing to go, will receive the full support they need. This has my full attention. Protection of support services for our wounded warriors and their families also remains
a high priority. Our focus on deployed forces, families, and our wounded warriors, comes at a cost. Under the continuing resolution, I have been forced to degrade activities necessary to the long-term readiness of the force, such as organizational and intermediate maintenance of equipment returning to theater, to ensure the full support to our most engaged units. For forces
not deploying to Afghanistan, the fuel, ammunition, and other support necessary for trainingwill be reduced precluding our ability to provide fully trained individuals and ready units to
meet emerging crises – ultimately impacting even the Amphibious Ready Group and our Marine Expeditionary Units. The looming specter of sequestration, if not addressed, amplifies this impact. To keep our Marines in the field, we are already being forced to reduce depot maintenance of our equipment, reduce our participation in training exercises, reduce equipment buys and curtail modernization programs. Despite the constrained funding resulting from the CR and sequestration, in the next six months we will be able to continue meeting Marine Corps deployed warfighting needs and the training of next-to-deploy forces. Between six and
twelve months, however, we’ll continue to decrement readiness accounts with ever increasing erosion of home station unit readiness and force modernization, and begin to show small
impacts in next-to-deploy forces. Beyond 12 months we will see a real impact to all home station units (e.g. fixed wing squadrons will have on average only four of twelve assigned aircraft on the ramp due to aviation depot shutdowns) and the beginning of impacts to our next-to-deploy and some deployed forces – in all a slide to a hollow force we have fought so hard to avoid.

It is important to note that sequestration has significant impacts well beyond this current year. Viewing sequestration and its impact solely in FY13 abrogates our responsibility to ensure longterm readiness of the force. The Marine Corps manages the long-term health and readiness of the force by balancing resources across five broad pillars: high quality people, near-term unit
readiness, capability and capacity to meet Combatant Commander requirements, infrastructure sustainment, and equipment modernization. Maintaining balance across all five of these pillars is critical to achieving and sustaining Marine Corps readiness. Actions we are being forced to take to ensure our short-term readiness (e.g. transferring facilities sustainment funding to support operations and equipment maintenance) are creating an imbalance across these pillars and will result in both near and far-term readiness shortfalls. The entirety of your Marine Corps’ ground material modernization investment accounts for this FY contains only $2.47 billion, comprising a mere 12% of our baseline budget. Due to our small numbers, further reductions in the ground
investment accounts, although perhaps proportional to the other services, will have disproportional impact on Marine Corps readiness, especially as it pertains to limited essential
modernization.

Marine Corps readiness is at a tipping point in the sense that our ability to rebalance funding from long-term investments to short-term readiness is becoming unsustainable. By the end of calendar
year 2013, less than half of our ground units will be trained to the minimum readiness level required for deployment. The impact on our aviation units is not any better. Only two thirds of our
aviation combat units will be at readiness levels required for overseas deployment; decreased readiness will compound in 2014 and beyond. In order to maintain our forward deployed “fight tonight” units at acceptable readiness levels, we will fall well below the minimum number of flight hours at home necessary to retain minimum safe flight standards and warfighting capabilities. We will have to reduce our Theater Security Cooperation and exercise support by 30% in the Asia Pacific region, opening the door to those who would gladly take our place in global leadership. In doing so, we will markedly limit bilateral and multi-lateral engagement opportunities, thus putting our credibility at risk with our allies and partners. The void left by our “actual absence,” where we may be needed most, will be filled by somebody…some other nation or entity.

Containing the Damage
We have worked diligently to mitigate the effects of the CR, slowing the rate of expenditures across our accounts to ensure sufficient funding for the entire fiscal year and to better prepare for the potential effects of sequestration. Our task has been made more challenging by the ever increasing demand for Marines. A resumption of the Marine Unit Deployment Program in the
Pacific has reestablished a key component of the nation’s stabilizing presence in the Asia Pacific region. The establishment of a rotational presence of Marines in Darwin, Australia has already had a positive impact on the confidence of our allies and our ability to respond to crises in the South and Southeast Asian littoral. The planned ramp-up of Marine security forces for our
embassies and consulates is a necessary artifact of the “new normal.” Marines are in high demand to support the growth of special operations and cyber forces as well. Together, the
increased requirement for Marines around the globe, combined with the reduced funding associated with an annualized CR, has created a Marine Corps funding shortfall of $945 million in FY13.

To preserve the ability to operate throughout the entire fiscal year and prevent immediate reductions in depot workforce, cyber activities, base security, and ongoing training and exercises
we reallocated second quarter fiscal resources from lesser priority funding. We have curtailed all but mission-essential travel and conferences. We have slowed expenditure rates below those required to maintain our current readiness levels, and have reduced depot funding and facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization spending. We have delayed major contracting actions
until later in the fiscal year, where feasible, to give us a hedge against our worst-case fiscal scenario – CR and sequestration. Had we not taken these actions, we would have exhausted our operations and maintenance resources in early to mid-August with no way to pay for even our deploying and next-to-deploy forces’ readiness.

As an example of our funding slow down, we are delaying obligation of MRAP support funding as we validate essential operational requirements. We reduced civilian personnel budget caps and allowed commanders to determine priority hiring within these reduced spending levels, even though they are still recovering from a previously instituted 14-month long Marine Corps wide hiring freeze in 2011 and 2012. This funding reduction reduced planned civilian personnel expenditures by $38 million and will result in the Marine Corps being approximately 400 civilians short of our intended FY 13 civilian workforce end strength. Some essential programs at our bases and stations, such as our Wounded Warrior programs, will continue while other, less critical programs such as Tuition Assistance and Off Duty Education are reduced or eliminated as the resources necessary to maintain faith with our Marines and their families are used to fund readiness. While no decisions on furloughs have been made, we have published guidance across the Marine Corps to plan for reduction in temporary and term employees, and for potential furloughs of civilian personnel. The potential extensive and deleterious human and family effects associated with furloughing our civilian Marines are unthinkable, but in the event they are unavoidable, we must do prudent planning. Beyond the individual impact of furloughs
to our civilian Marines, the impact on everything from readiness at Marine Special Operations Command, the readiness impacts at our Depots and our bases and stations, to the readiness impacts on our Wounded Warrior and family programs is significant. Our civilian Marines are not simply headquarters staff personnel in the Pentagon. Rather, 95% of our civilian workforcecomes to work every day outside the National Capitol Region and performs invaluable
functions that keep our Marine Corps ready and contribute directly to our warfighting effectiveness.

Although barely sufficient to mitigate the immediate impacts of an annualized CR, these actions are in no way sufficient to cover the additional fiscal impact of sequestration in FY13. Sequestration is expected to impose nearly an additional billion dollars in resource reduction to the Marine Corps this year. This will drive irreversible readiness impacts, especially when viewed through a long-term lens. The inflexibility of sequestration and discretionary cap reductions in the Budget Control Act of 2011, if allowed to occur, would trigger cascading cuts in our operating budgets through 2021. Many initiatives will be unfunded or underfunded given our potential resourcing levels. Here are some specific examples of actions I will be forced to take due to the combined effects of the CR and sequestration:

• Reduce depot funding to 27% of the identified requirement, thus decreasing throughput of depot level maintenance for organizational equipment, and delaying our ability to reset wartorn
equipment by eighteen months or more
• Park over eighty aircraft as depot maintenance schedules are stretched out
• Reduce support to theater geographic combatant commander requirements for shaping their theaters, responding to crisis and preventing conflict
• Reduce participation in multi-national training exercises, degrading one of the most effective investments in building partner nation capacity
• Degrade training for deploying units due to lack of fuel, equipment and spare parts
• Cut ammunition allocations for gunner certification and training
• Cut flight hours available for pilot proficiency, safety, and certification
• Reduce facility maintenance to 71% of the requirement
• Delay Marine Corps contributions to Joint special operations and cyber forces
• Further reduce an already thinned civilian workforce
• Severely curtail or extend acquisition programs
• Reduce organizational activities including recruiting, range-maintenance, family-housing maintenance and quality of life enhancements for military families
• Curtail safety and base security investments
• Cut educational investments in the human capital of our uniformed and civilian workforce
• Reprioritize an entire year of Military Construction projects into FY 14 and beyond. Given the current fiscal limitations, some could be delayed or deferred or may be cancelled.
When reductions in facilities sustainment are compounded with the inability to execute our planned Military Construction program for FY 13, we are faced with a situation where we have severely impacted planned aviation unit lay-downs associated with the MV-22 and F-35B, as well as other critical projects at home and in the Pacific.
• Delay major procurement programs such as Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and Amphibious Combat Vehicle resulting in the possibility of Nunn- McCurdy breaches, Initial Operational Capability delays, and increased unit and total program cost.
• Cancel major multi-year procurements such as the MV-22 and incur greater cost and program delay in future program buys

Congressional Action
I have identified the very real impacts of the CR and the potential further impacts of sequestration. Congress can take actions in three areas that can lessen the impact and hopefully make less draconian implementation of reductions to the defense program:
• Review the magnitude of the total Defense reductions over the ten years of sequestration and ensure the impacts to readiness and a sustainable national defense are well understood and strategically acceptable;
• Pass a FY 13 appropriation bill that ameliorates to the greatest extent possible the adverse impacts of the continuing resolution; and
• If a FY 13 appropriation bill is unachievable, enhance the ability of the Services to optimize continued readiness under the current resource caps by allowing for reallocation or re-baselining of funds providing increased transfer and reprogramming authorities in the annualized CR, and include the ability to execute critical multi-year procurements such as the MV-22 and provide for FY 13 military construction projects As part of either a FY 13 appropriation or an annualized CR, it will be necessary to arrest extra inflationary personnel cost growth in order to maintain a balanced portfolio and a capable force. Recently, the Joint Chiefs of Staff offered a number of well-developed and thoughtful proposals to slow or reduce the growing cost of our personnel accounts. I urge you to review these proposed adjustments to pay raises, housing entitlements, tuition assistance and TRICARE premiums. We must consider these critical cost reducing actions in order to continue to meet the nation’s defense requirements, take care of our people, and do so in a manner that retains the most ready, sustainable and capable all volunteer force we have had across the proud history of this nation.

Conclusion
Our actions to resource the defense of our national and global interests will have strategic consequences. Our foes, cunning and adaptive, watch carefully for any decline in American ability or willingness to lead in a partnered global order that supports the common good. The continued prosperity and security interests of our nation are dependent on resourcing long-term success.

While Congress and this committee carefully executes their responsibility to validate every taxpayer dollar they appropriate to our nation’s defense, I can assure you that the Marine Corps will continue to uphold our share of this responsibility as a sacred trust. Our reputation as the “frugal force” comes from an ethos that values both high combat readiness, and careful stewardship. The Marine Corps will ask only for what it needs, not for what it wants. I am committed to building the most ready Marine Corps that the nation can afford. The current fiscal uncertainty and the implementation restriction of sequestration prevent realizing this commitment and threaten to force our retrenchment from those global issues and areas that are still of critical importance to America. Working together, we can map out a resource strategy that protects our global interests as a nation, keeps faith with our service-members, and provides the greatest value to the American people. I thank you for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue, for your service to our nation, and for your continued support to your Marines. Semper Fidelis.

SoonerMarine on February 13, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Jim Moran, eh? That is one winner of a family they got!

Yeah, my congressman, Gerry fat faced Connolly, is playing that game also. He’s whining about the post office cuts too… Those evil Republicans.

lucyvanpelt on February 13, 2013 at 4:52 PM

SoonerMarine on February 13, 2013 at 4:46 PM

The problem is that I don’t trust anyone. I know that there is plenty of waste, overpayment and double payment in every department of the government. I’m not going to say it won’t hurt but I just don’t buy that it will be as dire as they say. And if it were, watch how fast they reverse themselves. I’m sorry but I just think it is all a sham and an act.

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM

lucyvanpelt on February 13, 2013 at 4:52 PM

I heard that Sen. Tester from Montana said the Saturday delivery is a big deal for rural Montana because they only get their mail about every five days, still not sure what that has to do with Saturday delivery but these guys got a pass on making sense a long time ago.

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2013 at 4:58 PM

My guess would be that if we get attacked, the defense spending reductions will be reversed while the domestic cuts will not. It is never good to invite attack through weakness but the post 9/11/01 congressional actions demonstrate that even those who got elected opposing defense spending get on board for it when a national security crisis comes along. For this reason, I am less frightened by the sequester defense cuts than I otherwise would be.

KW64 on February 13, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Jim Moran, eh? That is one winner of a family they got!

Yeah, my congressman, Gerry fat faced Connolly, is playing that game also. He’s whining about the post office cuts too… Those evil Republicans.

lucyvanpelt on February 13, 2013 at 4:52 PM

If by winners you mean unindicted co-conspirators then I agree with you! ;0

I just can’t stand the hypocrisy. Connolly and Moron both are happy to be Democrats when pandering to the carpetbaggers of Northern Virginia. But, when it comes to protecting federal employees from sequestration then suddenly it’s all the fault of “Republicans.”

And BTW, Gerry isn’t referred to as “fat face” in the Nomad household. We use the term “rat boy.” Obama has the rat ears but Connolly has the rat face all the more enhanced by that 1970s facial hair.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Yeah, but if you are going to cut the defense budget in particular, give the DoD more latitude about how to do it. That was the point Blunt was getting at.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

It’s a good thought, but seriously, the military brass are as much of a political beast as any Congress critter you can name. They’ll cut off a carrier task force in the Med to hold on to some useless pet program and then cry about the dire consequences. Just as a pol will close down the parks and schools while holding on to some pork they have. Pols always cut the things that are most visible to the public to generate outrage while they fully fund their pork projects hoping that nobody will notice.

MJBrutus on February 13, 2013 at 5:12 PM

My guess would be that if we get attacked, the defense spending reductions will be reversed while the domestic cuts will not. It is never good to invite attack through weakness but the post 9/11/01 congressional actions demonstrate that even those who got elected opposing defense spending get on board for it when a national security crisis comes along. For this reason, I am less frightened by the sequester defense cuts than I otherwise would be.

KW64 on February 13, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Well let me scare you a bit. Using the Navy as an example. Some of the cuts are no-brainers. Cancel the Blue Angels air shows, cut back on flight and steaming hours. And even the DoD civilian furloughs though these are less fair because the DoD civilians are targeted and not the employees at other agencies and departments.
But the Navy will also start deferring maintenance. If sequestration extends for the next six months, it will take eight months to deploy the next battle group. And more importantly it isn’t the right way to make cuts.

But most importantly, I honestly think it is the defense cuts that scares the rats the most. That’s why they need to happen. Let the Congress go into the 2014 elections with Dems having to defend the fact that they made the nation less safe.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Pols always cut the things that are most visible to the public to generate outrage while they fully fund their pork projects hoping that nobody will notice.

MJBrutus on February 13, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Yeah, I know that the Pentagon uses military readiness to generate outrage just like it is always teachers and first responders that face cuts when local and state budgets get tight. God forbid DMV employees might be pared back in fiscally constrained times.

Were I SecDef, and I’m a damned sight more qualified to do so than either the incumbent or nominee, I would probably approach this in the same way that BRAC reductions occur. A commission generates a list of recommendations after a data-based review. Sequestration hands the DoD a bill but puts so many constraints on it that the “savings” can only come from certain places like civilian personnel and retiree benefits. What they need to do is re-think whole programs like the F-35 (number to be made and versions). But, of course that means defense jobs in certain Congressional districts.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM

The sequester is a bad thing? Seriously?

Here’s a Defense Department cut for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Equal_Opportunity_Management_Institute

We’re actually paying for this. I thought we were paying for “defense.” WTF?

NoPain on February 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM