Romney: GOP and White House wrong on sequestration
The Washington Times reports that Mitt Romney said yesterday that he believes that Obama was wrong to propose sequestration on defense cuts, but the Republican leaders were just as wrong to accept the White House proposal;
The automatic spending cuts take effect on Jan. 2 and are the result of last year’s debt deal, which laid out major broad cuts split between both defense and domestic spending, known as sequesters, unless the deficit super committee had been able to come up with a replacement agreement. That committee failed.
I agree completely. It was the cowards’ way out of the budget problem in an election year. But then so was depending on a “super committee” to tag budget items to cut.
For his part, Mr. Romney has said he opposed both the sequesters and Mr. Obama’s cuts.
“I want to maintain defense spending at the current level of the GDP. I don’t want to keep bringing it down as the president’s doing,” he said.
That’s why this administration needs to be stopped now before we’re saddled with defense spending increases in the future to make up for what this administration plans to cut.
Yes, everyone knows where the Defense Department can cut waste, but you can bet that is not what is going to be cut.
Category: 2012 election, Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan
I am voting for Romney, but I do find it interesting that Paul Ryan and 173 of his Republican colleagues voted for this bill (S365) and Mr. Ryan has since tried to distance himself from this vote.
His comments are he and the other Republicans disagree with sequestration then and now. He would be better served explaining why he voted for it, how it made sense to work across the aisle at the time and how he and other Republicans intend to do their job and pass a budget on time to avoid the Budget Control Act from kicking in.
I have no issue with Republicans working with Democrats on these budgets, it’s what is best long term. I don’t understand why these politicians always have trouble explaining their actions regarding these controversial votes. I would like to think the public is sharp enough to understand the need to compromise, and I believe it could be a net positive if explained correctly.
Although I may be placing too much faith in the general public’s collective intellect.
Well, it’s odd the only place we can ever find waste to cut is in Defense.
I think large numbers of us at the time were saying that sequestration was an insanely stupid idea…
Perhaps republicans were thinking it would force Dems to come to the table and actually debate the budget and the financial crisis. I think they got suckered.
Yes, everyone knows where the Defense Department can cut waste, but you can bet that is not what is going to be cut.
I can think of a few things just in my narrow experience.
And Chief, it’s not that we can only find them in DoD, but that’s the easiest place to make them. After all, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines vote, but damned if we don’t make it a bitch for them to do so, and they don’t have lobbyists bending the ears of Congress at every turn.
I’m also sure we can come up with some plans that need to go bye-bye like the DDX program, etc. Dumping $450 million into building the MIAMI (and don’t kid yourself, it’s gonna cost a shitload more) to placate some constituents in Maine?
F-22? At $400 million per, no way in hell. At $80-90 per if the full production had come online, you might be able to make an argument.
Again, each service represented here can come up with plenty of examples.
I agree! I bet Obama was thinking, “Man! They went along with it? Now I can cut the defense department the left hates so much and make it look like it is their fault! This calls for another round of golf!”
I am forever amazed at how the left gets away with crap and the right never seems to escape the wrath of the media. How’s that work? I mean, did anyone truly believe Barney Frank regarding anything? How did the late (again!) Teddy Kennedy escape his womanizing, drunken soirees, and brutish behavior? Escape? Hell, he was idolized! Then there’s Bill a-few-years-ago-he-would-have-been-serving-us-coffee Clinton. Or BJ (i.e., Bill Jefferson) Clinton and his sexual escapades, lying under oath (It all depends upon what the mean of ‘it’ is.) Does he disappear? No, he’s a star at the DNC. But let a Republican get a speeding ticket and its, “He ought to resign. He’s a disgrace.” It’s all a sick game. I hope we start getting well in November.
It was clear then, as it is clear now, that the way the debt ceiling debate, with all of its rhetoric and accusations, was a mixed up and useless debate. The Democrats ruled the day and outfoxed the Republicans at every turn. As it turns out, the Republicans got little to nothing of what they wanted, and the Democrats were placed in the position of holding military spending cuts over our heads. I fault the Republican leadership for that, more than anyone else.
Mitt Romney is right. It was as stupid idea, both then and now. Surely we can come up with something better than that.
They should of just given him a clean debt bill the way it was done 14 times under Reagan and Bush 1 and 7 times under Bush 2. It was Republicans that insisted on playing the game of governing through blackmail, now they’re crying like little bitches because they lost the game.
There is a deal that can be reached, and President Obama is willing to work with Republicans. But if the Republican’s position is that all revenue increases are off the table then there’s not a lot of room for Democrats to work with.
You might want to read the excerpts from Woodward’s pending book that have already been published, insipid. House and Senate leadership had already agreed to a deal that avoided automatic sequestration. Obama wouldn’t honor it, and pushed for a different one.
First off, your ignoring my initial point that it was the Republican’s desire to play Russian Roullette with the economy that caused this deal to be made in the first place. Had Congress simply given him a clean bill the way it has been done dozens of times in the past (mostly under Republican’s I might add) than there would have been no problem. Secondly sequestration only came into play because the Republicans refused to budge on revenue increases. They valued tax loopholes for corporations over the military. Thirdly sequestration is SUPPOSED to be draconian and horrible, THAT’S WHY HE DID IT! In fact that’s the exact same reason the Republicans pulled their brinksmanship stunt, they knew President Obama would have to agree to something before he let the entire global economy fall of a cliff. You can’t cry fowl because he out-negotiated you on a deal that the GOP insisted on under conditions the GOP created. If they Republicans want to avoid sequestration all they have to do is negotiate in good faith with President Obama, that means exchanging some spending cuts for some revenue increases. President Obama does not want to govern this way. And it didn’t use to be this way. Reagan worked with Tipp O’ Neal on tax cuts and a number of government reforms and both Reagan AND the Democrats won reelection because everyone was happy, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole worked with Clinton on welfare reform and a number of other issues. Ben Nelson worked with Bush on tax cuts and a number of democrats worked with him on the war. Hell even in his second term there were democrats willing to work with him on immigration reform, it was Republicans that killed that deal. Then President Obama, a fairly centrist President comes into office and all of a sudden you have to make politics a blood sport. So instead of taking credit for President Obama passing a Republican-based health care plan you have to pretend it’s Stalinistic. Instead of taking credit for the stimulus bill being 1/3rd tax cuts you have to scream… Read more »
I’m sorry, instupid–which party controls the Senate, where the Majority Leader has decided that NO budget will pass his chamber?
And no, Romney doesn’t necessarily disagree with Obama on everything. If you had 1–watched the Sunday news shows, 2–LISTENED TO said shows, 3–UNDERSTOOD what they were saying on those shows, you would have learned that Romney in fact agrees with SOME of Obamacare, but is going to shitcan major portions of it.
Finally, if you consider Obama anywhere near “centrist”, you might want to go see a doctor before healthcare becomes rationed under your Dear Reader. I think you’ve got a serious inner ear dysfunction.
@Hondo, the deadline for this bill was Sept. 6, which has come and gone. Here is a complete article from today’s Washington Post regarding sequestration: Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 09/09/2012 The Washington Post The latest dereliction of duty: The sequestration law By Jennifer Rubin ‘Friday was the day by which under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama the White House needed to detail the defense cuts it would make to comply with the upcoming sequestration under the Budget Control Act. But that’s messy in the middle of an election campaign in which voters might see what plants, bases and production lines might be slashed. So Obama ignored the law. No list. It’s not clear whether he will ever follow the law. His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, blasted the president: “A year ago, Barack Obama set in motion the sequestration process that is leading to imminent disastrous cuts in our military might. The President is required by law to tell the American people how he would implement these cuts. But he has chosen to ignore the deadline for doing so. The American people have had enough of evasion and enough of finger pointing. They just want answers. Secretary of Defense Panetta has said these cuts will be devastating to our national security and our economy. It’s time the President stops stonewalling, stops dismantling our military, and starts providing answers.” Nevertheless the administration has given no date certain when it will comply. “It’s complicated,” says the administration: Sequestration “doesn’t allow us to prioritize,” [Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank] Kendall said, according to a Pentagon release. “It doesn’t allow us to find the things that are least important to us. It doesn’t allow us to avoid some of the damage that will be done by this kind of a mechanism.” Kendall said any budget-cutting plan the Pentagon could prepare would be irrelevant. “If we have a budget, there are roughly 2,500 lines in that budget, and we have cut each of them [by] about 11 percent,” Kendall said. And because sequestration was designed… Read more »
@4 Sparky, the $400 million cost per F22 includes the research & development costs rolled into the development of the F22 combat fight jet. If the excessive R&D costs are deducted from the price of the plane, the real price per plane is closer to $44million.
This is the same ripoff that Hyman Rickover allowed when he was ramming the nuclear Navy down the throats of the taxpayers, and cost overruns were hidden in toilet seats ($150 to $500) and hammers ($75 to $250). Now, you and I both know that a toilet seat at Ace Hardware costs about $10 to $15 and a new hammer about the same to maybe $25, depending on what brand you bought.
The uproar this caused in the public media was loud and clear, especially when it was revealed that ADM Rickover had accepted expensive gifts and kickbacks from defense contractors like General Dynamics, Rockwell and Honeywell. I will never forget the video of him falling through an open hatch on a nuclear sub. That was priceless.
The F22 jets are elegant, incredible flying machines, according to the elite pilots who man them, but they are also lemons because they have a serious problem in the oxygen system that the pilots rely on. You can’t fly a combat plane in combat conditions when it cause the pilot to nearly pass out from anoxia. They are lemons, and we’re paying for them because no one will tell Lockheed to fix them or return the money, which is allowed under any consumer lemon law. Additionally, Lockheed has a termination clause that will cost another $123 million.
That’s kind of my point–by the time they’ve cancelled the project, you’ve got an airframe at a huge cost, but had it been allowed to undergo its full contract, the cost per unit would have come down to somewhere in the $125-150 million per unit range; still a huge number but still far more manageable than $400 million per copy.
And the O2 system issue has (supposedly) been resolved. More than I can say for the F-15’s that keep falling apart in midair.
As far as “overruns” in the nuclear power program, SUBSAFE and Q-level 1 components need 100 percent traceability, which as you know is going to cost serious money. So do hull cuts into HY-80 or HY-100 steel. Frankly, I’m glad they’re done right. There’s a couple of hundred guys out there who which they had been done right, but weren’t.
Of course it is with the Congress. They were the ones who entered the game of brinksmanship. All they needed to do was give him a clean bill. All they need to do now if they want to avoid sequestration is negotiate- this time in good faith.
@11- Yes, Mitt’s saying NOW that he’ll keep parts of Obamacare (I presume everything but the tax increase and the mandate) but for the past year he’s been proclaiming that he’ll kill it on day one. Then when a Romney advisor was asked about his not killing the entire bill they went back AGAIN and declared they want to kill it and insisted that the market would allow create the ban on pre-existing conditions:
===========================================================
In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”
=============================================================
So he’s boxed in. Again. He wants to SAY he’ll keep all the features of Obamacare that folks like- but he won’t say how he’ll do it other than creating a “competitive environment”. And the reason he’s boxed in is because the right wing goes apeshit when he agrees with ANYTHING Obama agrees with. Because Obama has cooties.
I’m sorry that is SUCH bullshit. I don’t care how “competitive” you make the environment, someone like myself can NEVER get health insurance other than through an employer. Once i gave them my health history (rheumatoid arthritis and Chron’s) they’d be quoting me prices as high as 2000 a month (i know, i tried it when i was unemployed for a time 7 years ago.)
Finally there is no “rationing” of healthcare under Obamacare. Obama is a centrist, it’s only folks in the bubble (that would be you) that feel the need to pretend that he is some great radical. Again, that’s the reason why you’re losing and are going to continue to lose. You’re not working from reality.
Sparky, just a question: Does that imbecile @15 actually GET that Congress did its job and that Bo has refused to do his? Is “So Obama ignored the law. No list. It’s not clear whether he will ever follow the law” not clear? I thought it was clear, concise writing.
The cost overruns I was talking in the nuclear Navy were back in the 1960s, when the Big “E” was the first nuclear flattop. The report caused a huge uproar, especially after the Thresher imploded and sank, killing the entire crew. It was the first time that kind of “cheating” by a defense contractor had been revealed.
I know all this high-tech gear is incredibly expensive. With any kind of airplane, whether it’s a sport aviation type like a Cessan or Cherokee, or a sleek stealth fighter like the F22, air safety is of primary importance. Ditto any sub, and I know the bubbleheads love their cocoons. It still doesn’t excuse the excessive charges that we, the taxpayers, end up paying. Defense contractors like Lockheed act as though they have us by the upper lip.
That’s CESSNA, not CESSAN.
Sorry, up since 5AM, very busy all day.
Just one last question, Sparky. Was the caterpillar drive in “Hunt for Red October” something that would actually work?
I think it’s based on Bernoulli’s principle. Tom Clancy was visited by the FBI when the book was published. They asked him where he got his information, and he had made it up out of whole cloth.
@17- This is a public message board this “doesn’t he understand” shit is the exact stupidity i’ve oome to expect from you.
You have a hell of a lot of gall. For the past 4 years you’ve been obstructing President Obama in every way you know how and now you want to get all pissy because he hasn’t hopped to on sequestration guidelines which are probably not going to happen anyway? This is just a “look over there” attempt to help people overlook the fact that all of this is the GOP’s fault.
Negotiate in good faith?
Stop. Hurt. Sides. Laughing. This from the side of the political aisle who completely shut out the GOP when it came to negotiations in Obamacare.
About as far as Boehner, et al., got was San Fran Nan cackling about, “Read it when we pass it, fuckers” as they slammed the door in the GOP’s face.
Negotiate in good faith. I’d still be laughing if you weren’t so pathetically clueless.
PH2–not really. Fluids are SLIGHTLY compressible, but the amount of energy required to move something the size of a Typhoon-class boat around would be a shitload of energy, not to mention it would be anything but silent.
Think about how much noise a jet boat makes, and plan accordingly.
Thank you, Sparky. The countdown continues.
@Insipid- I remember reading about the deal that was agreed upon by Tip and Ronnie. I also remember reading where the Democratic Congress ignored their side of the deal and spent like there was no tomorrow, on top of the military spending that we had to do because Jimmie Carter let our military go to shit.
And please tell me again how inclusive your party is again when we see attacks on people like Mia Love, Rep West, Secretary Rice, and any one else of color who dares stand up to the Democratic machine. Hell, your side even attacks Juan Williams for being on Fox News.
insipid: The fact of the matter is that the POTUS wasn’t “forced” to do anything. He freely chose to renege on a deal worked out between the Senate and House leadership that would have avoided sequestration, risking US default in the process. And he did it for crass political reasons vice the long-term welfare of the United States.
You can ignore facts and dissemble all you want, but they remain facts.
Frankly Hondo, why even worry about sequestration when what he SHOULD be doing, and should have done over three years ago, is sign a freakin budget?
Oh yeah, that’s right–that would mean the Democrats would have to cut off the spigot instead of running up four years in a row of $1T-plus deficits.
NHSparky: we should worry about sequestration because it eliminates much of the use of judgement from cuts to Federal spending. As I recall, it generally exempts mandated-by-law entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, other unearned entitlements). So the sequestration cuts fall most heavily on those functions the Federal government are Constitutionally authorized to do, while generally exempting those programs that are nothing but mechanisms for wealth redistribution.
At some point we have to recognize as a nation that devoting approaching 50% of Federal spending to unearned entitlement programs – with rate of increase rapidly rising due to demographics – is not sustainable. We simply cannot afford it based on current tax receipts. And we are rapidly approaching the point where we won’t be able to borrow enough to cover the shortfall.
Sparky, the Republicans have always had to work across the aisle to get legislative movement. The republicans have not had a single super majority in almost 90 years, where the dems have had 6 in the same time slot. This p1sses the dems off because they like to think of themselves as the party of tolerance and inclusion. They have not been so for many years now. Unfortunately I see that as those furthest left and right gain more control of their party the politics of no compromise create ever more gridlock in DC. At some point I hope the electorate wakes up and starts voting out wholesale all incumbents whose ideology prevents them from working with the opposition to do what is right for the country instead of what is easy.
Platitudes and vitriol are easily sent downrange, but accomplish little upon arrival on target except to return in kind.