Aa
Obama to press Congress to revisit $1.2T in cuts
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/20/10198301-obama-to-press-congress-to-revisit-12t-in-cuts
In its budget submission next month, the Obama administration will urge lawmakers to revisit the failed attempt by a congressional supercommittee to cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, the White House says.
The proposal runs counter to the common wisdom in Washington that any major deficit reduction effort is unlikely in a presidential election year. Instead, lawmakers are focusing on a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut and supplemental jobless benefits sought by the president as part of last fall's jobs agenda.
But also looming are sweeping across-the-board spending cuts required next year because of the supercommittee deadlock. Top lawmakers like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., are focusing on a less ambitious one-year plan to give the Pentagon a reprieve from cuts that both the administration and Republicans say would cripple the military.
The White House plan, likely to reprise new taxes and fee proposals that are nonstarters with Capitol Hill Republicans, would turn off the entire nine-year, $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cuts, referred to as a "sequester."
"We have a sequester coming less than a year from now unless Congress acts," said a senior administration official. "We're going to ask Congress to do now what we think Congress should have done in December, which is enact more than $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, turn off the sequester and maintain the (spending caps)."
The official required anonymity as a condition to speak to a reporter on the plan.
That plan of budget cuts would be imposed under last summer's budget and debt pact between Obama and Congress that imposed $900 billion in savings from accounts appropriated by Congress each year and promised at least $1.2 trillion more from the work on the deficit supercommittee, or, failing that, across-the-board cuts to a sweeping set of defense and domestic programs.
The threat of the across-the-board cuts was supposed to prod the panel, but it never got on track and collapsed just before Thanksgiving over intractable differences on tax increases and cuts to popular programs like Medicare.
The failure of the panel capped a long, difficult budget year in which the warring sides were only able to agree when facing either a shutdown of the government or an unthinkable default on U.S. obligations. Policymakers face the prospect of more gridlock this year as election-year politics promise to even further cripple the already limited ability of Obama and Capitol Hill Republicans to work together.
In that light, the administration's proposal could be doomed to dead-on-arrival status despite widespread desire to turn off the automatic cuts
At the same time, a new wrinkle has emerged due to the collapse of the supercommittee: a new set of spending caps for the 2013 budget year that begins Oct. 1 that require cuts of about $8 billion from the $554 billion budget for defense programs, the first outright cuts since the so-called peace dividend of the early 1990s.
The required defense cuts are separate from those that would be imposed under the sequester, but the administration official predicted lawmakers might revisit them when turning to the annual appropriations bills later this year.
The budget is slated to be released Feb. 6.
In its budget submission next month, the Obama administration will urge lawmakers to revisit the failed attempt by a congressional supercommittee to cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, the White House says.
The proposal runs counter to the common wisdom in Washington that any major deficit reduction effort is unlikely in a presidential election year. Instead, lawmakers are focusing on a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut and supplemental jobless benefits sought by the president as part of last fall's jobs agenda.
But also looming are sweeping across-the-board spending cuts required next year because of the supercommittee deadlock. Top lawmakers like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., are focusing on a less ambitious one-year plan to give the Pentagon a reprieve from cuts that both the administration and Republicans say would cripple the military.
The White House plan, likely to reprise new taxes and fee proposals that are nonstarters with Capitol Hill Republicans, would turn off the entire nine-year, $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cuts, referred to as a "sequester."
"We have a sequester coming less than a year from now unless Congress acts," said a senior administration official. "We're going to ask Congress to do now what we think Congress should have done in December, which is enact more than $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, turn off the sequester and maintain the (spending caps)."
The official required anonymity as a condition to speak to a reporter on the plan.
That plan of budget cuts would be imposed under last summer's budget and debt pact between Obama and Congress that imposed $900 billion in savings from accounts appropriated by Congress each year and promised at least $1.2 trillion more from the work on the deficit supercommittee, or, failing that, across-the-board cuts to a sweeping set of defense and domestic programs.
The threat of the across-the-board cuts was supposed to prod the panel, but it never got on track and collapsed just before Thanksgiving over intractable differences on tax increases and cuts to popular programs like Medicare.
The failure of the panel capped a long, difficult budget year in which the warring sides were only able to agree when facing either a shutdown of the government or an unthinkable default on U.S. obligations. Policymakers face the prospect of more gridlock this year as election-year politics promise to even further cripple the already limited ability of Obama and Capitol Hill Republicans to work together.
In that light, the administration's proposal could be doomed to dead-on-arrival status despite widespread desire to turn off the automatic cuts
At the same time, a new wrinkle has emerged due to the collapse of the supercommittee: a new set of spending caps for the 2013 budget year that begins Oct. 1 that require cuts of about $8 billion from the $554 billion budget for defense programs, the first outright cuts since the so-called peace dividend of the early 1990s.
The required defense cuts are separate from those that would be imposed under the sequester, but the administration official predicted lawmakers might revisit them when turning to the annual appropriations bills later this year.
The budget is slated to be released Feb. 6.
We need someone on this stuff all of the time in order to keep up. I can't do it all of the time. Believe it or not, I have a life or something that resembles one.
Honestly, about 50% of the time when I do take time to research things, I end up frustrated by what I find.... sometimes I find nothing because things are so politically correctly buttered up that it is gag worthy.
I had this vision, and I know it wouldn't work.... but it is entertaining at least to me. Anyone a fan of boxing or mixed martial arts? Stay with me, okay. Lets say a politician says that he is "going to reform this" or "going to handle this" and then goes back on his word.... Then we send our rep from the MMA world to DC for a "diplomatic endeavor".
It should go something like this.....
"Mr. John Boehner, meet Mr. Chuck Liddell, former light heavy weight world champion in the UFC. Mr. Liddell has a problem with some of your efforts. I am going to leave Mr. Liddell here to have a chat with you and see if he can persuade you to stick to the stuff you said you'd do, okay? Mr. Liddell, you're on sir...."
Honestly, about 50% of the time when I do take time to research things, I end up frustrated by what I find.... sometimes I find nothing because things are so politically correctly buttered up that it is gag worthy.
I had this vision, and I know it wouldn't work.... but it is entertaining at least to me. Anyone a fan of boxing or mixed martial arts? Stay with me, okay. Lets say a politician says that he is "going to reform this" or "going to handle this" and then goes back on his word.... Then we send our rep from the MMA world to DC for a "diplomatic endeavor".
It should go something like this.....
"Mr. John Boehner, meet Mr. Chuck Liddell, former light heavy weight world champion in the UFC. Mr. Liddell has a problem with some of your efforts. I am going to leave Mr. Liddell here to have a chat with you and see if he can persuade you to stick to the stuff you said you'd do, okay? Mr. Liddell, you're on sir...."
Your last paragraph is pretty much on target. And to be brutally honest, my work has kept me from lots of research. I did a research of bi partisan news sites and started there. Its not easy. Raising the debt limit was already agreed upon back in August during the debt ceiling debacle I remember. You gotta stay on this stuff daily to know whats going on. I do that in the summer usually but now? Im tired.
So I went to the prescribed web site and didn't get much information. When I hear the term "spending cap" I think of a device to stop spending money when the spending gets to a certain level. When I hear a politician say "spending cap" I want to know what their meaning is. I also want to know what programs are capped and why, and I'd also like to know the importance of allowing more spending elsewhere in other programs. Seems to me that if you save money on Program A but increase spending on Program B that it really doesn't look as if we capped any spending at all. Spending cap should mean all programs. That is how you save money.
The tidbit I did find went on to say that the debt will be raised by 1.4 or 1.4 trillion to keep us within the cap.... my next question is, if we raise the amount of what we can spend, a cap means nothing.
I then determined that the term "spending cap" really means nothing to anyone in DC because they are all willing to find more money for a pet project that is close to their hearts. "Maintaining" apparently means change in DC. It is a contradiction of what I had initially thought.
The tidbit I did find went on to say that the debt will be raised by 1.4 or 1.4 trillion to keep us within the cap.... my next question is, if we raise the amount of what we can spend, a cap means nothing.
I then determined that the term "spending cap" really means nothing to anyone in DC because they are all willing to find more money for a pet project that is close to their hearts. "Maintaining" apparently means change in DC. It is a contradiction of what I had initially thought.
There ya go... wasnt that hard, was it. The site doesn't offer your opinion. All I wanted was peoples own opinion. That's it.... no big deal.
How are we maintaining that now? Meaning me or you or this admin? Gee if you want to kno what is being done just go to that site brice. Im not being a smartass here, just directing you to the answers you seek. My personal opinion is the military spending can be cut back, bring our soldiers home from around the world, it is also my understanding that there is a process ongoing that is cutting fraud from programs like medicaid and I heard obama wants to condense some of the government programs to cut down on overhead without costing jobs. IMO, get rid of the party of no, do away with their pensions and benefits and put their paychecks that they are not earning and put it to the deficit at hand. Enuff with the politics, its time for the people to stop it.
All I asked for was peoples personal opinion's of what "maintaining spending caps means." and how we are maintaining that now. That's all I wanted.
The info is out there! It's just a matter of wanting to find it....
Got to the whitehouse.gov website and it will tell you all about what obama is and has beend doing. As well as his daily schedule. Its easier than me trying to explain it at this point.
"maintain spending caps" What does that mean to anyone here, and how are we maintaining that now? Any explanation is welcome.
Me too. And I remember when he offered the big 4T, till the word, revenue came up. I dont look for anything significant until we change the players. All the players.
They want to cut and save money and here's a plan that does so but they don't like it!! I am so hoping the Dems take the house back....
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
