Boehner: We already did the revenue end of the budget-standoff resolution

posted at 12:41 pm on February 20, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Congress isn’t in session this week, but that doesn’t mean that they’re entirely out of the media’s gaze, either.  After Barack Obama waggled his finger yesterday at Congress over the sequester he himself proposed and signed into law, John Boehner waggled his right back in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.  Boehner reminded Obama and readers that the budget fights in 2010, 2011, and at the end of 2012 were over both spending cuts and tax increases.  Republicans bent over backwards to enact the latter, and now it’s the turn of Democrats on the former:

Both parties today have a responsibility to find a bipartisan solution to the sequester. Turning it off and erasing its deficit reduction isn’t an option. What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.

Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it. Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress, and the Senate—controlled by his Democratic allies—hasn’t even voted on a solution, let alone passed one. By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security.

The president has repeatedly called for even more tax revenue, but the American people don’t support trading spending cuts for higher taxes. They understand that the tax debate is now closed.

The president got his higher taxes—$600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts—at the end of 2012. He also got higher taxes via ObamaCare. Meanwhile, no one should be talking about raising taxes when the government is still paying people to play videogames, giving folks free cellphones, and buying $47,000 cigarette-smoking machines.

Washington must get serious about its spending problem. If it can’t reform America’s safety net and retirement-security programs, they will no longer be there for those who rely on them. Republicans’ willingness to do what is necessary to save these programs is well-known. But after four years, we haven’t seen the same type of courage from the president.

Rand Paul’s response to Obama was more tart and to the point, deriding the President for his “histrionics”:

“I think the sequester happens and it will be in some ways a yawn because the histrionics that are coming from the president saying, ‘Oh, we’re going to shut down and get rid of meat inspectors’ — I mean, is anybody not going to stand up and call his bluff on that ridiculousness?” Paul said on CNN on Tuesday night. …

“I mean, for goodness sakes, it was his proposal. He proposed the sequester, it was his idea. He signed it into law, now he’s going to tell us that, ‘Oh, it’s all our fault?’” Paul said. “I voted against the sequester because I didn’t think it was enough.”

He added: “It’s a pittance. I mean, it’s a slowdown in the rate of growth. There are no real cuts happening over 10 years.”

There are real cuts to discretionary spending programs (including defense, especially), but that’s not where the deficit pressure originates.  The deficit pressure comes from entitlement programs that pay out far more than we take in, an will do so increasingly over the next three decades or more.  What’s needed aren’t cuts across the board (although they would probably be salutary, if done properly).  We need fundamental reform of the statutory spending programs to bring them back into fiscal balance and ensure that the truly needy get assistance.

Democrats avoided that issue over the Christmas holiday because the expiration of the Bush tax rates gave them all the leverage.  Republicans aren’t going to let them off the hook, not even with Obama using first responders as potted plants.

Addendum: Not that anyone particularly misses them, but why exactly aren’t the House and Senate in session this week?  President’s Day was only on Monday, not for five days.

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

I have still yet to get an adequate answer to my age-old question that I ask every time I hear about “entitlements:”

Why is someone else more “entitled” to my earnings than I am?

Wino on February 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM

The Pappy Plan

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending cuts.

THIS is the beginning of restricting the power, growth and soft tyranny coming from DC.

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Addendum:

*shaking the head* and nancy insists that they deserve pay raises..

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

And the president forgot to mention both plagues and locusts in the evil that will betide the nation if spending is (gasp!) cut.

Cut it even more. To the effing bone. Cut back to 1992 levels. To my memory, that was the first year the budget went over $1 Trillion.

Wino on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

LIB

redguy on February 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You know what’s done more harm to the economy than the possible Obama-Sequester? The Obama-payroll-tax-increase.

“We believe the driver of this was the rapid decline in consumer sentiment that has been reported and is connected to the reduction in net pay consumers earn given the changes in tax rates that went into effect in January…We’ve seen consumer sentiment change drastically within the last couple of months. We saw that after the first really payroll period in January, which is about the second week of January”

Don’t let Obama shape the narrative, GOP. The tax increases Obama required is worse than the sequester he required.

Weight of Glory on February 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Why doesn’t someone simply, clearly state that the House has passed common sense legislation to stop this? If the Senate will pass it and Obama signs it, this problem goes away! The house has already provided a solution. Bang that drum over and over and over.

KCB on February 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM

EVERYONE in the room knows that the Emperor has no clothes; and the fact that only the rank and file citizens (for the most part) have dared to defy the orthodoxy of cowardly silence in the face of calculated character assassination will not absolve these Democrat and Republican members of the Ruling Class from their abysmal dereliction of duty.

They are, in the end, enabling a man who has openly declared his intent to “fundamentally transform” (read: bring to its knees!) the greatest nation on Earth…and now that he has stolen a second term (also completely unopposed by these same Ruling Elites from both parties), he may well succeed in fully dismantling both the Constitution and the once-greatest economy in all of history…while bemoaning that he has “more important ‘stuff ‘ to do” than concern himself with the “carnival barkers” (us) who demand that he do what every other citizen in the nation must do without hesitation (or legal recourse) …provide bona fide proof (not a forged digital image) of his U.S. citizenship.

Others may be willing to be silenced in the face of such unprecedented evil and deception; but make no mistake: millions of us are not. In the end, the truth (which everyone who wants to know already knows) will prevail…but not until we as a nation have suffered the prolonged consequences of our own willingness (and that of our hired “representatives”) to be silenced by the very people perpetrating this treasonous fraud which we continue to point out.

Of what use is the First Amendment if free men and women will willingly and shamelessly silence themselves simply because they lack the courage to speak the obvious truth?

Curiously, what may well be more detestable than the crime itself is that those who profess to be “Conservatives” (Republicans all), whom we have once again hired and will soon be paying to “represent us” have steadfastly refused to even mention – much less rise up and counter – the twin egregious crimes of defrauding the American People with respect to their Commander in Chief’s blatant Constitutional ineligibility and now the open perversion of the once-sacred electoral process.

So I ask you, fellow Conservatives: how long will we the People voluntarily submit to this abusive betrayal at the hands of those whom we perpetually hire and pay for the sole purposes of representing our interests and protecting our inalienable rights?

VorDaj on February 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM

To a “low-information-voter” all they hear is the name Barack Obama, they then face East, bow down, and the rest is just blah, blah blah.

RADIOONE on February 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Boehner: “Ok Mr.President, it’s your turn.”

Obama: “LOLWUT?”

End of negotiations.

Dongemaharu on February 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Punk Obama dumps a sh*tload on you and then accuses you of stinking.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Why is someone else more “entitled” to my earnings than I am?

Wino on February 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Because you’re a racist hater. That’s why. Your betters will decide these things for you.

trigon on February 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Rand Paul 2016…

JohnGalt23 on February 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Keep calling your representatives and senators — they need counter pressure in support of spending cuts so that Boehner doesn’t go wobbly.

We are dead broke, and if we cannot manage a 2% trim, then we are finished as a nation.

The sequester is equivalent to an $850 reduction from a $35,000 annual budget. Put it in those terms with the American people.

As to defense contractors: too bad for you; you voted for Obama and you were warned. And the leaders of those firms are disgraceful cowards of the first magnitude.

matthew8787 on February 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I like the new moniker..

PRESIDENT CHICKEN LITTLE.

Fit’s him like a glove.

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

And obubles is on some Podunk local channel giving an interview to yet another adoring “reporter” blaming the Republicans yet again. I sure would like to see the Republicans hang tough on this but I’m not holding my breath…

sandee on February 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

: Not that anyone particularly misses them, but why exactly aren’t the House and Senate in session this week? President’s Day was only on Monday, not for five days

I’m reporting you to Nancy Pelosi, Ed for not giving her and the rest of Congress the dignity they deserve/

JPeterman on February 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Drudge is linking to this…

Pentagon informs Congress of plans to furlough 800K civilians

The Pentagon furloughs will affect civilians across the country. Pentagon officials have said that civilians could face up to 22 days of furloughs, one per week, through the end of the fiscal year in September. The employees would receive 30 days notice before being furloughed.

This is supposed to scare us?

Drained Brain on February 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

After Barack Obama waggled his finger yesterday at Congress over the sequester he himself proposed and signed into law, John Boehner waggled his right back in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Obama “waggled his finger” all over ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, et al., while Boner “waggled right back in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.”

Who’s winning the information war? Especially when the public schools and universities have been “all in” on indoctrination, for the past 50 years.

The cattle who voted for the Commie watch tv … they’re incapable of reading.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Punk Obama dumps a sh*tload on you and then accuses you of stinking.

And thanks to the dem media machine, the lsm, and Barry’s adoring fans, the accusation is believed.

hawkeye54 on February 20, 2013 at 12:56 PM

check

rodguy911 on February 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Republicans bent over backwards…

Now they have to bend over in the other direction. Because that’s what the media says they need to do, and what the media says is what the republicans do.

rrpjr on February 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Addendum: Not that anyone particularly misses them, but why exactly aren’t the House and Senate in session this week? President’s Day was only on Monday, not for five days.

If you figure that one out, you might be able to explain why a lazy good for nothing rat-eared idiot needs two multi-million dollar vacations in 2013 before the month of February ends. And he didn’t even take his shiftless mooching spouse or the mini-moochers on the second one. They had their own multi-million dollar fling in Aspen.

And why does the bastard need a vacation at all? It isn’t as if we’ve been noticing the lights on in the Oval Office to the wee hours of morning as Obama comes up with cuts that would avoid sequestration.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM

From Positively Republican! on Facebook

Believe it or not the following is something I found in the comment section after one of Erik Erikson’s articles. I have no idea who the author is. It was so good I decided to pass it along to you. Click LIKE if you think it’s a great article too!

“Having watched and listened to Obama for six or seven years now, I think the man has a cartoon-like idea of life in general. He’s dominated by his cynicism: seems to have come to believe that all of life is nothing more than talking bologna and shining it on. That’s all he’s ever done. That’s all he’s ever had to do. That’s all that those who’ve elected him on the state and federal levels have ever required of him.

Talk some crap: lies, truth, sense, nonsense. It doesn’t matter. Just stand in front of microphones, blather some sweet-sounding rhetoric, and wait for the accolades to come pouring in . . . as they inevitably do. His learned disrespect for people–especially those who most fervently support him–and his cynical view of life in general are overwhelming. He’s always got by with the stuff hay becomes when bulls are through with it. He thinks that’s what life is all about.

He breaks wind and waits for the applause and, astonishingly, it comes.

“Sequestration is good. Sequestration is bad. The debt is bad. We need to borrow more. Millions of hard-working Americans everywhere . . . blah, blah, blah.”

It’s as though he’s gleaned from his supporters that all he has to do is be African-American. He doesn’t actually have to do the jobs he’s been hired to do. He’s African-American, and he’s been elected senator and president, and that’s enough. That’s his and his supporters’ victory. He doesn’t have to take the jobs seriously.

I find myself thinking things like, “Okay, we have our African-American president. Woop-de-doo. Big deal. Now, if you don’t mind, could we please elect somebody who can actually do the job?” African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American, Bohemian-American (hi mom!), Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, man, woman, straight, gay: ultimately, it doesn’t matter. We need somebody in the office who can actually do the job. We need somebody who has a constructive, realistic plan: somebody who knows what to do, who can effectively change the parasitic, inept federal status quo.

It’s clear, after four-plus years, that Barack Obama can’t do it. He doesn’t have what it takes, and it’s equally clear that those who might most meaningfully say so–those most vocal, long-standing Obama supporters who’d finally point out that it’s a big, big mistake to elect our president to serve civil-rights ideals instead of to run the country–won’t dare. They didn’t want a president who can do the job the country more and more desperately needs. They wanted an African-American.

I don’t hold the man’s heritage or skin color against him. For crying out loud, who ultimately cares so very much about that? But I do fault him–and, more emphatically, those who voted for him–for his cynicism about the job: for apparently believing that his irresponsible attitude is good enough.

To be clear (because these days, I have to be, about such things): I don’t believe he’s irresponsible because he’s African-American. I believe he’s irresponsible because he’s Barack Obama: because Barack Obama is an irresponsible man, weak, vain, cowardly and cripplingly self-protective, and neither his skin color nor his heritage have anything to do with it. It’s his personality. He cannot do the job he was hired to do, he cannot admit it, and neither can those who support him. He has the brains, but he ain’t got the stones.

While I’m ranting and raving . . ..

Why is it that whenever Obama talks about funding shortfalls, he always targets services that help the population at large as those that will be cut or reduced? He always threatens us with fewer teachers, police, firefighters and healthcare workers.

Why not cut free plane rides and limousines for himself and congresspersons? Why not sell Air Force One? For that matter, why not sell the federal fleets of cars and planes? Why not cut health benefits for himself and congresspersons? Why not cut congressional and presidential salaries? Why not eliminate the White House dog, hair dressers and chefs? Why not cut secret-service protection? Why not cut congressional staffers and aids?

Why not pull Obama’s kids out of private school? Why should they get such expensive educations while so many others can’t afford it?

I could probably fill a thick book with a list of federal budget items that could be cut without sacrificing services to the public at large: pork projects and cushy pampering ad nausea. But when Obama threatens us with what we’ll lose if and when sequestration takes effect, it’s always what the public at large will lose. Neither Obama nor anybody in congress ever talks about what he or she is willing to lose: what sacrifices he or she is willing to make.

Do these people–these public servants–really care about those they so blithely consign to sacrifice? I think not, and that, to me, is the problem. Our political system is geared too heavily toward the politicians’ self-interest. Some self-interest is unavoidable. But when the system becomes totally structured around it, we get what we now have: a political system that serves the politicians–the wealthy, self-interested few–while the entire country flounders and bangs into walls . . . and Barack Obama, for all of his altruistic, idealistic blathering–that tired, worn-out litany that makes “enlightened” leftists weep and wring their hands with passionate moral superiority–is reinforcing the politicians’ self-interested status quo.”

RADIOONE on February 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Well it appears bho has found taxpayers/borrowed china money for this?

How does bho get away with stuff like this? Because NO ONE stops him, that how!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-handing-out-free-health-care-to-pakistanis/?cat_orig=health
L

letget on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Fiscal Cliff

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Rand Paul keeps tugging at my heart strings. But I’m leery because I’m afraid he’s going to be a nutcase like his dad.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Surprise: The Boehner/GOP Alternative to Sequester is More Spending!

Fallon on February 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM

SeQuester Intell ReSource Linkys:

Results for #sequester

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23sequester
=========================================

Results for #Obamaquester

https://twitter.com/search/%23Obamaquester

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Rush is in a RushGroove SeQuester OverDrive/OverLoad as I type:

OnLine Streaming.

http://tunein.com/radio/The-Rush-Limbaugh-Show-p20617/

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM

It’s not just about blaming the GOP for his own plan that he signed into law, but getting it in people’s heads that spending cuts cause serious economic harm.

Wigglesworth on February 20, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Keep calling your representatives and senators — they need counter pressure in support of spending cuts so that Boehner doesn’t go wobbly.

matthew8787 on February 20, 2013 at 12:54 PM

All I can tell you is that I’ve contacted both Senators and my Congressman (Dems all). This being the DC area they are scared to death that this is going to happen. You wouldn’t believe the sniveling excuse of a response I got back from my Congressman who blames the GOP (it’s habit with these people) but went on for paragraphs explaining that he never ever voted for this. I intend to keep contacting them and making it clear that I know that Obama and the Dems own sequestration. They got their tax increases so now it is time for the rat-eared traitor to come to the table with a list of proposed cuts that he will sign off on should he not want to lose the services of TSA screeners, meat inspectors, or those worthless first responders willing to be used as props.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 1:16 PM

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

I’ve always like your plan.

txhsmom on February 20, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Fiscal Cliff

sauldalinsky on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM

sauldalinsky:If you insist:)
=============================

Results for fiscalcliff

https://twitter.com/search?q=fiscalcliff

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM

*shaking the head* and nancy insists that they deserve pay raises..

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

cmsinaz:Democrat Dignity sumpin:)

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Rush is predicting the House will cave on this, I think he’s right!

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
“Charge for the guns!” he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Time for a third party!

jjnco73 on February 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Note that these furloughed employees are NOT losing their jobs — they are having their hours cut back from 5 to 4 hours a week. This will obviously affect their household budgets, but it’s a far cry from being put out on the street.

jms on February 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Ugh. They are having their hours cut back from 5 to 4 DAYS a week, not hours.

jms on February 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

‘Cause Libiots need to be spoon fed info, on a $35,000 budget, the cuts amount to annual $850 trimming…

Oh the horror…

hillsoftx on February 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I listened yesterday to Rush and am today. He is really letting bho have it and did so yesterday.

I know this is a dream, but I would love for boehner to tell bho to pound sand!
L

letget on February 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Rush believes Boehner’s going to fold. LOL I bet you’re surprised as I am…

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

We are supposed to shiver at 0.25%. I like your plan. But those that make policy don’t have the guts.

antisocial on February 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM

2. 10% across the board spending cuts.

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

This is the only way to do it to minimize the whining IMO. Shared “burden” is the way to go. Otherwise you will have people whining about how it isn’t fair for the government to pull their teat away while others get to continue to suckle away.

besser tot als rot on February 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Indeed Canopfor

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I listened yesterday to Rush and am today. He is really letting bho have it and did so yesterday.

I know this is a dream, but I would love for boehner to tell bho to pound sand!
L

letget on February 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

letget:

Lol on Boehner to # sand,well,Boehner is getting p*ssed I think,
and I caught Rush yesterday as well,and heres the highlights!:)

http://dailyrushbo.com/

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Indeed Canopfor

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

cmsinaz:O

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM

This is what makes Rand Paul (and New) great. They refuse to get sucked into the premise of their political enemies (either in the Democrat party or the press). They don’t argue on their enemies’ terms; they argue their enemies’ premise (generally a strawman or non sequitur).

besser tot als rot on February 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Rand Paul keeps tugging at my heart strings. But I’m leery because I’m afraid he’s going to be a nutcase like his dad.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM

As opposed to the nutcases who are currently in charge? He’s tugging at my vote too.

MustLoveBlogs on February 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years,

That’s not good enough.

Limit spending, in real dollar terms, to the levels from the FY 2007 budget and we will come very close to a balanced budget, if not a budget SURPLUS, in 12 months.

It was Pelosi, Reid, and Obama who roughly tripled deficit spending in FY 2008, roughly tripled deficit spending AGAIN in FY 2009, and then tried to “Blame BUSH!” for annual trillion dollar deficits.

The last budget passed by a Republican House, Senate, and President (passed in 2006 for FY 2007) had a deficit of less than $161 Billion.

If we limit Outlays to FY 2007 dollar amounts, and revenues are projected to be above $2.7 Trillion, we should come near to a balanced budget or even a surplus.

ITguy on February 20, 2013 at 1:44 PM

WWCND? (Chuck Norris)

He’d kick both of their asses and write a budget himself.

This message has been Ted Nugent approved.

madmonkphotog on February 20, 2013 at 1:46 PM

The Pappy Plan

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board spending cuts.

THIS is the beginning of restricting the power, growth and soft tyranny coming from DC.

PappyD61 on February 20, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Between AZFed and I, we both can tell you Item #1 won’t ever work living here in AZ with the current construct. I can help your plan with both:

1) Implement Fair Tax, with possibly a “state-rate tax” bend of the Constitutional Party Platform. This will make all the illegals actually support the system instead of leech.

2) 40% Cut – Spend what you take in. Cut programs for illegals, and you make “Seal the border” moot – they will leave in droves because there’s no financial incentive for them to do so.

Simple – starve it.

SkinnerVic on February 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Spending growth under Obama at the Defense department. Some people have said to me who work in D.C. that a lot of Contractors have been made into permanent employees in the last four years. They get more benies that way, cost us more that way. I kind of think The Beltway can absorb a little unemployment unlike the rest of the country if Obama and Panetta choose to do layoffs/furloughs to recoup $42b. Oh Well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget
Defense Budget $481.4 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget
$672.9

Fleuries on February 20, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I hope boehner can hold his ground on this. we cannot afford to put off solving our debt problem.

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Cram the sequester down Barry’s throat. With luck he’ll choke on it.

Once again, The Chosen One leads from behind.

GarandFan on February 20, 2013 at 2:01 PM

spending cuts and tax increases. Republicans bent over backwards forward to enact the latter, and now it’s the turn of Democrats on the former

…fixed it!…Republicans need to play the quotes from JugEars over and over and over at every microphone and news conference…where JugEars declares he will veto ANY change to the sequester agreement during 2011 and 2012!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Cram the sequester down Barry’s throat. With luck he’ll choke on it.

Once again, The Chosen One leads from behind.

GarandFan on February 20, 2013 at 2:01 PM

…I think almost every guy here has something else we would like JugEars to choke on!… (the opposite would be true of all the trolls of course!)

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Drudge is linking to this…

Pentagon informs Congress of plans to furlough 800K civilians

This is supposed to scare us?

Drained Brain on February 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

It should shock us. The government has gotten so expansive that the an expendable amount of the civilians working for the military is a group larger than all but the top 5 active military forces in the world and 1/2 the size of the U.S. active military.

LoganSix on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Rand Paul :)

gophergirl on February 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

LoganSix on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

The shocking thing is that there are 800K civilians working in or for the Pentagon. Sadly, you are probably paying a few of them to monitor Hot Air daily and updating their dossiers on…hey wait….what is that buzzing overhe…

can_con on February 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Drudge is linking to this…

Pentagon informs Congress of plans to furlough 800K civilians

This is supposed to scare us?

Drained Brain on February 20, 2013 at 12:55 PM

It’s part of the process. Just as there are rules for laying of contractors (rules the administration forced the contractors to ignore before the election), Congress has to be informed of something like a furlough of civil servants. The next step is to inform the civilians in writing that they will be furloughed.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 2:39 PM

It should shock us. The government has gotten so expansive that the an expendable amount of the civilians working for the military is a group larger than all but the top 5 active military forces in the world and 1/2 the size of the U.S. active military.

LoganSix on February 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’ll cede the point on the need to reduce the size of government but whoever said that the furloughed civilians in DoD were “expendible?” It is reality that biggest bang for your buck in cuts is with personnel. You can’t furlough those in uniform so you prey on the civilians even though the real solution is going out after cuts to entitlement programs and Dems refuse to do that.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Why is someone else more “entitled” to my earnings than I am?

Duh, because the government says so. Learn it, live it, love it.

mrsknightley on February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM

So just raise taxes and increase spending even more. Look how well that “strategy” has worked for Detroit and California. Obama just wants to bring that success nationwide.

iconoclast on February 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM

This is the Republican partys’ last stand.

If they cave, I’ll vote third party in future elections.

It’s bad enough to vote for a Republican party that doesn’t know how to win elections.

It’s impossible to vote for a Republican party that has no spine.

I’d say it’s been nice knowing you, but it hasn’t.

MichaelGabriel on February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

O.T. This has been complained about before. The logon screen at the bottom of comments is still covered up by the Hot Air logo at certain threads. A work around is to find a thread, such as this one, to log on to, under is kind of clunky. Whomever administers the upkeep for this site should be able to fix this, and of ads that frustrate click-throughs.

trl on February 20, 2013 at 5:51 PM

If a 2% cut costs 800,000 jobs, why doesn’t the 3-5% annual increases in the budget raise employment proportionally ?

itsspideyman on February 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Rand Paul’s response to Obama was more tart and to the point, deriding the President for his “histrionics”

New from Disney: the Audio-AnimaHistrionic President.

Marcola on February 21, 2013 at 12:25 AM

EXCUSE ME, but if 0bama wants to kill the sequester then why isn’t he pushing HIS Senate to place one of the MANY budgets passed in the House on the floor for discussion? Could it be that the Democrats STILL do not want ANY budget, even after FOUR YEARS WITHOUT ONE?

I cannot believe how many people still get disoriented by the liberal play of smoke and mirrors. Maybe that is why they are scared to death to so much as attend any TEA Party meeting. No one likes to be shown up…

DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM