Breaking: Obama Signs Sequestration Order to Begin $85 Billion in Spending Cuts

[Hissyspit]

Source: CBS News

Pres Obama has now signed the sequestration order putting in place $85 bil in automatic spending cuts.
by Steve Holland via twitter 8:41 PM

Obama signs order to begin spending cuts
March 01, 2013

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama has signed an order authorizing the government to begin cutting $85 billion from federal accounts, officially enacting across-the-board reductions that he opposed but failed to avert.

Obama acted Friday, the deadline for the president and Congress to avoid the steep, one-year cuts.

Obama has insisted on replacing the cuts, known as a "sequester" in government budget language, with tax increases and cuts spread out over time. Republicans have rejected any plan that included tax revenue.

The government says the reductions will soon result in furlough notices to government employees and will trim government spending on defense contracts and in domestic government programs. Active military personnel and anti-poverty and low-income assistance programs are largely protected from the cuts.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572184/obama-signs-order-to-begin-spending-cuts

[Eugene]

1. BBC: Obama signs sweeping US budget cuts into effect

Source: BBC

2 March 2013 Last updated at 01:44 GMT

Obama signs sweeping US budget cuts into effect

US President Barack Obama has signed into effect a wave of steep spending cuts that he has warned could damage the US economy.

The cuts - known as the sequester and drawn up two years ago - will take $85bn (£56bn) from the US federal budget this year.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21638727

[freshwest]

9. From your link, thanks:

[Bosonic]

2. Detailed sequestration doc (pdf 83 pages)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf

[RC]

19. The document is not as bad as it looks. It is searchable in Firefox.

The information it contains, on the other hand...

[RobertEarl]

3. Are the deficit hawks happy now?

They just cut back on wages for working people, in effect cutting jobs.

The worst thing we can do to an economy is decrease spending.

China's economy is going to become the largest because they keep spending more and more. Hiring more and paying them more. Maybe the Chinese are behind this GOP plan to kill the economy because the only winner will be the Chinese economy.

[Ken Burch]

4. I wish he'd let it go into effect without his signature.

That would have made the stronger statement.

Signing it was partial cooperation. Why give them that?

[Vincardog]

18. I saw a UMKC professor who said PBO wanted the sequester to help convince the Left

To accept cuts in Social programs.

[magellan]

23. Yeah, that'll work

And if Obama really thinks the left is his only problem if he cuts social programs, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell him.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. Now that sounds plausable

and something our corporate-friendly POTUS would do. Typical Chicago-style politics.

[RC]

20. People keep making the mistake of thinking that

Obama is a Liberal. He is not. He is a Right of Center, corporatist.

[davidpdx]

26. Maybe you should go give Ralph Nader a hug

for giving you those wonderful talking points.

[RC]

30. Ralph Nader did not have anything to do with this.

Direct observation did.

[davidpdx]

31. You seem to be spouting his talking points

[RC]

32. Start with this.

Bill Maher - Obama Not Liberal

[bananas]

43. Obama said it himself: I Would Be Considered Moderate Republican In 1980s - ABC News

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101793318

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

[brentspeak]

34. Or maybe we can thank Obama himself

He's said himself that he's no liberal:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s
By Ian Swanson - 12/14/12 06:49 AM ET

President Obama said his economic policies are "so mainstream" he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

In a Thursday interview with a Miami-based local television station, Obama said he thinks few people believe he wants to impose socialism on the country.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

[davidpdx]

41. Good try

I was referring to the corporatist charge which is what Nader has claimed.

[ucrdem]

5. Just saw on CNN that congress has vamoosed

or at least the GOP members have. Dems are still working of course. Now who could have predicted that. . .

[former9thward]

39. Everybody in Congress has left.

No one is working.

[progressivebydesign]

6. the rich asshole GOP has been trying to destroy our Country since 2008.

they will do anything to destroy the President and the Democrats. We are just filthy collateral to them. They don't give a fuck about the people who even voted for them. They care about winning elections.... and about enriching The Koch brothers and themselves. They don't care if this destroys the recovering economy. They don't fucking care.

I'm actually crying right now. Seriously. I just don't know how much more America can take of this shit. They want us all to be living on the fucking streets, begging for money, and holding bake sales to get medical care. They want our elderly to die in poverty. WHY??? The coprorate profits are up 170% now. Is that not enough??? States are getting back into the black, and people are hiring, and they want to fuck it up!

Who elected those people???

[derby378]

7. I think we all knew this was coming

The script that dictates "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" will not, I repeat, will not be abandoned by the GOP Congress.

[freshwest]

8. From the link:

As CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reported, food stamp funding will not be cut. And neither will children's health subsidies or Medicaid. Democrats protected those programs for the poor and a few others when they were negotiating the sequester with Republicans two years ago.

[bread_and_roses]

10. But Head Start, Senior Nutrition (Meals on Wheels), HEAP will

at least according to the information - from reliable sources - that I've seen. Other vital services that working poor and the poorest of the poor rely on as well. The talking heads in DC keep saying the effect will take a while to be felt, but that's not what I'm hearing from some of these programs.

[freshwest]

12. Yes, it will. Amazingly, defense takes the biggest hit of all.

It has been the untouchable budget for many years. This may end up helping all of us just as Grivalja says.

Medicaid provides many of those services and help in states where it is so arranged. It will depend on what state as to what is cut away. I talked to people in three states about this last night.

For the ones in the two blue states, despite their budget difficulties, nothing will change, as their state has stepped up to the plate.

The third unfortunately lives in a very red state and their governor refused to do anything to address the needs. They are laying off teachers at a record rate after laying off others public workers fire fighters, etc. They made no provision for expanding Medicaid and not substituting for it, from what they told me.

Obama has held them off as best he could. Now it's up to those in the states to work it. Regarding defense:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21638727

[sendero]

29. Defense does take a huge cut..

... but watch closely what is going to happen now.

The defense budget cuts will not affect ridiculous weapons systems or other indefensible spending of which there is plenty. They will go straight to laying off civilian personnel and furloughs.



This will do the most damage to the overall economy and soon there will be calls to exempt the defense sector from the cut (at least partially) and Democrats will go along.

THE WHOLE THING DEPENDS ON THE DEFENSE CUTS, if the Dems give in on that well we all lose again. I'm betting that is exactly what they will do but we can hope for otherwise.

[freshwest]

37. I know people who work on the ships that are being furloughed. People need to protest these weapons.

The high and low tech workers support their being built as they are paid well. These are among those who decided what is in their own self-interest is the same as the nation's best interest. They eagerly believe that too continue being belligerent and feared around the globe is how to keep the homefront safe.

Hagel is the ace in the sleeve Obama wanted to end this way of doing things. He wants to take care of the veterans and end the wars and costly boondoggles. That is the moral thing to do.

I read in one of these threads that even the GOP is looking to pass something to give Obama more flexibility in spending, so that will allow Hagel to guide cuts. But right now, the hammer is being applied. Defense cuts need to happen, we need that workforce to work on green energy and other projects for a peacetime economy.

There will always be some high tech weaponry to eliminate being pushed by other nations, which will keep some of those contracts in place. But the way this is being done is wrong, as Obama said. Still, I never expected defense to ever get cut and we need the trend to continue.

Right now the people I know are going to be furloughed are calling their senators and representatives and are complaining loudly. Those who want those weapon systems stopped need to do the same.

[G_j]

38. yep... nt

[sheshe2]

15. Remember Jean Schmidt..

“He asked me to send Congress a message -- stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message -- that cowards cut and run, Marines never do,”
Jean Schmidt quote.

Well the GOP cowards cut and ran! The Marines= The Dems are still hard at work. It breaks my heart, how the GOP hate this Country so!

[freshwest]

16. Yes, but we will prevail through change. See the defense cuts, they were untouchable.

[Iliyah]

11. Well a lot of GOP's base is on food stamps

so let them lie lie lie to them its O's fault while the base believes it and the actual people who has caused their pain make out like bandits, 1-2%ers.

[oxymoron]

13. He should have added a signing statement stating that Congress won't get pay checks

until it's resolved.

[FirstLight]

14. + a MILLION!

...if only...

this sucks royally, hope it doesn't affect my pell grant or HUD voucher

[davidpdx]

25. You need to find the link that describes the cuts for your state

I know Oregon had pell grant cuts. I benefited from them when I was an undergrad a long long time ago. Tuition for a term at the public university I went to was a mere $1,100 a term for 12-18 credits (a bargain) and it is like 3 times that the last time I checked. Now that I'm a doctoral student I'm breaking the bank, each class is $2,500 a pop.

[msongs]

17. obama wants bipartisan, he's got it nt

[Trascoli]

21. This is a 2% cut in future tax increases, relax

We've won the superbowl everyone, the triple crown is ours. Relax, this is still a win!

[harkonen]

22. Have Zombie Economy, Willing to Sequester?

[lexw]

24. I keep going between finding this depressing and being pissed off!

Fuck the GOP! Greedy fux.

[madville]

27. I'm waiting to see how this plays into Congressional races

95 House Democrats and 45 Senate Democrats voted for the bill with this event in it. A bunch of Republicans voted against it. It was a fairly bipartisan bill.

It will be confusing during the campaigning for many, I was against budget cuts when I voted for them, I'm for the budget cuts so I voted against them, all these people talk out of both sides of their mouth.

[bonniebgood]

33. By signing this sequester is like confessing to a crime you didn't comment.

everyone ask, why would any rational person sign something they don't agree with?
damn straight he wanted this.

[Stardust]

35. Holy shit...this OP and responses are freaking me out.

I feel like I'm coming out of a trance.

[Zax2me]

36. President Obama warns - now we just wait - have 'I told u so' on our side.

"Emergency responders like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go."
"Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country," he said. "Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings."

These are drastic changes afoot that are now going happening.

When America wakes up Monday morning to this - all hell is going to break loose.

[Stardust]

42. So why did he sign such an onerous bill???

[and-justice-for-all]

45. Because that is what both parties agreeded too...

and Boner was more than satisfied with it when his party got 99% of what they wanted. The made that cake and not they have to eat it.

[blkmusclmachine]

40. Bipartisanship. Yay!

[and-justice-for-all]

44. Congress did not act, so that is what we get...

"officially enacting across-the-board reductions that he opposed but failed to avert." very misleading line there. The alternative has been up for months and congress did not do their fucking job.