Sequestration Saves The Troops

The sequestration is a bogeyman that the Democrats are trying to use to blame Republicans for everything that happens. The fact that Obama came up with the idea is not part of their thinking process because they are interested in blaming everything on the right. They have hopes that they can pin this on Republicans and that it will help them keep the Senate and take the House back.

[note]They had better hope that they do both because if Republicans get the Senate and keep the House Obama will almost certainly be impeached for his cover-up of the Benghazi murders.[/note]

The idea that Sequester is debilitating is moronic. The cuts amount to 2 cents of every dollar. That is not much money and any pain felt is because Democrats have specifically made cuts to areas that would cause harm. They can shut down White House tours while still allowing million dollar donors to show up. They can allow TSA to furlough employees to harm the public because it is the only way. Of course another solution was found as soon as some member of Congress was inconvenienced by the travel delays.

These facts have not stopped Democrats from using sequester as their talking point. One Democrat blamed sequester for the events in Benghazi when sequester took place after the murders there. As an aside, the alleged cut in money for security is a smoke screen. We had money to put electric car charging stations but not for security? Get real.

Nancy Pelosi is the latest Democrat to blame the sequester for something. It seems that San Fran Nan is blaming the sequester for the fact that she did not take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan to thank mothers and grandmothers for serving in the military:

“Every year for the past few years on Mother’s Day I’ve taken a delegation to Afghanistan – or Iraq – to say thank you to our moms – and by the way, our grandmothers – who are serving there – to also thank all of our troops for what they do to protect America’s families. I won’t be going this particular weekend because we don’t have – you know, under sequestration – we don’t have (inaudible).” IJ Review

I don’t know how much money it costs to take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan but it is not cheap and we don’t have money to begin with. I also do not know why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to fly around the world to say thank you to mothers and grandmothers. It would be much easier and far less expensive for her to put out a thank you on her website and then have Defense notify the troops it is there through their systems. She can’t possibly visit every mother and grandmother in these countries so the message sent electronically would at least make it to as many as she would have visited.

It sounds to me like Nan just wants and excuse for a trip. I know these places are not garden spots but think of how many places she can visit on the way out and the way back, I mean since they are already in the neighborhood.

Pelosi makes this statement as if it is a bad thing that she could not go and seems to think blaming it on sequester will hurt Republicans.

First of all, I venture to bet that most of the military do not want to see her or visit with her. She is a liberal moron who does not support the troops.

Second of all, if she could not waste money on this trip because of the sequester then I say it is doing what it is supposed to.

However, I will buy her a one way ticket if they promise to keep her there.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

What Do The Unemployment Numbers Tell Us?

It Depends on who you ask….

The April jobless numbers were released today and unemployment has dropped to 7.5% as employers created 165,000 jobs. The jobs created number will certainly be revised and the unemployment data is skewed, as it has been all along, to make things look much better than they are. ADP shows that only 119,000 jobs were added in April and its numbers are probably more realistic than the governments.

But if we take the government’s numbers as accurate then we can draw a conclusion Obama and his mouth pieces will not point out. The cuts to government have not hurt the economy.

[note]9.5 MILLION people have left the US workforce since Obama took office…[/note]

Yes, Obama will tell us how wonderful things are because of what he has done and his followers will swoon at the words of their dear leader and while he touts the phony numbers he will not state the reality that if the numbers are real (as he contends with his assertions that we are recovering) then one can only conclude that the Sequestration and the budget cuts have not hurt us.

Keep in mind that the cuts are not real cuts. We are still spending more money this year than last or in any of the previous years. The cut was in the rate or amount of growth. Think of it as still crashing but doing it at a slower speed.

So if we are to believe the government’s numbers we can safely say that the cuts did not hurt us and, in fact, things got better. So in order to make things continue to improve we need to CUT MORE.

If we cut the spending back to the levels of 2008 then we could be well on our way to prosperity.

This can’t happen though because Obama and the progressives are big government cheerleaders who believe that the only way to improve is to continue to grow government and for government to spend more and more.

[note]The unemployment rate in the government is at about 3.3%, well below the national average.[/note]

Obama will never admit that cuts are good for the economy and the country because it is not in his DNA. He will not associate any good news with the cuts and will continue to say the cuts are bad and that we need to spend more. We spent a fortune over his first 4 and a half years and unemployment remains high. His dire warnings about the effects of cuts are not playing out even though the government’s numbers show that cuts are not hurting us (once again, if we accept the numbers as true).

Even if we demonstrate the numbers are flawed the effects of the cuts are good. The debacle at the airports and the claims of Armageddon did not pan out as Congress quickly reversed the plans that Obama and his transportation people claimed were the only option. Obviously there was another option and it was quickly exercised by Congress. It is worthy to note that Congress did this because they were being impacted by the delays. We can’t have our overlords delayed from their work…

In any event, cuts are good and we need to make more of them. Obama has no idea how budgets work. He has never had to make a payroll and has never run a business. He has not been successful at anything except running for office.

He is hell bent on pushing a progressive agenda regardless of the consequences.

Well the government’s latest numbers show that the sequestration is not having a negative impact. The cuts are good for us and the only reason there are any problems is because Obama has directed that cuts be imposed in a fashion to cause the most harm.

Most people are not affected by the sequestration and Obama is trying to impact as many people as he can but it will not work. He can close the White House to tours but he loses credibility when he then opens it to wealthy donors.

Yes, he is a man child and is way out of his league.

And it is time for us to step up and make sure he can do no further harm.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

He Is Not The Commander In Chief Of Civilians

Unless one is in the military (or the militia of the several states called into actual service of the United States) the President of the United States is not that person’s Commander in Chief. The Constitution states the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (Article II Section 2) therefore he is not the CINC of civilians. He has plenty of civilians that work under him since he is in charge of the Executive Branch of the government including civilians who work for defense but he is their boss, not their CINC.

The chief public affairs official for the Army’s Joint Munitions Command, Stephen D. Abney, sent out a memo telling civilian employees that if they grant an interview to the press (regarding the sequester) they are reminded not to say anything that might be perceived as criticism of the Commander in Chief or any political party.

He did tell them that they should make it clear they are expressing their own opinions and are not speaking for anyone else which is good advice.

However, these people are free to express themselves, as private citizens (so they should make it clear they are not speaking for any agency), in any way they want. If they want to tell the press that it is not necessary to furlough people and that the only reason this is being done is to cause pain so Obama can get his way then they are free to do so.

If they want to blame Republicans or Democrats or both parties then they are free to do so.

The members of the military are not allowed to speak in such a fashion because Obama is their Commander in Chief but he does NOT hold that title over civilians.

I do not recommend these employees say outrageous things but if they feel like expressing their disgust at the lack of leadership in the White House and in Congress then they should certainly do so.

If I were one of them I would not speak to the press to begin with.

Most of them are Obama stenographers and it would be like teaching a pig to sing.

Besides, the regime has already posted its marching orders and they can’t have anyone going off narrative. Obama predicted dire circumstances and he can’t have anyone ruining what he has worked so hard to do.

He wants pain. The White House is closed to tours starting this Saturday because of staffing cuts due to the sequester. I find it hard to believe this happened because employees have to get a 30 day notice and that notice is not expected until 26 March (meaning furloughs start 26 April). It is about causing harm and inconvenience to get people riled up.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Did Democrats Overplay Tax Hand?

In 2011 Barack Obama came up with the idea of the sequester. The plan was to force Congress to come up with a financial plan or each side’s top programs would get cuts. The idea was that Republicans would not want to see cuts to Defense and Democrats would not want to see cuts to social programs and other non defense agencies so they would all come together, sing Kumbaya and come up with a plan.

The election fell in between and Obama and his Democrats could not address the issue because they wanted tax increases that they could not tout if they wanted to keep their positions. Obama wanted to win a second term so he could not talk about his radical plans or he would lose.

Republicans felt sure that Romney would win and they would take the Senate so they could undo the damage caused by years of stupidity from both sides.

Romney did not win and the time for the sequestration cuts was rapidly approaching. Both sides worked against each other in an effort to fix the mess they created. At the last minute a deal was struck that increased taxes immediately for high income earners and pushed the sequestration cuts off until March First. John Boehner took heat for allowing the tax increases and he should but looking at it now his move might have been a good one.

If sequestration had taken place at the beginning of the year then ALL of the Bush era tax cuts would have gone away. This means there would be tax increases on everyone. Yes, even though Democrats have been screaming that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich they were forced to admit that everyone would be affected if the tax cuts went away.

The reality that the tax increase would hit the middle class and that Republicans would be blamed forced Boehner and Republicans to allow taxes to increase on about 2% of wage earners. At the same time, the deal made the Bush tax cuts for the other 98% permanent. This means that a tax increase on the middle class cannot be held over the heads of the Republicans. They are now in a stronger position to bargain because only a direct act to raise taxes on the middle class can make that happen. No matter what happens, inactivity or allowing the sequester to proceed will not cause taxes on the middle class to go up.

Sure, hundreds of thousands of the middle class will be affected by the sequester but that is by design. The White House came up with sequester and the cuts associated and the White House is ensuring that those cuts directly harm people so that those people will get upset with Republicans and hold them accountable. The Democrats need people to be miserable or they will realize that government is too big and cuts are not a bad thing.

This is why the cuts are taking place in a fashion that will cause direct harm to people and programs that directly involve people.

There is a lot that can be cut that would not harm people but that would not accomplish what Democrats want, direct dependence on government.

In any event, the average person will feel little affect from the cuts. Many federal employees will as will those who depend on services like meals on wheels. But, for the most part, the average person will notice little disruption in their lives.

Other than, of course, the disruption that has been with us since Obama first took office.

Democrats got their tax increase and were to bargain in good faith for spending cuts. They did not (which is not a surprise). Now they are screaming for more tax increases on the wealthy. They talk about closing loopholes (government speak for parts of the tax code people use to pay less in taxes, parts that Congress put there in the first place) and increasing rates on an even larger pool of wealthy taxpayers but refuse to discuss cutting. They want tax increases NOW and cuts sometime in the future.

Republicans are having none of that and are, so far, standing firm on their stance that there will be no more revenue (government speak for taxes). The Republicans do not have to worry now about an automatic tax increase on the middle class because the Bush cuts were made permanent so they have the upper hand.

Democrats might have overplayed their hand because they thought once Republicans allowed a tax increase in December they set a precedent and would cave again.

It is possible that Boehner gave his party a stronger position by allowing a tax increase on the top 2%. Democrats cannot hold that ax over the heads of the Republicans and must now gin up anger within the base in order to get things done.

So far the public has not been in much of an uproar and it looks like Democrats are scratching and clawing in order to get tax increases.

The sequester will begin to hit harder in the next few weeks and then we hit the end of the last continuing resolution. Boehner and his party might be in the driver’s seat because he took the wild card, tax cuts on the middle class, away from the Democrats.

It is time for Boehner to step up and rule with an iron fist. It is time for tax reform and spending cuts. He has the weapons at his disposal.

Because no matter what, Obama will ultimately be held responsible for any disaster that takes place in the coming months.

His stenographers in the media will try to deflect the blame but many Americans are paying attention each day (though we will never be rid of the low information voters).

Democrats toasted the tax increase while bringing in the New Year but they might have given away their bargaining chips in the process.

Related:
Politico

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]

Any Doubt Obama Is Harming People On Purpose?

The battle of the mindless in DC continues to go back and forth as Barack Obama fights to avoid HIS sequestration. Yes, he wanted it; he suggested it and he got it. Now he is running around pointing fingers and trying to avoid it like the plague. Obama does not negotiate in good faith. In fact, none of the Democrats do. Their idea of negotiating is to demand tax increases NOW and spread cuts (cuts that NEVER happen) over ten years.

Obama got huge tax increases in December and cutting was supposed to take place between then and now. However, Obama has decided that the way he wants to proceed is to raise taxes again. He does not want to cut so he is placing the burden of the sequester cuts on people who will feel them.

I wrote yesterday that Obama must cause pain or people will realize that cutting is not so bad. There is, as of today, no doubt he wants people in pain if he cannot have his tax increases.

[note]The cuts are only to the growth in government. We will spend more this year than last and we spent more last year than the one before. This is a cut in growth, not an actual cut to the budget (which, by the way, they have not had for over 4 years).[/note]

The Republicans in the Senate have come up with a plan that eases the restrictions and allows Barack Obama even greater latitude to decide where the 85 billion dollars in cuts will come from. In other words, they will allow Obama to decide what to cut so long as it adds up to the right amount. Obama could take this on, cut from things that do not directly affect people, and reduce the pain.

But he does not want to do that because no pain means people will realize that government must spend too much and we can cut even more. This puts a damper on his plan to grow the government and create more dependency than we currently have.

To Obama government is everyone’s mommy and daddy and he can’t have people seeing that they can live with less of it…

Obama has threatened to veto the Senate Republican bill.

He does not want the ability to cut from larger sources because it would ruin his plans. Obama said that the only way to solve the problem is to back the Democrat plan of raising taxes on the wealthy (who cannot solve it even if all their money was confiscated) and then cut over ten years. That is the liberal playbook. The other part is they will never cut but the taxes will stay in place. It has been done time and again and Democrats never keep up the cut part of the equation.

Pretty much like they are trying to do now in their effort to avoid the sequester.

Obama also indicated that there is NO WAY to cut 85 billion dollars over the next seven months (the balance of the fiscal year) without drastically affecting national security and economic policies.

Really? Cuts need to happen and entitlement programs need to be reformed. I know liberals like to scream about the wars Bush started and the amount of money they cost but entitlement programs cost 2.48 TRILLION dollars. The war on terror cost 115 BILLION dollars. Entitlements need to be reformed and there is an abundance of waste in them. Government wastes BILLIONS of dollars each year sending money to people who should not get it, like dead folks. The Medicare system is rife with fraud and costs billions of dollars that government is unable to catch.

But we need cuts now and Obama needs to get to 85 Billion. Here is an idea. Let’s cut the 24 BILLION dollars that we spend on foreign aid. Most of the places we send it don’t like us anyway and hell, we need to take care of our own first. Why should people in the US be harmed so some jihadist Muslim nation can get billions in aid?

There are billions of dollars in accounts at various agencies that have not been spent. The money is excess and could be used for the cuts. There are also hundreds of programs that do the same thing. We can cut them and have one agency in charge (if the program is actually needed). There is no doubt that billions of dollars are wasted each year on things like turtle tunnels and what we can learn about democracy from fish so let’s cut them.

It will not take long to get to and surpass 85 BILLION dollars. All Obama has to do is want to do it.

And that is the rub. Cutting the money would be easy but then he would lose his claim that government needs more money and the cuts will harm people. He will lose his ability to grow government and show that his claim that we don’t have a spending problem is a lie

[note]The government has 15 BILLION dollars in unused property it can sell. That will take time but we can unload is as soon as possible for the future.[/note]

Senator Barbara Mikulski of the People’s Republik of Maryland mocked claims that we should be able to cut 2% like families have to do. She said that American families don’t run prisons, don’t build roads and don’t have to fund their own local police force.

First of all, American taxpayers do have to pay for all of this IN ADDITION TO PAYING FOR THEIR OWN BUDGETS. Second of all, the federal government does not do all of this. Local roads, prisons and police forces are paid for by local (including state) governments with taxes confiscated from taxpayers in those states.

The federal government is not as involved in all of this as she would have us believe. Additionally, government historically takes the money taxpayers have confiscated for these things and spends it on other things. In Maryland we had a transportation fund that had lots of money in it that we paid in. The Democrats spent it on other things and now want to tax us even more to fund transportation. This happens at the federal level as well. Let us not forget that Social Security has had trillions of dollars paid in since it was started. There is no money for that program because politicians used it in the general fund. Now we have to pay more in to replenish the money. We are paying for it at least twice.

So Mikulski can take her mocking tone and put it where the sun does not shine. She is part of the problem and she takes the rest of us for idiots who do not see what is really going on.

Obama’s end game is to hurt as many people as possible to push his agenda. Mikulski’s game is to help him do it.

They are evil people who must be stopped.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[jpsub]