Sequestration: The President's Ugly Child

The President claimed that Congress dreamed up sequestration; but it's The White House's nightmare!

How many people realize sequestration, which The White House continually warns will be a "disaster" for the country and its citizens from Arizona to Connecticut, was actually The White House's brain-child???

Don't listen to the hype ... or the lies. The sky, if it falls, will not be the sole responsibility of Congress. Heck, it wasn't even their idea.

The public is a pawn in this chess game. The political pressure being applied by The White House, in the form of dire economic impacts on individual states and even the victims of Superstorm Sandy, is intended to force Congress (i.e. Republicans) - by portraying them as the troublemakers - to cave in so they can pass to the American people an even bigger financial federal budget burden without cutting a single one of the Democrats' sacred cows.

Sequestration was the gamble suggested by then White House Chief-of-Staff Jack Lew (Secretary of the Treasury nominee) and White House Congressional liaison Rob Nabors. It was endorsed by President Obama before being presented to the Senate Finance Committee, and proposed as a negotiating strategy to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) during the 2011 negotiations to raise the national debt ceiling.

Certainly House Republicans accepted the sequestration as part of those negotiations, but it wasn't their idea; it wasn't their gamble.

It was the President's idea of "leadership" in difficult political times. Push it off; deal with it later. Maybe - just maybe - it will go away on its own.

Keep that in mind as you continue to hear about how sequestration will damage your benefits; your income; your local economy!

Remember it when the President shows up on C-Span or the nightly news speaking about the dangers of sequestration and surrounding himself with emergency responders, teachers, healthcare workers, and seniors warning about all the damage the sequestration cuts will entail.

Sequestration: The President's ugly child!

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

steve March 01, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Andre, you are right on the money my friend.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 02:17 PM
You people are frighteningly misinformed... I'm not even sure where to begin, but your ignorance disgusts me and make me want to move out of this area. I really wish you'd grow up and use the almost unlimited access you have to information to at the very least become mildly informed. Sorry to be so harsh, but the author and commenters on this article are way off base and must be living on another planet or something.
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 03:03 PM
So enlighten us, Ryan. Where are the facts as presented above incorrect??? Let's review: 2011: The President proposes and seeks Congressional acceptance of the current Sequestration in order to accomplish two things 1) garner acceptance for an increase in the debt ceiling, and 2) ensure that NO DISCUSSION or decisions on Budget Reductions or - more importantly - tax increases are in the public eye during his re-election campaign. Supposedly "serious" negotiations over both Spending and Revenue is to occur before the Magic Sequestration Date. Republicans in Congress misjudge The President's ability to get re-elected, explaining their concurrence with the plan. The President miscalculates how HIS PROPOSAL for sequestration would play out after his re-election. Jan 2013: The President gets what he wants during the fiscal cliff negotiations by extracting added revenue from wealthier Americans. But no significant cuts are agreed to by Democrats and The White House. Almost immediately after this agreement is reached The President makes known that he wants MORE revenue in the next go-around. No mention at all of reducing spending, especially for entitlement programs. Feb 2013: As sequestration approaches, The President and Democrats insist on MORE revenue with nothing substantive offered on cuts on the spending side. So explain to us, where the misinformation is! Let's see some details.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 03:45 PM
I'm not enlightening you because its not my job, I'm not your mother. But you should realize that the fiscal cliff is a joke. Just because you call the debt ceiling by another name, doesn't make it any different. I didn't see you on here flipping out 4 times a year when Bush raised the debt ceiling without a single voice opposing him. I'm tired of this double standard masked in racism. The debt ceiling has to be raised as long as we let congress continue this un-winable war. I understand we want cuts in spending and in the last 4 years Obama has made more effort to cut spending then any President in my life time, but this do nothing congress you're so in love with has stopped him at every turn. I don't mean to assume, but to me it sounds like you would have been happier with Romney in office, if thats correct, why don't you name the last Republican President who actually cut spending? How about the last Republican who ran on not raising taxes and didn't raise taxes? I'm a libertarian at heart and I'm not a fan of Obama generally, but he's damn well doing a better job than the other guy would have if you ask me. I'm not going to sit here and hunt down link after link to just have you yell LIB!! at me and tell me how wrong I am because you don't want to hear the truth. Go back to watching Fox News and have fun being angry and whining about whoever gets into office instead of worrying about your own life. If you can do a better job get elected in a few years...
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 04:16 PM
Your suppositions are hilarious! Why exactly is every disagreement with this Administration automatically linked to Racism?!? Hysterical ... That's just a way of avoiding addressing the facts as presented. It's a very, very simple theme here. The President gave birth to this particular sequester; and his inactions guaranteed its enaction. Instead, let's go back and blame Bush ... again, as if not a single Democrat existed in Congress during those entire eight years! Please ... If you can't back up a criticism, keep it to yourself.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 04:18 PM
I don't see you linking to any sources here either, so by your logic, you can't backup your side either... I'm not saying Obama isn't doing a bad job, but I'm tired of people defending congress, when this has been by far the worse Congress our country has ever seen.
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 04:30 PM
Dude ... See the words in BLUE for links that back up my contentions on the origins of this sequester.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Welp, you just officially lost another reader for the Horsham patch... Enjoy. Maybe I'll come back when you report the news and not editorialize the news with you opinions and poorly sourced facts... Good luck with that.
Nick March 01, 2013 at 04:43 PM
Mike why do you bother to blog? You have absolutely nothing new or insteresting to say. You are just another one of a million right wing parrots who can't think for himself. And my guess is you voted for George Bush, so you really have no place being critical of anyone.
K. Thom. March 01, 2013 at 05:58 PM
I've never seen such closed minded fools in my life. Even when you provide proof all they can do is try to marginalize and isolate you while never addressing the facts. The sequester is only going to cut govt spending by 2%. And with that cut govt will still spend more this year than it did last year all while still not voting on a budget in the senate lead by Harry Reid.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 06:00 PM
K. Thom. you are correct and I'm just tired of people defending congress and blaming Obama solely. They're both at fault for all of this and something needs to change.
K. Thom. March 01, 2013 at 06:16 PM
Ryan, did you read what I wrote? Much of its directed at you. You wouldnt provide any facts yet you wanted to argue with the author. The sequester is all the brain child of the Executive branch, in other words Obama and his cabinet. There hasnt been a budget since 2009 and that budget was passed in 2008. I think youd find many of us dont care whos in office when it comes to complaining about govt growth and spending, yes they are joined govt cant grow without spending and cant spend without growing. Govt is supposed to be limited for a reason, whether a D or R is in the white house they all seem to be going the same direction one just travels slower than the other. Personally I'm more annoyed with Rs then the Ds. I know who the Ds really are the Rs on the other hand seem to stray from any principles they might have as they just want to be liked. Take a stand defend your oath and protect the republic as you were voted in to do.
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 06:27 PM
I read your comments and I refuse to site my sources, because it doesn't matter on here. I'm not changing his mind by showing him sources that I'm sure will be discounted as leftist drivel. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of arguing with people who refuse to see logic. I just wanted to yell at the author because its a very one sided article and written very poorly for what should be considered a news publication. I'm very tired of people editorializing a story and calling it news, instead of what it is. Mostly I was poking the bear and watching it foam at the mouth is all. I personally think both sides are a joke and we'll never see a serious candidate as long as it required millions or billions to run for office. Right now our country is bought and paid for by corporations who are considered people in the eyes of the Government. We have price fixing and monopolies galore and it seems like our nation is encouraging it. We've be come a joke of our former selves and people are too busy being distracted by petty arguments about gay marriage and pot to care about real issues like the fact that we spend more than $200 billion a year between the war on drugs and imprisoning our own citizens, which more often than not turns minor criminals into hardened criminals.
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 07:05 PM
For someone who claims to hold facts and information as important to understanding what's going on, you have a long, long way to go in even comprehending what's going on around you. I don't work for Patch. This is a personal blog, which means I get to write my personal opinions based on whatever criteria I decide is appropriate. I think you were the one "foaming at the mouth" once it was clear you wouldn't/couldn't or claim you shouldn't have to defend your own weak-kneed position. 30 minutes wasted that I'll never get back ...
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 07:15 PM
It's called a "personal blog" for a reason, Nick. Just do me a favor, and don't read me. Believe me, I can take it. So if I voted for George Bush, I have no place being critical of your party or your political beliefs? So typical of a certain set of political belief, eh?? Sheesh ...
Ryan March 01, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Well I didn't realize this was pulled from a blog since its on the front page of the Hatboro-Horsham Patch page... Sorry to get you so riled up, but I thought this was a source of local news and not political rantings by one side or another... Didn't realize.
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 07:23 PM
Don't flatter yourself. I deal with the oblivious all the time.
Michael Hicks March 01, 2013 at 07:45 PM
Let's forget Ryan and his rantings and focus on the real meat of your post. Your position that it was Obama's idea is correct, no doubt. My question for you is whether you have ever entered into a negotiation before. When you say "Certainly House Republicans accepted the sequestration as part of those negotiations, but it wasn't their idea; it wasn't their gamble." you lead me to believe that you're extremely naive regarding negotiations in general. It may not have been their idea, sir, but it WAS their gamble, just as much as it was the administration's. It takes two to develop an Agreement. As an aside, as usual, there's more to the story than what most lefties and righties are willing to blog over. It's clear to me that the debate isn't about whether the sequestration is good idea nor is it about what, if anything, should replace the sequestration. Rather, it's about whether it's fair to replace some of the cuts proposed in the original Agreement with increases in taxes (or loophole closures). Republicans are pissed that the Administration changed the nature of the original Agreement: that being that the Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling in 2011 in exchange for no tax increases in the sequester, PLUS $900BILLION in cuts over the next decade PLUS... THE original deal also included this $1.2TRILLION sequester to find "Savings."
Michael Hicks March 01, 2013 at 08:03 PM
In order to find said savings they initiated a bicameral "super committee," committed to working together to establish the basis of the $1.2Trillion hole left due to both sides' inability to establish a deal in 2011. The sad fact is that the super committee had what amounts to a cup of coffee together and no one has questioned why. Regrettably our society has been defined by vocal extremes due to our willingness to consume news as entertainment. We look at each other and label "sides" and take a position. What we don't do is question why we think we're so right and the other "side" is so wrong. It's a shame, really. You alluded to "30 wasted minutes" earlier. In reality you could have said the same for all of the time since news outlets like CNN were established in the late 1970's. It's time to get a grip, people. You're a human being, capable of emotions, decisions that aren't based on logic, and most of all, compassion. Use it once in a while.
Robert Applegarth March 01, 2013 at 08:55 PM
If you don't want the bear to respond, don't poke it.
K. Thom. March 01, 2013 at 09:59 PM
This sequester wont even come near 1.2trillion dollars. It equates to anout 2% of the projected govt spending of over 3 trillion dollars during the year. I think it was projected to spend $3.6 - 3.8 trillion this year and dont forget that we're borrowing over 40 cents per dollar spent. The fact that we are all humans is exactly why govt is supposed to be limited and restrained by the constitution. Every time some one gets compassionate they have to pass more laws and regulations to try and make everyone feel good. Hence govt growing out of control and spending too much.
Mike Shortall Sr March 01, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Mike: Thanks for at least being reasonable in the way you address your objections. That's been hard to find here. You're correct in that the sequestration is also a Congressional gambit. (For the record, I negotiated military contracts for a decade, so I do know a few things about risk.) Congress agreed to it? yes My point was more to that fact that the sequestration proposal from the Obama White House was more of a gamble - strategy wise - than it was for Congress. In my opinion, The President has lacked any Leadership on the fiscal divide since he took office. (I don't ask that you agree with that.) The sequestration idea was put forth to punt the debt out past the 2012 election, with the expectation that Republicans in Congress would cave (assuming they retained the House in '12) on spending cuts before the Magic Date arrived. But as was proven today, the Republicans determined at some point that they could in fact live with the sequestration cuts. I agree with your last two paragraphs, which is what Bob Woodward wrote about when saying the Obama Administration moved the goal posts. Thanks again.
Tony Simek March 03, 2013 at 12:43 AM
I personally don't have any issue with the cuts. The government as a business is a huge failure. Look at the Post Office, the VA, Obamacare and most every organization managed by Washington. If 1/2 of government employees were let go, you would not see any difference in the quality of services provided or the lower quality of life Americans have today.
Gina TB March 05, 2013 at 04:32 AM
Amen Andre!!!
Ryan March 05, 2013 at 05:40 PM
Okay I've kept my mouth shut and read this horse shit for long enough now. You know why I don't site sources on here? It's because you guys are so focused on Obamacare, welfare and all the other programs we have going inside the nation, but you ignore the fact that we spend more on our military than every other modern nation combined... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.html That will be the only source I share with this one sided blogger, who seems to believe whatever the major news networks tell him to believe. I'm pretty sure we have a few places we could make cuts without effecting our elderly, our poor, or our nations infrastructure. But no, lets blame it all on Obama and programs like the improvement of our nations infrastructure...
Mike Shortall Sr March 05, 2013 at 07:37 PM
Once again, Ryan, you're missing the whole point of this particular post. But fine, I'll play along. I'm all for BALANCED approach to reducing our deficits and cutting our debt load. I have no problem cutting Defense spending, if it's done smartly. (P.S. I work in a defense-related job.) I don't think we need some of the newest, more controversial weapons systems. There are some that could be dropped. The sad fact is that the companies and factories that build these systems all reside in Congressinal Districts that fight mightily to protect jobs. And don't delude yourself into thinking all of them are in Republican-held districts. I don't think we need all the bases we have internationally. Some should be closed. We should also get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, in the best way to help Afghans protect their own country. Now, you bet, I think entitlements, including raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages, reducing welfare, etc should also be addressed. Unfortunately, it's the Left that considers those program sacrosanct. So please don't blame Republicans alone for one-sided approaches to funding reasonable Government. Hope you saw the Patch article today about how much young people will be paying for health insurance. Wonder who's idea that was? BTW ... Huffington Post, who OWN Patch, is a Major News Network. So watch out! P.S. You'll just LOVE my next post!
Jai S March 07, 2013 at 09:17 PM
Mike, I commend you for your fact based analysis and comments. Ryan, unfortunately has "drunk the Kool Aid" and like most of the people on the Left is not willing to take the blinders off and see what is really going on. If the President really cared, he would have accepted the offer made by the Republicans who were willing to give him the authority to adjust the spending cuts by department, thereby relieving some of the more drastic impacts due to the Sequester. To be truly balanced one needs to look at news from both the Right and Left and then make an honest judgement.
google that March 08, 2013 at 06:13 PM
The 2 party system doesnt work. They will run us into the ground just look at our spending 10 years ago, 20, 30 ,40 It keeps going up! We need to cut spending. Sound like a Republican idea but no! They are just as guilty as they increase military spending to new highs! Both parties voted for NDDA! Give third parties a shout I say look at Libertarians or others. www.buckslp.org http://www.facebook.com/BucksLibs?fref=ts
Ryan March 14, 2013 at 04:04 AM
I'm sorry, but you people are beyond ignorant. I mean seriously, the sequester wouldn't even be an issue if Congress had been able to do their jobs. I'm pretty sure Mike may be the one of only a hand full of people posting to this page that even has any idea what the sequester is or why it was created in the first place. Yeah it wasn't a great idea, but it was supposed to be the rock that congress was stuck between, while our national budget was the hard place. I really don't think I should have to explain this here, but there you go. I'm not drinking anything, I'm not an Obama fan by any stretch. But I'm also not stupid and can clearly see what congress is doing. They're acting like 10 year olds and throwing a tantrum every time a few people don't get their way. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be involved in the conversation. As for blaming Obama, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but its not based in reality. This is the least active Congress our country has ever seen and you people act like that is fine and dandy. Obama is not a dictator and not the only one making poor decisions on the health of our nation, I just thank my lucky stars none of you are in a position of power in the nation, because then we'd probably be too busy chasing our own tails to even worry about a budget. Please stop roping me in with the Libs as well, I rarely vote for the Dem's because I research who I vote for, rather than vote along party lines like the majority seem to do.
xb mike March 14, 2013 at 09:31 AM
I work at fort dix i will be hafto to take off 22 day's with out pay this year becouse of this poor man of a leader we have in the white house.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something